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 Chuck a Muck on June 30, 2010 at 2:45pm
Wow the horror 642 people where killed, What is that 100th of 1% of the population...

Duppie said:
That's the problem with discussions like this. People comment and make unsubstantiated claims.
Deaths per year:
Traffic accidents: 45,000
Heart Disease: 630,000
Cancer: 559,000
(the above numbers are rounded)

Bonus statistic
Accidental Discharge of Firearms: 642


Please check your facts first 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...
Permalink Reply by Chuck a Muck on June 30, 2010 at 2:50pm
Cars still kill more people than guns! Smile and wait for the flash!

Chuck a Muck said:
Wow the horror 642 people where killed, What is that 100th of 1% of the population... Duppie said:
That's the problem with discussions like this. People comment and make unsubstantiated claims.
Deaths per year:
Traffic accidents: 45,000 Heart Disease: 630,000 Cancer: 559,000
(the above numbers are rounded)

Bonus statistic
Accidental Discharge of Firearms: 642


Please check your facts first 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...

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 30, 2010 at 2:52pm
You have just introduced my favorite argument here.

OK, so you, for personal reasons, do not care about the second amendment and think it is not OK for people to own guns. They are dangerous and you want them outlawed.

OK, fine we can do that BUT I, for personal reasons, do not care about the first amendment and think it is not OK for people to openly voice dissent against our government. It is dangerous and I want it outlawed.

Hey, while we're at it lets not care about other things in the constitution such as the right to assemble, freedom of religion, women's suffrage or the repealing of prohibition.

Not caring about parts of the constitution just because you do not agree with them, see their validity or dislike what they allow is a slippery slope. The constitution has been used to protect peoples rights to many things and, I hope, will continue to do so in the future in many areas. Even the ones I may not care about.

Even though I disagree with what you say I will fight for your right to say it.

Freedom only works if we all standup for each others no whether we like it or not.

heather stratton said:
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 2:52pm
No disrespect Dug, but you make a claim and when someone asks you for a reference you pretend you are to busy. That's a shame. Discussions about divisive subjects like this would be greatly helped if they were based on facts, not opinions.

notoriousDUG said:
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.
Permalink Reply by heather s on June 30, 2010 at 3:23pm
Yes, for personal reasons I don't particularly care for the second amendment. I think it is UNETHICAL to own guns... not illegal. I know it's legal, and likely will be for a long time. I wish they were outlawed, true. But I know they're not. I maintain my principled stance against guns.

You have questions about women's suffrage or prohibition? Go ahead. We all benefit from wrestling with these issues. How do we interpret a document that was written over 200 years ago but that continues to shape our lives? I think these are profound and important thoughts, and I'm glad we're addressing them here.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 30, 2010 at 3:52pm
It's not a claim, I am busy.

I read it in an article who knows how long ago or where and I don't really care enough to take the time.

Anyway, that is not the basis for my argument as to why the handgun ban is wrong, it has more to do with concealed carry which I am not for.

Duppie said:
No disrespect Dug, but you make a claim and when someone asks you for a reference you pretend you are to busy. That's a shame. Discussions about divisive subjects like this would be greatly helped if they were based on facts, not opinions.

notoriousDUG said:
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.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 30, 2010 at 4:08pm
Did I say I questioned them? No.

Are you missing my point or just choosing to ignore it?

You stated that it is legal per our constitution to own a gun but are morally opposed to it; good for you don't buy a gun and encourage others not to but for you to openly not care about the right granted in the constitution is not only ignorant but shortsighted. When the right to do something you care about comes up and the way to protect or obtain that right becomes an issue of constitutional rights you have, at that point, lost the right to turn to the constitution for the protection of those rights. It is hypocritical to care about and adhere to one part of a document because it stands for what you believe and ignore another because you disagree with it.

I wish I had a good example but I'm pretty pro-freedom so there is nothing I can say I don't agree with which the constitution protects but I think you understand my point.

According to a radio piece I heard this morning there are a lot of similarities in the argument against the gun ban and the argument against a ban on abortions. Now, I agree abortion should be legal but a lot of people don't, in fact a lot of them are the same people who love guns, and if they are not able to use the constitution to protect that right why is it OK for it to be used to protect the right of a woman to choose other then your ethical opinions? If you want your rights protected you have to allow those who disagree with you to protect their rights as well.

That all said the constitution was meant to be a fluid document and if you, and others, disagree with the second amendment rather then try to take away a right granted by that document and lobby to change that document in a manner that removes that right but still allows the protection of the other rights that you feel need to be protected?

heather stratton said:
Yes, for personal reasons I don't particularly care for the second amendment. I think it is UNETHICAL to own guns... not illegal. I know it's legal, and likely will be for a long time. I wish they were outlawed, true. But I know they're not. I maintain my principled stance against guns.

You have questions about women's suffrage or prohibition? Go ahead. We all benefit from wrestling with these issues. How do we interpret a document that was written over 200 years ago but that continues to shape our lives? I think these are profound and important thoughts, and I'm glad we're addressing them here.
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on June 30, 2010 at 4:15pm
Ahem.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.




As you were.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 30, 2010 at 4:26pm
Then where does the whole right to bear arms thing come from?

Michael Perz said:
Ahem.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.




As you were.
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on June 30, 2010 at 4:32pm
The Constitution acknowledges that those rights already exist and only serves to protect those rights by strictly limiting how the government may act against them. The granting of rights is the realm of kings and dictators, not constitutional republics. I realize that many would see this as a toMAYto/toMAHto distinction, but I maintain that it is a crucial one.

notoriousDUG said:
Then where does the whole right to bear arms thing come from?
Michael Perz said:
Ahem.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.


As you were.
Permalink Reply by Craig S. on June 30, 2010 at 5:01pm
I know of one 200+ year old rule that allows you to state your opinion with impunity. Or is this just quaint and you follow it because you agree with it?

Regardless of your opinion of the Constitution and it's antiquity, regardless of your opinion and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it is legal for citizens, you and I, to possess handguns.

I honestly have to question Howard's assessment, and I'm the FNG.

heather stratton said:
Thanks and ouch! I read every reply on this thread. what was my lapse of deep reading? I just don't agree with many/most Americans regarding the 2nd Amendment. I find it dated and misinterpreted. And I don't find it necessary to follow 200-year-old rules.
H3N3 said:
Dunno. Heather is one of the smartest and most clear-headed people I know.
Might be better to just examine what it was about her momentary lapse of deep-reading that set you off. Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
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 millenial removing Bernie tattoo on June 30, 2010 at 5:09pm
Abortion stops a beating heart.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service