Conceal and Carry in Chicago (store, cars, gun laws)

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by lycos679

That's a good point, but Britain is also an island so it's a bit easier to control smuggling. I think someone would have to do a comparison to a European or South American country for possible solutions. Problem with that, is that S.A. isn't really developed and most of Europe is. Also, Europe doesn't have a large smuggling problem and we do.

Perhaps the USA could simply require that all guns be kept in a safe, thereby making it more difficult for gang members to steal. Of course, you still have straw man purchases to address.

In terms of borders, its true that Britains border is not exactly the same as the US, but it does have relatively open access to Europe, as drug smuggling from Europe is regular.

Straw man purchases are a big issue, and there are just so many variables that could and do go wrong, that simply telling people to keep their guns in their safes would do little to curb the current gun violence... Though it would probably save innocent children from finding their parents guns, if the parents abide by the law, or are careful enough to keep their guns locked away.

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

If you are black living in Chicago, you'd better have a gun. If you are Hispanic, you might want to get one. If you are white, Chicago is like Disneyland.


Chicago Murder Rates by Race:

White non-hispanic: 2.4
Hispanic: 12.5
Black non-hispanic: 37.8

Saying that black people, or any people for that matter, should have guns is only adding to the problems that black people, or anyone who faces gun violence, face.

The problem is not that people have too few guns, its that guns effortlessly flow into the wrong hands from legal gun buyers. We already have guns that can be purchased legally, and that's obviously not solving the problem. The only real way to make a long term dent in gun violence is through nation wide bans, to make gun purchases more difficult for criminals as their supplies dwindle from regular confiscations.

[WhaThe]

"What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems."

Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control - WSJ.com


Guns and Violence: The English Experience: Joyce Lee Malcolm: 9780674016088: Amazon.com: Books

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by WhaThe

"What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems."

Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control - WSJ.com


Guns and Violence: The English Experience: Joyce Lee Malcolm: 9780674016088: Amazon.com: Books

This study would indicate a lot of benefits in Australia at least:

To summarize:

-No mass shooting in 10.5 years since gun reforms (study in 2006)
-A greater acceleration in annual total gun deaths post-ban
-A greater acceleration in the reduction of firearm homicides post-ban.
-No substitution effect on suicides or homicides, ie, without guns, people aren't simply finding another way to kill themselves or others.

-Violence, accidental deaths with guns, and homicides have continued to decline post-2006

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/as...uryPrevent.pdf

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by lycos679

That's a good point, but Britain is also an island so it's a bit easier to control smuggling. I think someone would have to do a comparison to a European or South American country for possible solutions. Problem with that, is that S.A. isn't really developed and most of Europe is. Also, Europe doesn't have a large smuggling problem and we do.

Perhaps the USA could simply require that all guns be kept in a safe, thereby making it more difficult for gang members to steal. Of course, you still have straw man purchases to address.

Are you kidding? Smuggling in Britain is a huge problem. Look at drug trafficking in Britain. They're an island, but the sheer number of people coming into and leaving the country, the port volume, etc is pretty astounding. I should also point out to you that with gun smuggling, the problem in the US isn't guns being smuggled into the US, but guns being smuggled out of the US for use in organized crime in Latin America and elsewhere.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by lycos679

Law abiding means legal ownership of gun and not currently/ actively breaking any laws

Then, by that definition, the Connecticut shooter was "law abiding" up until he walked into the school that day. (Or up until he left his house a few minutes earlier, perhaps.)

That's exactly the point, which you seem to have missed. We don't live in a black-and-white world where there are "good guys" and "bad guys," so that if we could somehow only let "good guys" (or "law abiding citizens," or whatever your Hollywood cop movie line of choice might be) have guns, everything would be peachy keen.

People snap sometimes, including formerly "law abiding" "good guys." If they have an assault rifle when they snap, they do a lot more damage than if they don't.

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Then, by that definition, the Connecticut shooter was "law abiding" up until he walked into the school that day. (Or up until he left his house a few minutes earlier, perhaps.)

That's exactly the point, which you seem to have missed. We don't live in a black-and-white world where there are "good guys" and "bad guys," so that if we could somehow only let "good guys" (or "law abiding citizens," or whatever your Hollywood cop movie line of choice might be) have guns, everything would be peachy keen.

People snap sometimes, including formerly "law abiding" "good guys." If they have an assault rifle when they snap, they do a lot more damage than if they don't.

I'm not intimately familiar with CT's gun laws nor with the shooter, but it's my understanding that he was never a legal gun owner for the following reasons.
1. It wasn't his gun
2. He committed a felony as soon as he shot his mother.
3. His mental issues were well known and thus he was not able purchase a gun. (speculation on my part, I'm assuming that mentally unstable people aren't allowed to purchase firearms)

Furthermore, if the gun was locked up in a safe he may not have been able to access it.

Your point isn't missed on me good people do in fact snap; it's just not nearly as common as some people like to imagine it is. This guy did not just snap though, he had a history of problems and his parents had the money to get him help. Rifle, handgun, shotgun all would have had the same effect and if he didn't have access to guns he could have built a bomb. I don't think the means he used is nearly important.

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Are you kidding? Smuggling in Britain is a huge problem. Look at drug trafficking in Britain. They're an island, but the sheer number of people coming into and leaving the country, the port volume, etc is pretty astounding. I should also point out to you that with gun smuggling, the problem in the US isn't guns being smuggled into the US, but guns being smuggled out of the US for use in organized crime in Latin America and elsewhere.

My information came from a few documentaries I saw, but I kinda doubt Brittan has the same level of drug smuggling going on as we do, not sure though.

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by chitownperson

Saying that black people, or any people for that matter, should have guns is only adding to the problems that black people, or anyone who faces gun violence, face.

The problem is not that people have too few guns, its that guns effortlessly flow into the wrong hands from legal gun buyers. We already have guns that can be purchased legally, and that's obviously not solving the problem. The only real way to make a long term dent in gun violence is through nation wide bans, to make gun purchases more difficult for criminals as their supplies dwindle from regular confiscations.

If you look at the violent crime rate throughout the USA we find the most violent cities are those that have the strictest gun laws. If we did however, ban guns, like Mexico did, only gang members and cartels will have guns. That doesn't seem like an optimal solution. Furthermore, cartels can get guns through the military. If we can't stop drug use and smuggling then how would we stop gun use and smuggling?

[chirack]

Originally Posted by lycos679

Furthermore, if the gun was locked up in a safe he may not have been able to access it.

Your point isn't missed on me good people do in fact snap; it's just not nearly as common as some people like to imagine it is. This guy did not just snap though, he had a history of problems and his parents had the money to get him help. Rifle, handgun, shotgun all would have had the same effect and if he didn't have access to guns he could have built a bomb. I don't think the means he used is nearly important.

How does one use a gun for self defense if they are locked up in a safe, and wouldn't you want your adult son to be able to defend himself???