Chicago Gun Ban Challenged by Supreme Court...

I thought this was rather interesting. What might this mean for our city? I moved here form Minneapolis three years ago. A year before my move, Minneapolis had passed legislation allowing Conceal and Carry permits for registered hand gun owners. Some argue that similar laws decrease crime while others say it will increase. Local Minneapolis business owners reacted very thoughtfully by not allowing guns in their establishments sending a strong message of non-support for the bill. I would imagine that a similar reaction will occur here if a similar bill passes. 

The original Chicago Gun Ban is being challenged because of the Second Amendment, however, a different type of regulation will surely replace the city wide ban. Most likely a bill similar to one in Minneapolis. 

I am not a gun owner, nor do I wish to be at this time. If I were to own a gun I would keep it at a gun range in a gun locker. I would support a bill that allowed registered owners to carry a gun but only if it did not include a conceal clause. I feel that if you really feel the need to carry a gun you should have to advertise the fact openly. I feel that this would have a deeper impact on crime out of the possible options for a similar bill. I would prefer that guns did not exist and I feel strongly that Police should not carry guns either. Just curious about what others think and feel about this topic. 

Here is an article in the New York Times:



Views: 501

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BalloonBiker on June 30, 2010 at 11:58am
Excellent post by Kevin.

I actually have now sent in my FOID application and am planning on going to a range as soon as I get the card. Shooting is a lot of fun...though just because something is fun doesn't mean that it is safe or advisable.

"I don't think the only people who have guns should be the bad guys." Very true.

According to my mom, my grandmother was an ace shot. She used to go out into the barn and shot bees with a .22 rifle. She'd also shoot out the bottom of bottles through the neck. I'd like to be able to follow in her footsteps.

I'd like to be a good shot in the off chance that zombies attack.
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on June 30, 2010 at 12:33pm
Alright, then I'll say it. This is excellent news! I've only ever arrived at the domestic terminal when flying to Miami.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
What the fuck? What is it with people completely ignoring what's said in responses to their posts lately?
How about you respond to what I actually wrote instead of restating your feelings about the issue? I never attacked your stance on gun ownership. (Before you go assuming my stance on gun rights, keep in mind that you, or anyone else, hasn't a clue on my stance.) I was just clarifying that at no point was it stated that Miami muggers moving on to new prey was positive. It was stated as a FACT, not a 'that's good' or 'that's bad' opinion.
Your feelings are irrelevant to that shift in choice of victim the same way me stating that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago doesn't explicitly elicit anyone's opinion. It's merely a fact.

And no, your post doesn't still stand because "I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone." had no place of being stated because it was never said that it was a win for anyone.

Funny that I'm getting pissed about reading comprehension in a thread such as this.
Permalink Reply by Chuck a Muck on June 30, 2010 at 1:12pm
Being that we all love to ride bikes, I thought I would throw in this little caveat...
Cars are the number 1 killer of Americans! Cars kill more people per capita than all violent, cancer or natural deaths combine! Yet we are not passing laws to stop people from buying cars. The city of Chicago does not have a car ban. There is no lobby group that says we should ban cars for the good of our children...
Permalink Reply by heather s on June 30, 2010 at 1:19pm
@Tank-Ridin' Ryan, here is the statement to which I was responding:

mattbikes1 said: I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so. 
notoriousDUG said: Actually more guns do make for a safer society... When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.”

I have no doubt in my mind that notoriousDoug doesn't want anyone to get shot, tourist or local. I thought that was a given. It's obviously not a win for anyone. What we disagree about is whether guns make for a safer society.

The logical extension of his statement is that anyone traveling to Miami should come armed, because the muggers are waiting. So if I want to go to Miami, now I have to carry a gun with me?! Because I am 'sure to be unarmed,' just like any foreign tourist.

I would NEVER, EVER travel to a city where it was suggested that I arrived armed. That is not how I prefer to live. I don't judge other people for their choices.

I have been the victim of violent crime. My friends have been the victims of violent crimes. I am not going to allow those experiences to change who I am. My feelings are relevant, and I don't know why you would say otherwise. I accept the relevance of everyone else's beliefs, and only expect the same respect.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on June 30, 2010 at 1:21pm
I think I just need to stop reading the forum.

H3N3 said:
Someone needs a break from Chainlink.
Here's what I've learned:
When you delete your profile, all of the threads you create and all of your posts go away.
When you come back, your groups and your friends remain attached to your e-mail address so if you use the same one they will all reconnect to you regardless of your new handle.
I can't remember but I think your events (the ones you've created) stay but become orphaned . . . I don't recall whether they become reattached to your when you return.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
What the fuck? What is it with people completely ignoring what's said in responses to their posts lately?

How about you respond to what I actually wrote instead of restating your feelings about the issue? I never attacked your stance on gun ownership. (Before you go assuming my stance on gun rights, keep in mind that you, or anyone else, hasn't a clue on my stance.) I was just clarifying that at no point was it stated that Miami muggers moving on to new prey was positive. It was stated as a FACT, not a 'that's good' or 'that's bad' opinion.

Your feelings are irrelevant to that shift in choice of victim the same way me stating that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago doesn't explicitly elicit anyone's opinion. It's merely a fact.

And no, your post doesn't still stand because "I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone." had no place of being stated because it was never said that it was a win for anyone.

Funny that I'm getting pissed about reading comprehension in a thread such as this.



heather stratton said:
Well, I assume that Doug wouldn't consider that a positive result. But I think my point still stands regarding that comment. It's not better if the local criminal populace wants to mug tourists instead of locals.
My overall feeling is that it is not appropriate to carry a gun in most situations. I realize that many Americans already own guns, and I find that unfortunate. I wish things were different. But I am not going to own a gun, or support civilian gun ownership, just because some criminals own guns. PS, spare me the 2nd Amendment speech. It is vaguely worded, the Constitution has been wrong before, I am entitled to my opinion, etc. Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Heather,
Doug never said it was a win for anyone. It's simply that not knowing if someone is armed or not is a deterrent to would-be muggers. I doubt Doug was implying that tourists getting mugged instead of locals is a plus. heather stratton said:
Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.
notoriousDUG said:
Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth. mattbikes1 said:

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on June 30, 2010 at 1:30pm
"The logical extension of his statement is that anyone traveling to Miami should come armed, because the muggers are waiting."

How is that a logical extension? And no, it was never suggested that you arrive armed if you go to Miami.

And an FYI, in the future, if you're responding to a different comment than the more recent one in a thread, ie. matt's instead of doug's, you can delete any that are not relevant to your response before posting. It helps with not confusing people as to what you're responding to.

heather stratton said:
@Tank-Ridin' Ryan, here is the statement to which I was responding:

mattbikes1 said: I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so. 
notoriousDUG said: Actually more guns do make for a safer society... When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.”

I have no doubt in my mind that notoriousDoug doesn't want anyone to get shot, tourist or local. I thought that was a given. It's obviously not a win for anyone. What we disagree about is whether guns make for a safer society.

The logical extension of his statement is that anyone traveling to Miami should come armed, because the muggers are waiting. So if I want to go to Miami, now I have to carry a gun with me?! Because I am 'sure to be unarmed,' just like any foreign tourist.

I would NEVER, EVER travel to a city where it was suggested that I arrived armed. That is not how I prefer to live. I don't judge other people for their choices.

I have been the victim of violent crime. My friends have been the victims of violent crimes. I am not going to allow those experiences to change who I am. My feelings are relevant, and I don't know why you would say otherwise. I accept the relevance of everyone else's beliefs, and only expect the same respect.
Permalink Reply by heather s on June 30, 2010 at 1:37pm
Please don't be condescending. I know how commenting works. I included mattbikes1's comment because notoriousDUG was responding to him, and it made the conversation more intelligible.

If someone says that Miami muggers have decided to mug tourists instead of locals, and we're assuming that guns make the population at large safer... it seems that the logical extension is that visitors should arrive armed, else they'll be mugged.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
"The logical extension of his statement is that anyone traveling to Miami should come armed, because the muggers are waiting."

How is that a logical extension? And no, it was never suggested that you arrive armed if you go to Miami.

And an FYI, in the future, if you're responding to a different comment than the more recent one in a thread, ie. matt's instead of doug's, you can delete any that are not relevant to your response before posting. It helps with not confusing people as to what you're responding to.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 30, 2010 at 2:07pm
Not without spending more time then this is worth but if you want to take the time to look stuff up you will see that the lifting of gun bans and passing of concealed carry results in a DROP in violent crime.

The muggers changing targets is not a positive but it does illustrate the point that when a criminal is faced with the idea that any random person may be able to respond with a gun they think twice about committing a crime.

heather stratton said:
Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.

notoriousDUG said:
Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth.
mattbikes1 said:

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 30, 2010 at 2:11pm
So you are saying that I, as a responsible citizen with out a criminal record or history of violent crime and target shooting enthusiast should not be able to own a gun?

Why?

I know how to safely store, transport and use a firearm and I would never carry one around in public but yet I am forbidden in this city of owning one, you think this is acceptable?

If you are going to argue that I could kill somebody with one in a fit of rage you better be prepared to ban knives, cars, frying pans, baseball bats, u-locks and anything else I can swing hard.

heather stratton said:
Well, I assume that Doug wouldn't consider that a positive result. But I think my point still stands regarding that comment. It's not better if the local criminal populace wants to mug tourists instead of locals.

My overall feeling is that it is not appropriate to carry a gun in most situations. I realize that many Americans already own guns, and I find that unfortunate. I wish things were different.

But I am not going to own a gun, or support civilian gun ownership, just because some criminals own guns.

PS, spare me the 2nd Amendment speech. It is vaguely worded, the Constitution has been wrong before, I am entitled to my opinion, etc.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Heather,
Doug never said it was a win for anyone. It's simply that not knowing if someone is armed or not is a deterrent to would-be muggers. I doubt Doug was implying that tourists getting mugged instead of locals is a plus. heather stratton said:
Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.
notoriousDUG said:
Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth. mattbikes1 said:

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 30, 2010 at 2:13pm
This is a great reply, well thought out.

Kevin Conway said:
I've been reluctant to weigh in on this, but obviously not completely unwilling, so here goes. As others have pointed out, the City of Chicago handgun ban was a bad ordinance, and failed to accomplish its legislative objective. It failed to reduce the number of handguns among the criminal population in Chicago and criminalized the behavior of otherwise law-abiding citizens who wished to exercise a constitutionally granted right. I do think law-abiding citizens who wish to own guns should be able to do so.

As far as statistics (lies, damn lies and statistics), studies which focus on gun violence show that there are countries with higher rates of gun ownership than the U.S. with lower incidence of murder and suicide (Switzerland & Finland) and vice versa. There have been studies conducted which indicate U.S. cities which have adopted concealed or open carry laws have resulted in lower incidence of violent crime, some of which have been subsequently discredited. There are also countries with very limited legal access to guns which have substantially higher murder and suicide rates (Columbia, Estonia, Russia, Brazil). Hell, the Bahamas have a higher murder rate (though not substantially) than the U.S.

I think if you could wave a magic wand in the United States and make all the guns disappear, you'd witness a spike in murder rates by knife and Louisville Slugger. Most academic studies that look at means of reducing murder rates look at underlying causes for the violent behavior as opposed to focussing on the modality of the violence. Somewhat chilling is the fact that U.S. murder rates peaked during the Great Depression (not this one, the other one). It should also be noted that the War on Drugs has been very good (and by "good," I mean bad) for gun violence.

Statistics also suggest that keeping a firearm in your home exposes you to a much greater risk of death or injury and that your chances of protecting yourself from a home invader with a gun are actually pretty low. But you never know.

That having been said, shooting guns is really fun (I've been shooting for 15+ years), and I don't think the only people who have guns should be the bad guys.

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html
Permalink Reply by heather s on June 30, 2010 at 2:23pm
Actually, I don't. I have no doubt that you're a responsible person. But I just don't think it's appropriate for regular folks to own guns. I don't really give a shit about the second amendment-- which, if I were a Constitutional scholar (and I'm not), I would interpret as referring to state militias and not to random folks. I think it's unacceptable for civilians to own guns.

That does NOT mean that I think that people who own guns are unethical or psychotic or any other stereotype that might be ascribed. It's just what I believe.

notoriousDUG said:
So you are saying that I, as a responsible citizen with out a criminal record or history of violent crime and target shooting enthusiast should not be able to own a gun?

Why?

I know how to safely store, transport and use a firearm and I would never carry one around in public but yet I am forbidden in this city of owning one, you think this is acceptable?

If you are going to argue that I could kill somebody with one in a fit of rage you better be prepared to ban knives, cars, frying pans, baseball bats, u-locks and anything else I can swing hard.

Permalink Reply by Duppie on June 30, 2010 at 2:37pm
That's often the problem with discussions like this. People comment and make unsubstantiated and incorrect claims.

Deaths per year by cause:
Traffic accidents: 45,000
Heart Disease: 630,000
Cancer: 559,000
(the above numbers are rounded)

Bonus statistic
Accidental Discharge of Firearms: 642

Next time, please check your facts before commenting.

Chuck a Muck said:
Being that we all love to ride bikes, I thought I would throw in this little caveat...
Cars are the number 1 killer of Americans! Cars kill more people per capita than all violent, cancer or natural deaths combine! Yet we are not passing laws to stop people from buying cars. The city of Chicago does not have a car ban. There is no lobby group that says we should ban cars for the good of our children...

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service