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: 504

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on June 30, 2010 at 2:31am
I am not Craig, but absolutely.

H3N3 said:
So you're advocating for the right to assemble nuclear weapons in one's basement?
Experiment in toxic and biological agents as a weekend hobby?
Keep sex slaves?


Craig S. said:
I can appreciate your curiosity but respectfully, why should I or anyone else for that matter justify to you or anyone else anything that we might want to bring into our homes?

mattbikes1 said:
I am curious by some of the statements made so far. Does the anticipation of a home invasion justify the cost of a gun, gun license, gun training, ammunition, gun locker or barrel lock, and especially your gun being stolen when you are not at home, etc. Do guns ever solve problems? Do guns really make you safer? What are the odds that your home will be invaded when you are ready and waiting with your loaded firearm with which you are trained to use with anything but non-threatening targets? The argument that you need a gun in your home to be safe seems ridiculous to me. Please, all of you gun loving people, enlighten me. Who among us has been in a real life situation that entailed you sitting peacefully at home and you were suddenly invaded and had you had a gun handy, you would and could have effectively defended yourself. Just curious?
Permalink Reply by Craig S. on June 30, 2010 at 2:37am
Geez, talk about grasping at straws. How about a reasonable argument, Howard, rather than one based in hysteria?

H3N3 said:
So you're advocating for the right to assemble nuclear weapons in one's basement?
Experiment in toxic and biological agents as a weekend hobby?
Keep sex slaves?


Craig S. said:
I can appreciate your curiosity but respectfully, why should I or anyone else for that matter justify to you or anyone else anything that we might want to bring into our homes?

mattbikes1 said:
I am curious by some of the statements made so far. Does the anticipation of a home invasion justify the cost of a gun, gun license, gun training, ammunition, gun locker or barrel lock, and especially your gun being stolen when you are not at home, etc. Do guns ever solve problems? Do guns really make you safer? What are the odds that your home will be invaded when you are ready and waiting with your loaded firearm with which you are trained to use with anything but non-threatening targets? The argument that you need a gun in your home to be safe seems ridiculous to me. Please, all of you gun loving people, enlighten me. Who among us has been in a real life situation that entailed you sitting peacefully at home and you were suddenly invaded and had you had a gun handy, you would and could have effectively defended yourself. Just curious?
Permalink Reply by Marty A. on June 30, 2010 at 2:57am
I have to answer these two questions: Do guns ever solve problems? Do guns really make you safer?

Yes and Yes. Obviously you have never had sex slaves in your basement!!!!
Permalink Reply by igz on June 30, 2010 at 3:35am
Do you need insurance on your car, even though you probably WONT get into an accident? but you MIGHT, right?

mattbikes1 said:
I am curious by some of the statements made so far. Does the anticipation of a home invasion justify the cost of a gun, gun license, gun training, ammunition, gun locker or barrel lock, and especially your gun being stolen when you are not at home, etc. Do guns ever solve problems? Do guns really make you safer? What are the odds that your home will be invaded when you are ready and waiting with your loaded firearm with which you are trained to use with anything but non-threatening targets? The argument that you need a gun in your home to be safe seems ridiculous to me. Please, all of you gun loving people, enlighten me. Who among us has been in a real life situation that entailed you sitting peacefully at home and you were suddenly invaded and had you had a gun handy, you would and could have effectively defended yourself. Just curious?
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on June 30, 2010 at 3:57am
That's a bit of a stretch, but I'll bite.

1. Nuclear weapons give off radiation that a safe can't contain.
2. Toxic and biological agents can get into the air accidentally.
3. Well, if that's your thing, and they're of age and there's mutual consent...

H3N3 said:
So you're advocating for the right to assemble nuclear weapons in one's basement?
Experiment in toxic and biological agents as a weekend hobby? Keep sex slaves?

Craig S. said:
I can appreciate your curiosity but respectfully, why should I or anyone else for that matter justify to you or anyone else anything that we might want to bring into our homes?

mattbikes1 said:
I am curious by some of the statements made so far. Does the anticipation of a home invasion justify the cost of a gun, gun license, gun training, ammunition, gun locker or barrel lock, and especially your gun being stolen when you are not at home, etc. Do guns ever solve problems? Do guns really make you safer? What are the odds that your home will be invaded when you are ready and waiting with your loaded firearm with which you are trained to use with anything but non-threatening targets? The argument that you need a gun in your home to be safe seems ridiculous to me. Please, all of you gun loving people, enlighten me. Who among us has been in a real life situation that entailed you sitting peacefully at home and you were suddenly invaded and had you had a gun handy, you would and could have effectively defended yourself. Just curious?
Permalink Reply by Davo on June 30, 2010 at 4:14am
Love the use of the yoga mat. Did you do some "salute the sun" before or after your fun? Looks like a pretty sweet range. Where is it?

Craig S. said:
Dangit, I'm envious and I see a clay target hand thrower. You weren't trying to shoot trap with that pop gun were you?


Chuck a Muck said:


M-4 FUN!
Permalink Reply by BalloonBiker on June 30, 2010 at 4:26am
I recently shot for the first time (apart from once going out into the woods with my dad) and really enjoyed it. It was an outdoors event for women sponsored by the state and part workshop was that to shoot, you had to attend a firearms safety class.

The instructor made a point that guns are dangerous, however, lots of things are dangerous if they are not used correctly, and safely. She specifically said that a car can be a weapon if used improperly. Some people will say that guns only have one point, and that purpose is destructive...but I'm not sure that I agree with that.

You could say the same thing about sports cars or SUVs. Most people won't be racing or off roading, but they have those. Most people won't be shooting, but perhaps they just like to shoot.

I actually just printed off my FOID application and am going to send it in. I don't think that I want to own a gun, but I would like to try target shooting again....and perhaps give Skeet a try again.

The Chicago handgun ban did seem kind of silly. It really didn't seem like it kept anyone who was willing to commit a crime from the additional crime of having a gun.
Permalink Reply by Rick norris on June 30, 2010 at 6:16am
The Chicago handgun ban was and is stupid. When it first went into effect the number of handguns in the city went way down, and the ban did not stop existing owners from keeping their hand guns, it did put into place a registration requirement, something like you had to send in a picture of the gun and someother BS...all it did was stop people from being legal.

Guns are here, they will stay. It's best to let them be legal, in the hands of good people. put systems in place THAT WORK...like education, gang bangers have guns, and will keep their guns.

As for the haves and havenots...if this stupid city leaders put as much effort into getting REAL jobs back here (manufacturing) instead of kissing Wallmarts @$$ for minumum wage part time crap, maybe things would get a little better.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 30, 2010 at 6:41am
Very well said.

Here is the long and short of it in my opinion:

It is obvious at this time that the gun ban is not effective, we have the highest gun crime rate in the country based on population, something like 30% higher then any city without a handgun ban. It is not only naive but willfully stupid to think that passing a law prohibiting guns is going to keep somebody already willing to break the law by robbing, killing or assaulting from getting their hands on a gun.

Simple solution, let qualified people who have the desire and, most importantly, the right to own a gun do so but not only have them resister it but have a ballistics sample for that weapon on file so that if it is used in a crime it is easily identifiable and traced back to the owner of the weapon. People would then be more prone to reporting stolen weapons as well as making sure sales of weapons are properly recorded.

jamimaria said:
I recently shot for the first time (apart from once going out into the woods with my dad) and really enjoyed it. It was an outdoors event for women sponsored by the state and part workshop was that to shoot, you had to attend a firearms safety class.

The instructor made a point that guns are dangerous, however, lots of things are dangerous if they are not used correctly, and safely. She specifically said that a car can be a weapon if used improperly. Some people will say that guns only have one point, and that purpose is destructive...but I'm not sure that I agree with that.

You could say the same thing about sports cars or SUVs. Most people won't be racing or off roading, but they have those. Most people won't be shooting, but perhaps they just like to shoot.

I actually just printed off my FOID application and am going to send it in. I don't think that I want to own a gun, but I would like to try target shooting again....and perhaps give Skeet a try again.

The Chicago handgun ban did seem kind of silly. It really didn't seem like it kept anyone who was willing to commit a crime from the additional crime of having a gun.
Permalink Reply by mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 7:06am
It is a reasonable set of questions and judging by how defensive you are about answering I will assume that you have no answer other than the fact that you are guaranteed the right via the 2nd Amendment. If you are going to participate in a discussion, I think it is fair that you discuss. Am I being unreasonable?

Craig S. said:
I can appreciate your curiosity but respectfully, why should I or anyone else for that matter justify to you or anyone else anything that we might want to bring into our homes?

mattbikes1 said:
I am curious by some of the statements made so far. Does the anticipation of a home invasion justify the cost of a gun, gun license, gun training, ammunition, gun locker or barrel lock, and especially your gun being stolen when you are not at home, etc. Do guns ever solve problems? Do guns really make you safer? What are the odds that your home will be invaded when you are ready and waiting with your loaded firearm with which you are trained to use with anything but non-threatening targets? The argument that you need a gun in your home to be safe seems ridiculous to me. Please, all of you gun loving people, enlighten me. Who among us has been in a real life situation that entailed you sitting peacefully at home and you were suddenly invaded and had you had a gun handy, you would and could have effectively defended yourself. Just curious?
Permalink Reply by mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 7:08am
Um, insurance has never had the ability to fling a small piece of metal at an extremely high velocity. Funny, but a poor comparison.

iggi said:
Do you need insurance on your car, even though you probably WONT get into an accident? but you MIGHT, right?

mattbikes1 said:
I am curious by some of the statements made so far. Does the anticipation of a home invasion justify the cost of a gun, gun license, gun training, ammunition, gun locker or barrel lock, and especially your gun being stolen when you are not at home, etc. Do guns ever solve problems? Do guns really make you safer? What are the odds that your home will be invaded when you are ready and waiting with your loaded firearm with which you are trained to use with anything but non-threatening targets? The argument that you need a gun in your home to be safe seems ridiculous to me. Please, all of you gun loving people, enlighten me. Who among us has been in a real life situation that entailed you sitting peacefully at home and you were suddenly invaded and had you had a gun handy, you would and could have effectively defended yourself. Just curious?
Permalink Reply by mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 7:14am
Great points. I agree that the ban is absurd because it did not produce the intended result of making Chicago safer from gun crimes. I would like to see some stronger laws about bad driving and dangerous use of motor vehicles too.

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.

Maybe I have a differing view of why laws are passed. To make a society safer and less chaotic. Surely not the result that is always achieved but regardless, we are talking about guns and gun laws here. Why use obtuse analogies and comparisons?

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service