Gun ban lifted in Chicago (Washington, Humboldt: insurance, home, neighborhood)

[Humboldt1]

You provide a lot of great insight on this and other forums, but

You are incorrect about handgun laws being lifted that leads to more murders. It actually has been statistically shown to reduce crime.

Someone, please provide him the stats. I am not a NRA member but I am sure there is someone on here who would be happy to post those stats.

Steve-O,

Why do you think lifting the ban would increase murders? Please explain your thought process.

[aragx6]

Missouri enacted a conceal and carry and every business simply added a sign on their door saying no weapons allowed, so I'm not sure what good it really does anyone.

I am still very uncomfortable with the notion of people walking around with guns on them, and I grew up in a home with guns and I have shot many guns.

[Humboldt1]

Aragx6,

If I lived in a safe area I would agree. Guns in the house usually create more problems than anything else, especially with kids. My father, the cattle farmer, also a Vietnam decorated Vet, did not allow guns in our home. All the neighbors had them and if we ever wanted to go shooting or hunting we would just go with them. My brother (single man) now has guns that he uses for target practice and home protection. We do not hunt, though we own several woods that we allow hunters to hunt on to cut down on the deer population (deer eat corn that we grow).

Just a few blocks south of me, blacks are shooting each other, killing each other (Hispanics too, but not nearly as much). There are virtually no hispanics south of division in Humbodlt Park, south of Grand. I am literally afraid to walk more than 4 blocks south of where I live. North and east and even west it is fine. I would probably not go all Charles Bronson on people but it would certainly create a level playing field for law-abiding citizens such as myself who just want to go for a walk.

I hate knowing that gangbangers have guns and I am not allowed to. I would think they would think twice before robbing me if they thought I might be armed.

[BG0508]

I live in Texas, where concealed handguns are allowed and many more people than in Illinois likely have them. Crime hasn't gone down as a result although perhaps burglary has. Armed citizens do not prevent most crimes committed using firearms (legal or illegal, stolen or not) from occurring. The fact is that having a gun increases the likelihood that one will be shot. I hear more stories in the news about legal guns killing or maiming the family members of gun owners than I hear stories about gun owners successfully defending their lives or property with their firearms.

Why don't groups like the NRA and the people who support them advocate for safe gun ownership? We have the technology to ensure that legally owned guns are only fired by the owner (using fingerprint recognition technology, etc.). We can require licensing that include mandatory gun safety training like we do with automobiles. We can more aggresively pursue the underground firearm market, which is often linked to drugs and other criminal enterprises.

You don't hold the moral high ground, even with the 2nd amendement, if you are unwilling to uphold your rights by making it safer to exercise them. Most people who don't support gun control really want unfettered access to weapons of any kind. I can't wait until someone who wants to legally anti-aircraft missiles uses the 2nd amendment and this ruling as justification. The NRA and similar groups have been pimped out by firearm manufacturers for decades. You want to talk about gun control? Why is it that the U.S. military is able to secure a cache of lethal weaponry numbering in the millions much easier than the average homeowner whose kids end up playing cops and robbers with their unlocked and loaded 9mm? Answer: motivation and civic responsibility. Most gun owners I know are only concerned about packing their piece and being able to shoot someone who threatens them, not their wider civic responsibility to ensure that their firearms don't hurt the innocent or can be used in crimes. If they did there would be an uproar to the gun manufacturers to make firearms that are more secure or to create retrofitting programs as technology improves.

Just like other issues, people want their toys and "freedoms" but they don't want to do the smart thing and make it easier for those in society who rightly fear the consequences of those toys and freedoms to come to an agreement. I think very few people who support gun control do so because they hate guns, the people who own them, or want to tread on someone's rights. They rightly fear the consequences of handgun proliferation in urban areas.

[skyeINIL]

The problem I have is that people like you (Humboldt) are going to "go all Charles Bronson" on the wrong person. A strange black man is walking behind me? Let me shoot first and ask questions later!

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

You are incorrect about handgun laws being lifted that leads to more murders. It actually has been statistically shown to reduce crime.

Someone, please provide him the stats. I am not a NRA member but I am sure there is someone on here who would be happy to post those stats.

There are no reliable stats about this, and there is certainly no consensus. Why would anyone trust the NRA on this issue? They are clearly biased in one direction, and they cherry-pick the studies that agree with their agenda.

I personally feel that lifting the Chicago ban will have little effect on anything. Clearly the criminal element had no trouble finding guns before the ban, so they will just continue to have guns. And a "self defense" situation comes into play so infrequently that it won't make a bit of difference in detering crime. In spite of the Hollywood version of living in Chicago believed by country bumpkins, there are very few opportunities for normal citizens to draw weapons in self defense.

The only problem I foresee with lifting this ban is that the cops won't be able to confiscate as many guns as they once could. Sure, there will be some accidental handgun shootings in peoples' homes. But not a significant number.

[aragx6]

I might want to have a gun in my own home to protect me some day, but I can tell you right now it won't be a handgun. It'll be a shotgun.

[Humboldt1]

I support the fingerprint idea. This would prevent children from firing their parent's guns and would not allow criminals to purchase stolen firearms.

I think accidental shootings in the home get a lot of press, but are relatively isolated incidents. I agree that few guns are used in self-defense. Perhaps just knowing that the homeowner may have a gun has reduced burglaries. I don't see most citizens walking around with handguns anytime soon.

Skye,

How many of those 8 shot last night on the south side were done so using legal firearms? Thanks.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

Does anyone have the stats for Indiana? I believe crime has gone down since this was enacted. And please don't quote just Gary stats. That is a small part of Indiana and not reflective of Indiana as a whole.

Event A: Crime goes down in Indiana

Event B: Conceal/Carry law is passed.

Even if A and B are corrolated, this does not necessarily imply a causal relationship. Crime may have gone down in Indiana anyway (as this was the national trend). This is the problem with the studies quoted by the NRA. Crime had been (until recently) dropping in almost all metropolitan areas. In fact, crime has dropped SLOWER in most of the cities that have conceal/carry laws. New York has very strict gun laws, but has seen crime declines above and beyond anything seen in southern cities with conceal carry laws. DO NOT trust the NRA on this issue. They support their agenda with whatever faulty logic serves their purposes.

I personally don't think gun control makes such a big difference. Gun control can only work if guns are completely removed from all parts of society and the supply is cut off (i.e. no more manufacturing and widespread confiscation). And this will never occur because of the 2nd ammendment.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by aragx6

I might want to have a gun in my own home to protect me some day, but I can tell you right now it won't be a handgun. It'll be a shotgun.

Seriously. If someone is entering my home at night while I'm laying in bed, I'd want a 12-gauge with some real stopping power. Handguns are useless unless you can take advantage of their portability or have a close-range encounter.