Thread: Supreme Court hearing case on Chicago handgun ban

You can lead a horse to water, but beating him over the head with statistics won't make him drink?

Well said Axis of Lint.

Guns don't commit crimes, people do.

The bad guys will always find a way to get guns. I believe there is a thing out there called "the black market" but I am not sure.

As has been pointed out already countries/states which allow law abiding citizens to own guns and use them for protection tend to have lower rates of violent crime than those countries/states which are more restrictive (look back in the thread for more detailed statistics and discussion). There are many reasons why the above correlation exists, and one of those reasons is that criminals will tend to pick on the weak. If they know their potential victim is armed they will almost always look for another victim.

That of course does not mean that this is the only solution to violent crime. There is a strong correlation between poverty rates and crime as well for example. In a perfect world with no poverty, no inequality, and a well cared for populace there would likely be no need for guns beyond recreation (who knew punching holes in paper could be so much fun?). Sadly, we are far from this perfect society.

In any case my reasoning behind owning a gun is based on the simple philosophy to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. I have not given up on our society, and I take every opportunity to improve things (I volunteer, and I am politically active). There are too many people around here who just don't care though, and because of that attitude I am forced to take care of my self first. This may seem selfish, but I can not help others if I have not helped myself.

I have found that this is attitude is shared by many Libertarians, but there are also just as many who are truly just selfish. The latter just want the government out of the way so they can just do what they want. Meanwhile the former want the government out of the way because we feel we can do more good for society on our own rather than just dumping money into a big bucket and hoping this magically makes things better. The new wave of libertarians seems to be leaning more towards the direction of self sufficiency as a means to improve things for everyone. I support this new movement as small as it is, and hope that more people can understand we are compassionate we just don't think the government is the proper vessel for that compassion.

Sorry, I got a bit off topic on this rant, but I think it is somewhat relevant to the thread.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Can we at least accept the fact that the Chicago "HANDGUN" ban is just that, a ban on handguns? Because people insist on perpetrating that you cannot own any type of firearm within the city limits. Which isn't the case, in this thread or in from of the SCOTUS. It isn't about being to carry open/concealed, outside of the home, it is whether you are allowed to buy/own a pistol within city limits, which we know pistols aren't the only firearms, and aren't the only means to protect ones self.

This thread seemed to have morphed into either some sort of "carry law" discussion, which isn't what is being argued in front of the SCOTUS. And it certainly isn't about an outright ban on all firearms, those that are alluding otherwise are being disingenuous at best.

The Chicago ban is on handguns only.

The second amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear "any" arm because it is not qualified. Even so considerable precedent has been set giving state/local governments the ability to tax the sale and regulate possession and use of any arm. It is this legal precedent which is now being tested. The question is whether a local government can regulate to the extent that a specific type of arm (handguns) be made completely unavailable.

You assert that because other types of arms are still available the handgun ban is constitutional. It is my opinion that your assertion is false because by using the same logic one could ban all firearms as long as other types of arms such as knives or swords are still available. This clearly goes against the intent of the amendment and therefore invalidates that line of logic.

Originally Posted by sickwookie

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Can we at least accept the fact that the Chicago "HANDGUN" ban is just that, a ban on handguns? Because people insist on perpetrating that you cannot own any type of firearm within the city limits. Which isn't the case, in this thread or in from of the SCOTUS. It isn't about being to carry open/concealed, outside of the home, it is whether you are allowed to buy/own a pistol within city limits, which we know pistols aren't the only firearms, and aren't the only means to protect ones self.

This thread seemed to have morphed into either some sort of "carry law" discussion, which isn't what is being argued in front of the SCOTUS. And it certainly isn't about an outright ban on all firearms, those that are alluding otherwise are being disingenuous at best.

The Chicago ban is on handguns only.

The second amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear "any" arm

no it protects the right of the people to bear arms, not any arms. If it applies to any arms is up to interpretation.

Originally Posted by AxisofLint

But we could argue individual cases forever I'm sure. My point is that I don't believe that by itself, gun ownership is really important in reducing crime. I think a proper education system, and better social care/rehabilition for those people who sink into illegal activities is far more important.

No. Arguing individual cases is not how answers are found. That's called anecdotal evidence, and it is not allowed in formal debate. Instead of focusing on hypotheticals and anecdotes why don't you review the evidence. Potemkine has kindly posted several links to large analysis's of violent crime as it correlates to the availability of firearms. You say you "don't believe that by itself gun ownership is really important in reducing crime" but that's again not how we get to the bottom of things. You can't say you don't believe something sounds reasonable and expect me to take your word for it. Bring some data to the table, bring some statistics, some evidence. Its true that societal issues also heavily impact crime, but the statistics don't lie.

If you enjoy good civilized discussion, then you'll love good reasoned debate.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Originally Posted by sickwookie

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Can we at least accept the fact that the Chicago "HANDGUN" ban is just that, a ban on handguns? Because people insist on perpetrating that you cannot own any type of firearm within the city limits. Which isn't the case, in this thread or in from of the SCOTUS. It isn't about being to carry open/concealed, outside of the home, it is whether you are allowed to buy/own a pistol within city limits, which we know pistols aren't the only firearms, and aren't the only means to protect ones self.

This thread seemed to have morphed into either some sort of "carry law" discussion, which isn't what is being argued in front of the SCOTUS. And it certainly isn't about an outright ban on all firearms, those that are alluding otherwise are being disingenuous at best.

The Chicago ban is on handguns only.

The second amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear "any" arm

no it protects the right of the people to bear arms, not any arms. If it applies to any arms is up to interpretation.

You cut off the most important part from what I said. The amendment is not specific as to the exact type of arm so we have to assume that they chose not to be specific on purpose. This means the amendment applies to anything which can reasonably be considered an arm.