Gun Control

[Texsox]

For overall crime rates, my hypothosis would be less guns equals less gun crimes. So I'm not certain that the ban would have no affect on gun crimes.

[Balta1701]

For overall crime rates, my hypothosis would be less guns equals less gun crimes. So I'm not certain that the ban would have no affect on gun crimes.

The reality tends to be a lot more complicated, unfortunately, because the places that have instituted restrictions on guns typically see very little change in crime in general or in gun crime specifically, but it's also a very difficult signal to pick up because you always have the importation problem.

[Jenksismyhero]

Someone made a good point on the radio this morning - what needs to happen to clear the confusion is for Congress to enact a Federal law about this. Maybe even tweak the Constitution. But the problem is, something like 48 states already have pro gun rights legislation. Illinois and Wisconsin were the two (or two of the few) states with strong restrictions, so no one else really cares to have to federal government get involved in what their state already legislated.

 

To me the way we look about this issue is entirely backwards, and one reason we have such a huge difference in political philosophies. My view is that the government shouldn't be involved in your life unless there's an absolute need for it. Others think the opposite. To me, the government (in this case the city of Chicago) needs to provide a strong reason why a restriction on an aspect of my life needs to be put in place. Daley claims crime rates will go up and more police/fire/ems personnel will be hurt. There's zero evidence supporting those positions.

[Balta1701]

Someone made a good point on the radio this morning - what needs to happen to clear the confusion is for Congress to enact a Federal law about this.

Like the Assault weapons ban? Yeah, that worked out great for everyone.

 

Anyway, ignoring the politics of the matter for a moment, strategically, I actually feel this is one issue that is best controlled locally, because it strikes me that Chicago ought to have different gun laws than western Wyoming, for example.

[Jenksismyhero]

Like the Assault weapons ban? Yeah, that worked out great for everyone.

 

Anyway, ignoring the politics of the matter for a moment, strategically, I actually feel this is one issue that is best controlled locally, because it strikes me that Chicago ought to have different gun laws than western Wyoming, for example.

 

So long as you're beyond the base line of "you can own a gun," I agree.

[Texsox]

Like the Assault weapons ban? Yeah, that worked out great for everyone.

 

Anyway, ignoring the politics of the matter for a moment, strategically, I actually feel this is one issue that is best controlled locally, because it strikes me that Chicago ought to have different gun laws than western Wyoming, for example.

 

 

I usually favor as local control as practical.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Like the Assault weapons ban? Yeah, that worked out great for everyone.

 

Anyway, ignoring the politics of the matter for a moment, strategically, I actually feel this is one issue that is best controlled locally, because it strikes me that Chicago ought to have different gun laws than western Wyoming, for example.

 

I actually completely agree with this. I'm really middle of the road on this issue. I never want my right to own a gun taken away, but I'm also willing to accept that we live in a democracy and if a local rule was in place it's my choice to be there. And on the topic of assault weapons, I can't think of one legitimate reason for those to be accessible to anyone not in the military.

[Texsox]

I actually completely agree with this. I'm really middle of the road on this issue. I never want my right to own a gun taken away, but I'm also willing to accept that we live in a democracy and if a local rule was in place it's my choice to be there. And on the topic of assault weapons, I can't think of one legitimate reason for those to be accessible to anyone not in the military.

 

I agree.

The problem with banning a certain type of firearm is defining what is, and what is not, defined. Plus at some point, you pull the trigger and something potentially lethal flies out. Doesn't really matter if it is an assault weapon, something that looks like an assault weapon, or a simple remington .22

[StrangeSox]

Like the Assault weapons ban? Yeah, that worked out great for everyone.

 

Anyway, ignoring the politics of the matter for a moment, strategically, I actually feel this is one issue that is best controlled locally, because it strikes me that Chicago ought to have different gun laws than western Wyoming, for example.

 

The AWB was a complete joke, Balta. It banned guns based on cosmetic features but not on functionality in most cases. It was just a crappy law that didn't actually address anything important. And it didn't do anything wrt the weapons most often used in crimes -- cheap handguns.

 

The SC agrees with you. They're still leaving states/ cities to best solve their own local issues, they just cannot enact outright bans.

[StrangeSox]

For overall crime rates, my hypothosis would be less guns equals less gun crimes. So I'm not certain that the ban would have no affect on gun crimes.

 

But gun bans don't necessarily mean less guns in the hands of people likely to commit crimes. It means less guns in the hands of those likely to obey laws.

 

I'm glad we have tight control on automatic weapons. I'm glad not everyone is allowed to own explosives and rockets. I don't have a problem with restrictions on weapons, but I don't see an outright ban on handguns as 1) common-sense or 2) effective.

[StrangeSox]

I agree.

The problem with banning a certain type of firearm is defining what is, and what is not, defined. Plus at some point, you pull the trigger and something potentially lethal flies out. Doesn't really matter if it is an assault weapon, something that looks like an assault weapon, or a simple remington .22

 

There's also the definition of an "assault weapon". Typically, it's a gun that looks scary but has the same or less lethal force than a rifle used for hunting. That, and they're rarely used in crimes, anyway.

[whitesoxfan101]

Therefore the state can make any law limiting your right to bear arms, so long is it based on the states power to police itself and protect the people. So if the City of Chicago believes that the people of the city will be safer if no one can own a handgun, that is okay, it is their right to do it.

 

But if the majority of the people of chicago, believe that we would be safer if no one can have a gun, why cant we make that decision?

 

I think going from "the state can make any law limiting your right to bear arms" (which I don't think would be argued by many) to "if the city of Chicago believes that the people of the city will be safer if not one can own a handgun, or be able to bring a gun into court, that is okay, it is their right to do it" is quite a leap. Restrictions, even a lot of them, to own a gun are fine, but to outright ban them is difficult to defend in any Constitution, including the Illinois one (and yes, I read the portion of it you put in the above post, I still don't see how that allows outright gun bans anywhere).

 

I also am not sure where you have the info that says "the majority of the people of chicago believe that we would be safer if no one can have a gun". It might be true, but just posting that with nothing to back it up makes it a sketchy point. Was there a vote I missed which shows that you're right and the people of Chicago made the decision to ban guns? I always thought Richie decided that one. And even if you're right and the people of Chicago really do believe the city would be safer if nobody had a gun and actually did make that decision and I somehow missed it, there are two problems. First, it's very debatable as to if the gun ban actually made anybody safer. But second, and perhaps more relevant, I don't think it's their place to decide what is and isn't Constitutional.

 

Your post had A LOT of really good points in it, but those were a couple I was a bit puzzled by.

Edited June 30, 2010 by whitesoxfan101

[Texsox]

There's also the definition of an "assault weapon". Typically, it's a gun that looks scary but has the same or less lethal force than a rifle used for hunting. That, and they're rarely used in crimes, anyway.

 

 

Labels are dangerous.

[lostfan]

Owning a gun is completely pointless, and doing a lot more harm than good, if you don't know how to use it. Actually it's ridiculously irresponsible and endangers others unnecessarily with little benefit, and if it wasn't such a slippery slope I'd say anyone that doesn't know how to use a gun either needs safety and marksmanship training or needs to surrender it. This is doubly true for assault weapons, and besides having an armed rebellion against an oppressive government (something that only wingnuts really believe and say to each other usually, and something that's completely overblown too) while I'm not arguing that they should be illegal, I can't really think of any legitimate uses for them either. You can use it in your house, but you'd f*** everything up, and probably stuff in other rooms and maybe even your neighbors too. And that's pretty much what shotguns are for anyway.

Edited June 30, 2010 by lostfan

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, I have no problem with requiring some sort of training course.

[bmags]

And I dont think the Illinois Constitution is infringing on the US Constitution, and strangely enough, neither did the Supreme Court.

 

If the Illinois Constitution is an infringement, then shouldnt the Illinois Constitution be under attack here? Instead it is the City of Chicago.

 

The state of Illinois has the ultimate right to interpret its own Constitution, unless the Supreme Court states that the Illinois Constitution is unconstitutional.

 

Thus it should have been up to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide whether or not this law was legal under the Illinois Constitution. If the law was deemed legal, then it should have gone before the Federal Supreme Court.

 

The Supreme Court cut out one of the most important steps of state rights. Generally you do not have a situation where the Constitution of the State is slightly different than the Federal Constitution, which could give rise to a different interpretation of law under both. But in this case it existed and in this case the state was given no deference to interpret its own Constitution.

 

Its probably one of the biggest blows to state rights in history.

 

The state of Illinois doesn't have a right to interpret the US constitution. They are completely trumped, and thank God, or else who knows what would still be going on in Mississippi right now.

[StrangeSox]

I have to post this great image:

 

 

Also the standard "shoulder thing that goes up here" video, the only time in history someone out-stupids Tucker Carlson:

 

 

And "heat-seeking bullets":

 

Edited July 1, 2010 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, I have no problem with requiring some sort of training course.

Daley is saying that will be part of the City's new ordinance efforts.

 

Heh. Ordinance.

 

Anyway, what you will probably see here is Daley attempt to enact some labrynthine process for acquiring a handgun that will effectively keep almost anyone from getting one, and try to pass it off as a "resonable restriction". Then in 3 or 4 years, it will be brought to court, again.

 

[Balta1701]

Then in 3 or 4 years, it will be brought to court, again.

And its constitutionality will have been decided entirely by whether or not one "Anthony Kennedy" decides to retire while a Democrat is in the White House or while a Republican is there.

[whitesoxfan101]

Owning a gun is completely pointless, and doing a lot more harm than good, if you don't know how to use it. Actually it's ridiculously irresponsible and endangers others unnecessarily with little benefit, and if it wasn't such a slippery slope I'd say anyone that doesn't know how to use a gun either needs safety and marksmanship training or needs to surrender it. This is doubly true for assault weapons, and besides having an armed rebellion against an oppressive government (something that only wingnuts really believe and say to each other usually, and something that's completely overblown too) while I'm not arguing that they should be illegal, I can't really think of any legitimate uses for them either. You can use it in your house, but you'd f*** everything up, and probably stuff in other rooms and maybe even your neighbors too. And that's pretty much what shotguns are for anyway.

 

I agree on owning a gun being completely pointless and doing more harm than good. Even people who own one to "protect themselves" are kind of wasting their time unless they carry it around everywhere they go and keep it bedside at night in case they hear a noise (and not many gun owners are doing either of those things). It doesn't change the right you have to own one under the constitution though (although I think you know that based on saying you're not arguing they should be illegal, and were just making a general point on how dumb gun ownership is).

 

The state of Illinois doesn't have a right to interpret the US constitution. They are completely trumped, and thank God, or else who knows what would still be going on in Mississippi right now.

 

I'm not sure gun ownership rights in Illinois are quite at the level of importance of the stuff that went on in Mississippi that I assume you are referring to, but you make a good point nonetheless.

Edited July 1, 2010 by whitesoxfan101

[Soxbadger]

Just so its clear, my arguments were not based on actual US precedent. They were based on a common sense approach that is not used in the court system.

 

Thus when I argue that:

 

Illinois constitution differs from US constitution. That when the US accepted Illinois as a state they implicitly ratified the Illinois Constitution. Thus it would require that the US Supreme Court state that the Illinois Constitution is unconstitutional under federal law.

 

Im not arguing that the Federal law doesnt trump State law, im arguing that the Supreme Court did not even address the idea that the Illinois constitution differs from the US constitution and whether that difference is constitutional.

 

They took the easy way out and made bad law in the process. Its not often that a state constitution varies greatly from the Federal Bill of Rights, but it can and does happen. In those cases the State should have the final say on their constitution, until the Fed says the state constitution is unconstitutional.

 

Once again im not arguing this using precedent or case law, this is just my personal opinion based on common sense.

[NorthSideSox72]

Daley has announced his plan. Details...

 

*Under Daley's ordinances, handgun owners would need to register all their guns with the city so police know how many weapons are in each home, and would also be required to have a valid Firearm Owner's ID card.

 

*It requires firearms training, both in a classroom and a firing range.

 

*Chicago residents would be able to register no more than one handgun per month for each adult in a home. The ordinance "generally prohibits the possession of a handgun by any person except in the person's home," according to a city news release.

 

*Only one firearm can be kept in immediately operable condition in each home. Other guns must be broken down or have trigger locks in place.

 

*Assault weapons are banned, as is the possession of ammunition by anyone who does not have a valid FOID card and registration for a gun of the same caliber.

 

*Applicants must be at least 21 years old, unless a parent signs for a child age 18 or older.

 

*To protect the city against costs for a lawsuit in case a police officer shoots an armed person while responding to a home, Daley also said the city will pursue legislation at the state and federal levels granting liability immunity for first responders and the city.

 

*The ordinance bars anyone from possessing a handgun outside a home, which excludes garages, outdoor areas, hotel rooms and group-living quarters.

 

*Would-be gun owners must take a training course with a minimum of one hour on the range and four hours in the classroom before obtaining a permit to a keep a weapon in the home.

 

*The ordinance prohibits sawed-off shotguns, assault weapons and “unsafe” handguns.

 

*It also requires guns kept in homes with minors under age 18 to be secured when they are not in the possession of the owner.

 

*Penalties for not complying with the proposed law range from $1,000 to 90 days in jail.

 

*And, as proposed by powerful Ald. Edward Burke, 14th, the new ordinance would create a gun-offender registry to be posted on line by the police department. Anyone convicted of unlawful use or illegal possession of a weapon would be required to register with the police for a four-year period.

 

I'm OK with most of these. Some exceptions...

 

--Making it illegal to have a gun anywhere outside the home is wholly impractical. How do you get it to a range? Or a gun shop? That part will need tweaking.

 

--The registering of specific guns I have a major problem with, as it cuts directly into the heart of why 2A exists.

 

 

 

[Controlled Chaos]

I agree on owning a gun being completely pointless and doing more harm than good. Even people who own one to "protect themselves" are kind of wasting their time unless they carry it around everywhere they go and keep it bedside at night in case they hear a noise (and not many gun owners are doing either of those things). It doesn't change the right you have to own one under the constitution though (although I think you know that based on saying you're not arguing they should be illegal, and were just making a general point on how dumb gun ownership is).

 

 

 

I'm not sure gun ownership rights in Illinois are quite at the level of importance of the stuff that went on in Mississippi that I assume you are referring to, but you make a good point nonetheless.

Even the lowest estimates have about 800,000 people disagreeing with you.

 

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

 

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. Source

 

It is not pointless. lostfans intial post said owing one and not knowing how to use it is pointless. But if you can handle a gun, it can save your life and has on millions of occasions. In fact if you live in Englewood, Roseland or any bad neighborhood, and you know how to use a gun and don't sleep with one nearby...I would question your mental state. But Bad can happen anywhere...and if you don't want to be a victim with your hands tied behind your back...you own.

 

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Making it illegal to have a gun anywhere outside the home is wholly impractical. How do you get it to a range? Or a gun shop? That part will need tweaking.

 

You can have it in your car in the trunk or other area that is inaccessible to the driver. (I think thats similar to the foid card rule).

 

Just because a gun was used in defense, does not mean that lethal force was required in that situation.

 

The study I would be interested would be to see how many crimes were prevented due to gun use.

[Balta1701]

The study I would be interested would be to see how many crimes were prevented due to gun use.

Random successful google search result.

 

For a number 2 orders of magnitude higher, you can use this person.