[BengalTiger]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2458402,new-chicago-gun-law-passed-070210.article

The law is pretty strict, but finally not only criminals can own guns.

[General Battuta]

****. I'm really glad I don't live there any more.

The strict anti-handgun stuff was a big reassurance for us at UChicago. It saved a lot of kids in the surrounding neighborhoods too.

[Nuke]

you can get around handgun restrictions easy.

buy a shotgun.

[General Battuta]

I should clarify that almost none of the petty criminals in Hyde Park had guns. They would carry out muggings with toy pistols.

This is now going to change.

[Titan]

  Don't see how handgun restrictions could stop any sort of determined individual.

[Scotty]

All it does is allow more options for personal defence.  A criminal that would use a gun during a robbery or other crime would get one illegally anyway.

[Bobboau]

this is an excellent opportunity FOR SCIENCE!
it will be interesting to see who's side gets vindicated by the statistics in the following years.

[The E]

All it does is allow more options for personal defence.  A criminal that would use a gun during a robbery or other crime would get one illegally anyway.

It also makes it incredibly easier for criminals to get guns. As I am sort of assuming that going to a store and buying them is easier than, say, going through some shady black-market deals.

[General Battuta]

Don't see how handgun restrictions could stop any sort of determined individual.

Piss off. You didn't live there. For some reason people were getting mugged with toy guns instead of real ones. We can't be sure it was the gun ban but it's a possible candidate.

All it does is allow more options for personal defence.  A criminal that would use a gun during a robbery or other crime would get one illegally anyway.

They didn't. Or at least they didn't very often.

Gun restrictions or bans don't always work. I'm not sure they did here. But one thing that I am 75% certain of is that Hyde Park criminals did not have very many guns. There were shootings, but they were comparatively rare for an impoverished urban environment.

And believe it or not the worst problems were kids being hit by stray bullets. Guns owned by citizens are going to kill kids just as often as guns owned by criminals.

I feel very ambiguous about this whole move.

this is an excellent opportunity FOR SCIENCE!
it will be interesting to see who's side gets vindicated by the statistics in the following years.

Sort of. Any changes in gun violence will be confounded by other socioeconomic trends.

The usual evidence that citizen gun ownership correlates with decreased crime was presented at the alderman's hearings about this new law, but was apparently found lacking.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Never liked hand guns but the more I work outside at night the more I'm thinking of starting to carry one.  Even this small city is starting to change and not for the better.  

[iamzack]

I'm going to legally buy a handgun and then be the poster child for GUN LAWS IS TOO LAX.

[General Battuta]

All my training in gun and knife work in krav maga (bear in mind, as a civilian) told me that if someone jumps you with a gun or a knife, you should give up and do what they want, unless they try to transport you or get you into a car.

The risk of death or litigation is simply not worth attempting to kill them over what's in your wallet.

If they want to kill you, they'll probably do it before you get a chance to do anything about it. If they want to mug you the best thing you can do is comply.

[Nuclear1]

Both sides are idiotic.

You can't ban all guns and expect crime to go down.  On the other hand, you can't just let guns loose in the city, because then armed robberies and handgun violence will skyrocket.  (Don't even argue that--people with easy access to guns WILL committ acts of violence with guns. They're not going to be ****ing slicing bread with them)

Neither side seems willing to admit that the other has a good point when it comes to taking care of crime.  Think of it like a human body with an infected open wound--the right would answer by saying all you need to do is put a bandaid on and the infection will stop, which isn't true.  The left on the other hand simply wants to douse the open wound in hydrogen peroxide and not cover it up with a bandaid.  Both sides fail, because either the infection isn't cured at its root, or the treatment is voided by more incoming bacteria.

So, you need both:  heavily-funded and effective educational system, lower healthcare costs, and urban development are essential to improving people's standard of living, which in turn will make them less likely to committ crimes out of desperation.  At the same time, you allow people access to guns to protect themselves while the aforementioned policies go to work.  Eventually, when people's motivation for committing crime has dropped, guns can be phased out and replaced with the regular police force.

In other words, once that wound has healed, you can take off the bandaid and let your immune system do the rest.

[Nuke]

guns are a lot more fun out in the woods. in the city all a gun can do is get you killed, or some money in a hurry. but in the woods guns are awesome. you can feed yourself with them. you can scare away bears. prevent porcupines from chewing on your wires. get the crows (in our case ravens) out of your garden. **** with your inlaws. start fires. do modern art. slice a watermelon for consumption. remove a flat tire. put holes in wood. the possibilities are endless.

[BloodEagle]

Based on some of the above posts, I feel the need to point out that legally purchased handguns are pretty freaking easy to trace.

Not taking a side on this, though.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Actually the place to start is population control.  Until we quit trying to stick all these people into small areas problems will arise. Less people = more elbow room for everyone.  You didn't hear about all this gun violence years ago except maybe the mob in big cities.  Did it happen?  Yes.  Lot less disputes when you actually have to walk to see a neighbor instead of going outside and seeing 50 most of who have some kind of bad feelings toward each other.

[Kosh]

****. I'm really glad I don't live there any more.

The strict anti-handgun stuff was a big reassurance for us at UChicago. It saved a lot of kids in the surrounding neighborhoods too.

Gun control laws in america are meaningless because in many places it's easy to get guns illegally. That's why gangbangers often have automatic weapons.

[BengalTiger]

It also makes it incredibly easier for criminals to get guns. As I am sort of assuming that going to a store and buying them is easier than, say, going through some shady black-market deals.

In order to register a gun in Ch-go you need 5 hrs of training, a background check (2 DUIs, any violent  crime or crime with the use of weapons disqualifies for life), and pay a fee of $115. Oh yeah, a legal weapon costs hundreds.

In order to buy an illegal gun you go to a local dealer, pay and go home with whatever you need, no b/g check, no questions asked.

[Nuke]

Actually the place to start is population control.  Until we quit trying to stick all these people into small areas problems will arise. Less people = more elbow room for everyone.  You didn't hear about all this gun violence years ago except maybe the mob in big cities.  Did it happen?  Yes.  Lot less disputes when you actually have to walk to see a neighbor instead of going outside and seeing 50 most of who have some kind of bad feelings toward each other.

we dont stick them there, they go there. i prefer to live places with fewer than 100,000 residents. right now i live in a place with about 3000 people. cities have their advantages. products are cheaper, the internet is faster, theres always somewhere to go, and if you so choose you can make a somewhat decent living on some menial job. i really dont see why people want to live in cities. in war they make excellent targets, you can bet your ass all you city dwellers have someone pointing nukes in your general direction. there might be more people but they tend to be a tad more shady, its noisy, and everything is so regulated theres hardly any room to breathe. but here its nice that the stores, the bars, the airport, the hospital, and the ferry terminal are all in walking distance, which is really nice. makes me regret all the time i wasted waiting at bus stops in phoenix. it doesnt matter how big the population has been, people still flock to cities in droves. always have, always will. its a place they can go and get away with being a total douche.

[General Battuta]

****. I'm really glad I don't live there any more.

The strict anti-handgun stuff was a big reassurance for us at UChicago. It saved a lot of kids in the surrounding neighborhoods too.

Gun control laws in america are meaningless because in many places it's easy to get guns illegally. That's why gangbangers often have automatic weapons.

Read my posts in the thread before replying to them.

Thanks,

Battuta

It also makes it incredibly easier for criminals to get guns. As I am sort of assuming that going to a store and buying them is easier than, say, going through some shady black-market deals.

In order to register a gun in Ch-go you need 5 hrs of training, a background check (2 DUIs, any violent  crime or crime with the use of weapons disqualifies for life), and pay a fee of $115. Oh yeah, a legal weapon costs hundreds.

In order to buy an illegal gun you go to a local dealer, pay and go home with whatever you need, no b/g check, no questions asked.

Same goes I guess.