Is Chicago's handgun ban working?
- Thread starter Neomega
- Start date
phoenix_night
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,853
?
Are you saying it is good because there is less gun crime?
Or are you saying it doesn't matter because you have crime anyway?
Cilpot
Pretentious Schmuck
As long as there is a demand for guns they will be available.
Yoshimune
Haruhiism
Japan has the lowest violent crime rate in the Western(ized) world, and (gasp!) it has strict gun control laws. Every single violent crime I ever hear of is a stabbing or some other knife situation.
However, in support of Neomega, the answer of "why" is a little more complicated. Even I was surprised to learn that the criminal system in Japan is about as fascist as Stalinist USSR:
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/the_world_beyond_the_usa/japsafe.html
It's a tradeoff, really. Giving people the chance at a free trial or locking away all criminals. Unless you plan on committing a crime, is police fascism the better way?
However, in support of Neomega, the answer of "why" is a little more complicated. Even I was surprised to learn that the criminal system in Japan is about as fascist as Stalinist USSR:
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/the_world_beyond_the_usa/japsafe.html
It's a tradeoff, really. Giving people the chance at a free trial or locking away all criminals. Unless you plan on committing a crime, is police fascism the better way?
bobgote
Trousers
Well of course it isn't going to work if you only have it in the one city. if your gonna ban them it has to be the whole country.
Works in this country too. Altho we have more gun deaths (as a ratio) i think that the UK.
I wonder what would have happened if one of the 7 had pulled a gun a shot in self defense. Would he had gone to jail for breaking an unconstitutional law? You will never get rid of the guns in this country, so the best option is to allow law abiding citizens a means of self defense.
Yoshimune
Haruhiism
Not my system. I'm American. And from (near) Chicago. The Japanese probably think our system is sad too, since we have gang shootouts in the middle of cities and other violent crimes like this one. I went to school in New Haven, CT, and I feel safer in any part of Japan at any time of day than I often did there.
But that's my point. It's a tradeoff. A gun ban isn't going to work by itself. And since it's in the Constitution, it will be a long long time until the U.S. could ever pull off a nationwide anti-gun law.
I would prefer a "fascist" government that severely punished personal and property criminals over gun control any day.
As far as the "whole world needs a gun ban argument"
Ain't gonna happen....... ever.
So, in my opinion, it is better to deal with the reality of the situation and opress very few than to try and build a utopia, and rob from the many.
As far as the "whole world needs a gun ban argument"
Ain't gonna happen....... ever.
So, in my opinion, it is better to deal with the reality of the situation and opress very few than to try and build a utopia, and rob from the many.
The fact that seven innocents sadly met their death in Chicago proves absolutely nothing either for or against gun control - you could argue that earlier and more rigorous imposition of gun control would reduce the opportunity for this evil-doer to acquire and use a weapon, or, as Neomega has, argue that liberalisation would have increased the chances of a victim having a gun to hand and being able to fight back. Each argument has weaknesses and elements of validity.
What I find VERY disturbing is that a proponent of gun freedom could apparently take pleasure in the death of seven innocents because he feels it strengthens his argument in favour of arms-bearing.
Is this 'right' so important to you that you are glad that innocents die in order to protect it?
What I find VERY disturbing is that a proponent of gun freedom could apparently take pleasure in the death of seven innocents because he feels it strengthens his argument in favour of arms-bearing.
Is this 'right' so important to you that you are glad that innocents die in order to protect it?
jack merchant
Internationalist
What bigfatron and polymath said.
Next thing you know he's going to tell us kids should be allowed to carry guns in school too in order to avoid another Columbine.
Next thing you know he's going to tell us kids should be allowed to carry guns in school too in order to avoid another Columbine.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
Tassadar,
I'd like your opinion on the following story:
A man is going to bed. Before he does so, he checks his shotgun. It is in a closet in the bedroom. The man feels good. He knows that when some criminal will visit his house, he can protect himself, his property and more important: his family.
Then it happens! In the middle of the night there is coming noise from downstairs. The man wakes up! He clearly hears voices! Adreline to the max! He tells his wife to stay in be, while he graps his gun and leaves the bedroom.
From the top of the stairs, he spots a burglar. He aims his gun to the bastard. Before having decided what to say or do, he hears a loud bang. And he feels a stinging pain in his chest. Before falling down he sees another burglar holding a smoking gun.....
Today this honourable man is remembered as a man, who payed the highest price to protect his family.
My question to you:
Would burglar number two have shot the man if he was unarmed?
My point: Check out statistics and you WILL find out that owning a gun decreases the chances of survival in a scenario as described by you.
Stapel's example sounds like the case of Tony Martin that has caused major excitement in the UK.
In summary, Martin was a loner who lived on a run-down farm in a rural area. He was the victim of a number of burglaries and took some (some would say extreme) actions to protect himself, including arming himself with an illegal shotgun and removing the stairs in his farmhouse.
He was burgled by two travellers (i.e. gypsies). He made use of his shotgun, wounding one burglar and killing the other.
Evidence given at his trial showed that the deceased, a minor, was shot in the back at a range of about 5 yards, Martin being on the top landing and the burglars in the downstairs hallway(remembering that the stairs had been removed). Neither burglar was armed.
As UK law holds it, you are entitled to use 'reasonable force' in defence of yourself and property. Martin was found to have used excessive force and convicted of manslaughter, sentence 5 yrs.
Some people view Martin as a hero and the victim of a great wrong, others as a common criminal - there is a great divide between the two.
In summary, Martin was a loner who lived on a run-down farm in a rural area. He was the victim of a number of burglaries and took some (some would say extreme) actions to protect himself, including arming himself with an illegal shotgun and removing the stairs in his farmhouse.
He was burgled by two travellers (i.e. gypsies). He made use of his shotgun, wounding one burglar and killing the other.
Evidence given at his trial showed that the deceased, a minor, was shot in the back at a range of about 5 yards, Martin being on the top landing and the burglars in the downstairs hallway(remembering that the stairs had been removed). Neither burglar was armed.
As UK law holds it, you are entitled to use 'reasonable force' in defence of yourself and property. Martin was found to have used excessive force and convicted of manslaughter, sentence 5 yrs.
Some people view Martin as a hero and the victim of a great wrong, others as a common criminal - there is a great divide between the two.
Stapel you got a good point.
1.- i have a dog female mixed pit-bull with labrador, she is able to smell a racoon or a fox at 4:00 am while sleeping, so nobody have a chance to break through my house without me knowing it first. I mean, i will know they are there before they can realise what is going on.
2.- I will only shoot on the floor first to scare them, if i realy think my life is involve, then i prefer to shoot at them first. I prefer much more dying with a shotgun in my hand then to died without any mean to defend myself.
3.- You have the right to kill someone if your life is in danger, but dont shoot in the back at a runing thief because this is criminal.
1.- i have a dog female mixed pit-bull with labrador, she is able to smell a racoon or a fox at 4:00 am while sleeping, so nobody have a chance to break through my house without me knowing it first. I mean, i will know they are there before they can realise what is going on.
2.- I will only shoot on the floor first to scare them, if i realy think my life is involve, then i prefer to shoot at them first. I prefer much more dying with a shotgun in my hand then to died without any mean to defend myself.
3.- You have the right to kill someone if your life is in danger, but dont shoot in the back at a runing thief because this is criminal.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
That's just wrong. If you don't want to get shot, don't break in to people's houses. It's as simple as that.
Yoshimune
Haruhiism
1. Is your dog violent? Because my dog will greet anyone bearing dog cookies.
2. You missed the complete point of the story. Shooting on the floor will give the burglars more time to shoot you.
3. See point #2.
I hope your significant other and family understand your wishes, because I'll bet they'd rather have you around than die like a "hero." Better to stay upstairs and call the cops than risk your life.
Similar threads
