Gun Control

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2802134_pf.html

 

I expect that within 2 months the number of crimes involving handguns will increase 10000 percent.

 

 

(and apologies if there's already a gun control thread. the search function on the site doesn't work for me, so if someone can find it and add this to the end that'd be fine with me)

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2802134_pf.html

 

I expect that within 2 months the number of crimes involving handguns will increase 10000 percent.

 

 

(and apologies if there's already a gun control thread. the search function on the site doesn't work for me, so if someone can find it and add this to the end that'd be fine with me)

But if everyone owned guns we'd all be safer.

[Jenksismyhero]

But if everyone owned guns we'd all be safer.

 

I'd feel a whole lot safer. I dunno that anyone has argued it could decrease crime in the short term though.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Gun control doesn't work. Going over this again and again seems to produce no results.

 

If gun control worked, Chicago would be have 0% or near 0% handgun violence...that's not working out that way, now is it?

 

Gun control only stops law abiding citizens from owning guns, it does not stop the criminals, as most laws do not stop the criminal. And if you completely ban guns, you create another dangerous black market for the criminal enterprises to distribute them...so stop trying. The war on drugs is working out really well, too. It's a good thing drugs are illegal and you can't get them!

[LittleHurt05]

This weekend was an improvement in Chicago though. Last weekend, there were 50 shootings, 8 deaths. That dropped to 30 shootings, and only 3 deaths the past weekend.

[Y2HH]

This weekend was an improvement in Chicago though. Last weekend, there were 50 shootings, 8 deaths. That dropped to 30 shootings, and only 3 deaths the past weekend.

 

And a vast majority of them with handguns, which are illegal and banned in Chicago!

[StrangeSox]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2802134_pf.html

 

I expect that within 2 months the number of crimes involving handguns will increase 10000 percent.

 

 

(and apologies if there's already a gun control thread. the search function on the site doesn't work for me, so if someone can find it and add this to the end that'd be fine with me)

 

There's been various debates over the years, but yeah, the search function is disabled. FYI you can use google to search specific sites in the advanced search features if you're looking for something here.

 

It sounds like, from the WaPo article, they've incorporated the 2nd to the states.

[whitesoxfan101]

I'm not going to pretend to be a gun expert, and I will say that I think having strict rules on who can and can't have guns legally is necessary. But I've never quite understood what good an outright handgun ban does, it seems like something that would keep guns out of the hands of people willing to obey laws much moreso than those who will just ignore them anyways. Not to mention the fact that the legality of such a law also seems pretty iffy. I guess we'll have to see what affect this has in Chicago assuming the hangun ban is struck down.

[StrangeSox]

Question for some of the states-rights people here: how do you view this issue? Most (all?) states-rights advocates are right-leaning and I would assume support gun ownership rights, but this ruling makes federal law trump state and local law.

[SI1020]

I can't believe that people still think that if the benevolent government prohibits you from defending yourself that you'll be safer. I will not live anywhere that doesn't permit me to own and carry. This is just one small victory.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Question for some of the states-rights people here: how do you view this issue? Most (all?) states-rights advocates are right-leaning and I would assume support gun ownership rights, but this ruling makes federal law trump state and local law.

 

I'd rather it be a state issue, whatever the resulting decisions would be. There would have to be some level of federal oversight though to accommodate interstate travel and such.

[NorthSideSox72]

Question for some of the states-rights people here: how do you view this issue? Most (all?) states-rights advocates are right-leaning and I would assume support gun ownership rights, but this ruling makes federal law trump state and local law.

I don't think anyone believes that EVERYTHING should be state-controlled. 2A is right there in the Constitution, as a federally guaranteed right, and there fore IMO is a federal issue by nature. States are welcome to handle implementation and subtleties, but I think that outright banning handguns goes well beyond subtlety and administration. So I tend to agree with SCOTUS here.

 

[StrangeSox]

As do I, but it still takes power away from the states and gives it to the federal government. Even if the "correct' reading of the Constitution is what was just ruled, it still takes away a power that the states and municipalities have enjoyed for many decades.

[NorthSideSox72]

As do I, but it still takes power away from the states and gives it to the federal government. Even if the "correct' reading of the Constitution is what was just ruled, it still takes away a power that the states and municipalities have enjoyed for many decades.

Yes it does, but in my view, its a power they weren't really meant to have.

 

By the way, Illinois residents, don't be surprised if the FOID card process also gets brought to court for being an overbearing hindrence on ownership. Not sure it will be successful, but I'd be shocked if it didn't get a good test soon.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

As do I, but it still takes power away from the states and gives it to the federal government. Even if the "correct' reading of the Constitution is what was just ruled, it still takes away a power that the states and municipalities have enjoyed for many decades.

 

What addition power did the federal government gain?

[BigSqwert]

OBAMA'S TAKING AWAY OUR GUNS!

 

HURRY UP AND STOCKPILE!

[Jenksismyhero]

As do I, but it still takes power away from the states and gives it to the federal government. Even if the "correct' reading of the Constitution is what was just ruled, it still takes away a power that the states and municipalities have enjoyed for many decades.

 

What's the difference between guns and abortion rights or marriage "rights?" I don't think you want states to be in control of that issue do you?

[NorthSideSox72]

What's the difference between guns and abortion rights or marriage "rights?" I don't think you want states to be in control of that issue do you?

Ideally, the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but that's another discussion.

 

[iamshack]

Not to open the Pandora's Box here, but once again, it's time to remember when this document was written.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

What addition power did the federal government gain?

 

Well, to be clear, I don't think they really gained anything because the states/ cities were exercising a power that they never really had. But this will likely mean Chicago loses it's ability to enact handgun bans, effectively leaving those sorts of controls at the federal level.

[StrangeSox]

What's the difference between guns and abortion rights or marriage "rights?" I don't think you want states to be in control of that issue do you?

 

I was asking for some insight into how an ideology I don't hold reconciles the differences. But that could be as simple as NSS's explanation; the 2nd is right there in the Constitution and so gun control is purely Federal level.

 

Of course, I would argue that the 14th makes marriage, abortion etc. etc. federal as well as equal protection is a Constitutional right.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Well, to be clear, I don't think they really gained anything because the states/ cities were exercising a power that they never really had. But this will likely mean Chicago loses it's ability to enact handgun bans, effectively leaving those sorts of controls at the federal level.

 

If the reason for the handgun ban removal is the 2A+14A, then it seems like there's no power for those controls at the federal level either.

[EvilJester99]

Like the old sayin goes.. I would rather have the gun and not need it than to need it and not have it. IMO Disarming the public doesn't lessen the chance of crime.. because the criminals aren't given up theirs..it just makes us an easier target.

[whitesoxfan101]

Not to open the Pandora's Box here, but once again, it's time to remember when this document was written.

 

That's definitely opening up a Pandora's Box. How about we go through that old document and find everything in it that seems dated and change it then, seems fair enough.

 

Even if I were to just give you that it's an old document with some dated things in it though, it's not all that hard to make a case that the handgun ban didn't do anything for safety in Chicago.

Edited June 28, 2010 by whitesoxfan101

[Balta1701]

True enough, but it's not all that hard to make a case that the handgun ban didn't do anything for safety in Chicago.

Whether or not it's effective should have no bearing on the constitutionality.