Supreme Court Shoots Down Chicago Gun Law

[IBCoupe]

But all those people have space. I'd say that population density is far more important than acreage and sheer population size.

Arizona, as a State, has a very spread out population, trending towards more redstatishness.

[AZhitman]

When it comes to crime, yes - You'd be correct. Population density and crime are, in general, strongly correlated. I agree that our lower density probably has a large bearing on gun violence. Which begs the question:

When you control for gun ownership per capita, are we really that far off? Maybe outlawing densely-populated areas would be a MORE effective public policy.

Yes, absurd. However, perhaps, just maybe, this IS an urban planning issue. Don't laugh it off too soon - there are very densely-populated areas with low gun violence, and those areas really screw up any chance of making a 1:1 direct correlation beween density / gun violence.

[AppleBonker]

IB, you're probably right. But it'll be tough to find a US city that is comparable to Chicago for population density (NY, LA, are there any more?). Not a very statistically sound sample set. Even still, this goes to show that the population density is the problem, not the guns. Why not regulate that?

[AZhitman]

You copyin' me, Bonk? Keep your eyes on your OWN paper.

[AppleBonker]

I'd say I started typing slowly before reading your post, but that might be a lie. How else do you think I ended up completing an engineering degree. Wait, you're not Asian, are you?

It basically all stems from my hatred of speed limits. They function the same was as gun control. The problem isn't the speed, it's whatever causes the accident. While I would agree that wrecking at 110 mph is far more likely to be fatal than wrecking at 15, the speed isn't the cause of the accident. Just a contributing factor to the fatality. Same thing with guns. If someone wants to kill another person/people, they'll do it with or without guns. The gun just makes it easier. It is just not the variable that needs to be controlled.

[stebo0728]

Speed limits are not safety regulations, they are revenue sources only.

Sit in a hi-rise above a busy interstate, and watch the slow *sses in the fast lane, and watch how the faster cars have to negotiate around them, there is the major safety concern.

Oh and I dont condone lying and cheating, it has a nasty side effect of getting you elected.

[IBCoupe]

Greg & Apple,

Population density isn't a problem - it's simply what happens when economics are introduced to a city. People cram closer together because, typically, that's the cheapest way to live. Though there's something to be said for the opportunity of crime increasing with each individual encounter, and there being greater opportunities for individual encounters within densely-populated areas, I don't think that population density is a direct cause; it's more a correlation. Many other things tend to occur in densely populated areas that all contribute to an increase in crime. The problem isn't the population, it's the way we work as a society. We're hard-wired.

With that in mind, if gun crime is a problem, then the proper thing to do is to regulate the guns. If ever you're faced with a choice between trying to make people better by controlling the way human society naturally develops or taking away a tool to do harm, the most prudent regulation, if your concern is individual liberty, is to take away the guns.

That may sound weird, but the alternative is to let the problem proceed unabated. Gun control is the least intrusive of possible regulations. Also, I can't come up with a way to regulate population density that doesn't adversely affect the poor's ability to remain sheltered. They pack in tight for a reason - because that's what they can afford.

Stebo & Apple,
Stebo's mostly right. While today federally-mandated speed limits probably serve as mostly a revenue stream, their initial function was to force conservation of oil. They were first established in the early 1970s, in the midst of the oil crisis. Safety was never a concern.

[audtatious]

Need to take away guns. Need to take away salt. Need to get rid of fast food. Need to mandate healthy decisions. Need to simply provide for all the dumb people evenly.

We all know that outlawing guns works well because 100% of people follow laws.

Sarcasm meter broke yet?

[AppleBonker]

Don't forget cars. Dumb people get into accidents a lot and end up killing innocent people.

[stebo0728]

I keep getting reminded of a song, hows it go ... "AppleBonker jeans, with the boots and the fur ..." something like that

[AppleBonker]

"Apple-bottom jeans"... This is an apple bonker:



/threadjack

[bigbadberry3]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07 ... pack-heat/

I know it can get heated for Christmas Eve mass seats but dang ,although I think the article says churches can still ban guns from their grounds.

[n00b240]

Look at you people "Clingin to your guns" HA

I enjoy a good debate on firearms. I had a small stint of an opportunity in Chicago a coupla years back, and one late night things got a bit heavy and I longed for my gun. So I got on google to find out how I can lawfully possess a weapon in Chicago. Since Im not a resident the laws shouldnt apply to me, but still, it muddies up the water.

This is a massive turn off:

It is unlawful to carry or possess any firearm in any vehicle or concealed on or about the person, except on one's land or or fixed place of business.

It is unlawful to carry or possess any firearm on any public street or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village, or incorporated town, except when: an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of firearms or the lawful commerce in firearms.

it is unlawful to have or carry any firearm in or on any vehicle or conveyance unless unloaded and enclosed in a case.

What the EFF? Can I have my watergun back please?

[audtatious]

Waterguns are illegal in Chicago because they look like weapons and have the word "gun" in their name. You can get 10 years in jail for having a watergun but criminals only get 30 days for having a real one.

[stebo0728]

Not to mention innocent children who get sent into the juvenile system for having a f'ing toy!

[s13drifter88]

so many gun laws seem so misguided or mis-implemented or... faqk!!! idk someone help me with the word im looking for. theres not a single "criminal" who follows the set gun laws, thats why theyre criminals. citizens have the right to carry guns and so they should. i carry an S&W sigma 40 coz where i live... its needed. i live in the middle of the biggest wannabe thug part of my town and the problem with wannabes is they want to act like the gang bangers and thugs they see on mtv and that includes shooting, killing, robbing all of it. u take guns away from law abiding citizens then u make us easier targets for those criminals out there. if we abide by the law then we'll turn our guns in if they get banned, they wont. then were stuck with pepper spray and tasers and against a man with a 9mm or a 45 ur history. police cant be there behind ur back every minute of the day and frankly i dont want them, i feel safer with my 40 than with some of those idiots "protecting" me. i shot with 2 one day at a local gun shop and at 63ft they couldnt even hit center mass! and theyre supposed to protect me??????? so yeah, the citezens need guns. were not a militia to protect against foreign attack, were the militia to protect against civil attack... people that would try to harm you and people that would try to harm me. people that would steel your car and people that would steel mine. go on youtube and watch a video called "Holdin It Down" i believe. this guy takes a pipe or something and starts destroying these peoples PT Cruiser right in the middle of traffic. YOU CAN HEAR A CHILD SCREAMING IN THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! let that be my girl friend or my little nephew, he would have taken 5 hollow points at close range. watch the video then ask, "where were the cops"? they werent there to do any good, so thats when u have to rely on yourself. when soldiers get shot at they dont call the police, they have to act. we are the homeland soldiers, militia as were called. we call the police when our car stereo gets stolen, when were threatened we have to act. as long as thugs and criminals run our streets with guns, so should we and i encourage all my friends to learn to shoot, apply for a permit, and invest in a quality firearm.

[s13drifter88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DddHsPOHFC4

[IBCoupe]

So, that went poorly.

Let me just reply to the general theme with something I wrote earlier in this thread:

There are perfectly law-abiding persons that we don't want to have guns, and gun control laws catch them.

That seems to be about the only point y'all had.

[n00b240]

There are perfectly law-abiding persons that we don't want to have guns, and gun control laws catch them.

I keep reading that sentence over and over, and I'm trying to figure it out, it makes no sense to me. Even tried to look above to where you said that for the correct context, with no dice.

[s13drifter88]

okay... so what ur saying is gun control only controls the people that are more than likely of no threat whatsoever. where does it control the sale of 9mm behind a corner store 1am. i bet that guy isnt running a background check, hes counting the money the getting out of there

[IBCoupe]

Easy example: the mentally ill might violate no laws up to the point where they want to buy a gun. But they'd have to disclose their diagnosis, and gun control would prevent them from legally getting a gun. Gun control would prevent them from legally getting a gun because we'd prefer it if crazy people didn't have guns. There's probably a good portion of that population who won't seek out a gun through illegal means. Thus, gun control would prevent, in some cases, law-abiding citizens who we still don't want to get guns (because maybe we're pretty sure that they can't reliably remain law-abiding, absent proper medication) from getting guns.

And even if there is a population that will seek out guns illegally: great! If these people are so bent on committing crimes that no gun control will stop them, why not make their active pursuit of crime illegal, too? That way there's a chance they can be caught illegally buying a gun before they're caught illegally shooting someone with it. That's why "gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting guns" is a stupid argument to make. It's true that people will break the law, but that's not an argument for not having the law - that's an argument for active enforcement.

The argument you want to make is that it's an improper infringement on your second amendment rights because it limits your ability to buy a weapon with which to exercise your protected rights, but that takes a lot more effort to say convincingly and it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

[stebo0728]

IB - is this the kind of people you are referring to?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00fqeofo ... r_embedded[/youtube]

PS - pause it and read his shirt!

[AppleBonker]

Well, Chicago has at least released the list of handguns that have been found to be unsafe. See PDF here. There are more than one comical additions to that list.

[BusyBadger]

Well, Chicago has at least released the list of handguns that have been found to be unsafe. See PDF here. There are more than one comical additions to that list.

The idea that they actually went to the trouble of listing the Civil War era firearms like the Bacon Excelsior (among others) speaks volumes.



They even listed the NAA Mini series and those are actually approved in CA, and they (along with MA) have some of the most stringent gun laws in the country.

I heard there is legislation in the works to outlaw Coleman lanterns and camp stoves for fear of another fire.

[stebo0728]

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.

[IBCoupe]

When did he say that? Last week?

[stebo0728]

If he'd said it last week, his lawyers would be busy dealing with Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson for some reason im sure. Timeframe in this case matters not. The sentiments ring true.

[IBCoupe]

Unless it matters. 1790's North America is not anything like 2010's North America.

[stebo0728]

Yah Ive heard you say that before, sorry, maybe a differnt time, but evil still looms, and guns still make it think twice before striking.

[IBCoupe]

They also make killing each other a heck of a lot easier. I'm not entirely convinced that the same could be said about guns in the 1790s.