Chicago Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

[Muscletang]

Well the SCOTUS ruled that Chicago's handgun ban is unconstitutional. It's about damn time if you ask me. Hopefully gun control laws across the nation will start to get overturned.

[Gohan Ryu]

Funny just one year ago the US Court of Appeals ruled the exact opposite:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

Maybe someone read this article about how the murder rate increased in Chicago after they banned handguns in 1982:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-murder-rates/

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by Gohan Ryu

Funny just one year ago the US Court of Appeals ruled the exact opposite:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

That court also has their head the clouds. Oh well the Supreme Court has ruled so they can take their anti-gun stance and shove it up their ass.

Originally Posted by Gohan Ryu

Maybe someone read this article about how the murder rate increased in Chicago after they banned handguns in 1982:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-murder-rates/

I've said it before and I'll say it again, guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns are just an easy scapegoat.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

I've said it before and I'll say it again, guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns are just an easy scapegoat.

Handguns sure make it easier.

So, muscletang, consider the bigger picture. The issue is not the handgun laws, but it's the need for handguns themselves. WHY do you think it should be legal to easily own handguns?

To feel safer?

To defend yourself against the bad guys?

Wouldn't it be nicer to live in a society where there are very few bad guys and none of them have guns? That way, you wouldn't need a gun at all.

Imho, don't get mad at the handgun banners. Get mad at those parts of American society which make you feel like you need a gun. Get mad at the gangs, the criminal element and the gun culture in the US that produces gun violence. Get mad at govenment policy which allows easy access to gun by criminals.

It does not have to be this way. There are dozens of civilized, industrial nations with a crime level far below that of the US. Some of them, like Canada, are awash in (long) guns (but very few handguns). The difference is that people generally don't go around shooting each other with with a bolt-action .303.

I am a gun enthusiast and gun owner and I love the harsh handgun laws in Canada. There are very few handguns around, and I feel safer for that reason. I have never felt the need to own a gun for personal protection, and I live smack in the middle of Canada's largest urban area.

IMO the goal is not legalized guns... that answer is in building a safer society.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Handguns sure make it easier.

It's also easy to run somebody over but we're not talking about restricting driver's license are we now?

Originally Posted by MagicRat

So, muscletang, WHY do you think it should be legal to easily own handguns?
To feel safer?

I seriously believe a free society is an armed society. Yeah, I hear that bullshit about shootouts and crime rising but it NEVER happens. Every single time a state makes concealed carry legal crime drops. It's a fact, states with gun bans have higher crime. Just look at Chicago and D.C.

I believe most people are good and if all citizens are armed the good will keep the bad in check. Take a look at Switzerland who has gone this route with all people being armed.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

To defend yourself against the bad guys?

I'd rather just kill them right away to clean the gene pool but I guess I could defend.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Wouldn't it be nicer to live in a society where there are very few bad guys and none of them have guns? That way, you wouldn't need a gun at all.

Yeah it'd be nice if we lived in a world where there was no bigotry, everybody could live in peace, there was no need for money because everybody got what they wanted but this isn't Star Trek now is it?

There are still criminals out there and people wanting to kill each other. People killed, raped, and murdered each other long before there were guns. Look at the United Kingdom and their gun ban. Not only did crime go up but knife violence has as well and now they want to ban knives.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Imho, don't get mad at the handgun banners. Get mad at those parts of American society which make you feel like you need a gun. Get mad at the gangs, the criminal element and the gun culture in the US that produces gun violence. Get mad at govenment policy which allows easy access to gun by criminals.

I don't feel like I need a gun unless I'm strolling through a ghetto. That's the problem though is gangs. If you look at the gun violence in this country a whole lot of it is done in poor black neighborhoods. Banning guns won't solve the problem of the bigger issue going on there.

I mean the illegal drug trade plays a hug role in gun violence but that's a different subject and debate.

As for the government allowing "easy access" to guns I'm going to call bullshit. We're debating about a gun ban with doesn't allow access at all to guns for LEGAL citizens yet criminals still have guns. The bans, background checks, and etc didn't help at all now did it? If people want guns, like drugs, they will buy them on the black market.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

There are dozens of civilized, industrial nations with a crime level far below that of the US. Some of them, like Canada, are awash in (long) guns (but very few handguns). The difference is that people generally don't go around shooting each other with with a bolt-action .303.

Funny the United States is BELOW those countries with gun bans. Hmmmm...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ies-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...fts-per-capita

What did that gun ban do in the U.K.?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37467424...ld_news-europe

The United States leads in murders but how come Switzerland, which I mentioned earlier, is lower than everybody yet they have more guns? Hmmm...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

It's also strange crime went up down under after that gun ban.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

Originally Posted by MagicRat

I am a gun enthusiast and gun owner and I love the harsh handgun laws in Canada. There are very few handguns around, and I feel safer for that reason. I have never felt the need to own a gun for personal protection, and I live smack in the middle of Canada's largest urban area

Does Canada have the low income Latino and Black ghettos like here in America? Last I heard gangs/drug trafficking isn't a problem up North.


To just sum up my position I'll go back to what I said that a majority of people are good. If you have an armed society you won't have crime because people are good and don't automatically become psychotic. The ones that are psychotic and want to do harm are a small minority.

The best way to illustrate this a clip from 1000 Ways to Die. A guy walks into a gun shop to try and rob it. He got shot several times and is now dead. If a gang walks into a grocery store to try to rob it and people are armed, they won't be walking out. (That happened in Oklahoma here and a 75 year old man pulled out a 357 and took one out. Nobody was hurt except for the criminals.)

Society wins in the end and criminals lose.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Wouldn't it be nicer to live in a society where there are very few bad guys and none of them have guns? That way, you wouldn't need a gun at all.

Sure. But why ban guns if we lived in such a society?

[MagicRat]

Thank you for the detailed reply, muscletang.

We do agree on many issues, here. The US does have many serious social, cultural and economic issues all of which contribute to a higher crime rate. And yes, I agree that if you live or go to the bad parts of town, where the rule of law and common decency is lacking, then, yes, a gun is a pretty handy thing.

But, boy, I sure would be pissed-off if I lived in one of the wealthiest nations on earth, yet all that money can't even buy decent public safety and security....

It would piss me off to live in a nation with such a high rate of military spending, yet I had to buy a gun to defend me from the bad guys because the state cannot live up to their obligations to provide for a stable society.

It would piss me off to see that there is billions to power nuclear submarines designed to fight an enemy that no longer exists, yet kids are bing killed daily in many cities. What the heck are my tax dollars being used for?

Funny, these issues do not piss-off the NRA. They are working very hard to defeat laws that many people actually want in place. Why? Imo its to justify their existence to their membership and to keep the cash flowing in. (just like many other lobbyists )

Look at the big picture. It's not naiive to think that a safer society can be built. The US has seen general rates of crime decrease substantially in the past 30 years.... and liberal gun laws are not getting the credit. What is getting the credit is a swelling prison population (locking up the bad guys means they are not doing crime) and the permissive abortion laws (the theory is that fewer unwanted babies means fewer poorly-raised kids growing up to be criminals) amongst other things.

So, imo the US is on the road to building a safer society, but I really think handguns are not the answer. Stronger laws and more effective law enforcement are. New York city is a good example of effective policing policies which have brought about a great decrease in crime in the past 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

As for Canada having no ghettos..... we have Winnipeg instead

Originally Posted by Muscletang

I

Funny the United States is BELOW those countries with gun bans. Hmmmm...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ies-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...fts-per-capita

What did that gun ban do in the U.K.?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37467424...ld_news-europe

The United States leads in murders but how come Switzerland, which I mentioned earlier, is lower than everybody yet they have more guns? Hmmm...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

It's also strange crime went up down under after that gun ban.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

Sorry, muscletang, but these links are a straw-man argument. Individual and very rare acts of gun violence in the UK are utterly meaningless in this argument.

Increase in crime rates in Australia....... crime is the result of many social and economic factors. Linking crime and a gun law is bullshit. How many Austrailians used guns to defend property before the law? How did other factors, like immigration, drug laws etc affect crime? Don't know, because your article didn't discuss it. Frankly, even that article says that only a tiny fraction of the nations guns have been turned-in. Therefore, there really is NO correlation between fewer legal guns and more crime in that country.

Same with nationmasters. How do you know a lack of guns affects burglaries? How do you know that more guns will decrease burglaries? If it did, then the US should be at the BOTTOM of that list.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

We do agree on many issues, here. The US does have many serious social, cultural and economic issues all of which contribute to a higher crime rate. And yes, I agree that if you live or go to the bad parts of town, where the rule of law and common decency is lacking, then, yes, a gun is a pretty handy thing.

My opinion, War on Poverty and the War on Drugs has caused more harm than good. My personal opinion though.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

But, boy, I sure would be pissed-off if I lived in one of the wealthiest nations on earth, yet all that money can't even buy decent public safety and security....

Welcome to American politics. For instance Tulsa, Oklahoma has had a budget crises so what's the first thing the mayor goes after? The city police and fire departments and over 100 police officers were laid off. Why? They needed the money even though they could have cut it elsewhere.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

It would piss me off to live in a nation with such a high rate of military spending, yet I had to buy a gun to defend me from the bad guys because the state cannot live up to their obligations to provide for a stable society.

Well it does say in the Constitution to provide for the national defense. Now, does this mean we should have army units patrol all the poor neighborhoods where crime is the highest?

Originally Posted by MagicRat

What the heck are my tax dollars being used for?

Buying votes.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Funny, these issues do not piss-off the NRA. They are working very hard to defeat laws that many people actually want in place. Why? Imo its to justify their existence to their membership and to keep the cash flowing in. (just like many other lobbyists )

Who wants those in place? A majority of Americas oppose gun control. For instance every single site I've been to everybody is praising the Chicago gun ban.

One thing people don't like is politicians saying, "you can't have a gun" yet they have armed personal body guards. A little hypocritical don't you think?

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Look at the big picture. It's not naiive to think that a safer society can be built. The US has seen general rates of crime decrease substantially in the past 30 years.... and liberal gun laws are not getting the credit. What is getting the credit is a swelling prison population (locking up the bad guys means they are not doing crime) and the permissive abortion laws (the theory is that fewer unwanted babies means fewer poorly-raised kids growing up to be criminals) amongst other things.

What about conservative gun laws? Concealed carry laws have sprung up the past 30 years and crime has decreased. As for the swelling prisons population, a majority of that is on drug charges. Again, different debate for another day but I feel the War on Drugs is a major problem with poor ghettos and gun violence in this country.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

So, imo the US is on the road to building a safer society, but I really think handguns are not the answer. Stronger laws and more effective law enforcement are. New York city is a good example of effective policing policies which have brought about a great decrease in crime in the past 20 years.

A major reason for that is like I've said, going after drugs and the poor neighborhoods where crack was a big problem. Going to the root of the problem.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Sorry, muscletang, but these links are a straw-man argument. Individual and very rare acts of gun violence in the UK are utterly meaningless in this argument.

But it brings up a good point. Who did the gun ban keep the guns away from? That's right, the law abiding citizen.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Increase in crime rates in Australia....... crime is the result of many social and economic factors. Linking crime and a gun law is bullshit. How many Austrailians used guns to defend property before the law? How did other factors, like immigration, drug laws etc affect crime? Don't know, because your article didn't discuss it. Frankly, even that article says that only a tiny fraction of the nations guns have been turned-in. Therefore, there really is NO correlation between fewer legal guns and more crime in that country.

There is a link. Don't you think it's weird that countries that ban guns, crimes go up, yet when you look at Washington D.C. their crime has gone down since the Supreme Court overturned their gun laws.

Isn't it weird that the states with concealed carry laws see a drop in crime and lower crime than states that don't?

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Same with nationmasters. How do you know a lack of guns affects burglaries? How do you know that more guns will decrease burglaries? If it did, then the US should be at the BOTTOM of that list.

How do you know they won't? Burglary is high in the U.S. with states that don't have Castle Laws or tight gun control. Look at states, like Oklahoma, which Castle Laws and people don't commit burglary. Why? You'll get shot.

Besides, isn't it odd that countries with no guns have higher burglaries?

Gun sales went through the roof in 2009 and crime all across the board went down.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelimsem2009/table_1.html

I'll close with a quote from John Stossel.

Fewer guns don’t necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true. About 10 years ago, a mass shooting in the United Kingdom led Britain to pass one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. When the law passed, Britain seemed to get safer by the minute if you watched as officials made sure cameras were there as 160,000 newly illegal firearms were forked over by law-abiding citizens and sent to be melted down in an incinerator. But the real result?


This did not decrease crime. In fact, gun-related crime merely doubled after the ban passed. Crime increased in Britain while it decreased in America. This shouldn't come as a surprise if you consider just two things. Criminals usually don't obey laws. That’s why we call them criminals. And gun laws never totally get rid of guns. England’s ban didn’t magically eliminate all British handguns. Officials estimate a quarter million illegal weapons are still in circulation. Britain just took guns away from the good guys, the people who obey the law. Doing that makes crime easier for the bad guys. The truth is gun control is not crime control.

[drunken monkey]

I'm not sure what the recent shooting in West Cumbria in the UK has to do with the topic of gun control.
As far as I could tell from the articles I've read, the guns used were ones that could be obtained legally.
Also, if there was no gun ban and every other citizen could have been holding a firearm; how that would've stopped a guy who was driving around randomly shooting people.

Also, you won't be aware of this because you don't see the other news reports that question police statistics but in the UK, a gun-related crime counts all crimes where a gun may be involved. That includes cases where it was a deactivated weapon, a replica and even toy (i.e BB) guns. It also includes cases where it was threatened that a gun was present.

As for knife crime increase, this has nothing to do with gun control and more to do with a general increase in a knife culture in kid/youth gangs.
The big talking point is the apparent increase in knife injuries caused by youths on other youths; the point being that these guys couldn't afford a gun if it offered to them illegally anyway.

Finally:

Originally Posted by Muscletang

It's also easy to run somebody over but we're not talking about restricting driver's license are we now?

I always hear this as an example but the simple question is, what is the designed function of a firearm?
Its purpose is to harm and to kill.

With that said, gun control is one of those things that is ok in principle if all things are equal except the reality is, it isn't.
Criminals will not comply with the control so what's the point?

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

With that said, gun control is one of those things that is ok in principle if all things are equal except the reality is, it isn't.
Criminals will not comply with the control so what's the point?

Good point

Gun control is quite effective for a number of reasons. Lots of criminals obtain guns through illegal means. But if the supply of appropriate guns (usually handguns) is strictly limited, then there are far fewer guns floating around (legal or otherwise) for the criminals to buy/steal and use.

Additionally, fewer guns means fewer instances of crimes of passion or impulse involving a gun.

Finally, gun control often involves lots of gun handling training, background checks before individuals can own a gun. Generally this means that only serious, law-abiding, responsible people actually get the guns.

Sure, gun control is flawed and imperfect... but far preferable to a gun free-for-all.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Also, if there was no gun ban and every other citizen could have been holding a firearm; how that would've stopped a guy who was driving around randomly shooting people.

I'll just let you good "concealed carry and crime" and let you see yourself. I can post a ton of links showing normal people stopping crime but why take the fun of that from you?

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Also, you won't be aware of this because you don't see the other news reports that question police statistics but in the UK, a gun-related crime counts all crimes where a gun may be involved. That includes cases where it was a deactivated weapon, a replica and even toy (i.e BB) guns. It also includes cases where it was threatened that a gun was present.

Yup stats can be twisted. For instance suicide by firearm takes of half of the "murders and homicides by firearm" in the United States.

Anyway, it still doesn't change the fact other crimes have gone up despite the ban.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

As for knife crime increase, this has nothing to do with gun control and more to do with a general increase in a knife culture in kid/youth gangs.
The big talking point is the apparent increase in knife injuries caused by youths on other youths; the point being that these guys couldn't afford a gun if it offered to them illegally anyway.

If it has nothing to do with gun control why did it increase after guns were outlawed?

"Shit I can't shoot Joe over there! Never mind I'll stab him!"

As for them not being able to afford weapons on the black market...can be true but look at America's war on drugs. Several drugs are insanely high but there is still a very big market for them.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

I always hear this as an example but the simple question is, what is the designed function of a firearm?
Its purpose is to harm and to kill.

People though? All people I know who kill with their guns kill deer, rabbits, and the occasional cat.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

With that said, gun control is one of those things that is ok in principle if all things are equal except the reality is, it isn't.
Criminals will not comply with the control so what's the point?

Agree so if they're armed, why not even the playing field? Background checks and classes on concealed carry applicants has worked so far. I say go with it.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Gun control is quite effective for a number of reasons. Lots of criminals obtain guns through illegal means. But if the supply of appropriate guns (usually handguns) is strictly limited, then there are far fewer guns floating around (legal or otherwise) for the criminals to buy/steal and use.

The same argument could be used for drugs but we haven't seen those go away the past 40 years now have we?

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Additionally, fewer guns means fewer instances of crimes of passion or impulse involving a gun.

Wrong. If that was the case Chicago wouldn't be asking the National Guard to patrol the streets.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Finally, gun control often involves lots of gun handling training, background checks before individuals can own a gun. Generally this means that only serious, law-abiding, responsible people actually get the guns.

Again, concealed carry states have crime go down, people have their guns, and everybody is happy.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Sure, gun control is flawed and imperfect... but far preferable to a gun free-for-all.

Personally, I prefer the free-for-all but I live in an area where everybody has a gun and I'm use to it. It'd be nothing new for me.