Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Federal Judge Rules Chicago's Ban On Licensed Gun Dealers Unconstitutional

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the urban-bear-hunting dept.

United States 934

wooferhound writes with news that a federal judge has overturned part of Chicago's firearm laws. From CNN: "A federal judge ruled Monday that Chicago's ban on virtually all sales and transfers of firearms is unconstitutional. 'The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment,' wrote U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang." The Chicago Tribune notes: "The ruling also would make it legal for individuals to transfer ownership of a firearm as a gift or through a private sale as long as the recipient was at least 18 and had a firearm owner's identification card." The ruling doesn't change anything yet: the ruling's effect was delayed to give the city time to appeal.

cancel ×

934 comments

1 2 3 4 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889069)

I declare flame war.

Re:1 2 3 4 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889159)

I believe the correct term is "Flamefest"

Re:1 2 3 4 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889165)

No way dude! I don't know about the rest of you, but I, for one, look forward to what is sure to be an insightful and enlightening discussion.

Re: 1 2 3 4 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889439)

Typical libtard nonsense.

Took them long enough... (3, Insightful)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about 7 months ago | (#45889091)

It seems that firearm ownership rights are the only Constitutional issue that this Supreme Court intends on correctly dealing with. At least it's a start - our other rights emanate from the 2nd Amendment.

Re:Took them long enough... (-1, Flamebait)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 7 months ago | (#45889147)

Yes, indeed. I find it so much easier to speak freely knowing that everybody in the room could kill me in a moment if I piss them off enough.

</sarcasm>

Re:Took them long enough... (5, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about 7 months ago | (#45889171)

So you think the only way someone can kill you is with a gun? Must be pretty nice to live in your kind of sheltered world.

Re:Took them long enough... (2, Funny)

AvitarX (172628) | about 7 months ago | (#45889511)

Good luck killing me from across the room in a moment without a gun (a wide stance and a long spear get there too though).

Re:Took them long enough... (0)

x6060 (672364) | about 7 months ago | (#45889187)

No one needs a gun to kill you.

Re:Took them long enough... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889301)

But I need a gun if they have a gun....preferably bigger with more ammunition in a clip...a backup gun would be nice also.

And they better don't keep their hands in their packets or I will assume they are after me.

Re: Took them long enough... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889469)

You only carry one backup piece? You never know which leg will be pointed at the villain when you fall at an inopportune time.

Re:Took them long enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889591)

...And they better don't keep their hands in their packets or I will assume they are after me.

Don't worry about that. Our hands are in their packets.

Signed,
The NSA

Re:Took them long enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889227)

You wouldn't be ABLE to speak freely if people with guns didn't stand up every day and defend your right to free speech.

Re:Took them long enough... (2, Insightful)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 7 months ago | (#45889505)

Let me know next time someone shows up with Congress with a gun demanding the little people get their say because I have literally never seen this happen.

Guns haven't been necessary to defend rights since the war of independence and even then their necessity was questionable seeing as how you can kill someone without a gun anyway. If you want to say you need a gun to hunt and feed your family, I'm on board with that. You want a gun for other fun sport shooting or just to scare off some crows, I'm with you there too. You want a gun because it'll protect you from the massive complex that is federal government is pissing on your right to free speech... Yeah let me know how you make out when they roll over you with a tank, because they're not afraid of your peashooter and waving a gun in their face just gives them the justification to stomp you out of existence rather than negotiate with you peacefully.

Re:Took them long enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889521)

Oh yay the right to have my opinion ignored.

I can speak freely because the propaganda machine is so much stronger than my voice, and it's more cost-effective to ignore me than to silence me.

An armed citizenry is of no consequence, because the weapons controlled by the police+military are so much more powerful. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight, but up a notch.

Re:Took them long enough... (-1, Flamebait)

paiute (550198) | about 7 months ago | (#45889559)

An armed citizenry is of no consequence, because the weapons controlled by the police+military are so much more powerful. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight, but up a notch.

And the same demographic which owns guns to defend itself against the gummit is the same one supporting ever increasing funding for advanced weaponry for the gummit.

Re:Took them long enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889503)

maybe you should reflect upon your speech and speaking and correct your behavior if what comes out your mouth is enough to entice such a response.

Re:Took them long enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889563)

That is a stupid and ignorant comment, you must be a teen or something. Anyone can kill you without a gun, and banning guns will not stop criminals from getting one. The only ones without guns in a gun banned area are those who follow the law, criminals always have guns despite what the law says. So it's you against the criminal, you without a gun and him with gun.

Re:Took them long enough... (1, Informative)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | about 7 months ago | (#45889235)

Well, that's silly. They ruled that the "Defense of Marriage Act"'s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. It (mostly) affirmed the constutionality of "affirmative action" in university admissions. It allowed Congress to change the formula determining which local and state governments have more strict requirements under the Voting Rights Act. And other stuff I can't remember.

Re:Took them long enough... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889241)

Re:Took them long enough... (4, Informative)

Macgruder (127971) | about 7 months ago | (#45889551)

Funny picture. But wrong.

"10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Re:Took them long enough... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889415)

It boggles my mind why people still think gun control will "fix" crime. Crime is a socioeconomic problem. Why is there so much crime? It's not because there are guns. It's because of the way our society, economy and culture are setup. Nothing will change until you address the root underlying causes of crime, and offer people alternatives/programs that they are willing to accept.

Re:Took them long enough... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889531)

It boggles my mind why people still think gun control will "fix" crime. Crime is a socioeconomic problem. Why is there so much crime? It's not because there are guns. It's because of the way our society, economy and culture are setup. Nothing will change until you address the root underlying causes of crime, and offer people alternatives/programs that they are willing to accept.

Might also add that most of the crime is in the inner cities, and most of those crimes are committed with guns that are not purchased legally, registered, or anything else of the sort. As if a criminal cares what the 'law says'.

Re:Took them long enough... (4, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#45889545)

Crime has a socioeconomic component but it is not solely a socioeconomic factor. Guns help people to exert the right to defend themselves from crime.

The government cannot, even if it was an efficient machine protect you with any reliability, it is immoral to take from you the right to try and do it yourself.

Re:Took them long enough... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889553)

You know what's sad?

The people most opposed to gun control are the ones who are also most opposed to fixing the underlying problems, so what are we supposed to do?

Go with their solution?

Re:Took them long enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889471)

You think the Constitution allows cops to just walk up to the front door of your home without a warrant and use a drug sniffing dog to see if you have any prohibited substances inside? You think the Constitution allows you receive a longer sentence based on guidelines passed by the legislature after you commit the crime? You think the Constitution allows companies to patent naturally occurring gene sequences just because they isolated them? I would guess you answer to those questions is no and you do not know what you're talking about.
 

Re:Took them long enough... (2)

pavon (30274) | about 7 months ago | (#45889543)

The Supreme Court hasn't even heard this case - it was decided by a federal judge. And if it does get to the Supreme Court they most likely will choose not hear it since there is nothing (legally) controversial about the ruling as it stands.

News for nerds?? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889115)

Why is this on slashdot?
This is a not a gun blog.

Re:News for nerds?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889149)

Normally I get tired of hearing this complaint. But I honestly don't understand why this story was put up. Has Dice requested that Slashdot put up more conservative politics? These stories are so odd and this isn't the first one that's purely political.

Re:"News for nerds??" (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 7 months ago | (#45889195)

yes, the whole

Why is this on slashdot?

comment is kind of a trope, but it is a valid question in the case of this article.

'gun control' has been an ongoing debate (flamewar) all across our culture lately...there is nothing newsworthy about **this** one particular ruling that has anything to do with technology or other typical /. topics.

we need to stop...all of us...everyone is in favor of some kind of 'gun control'...as in no one believes, rationally, that Americans should be allowed to own/operate any kind of weaponry without limit.

it's **where we draw the line** that is at issue...we need to start asking that question, and debating it in a proper forum, not a site with a focus like slashdot

Re:"News for nerds??" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889291)

"no one believes, rationally, that Americans should be allowed to own/operate any kind of weaponry without limit."

I won't get into every facet this brings up, but I will say this - ordinary citizens should be able to own any weapon that is carried by a soldier in battle. Why? Because the primary intent of the second amendment was to always allow the people to be armed well enough to fight their government if ever they needed to. A lot of folks disagree with this, but that WAS the intent, if you actually study what the founding fathers believed. Obviously, the second amendment is not wordy enough to fully explain itself, and the main bone of contention is the meaning of "well-regulated militia", but again, if you read what the founding fathers said about it, the "militia" was the people. ALL of the people.

Re:"News for nerds??" (4, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#45889337)

The definition 'well regulated militia' is irrelevant. The right is of 'the people'. If they wanted the right to be of 'the militia' they would have written that. Clearly they knew the word, having just used it.

Re: "News for nerds??" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889515)

The militia consisting of all white male citizens capable of marching. Obviously the founders were so concerned about the rights of other demographics they forgot to enfranchise them.

Re:"News for nerds??" (0)

buck-yar (164658) | about 7 months ago | (#45889437)

2nd Amendment and the bill of rights was a mistake, as many at the time stated. Codifying certain rights presupposes that the govt grants rights. Gun ownership, and self defense were common law, and it was argued that coding basic human rights into words would be counter to the notion of the founders of this federal govt had that rights were inherent in humans and govt didn't grant those rights.

Re:"News for nerds??" (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 7 months ago | (#45889567)

2nd Amendment and the bill of rights was a mistake, as many at the time stated.

Citation please.

Re:"News for nerds??" (2, Insightful)

dbc (135354) | about 7 months ago | (#45889339)

First, yes, let's get this discusson off of slashdot. It is sad when articles on robotics get 60 comments total, and firearms flamewars get to 500 in a few hours. But..

> no one believes, rationally, that Americans should be allowed to own/operate any kind of weaponry without limit.

What do you think the founders believed? In the early revolutionary period, the US had no navy. They issued letters of marque to privately owned, armed ships. As in: private individuals owned war ships.

The consitution has a mechanism to amend it. If you don't like what it says, use that. Letting 9 old timers in black robes try to convince us to collectively believe that it means something other than the plain words on the paper is caustic to the rule of law.

But yes, the debate should be about where to draw the line today, in the here-and-now. But, please, don't try to tell me "well, this week, this is what these words mean." Becuase I'm not buying it.

Re:"News for nerds??" (1)

ka9dgx (72702) | about 7 months ago | (#45889455)

What do you think the founders believed? In the early revolutionary period, the US had no navy. They issued letters of marque to privately owned, armed ships. As in: private individuals owned war ships.

Wrong... dead wrong. The States each had their own Navy, and they were combined in 1775. The first Continental Navy ship was launched in September, 1775.

I applaud your Libertarian worldview, but it is not consistent with reality in this instance.

Re:"News for nerds??" (1)

buck-yar (164658) | about 7 months ago | (#45889343)

No one believes? I guess you never read anything by James Madison, writer of the Constitution.

Go back to Eur-Asia with your statism please.

Re:News for nerds?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889197)

This is about constitutional rights, which nerds are concerned with.

Re:News for nerds?? (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 7 months ago | (#45889203)

"This is a not a gun blog."

This is not a tech site. It's a general news site. Until something which engages the last bits of the old Slashdot comes along, Dicedot is basically 4chan but going downhill as reflected in the flood of general stories and the tech ignorance of posters.

It makes more money this way so it will never revert.

Most importantly, how to triforce?

Re:News for nerds?? (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 7 months ago | (#45889335)

Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters.

Nerds like guns? (5, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 7 months ago | (#45889445)

Some nerds like guns. Some nerds REALLY like guns. In fact, some nerds are defined by the fact that they play a ton of games that revolve around, pretty much, guns... So, guns themselves aren't "anti-nerd."

Re:News for nerds?? (5, Funny)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 7 months ago | (#45889233)

Gun nuts are just a different kind of nerd.

Re:News for nerds?? (5, Funny)

Megane (129182) | about 7 months ago | (#45889309)

Because it's about GNU control.

Re:News for nerds?? (5, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#45889399)

Actually, when politicians attempt to regulate technology they do not understand, that's news for nerds. Whether it's firearms or encryption or pen-test software or whatever.

Age and the constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889117)

As a non american, does "The ruling also would make it legal for individuals to transfer ownership of a firearm as a gift or through a private sale as long as the recipient was at least 18 and had a firearm owner's identification card." mean that you are not protected by the constitution if you're not 18 years old?

Re:Age and the constitution (2)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | about 7 months ago | (#45889215)

Actually, yes, that is the case. Kids have no right to free speech, or any right to reasonable search and seizure of their property

Re:Age and the constitution (1)

beschra (1424727) | about 7 months ago | (#45889219)

Protected by, yes. Full access to all constitutional rights, no. Despite how US constitutional arguments are often presented, there are actually quite a few limits placed on things guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. The classic example is that it is illegal to falsley and intentionally yell "Fire" in a movie theater, which is a limit on freedom of free speech, a right guaranteed by the constitution. At some point it became established in US law that 18 years of life makes you an adult who is entitled to a number of things. This is an application of that principle.

Re:Age and the constitution (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889267)

US law that 18 years of life makes you an adult

Not US law but custom. States can stipulate arbitrary age of majority such as Nebraska where it's 19.

Re:Age and the constitution (3, Informative)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 7 months ago | (#45889253)

Short answer: Pretty much yes.

Long answer: While legally it's "no" the truth is that minors have significantly less rights than adults. It's even worse than that since in America you're no longer considered a minor when you turn 18 or 19 depending on the state, but you can't drink or own a pistol until you're 21.

There are several cases where US schools have punished students for doing things which aren't illegal while off school grounds. Student's have essentially no rights while they are on school grounds. They can be searched without any justification. They're punished if they have something that even like a weapon [techdirt.com] . Even worse, school is compulsory, so it's not like any of this is opt out.

Re:Age and the constitution (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 7 months ago | (#45889271)

Well the cynical part of me says: pretty much

Re:Age and the constitution (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 7 months ago | (#45889281)

...does [this] mean that you are not protected by the constitution if you're not 18 years old?

In practice, yes. And not just in this respect, either -- schools, for example, do all kinds of things that would be unconstitutional to do to adults.

Re:Age and the constitution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889321)

What's hilarious to me is that you can drive a car or own a gun, but aren't allowed to have a beer until you're 21. Fucking laughable remnants of yesteryear puritanism.

Not to mention the concepts of "dry counties", and not being able to buy alcohol at certain hours, or certain days. It's effing crazy, it's like they live in the 1800's.

Or the laughably outdated banking system, having to pay to use an ATM, the concept of a "checking account", actually using cheques in this day and age, using credit cards for everything instead of debit cards like the rest of the world.

Or paying to receive phone calls or texts.

Or the laughable driving tests, or the concept of being able to 190mph drive a motorcycle without any training or licensing whatsoever. Or the use of a crash helmet not being mandatory.

Or that you're truly and royally fucked if you ever get sick because, let's face it, insurance companies are the scum of the earth and they will walk uphill both ways barefoot in the snow to try and deny you coverage, which will leave you with the option of dieing from lack of treatment or bankrupting yourself for something that any other sane nation would treat for nearly free.

Yes. The good ol' US of A is one of the most bass-ackwards countries.

Re:Age and the constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889533)

National Minimum Drinking Age Act was influenced by "Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), required all states to enforce a minimum legal drinking age of 21 or else risk losing 10% of all federal highway construction funds."

Re:Age and the constitution (0)

Rob Riggs (6418) | about 7 months ago | (#45889561)

"laughable remnants of yesteryear puritanism???"

Typical anonymous teenage American idiot. The 21-year drinking limit is a very recent manifestation of nanny state activism brought to you by MADD [wikipedia.org] . I am actually old enough to remember when an 18-year old could buy alcohol in most states. Your idiocy is why we don't let kids your age drink. You're all fools.

Re:Age and the constitution (2, Interesting)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about 7 months ago | (#45889323)

Fortunately where I used to live I was empowered with freedoms and I got my first gun at about age 8 or 10. I learned responsible gun safety and marksmanship at a good age and my parents kept it for me so that I was only allowed to use it under supervision.

2 or 3 decades later after continuous gun ownership I still haven't shot any people or had any firearms accidents resulting in human injury. Additionally I retain the ability to secure meat for food and the ability to defend my home and family against malicious intruders.

Re:Age and the constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889601)

You learned what a gun does and how to use it. It was used with respect.

I think states/cities would be better off with enforced gun training. Bans will not work at all with our current constitution. So work with what you have. You would be better following the 'well regulated' bit.

I propose in order to own a gun you must use it at least once a year. In a class you pay for. The class should have some rules behind it to keep people from just 'getting the cert'.

Basically you want a gun. You should be able to use it and know how to use it responsibly.

Re:Age and the constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889325)

Sort of. You do not gain full citizenship ("majority") until you are 18. Hence the term "minor".

No voting until 18, no gun ownership (no true ownership of anything, really) till 18 (handguns are 21, depending on the state). No right to seek work until 18 (although that depends on the state and the legal guardian), etc.

Alcohol is 21.

Until you reach majority status at 18, you are the responsibility of you guardian.

Some states, such as Texas, allow you to be charged with any crime as an adult at 17 (or younger, depending on the crime).

Re:Age and the constitution (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 7 months ago | (#45889373)

Many rights are denied legal minors such as the right to vote. The right to bear arms seems to be another one not afforded to minors. I don't see a problem with that.

Re:Age and the constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889397)

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but basically it is recognized that certain people are excluded from certain parts of the Constitution. For example, you have to be 18 to vote, you cannot own a gun if you are certified mentally unstable, and there are limits to your ability to own a gun if you are a felon (you can have one at home for self-defense, but not elsewhere).

Gun control (-1, Troll)

SoupGuru (723634) | about 7 months ago | (#45889141)

How many crimes were perpetrated with fully automatic machine guns? How many school killings were committed with one? How many people in the USA died at the wrong end of a fully automatic assault rifle?

Clearly, having a full auto rifle would help the sick person achieve his goals more efficiently.

I'll tell you why there are so few deaths from fully automatic assault rifles: gun control works.

Re:Gun control (2)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 7 months ago | (#45889185)

Uhh.... yyoouu have no idea what you're talking about. At no point in your rambling statement of unconnected and generally false ideas did you make any sense.

I award you no points... and my Charlton Heston have mercy on your soul.

Re:Gun control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889205)

unless people are stacked in front of you like wood, you aren't going to hit much on full auto

most people killed by firearms are killed by handguns - semi-auto is more than enough if your opponents aren't armed, and is better if you lack training anyway

Re:Gun control (1)

x6060 (672364) | about 7 months ago | (#45889239)

That only accounts for Legally obtained fully automatic weapons. What about Illegally obtained fully automatic weapons. Besides the fact that you completely ignore the nuances of the NFA and FOPA act of 1986 is staggering. It is COMPLETELY legal to own fully automatic weapons, however those willing to pay the price and go through the hassle tend to not be criminals. Instead they pay their brother vinny 20$ to illegally convert it for them.

Re:Gun control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889257)

Troll

Re:Gun control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889273)

-Unless you look at conclusions from scientific, non-partisan studies performed on gun control's effect on violent crime, instead of trying to use witty analogies involving apples and oranges.

But gun control advocates don't let pesky things like numbers and facts get in their way. "Sandy Hook! Sandy Hook!"

Re:Gun control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889513)

The facts show that more people are killed every year in the United States by Knives than by "Assault Rifles." However public opinion is driven more by emotion than by facts.

Re:Gun control (2)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about 7 months ago | (#45889369)

Let's turn that "logic" on to the Chicago situation: how many murders are committed in Chicago with semi-automatic handguns or revolvers? Answer= IDK A LOT > 0.

Yet Chicago has been banning the legal sale to lawful owners of handguns for a long time. Gun Control fails. Criminals Murder.

Re:Gun control (4, Informative)

OhPlz (168413) | about 7 months ago | (#45889465)

Not only that, but most of the mass killings lately have been in "gun free zones". Clearly the gun free zones do not protect life or liberty.

Re:Gun control (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 7 months ago | (#45889497)

Zero. Gun control measures at anything but the federal level are utterly worthless, as there's no border control between states. The most lax controls of anywhere in the country are the de facto controls for the entire country.

Re:Gun control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889487)

To think that gun control would ever reduce the violence; these people would be knifing each other like it was '94 in Rwanda if they had no guns. In fact, if you check the statistics, they do. And now that they're impoverished and disarmed by their government, they're getting in groups and raiding stores wholesale.

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpTJ6ctj77Y

If you don't solve the underlying reason for the violence, it will continue.

Clearly, a student of history would prudently recognize the lack of sufficient self-defense capability by a domestic body politique is an invitation to tyranny and foreign invasion. Ultimately, if you compare the total of every single domestic firearm related death including suicide and every death in every war, you'd find genocide kills as many if not more than war does, and War and Genocide kill FAR more than domestic firearms would ever conceive of.

A sufficiently armed populace Eliminates both War and Genocide.

But keep telling yourself gun control works Comrade, if you're an unfavorable religion or political party, you'll be put to rest soon enough.

Assault weapon bans are just propaganda (5, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about 7 months ago | (#45889569)

How many crimes were perpetrated with fully automatic machine guns?

Very few. The actual number is pretty close to none [freerepublic.com] .

How many school killings were committed with one?

Also an incredibly small number.

How many people in the USA died at the wrong end of a fully automatic assault rifle?

So few that it is statistically insignificant. The exact number is less than 100

I'll tell you why there are so few deaths from fully automatic assault rifles: gun control works.

Really? There are about 100 million rifles in the US with AR15 "assault rifles" accounting for around 5 million of these. In 2012 rifles of any sort were used to kill 348 people. That means the percentage of rifles used in a murder is 0.000384%. More people were killed from hands and feet then were killed by rifles of any sort last year. And you are going to tell me that an assault weapon ban is anything but propaganda?

If you want to talk about gun control, handguns account for virtually all murders with a firearm. Worrying about any other type of firearm is simply a waste of time.

FTFA (4, Informative)

colin_faber (1083673) | about 7 months ago | (#45889169)

"Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms,"

Re:FTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889385)

Do you have a point or are you just being redundant?

hold it (-1, Troll)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | about 7 months ago | (#45889249)

Hold the phone here: The constitution says that we have the right to own and possess guns, yet makes no mention of the right to sell them. I'm actually 100% positive what Chicago did here was not illegal

Re:hold it (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 7 months ago | (#45889285)

If you remove the right to sell them, then you remove the right to own them. What'r we all supposed to do, make our own guns?

Re:hold it (3, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | about 7 months ago | (#45889473)

Yes. [defdist.org]

we can make them (1)

eleuthero (812560) | about 7 months ago | (#45889573)

...unless you live in Philly, anyway. The US government left the loopholes in place in December for using 3D printing to make plastic guns (you just have to have a metal strip so it meets the requirements of current law).

Re:hold it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889377)

Better run and tell the judge! I'm sure you know much more about the relevant facts, circumstances and laws than he does.

Re:hold it (1)

Libertarian_Geek (691416) | about 7 months ago | (#45889379)

Hold the phone here: The constitution says that we have the right to own and possess guns, yet makes no mention of the right to sell them. I'm actually 100% positive what Chicago did here was not illegal

That's akin to saying that the constitution allows for free speech, but not for the pre-requisite air.

Re: hold it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889587)

My confidence that you are ignorant of the meaning of your statement is unity.

Guns keep you safe??? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889261)

How may gun-relate crimes have been stopped thanks to citizen carrying guns? It seems to me that the more guns there are, the more death there are.

Re:Guns keep you safe??? (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about 7 months ago | (#45889461)

how many gun deaths and violent crimes are there in areas that forbid people the means to defend themselve, such as Chicago?

Note Chicago is a gun-free zone legally (courts told them recently they had to implement permit system but they're dragging their heals on it)

Note what happens in most areas where concealed carry is implemented, initial spike of justifiable homocides followed by lower crime rate.

Re:Guns keep you safe??? (2)

daninaustin (985354) | about 7 months ago | (#45889463)

Many criminals have been shot and killed by good guys with guns. Many more have been stopped just by seeing the good guy with the gun. Google it. The examples are not hard to find.

Sweet Troll, Bro. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889475)

How may gun-relate crimes have been stopped thanks to citizen carrying guns? It seems to me that the more guns there are, the more death there are.

Sweet troll, bro. But, I'll bite.

Surely you've seen the reports of failed muggings, robberies, home invasions and more because the victim was armed and able to defend themselves, no? Google it. It happens every day all across America.

Regardless of laws, criminals will always be there. Guns will always be there and in the hands of criminals. There are dozens(hundreds?) of countries where possession of a firearm is illegal. But, this has yet to prevent gun violence and deaths in those same countries.

The fact that I carry a gun, significantly reduces the likelihood of me dying from a lack of shooting back.

Re:Guns keep you safe??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889479)

The reason it seems that way to you is your willful ignorance of the facts and data.

Re:Guns keep you safe??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889565)

500 rapes and 1,000 murders are prevented, in the US, every day, by guns according to the DOJ's Crime Victimization Survey -- so roughly 2/3rds of attempted violent crimes. 90% of these are simply brandishing the gun and only like 2 people per day have to be killed in self defense to make the point.

On the flipside, if guns don't keep you safe, why do police have them?

Re:Guns keep you safe??? (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 7 months ago | (#45889585)

Not really, no. While the media is very happy to talk about any incident where someone is killed by a handgun they are next to silent on all the incidents where a death or injury was avoided with the use of a firearm. It sounds counter intuitive, I know. But the numbers are there. Never forgot that plenty of people get injured or killed with no firearm related weapons.

Its counter productive (5, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 7 months ago | (#45889277)

Another study just came out showing that increased gun ownership actually lowers the murder rate and lower gun ownership does the opposite. We have multiple points of confirmation and there are a few skeptical politicians that are starting to come around.

The old truism is confirmed. Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them.

Does Chicago have a violence problem? Yes. Gun bans are not the solution.

Re:Its counter productive (2, Interesting)

Faluzeer (583626) | about 7 months ago | (#45889351)

Another study just came out showing that increased gun ownership actually lowers the murder rate and lower gun ownership does the opposite. We have multiple points of confirmation and there are a few skeptical politicians that are starting to come around.

The old truism is confirmed. Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them.

Does Chicago have a violence problem? Yes. Gun bans are not the solution.

What study? Can you please provide a link to it.

Re:Its counter productive (5, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 7 months ago | (#45889571)

Here is one of them:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294#.Urh7a_ZRYvR [tandfonline.com]

If you'd like me to link you to summaries or commentary then I can do that though appreciate those will be from blogs and so forth. If you want to read the actual study you'll have to get it from those fellows.

If you want to save yourself some time, here is a quote:

""It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level.""

So there you go. Why are we fighting about this issue?

The gun people want to keep their guns. Why are the anti gun people fighting them? They say it is to save lives. But that might be a mistake on their part.

For the sake argument, assuming these laws don't reduce murder, do we still want to ban guns?

It just seems so needlessly confrontational. Leave people alone. If they want to carry guns let them do so. Does that mean every so often a crazy person will kill some people with such a weapon? Possibly but they're crazy and honestly could probably find something to do their deed. Remember, the 9/11 hijackers killed over 3000 people with a collection of box cutters.

If you have a will to kill then you really don't need a gun. And I'll be honest... I like the idea of NORMAL non-criminal people that aren't crazy having access to guns. I think that's a good thing. I think society is most secure when the most reasonable people have the trump card on violence.

My neighbors are mostly good people. If things get crazy the idea of us all popping up with a gun seems like a good check against anarchy.

Also... zombies can't use guns... so take that zombie uprising. The robot uprising might be more of a problem. After all those bastards can use guns.

Re:Its counter productive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889595)

I'm not the OP, nor do I know if this is the same study being referred to, but heres a similar study : http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

Re:Its counter productive (1)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 7 months ago | (#45889499)

I hope you aren't a statistician. I'm guessing that the study you mention doesn't take into account how segregated Chicago is in terms of poverty and crime. Gun ownership in Lincoln Park isn't going to lower the murder rate in Chatham. Do you really think flooding the south side with handguns would actually lower the murder rate?

Wrong target (5, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 7 months ago | (#45889287)

Laws like this target gun owners who follow the law. The problem is that most of the violence is perpetrated by people who could not buy a gun legally anyway. There are some cases of legally owned guns being used illegally but that is not the norm. This law will do nothing to curb the illegal gun trade.

Local laws like this have little or no effect except moving the legal gun dealers and the jobs out of the jurisdiction. All gun buyers who would normally do business in Chicago will do is drive outside the city and buy their guns. The result will be the same.

Banning the sale of a legal product that is protected by the constitution will be almost impossible. When a higher court refuses to hear the case the politicians can say "At least we tried". This is a PR stunt as they just want to look like they are doing something even when they know it will not work. What a waste of time and money that could be better used elsewhere.

So if this ban on the gun ban holds... (4, Interesting)

MiniMike (234881) | about 7 months ago | (#45889363)

If this ruling is upheld, and the law is permanently ruled unconstitutional, what happens to the people previously convicted under this law? IANAL, obviously.

Re:So if this ban on the gun ban holds... (2)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 7 months ago | (#45889495)

Generally speaking they don't invalidate your felony convictions even if the laws change after the fact. Remember reading something about that in relation to bans on abortion. Maybe you can go before a judge and get it expunged from the records. That is... if you don't end up with a judge that still thinks the ban on whatever activity you were convicted of was a good idea or not.

Will D.C. be next? (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 7 months ago | (#45889405)

Among non-gun nuts it is not well know that you can no legally sale or transfer a handgun across state lines. So unless you move somewhere with your handguns you have to buy them in the state or territory where you live. Although the Heller decision struck down outright prohibition or handguns in the cities of Chicago an Washington DC they are still not easy to get. In the case of the later there are no federally licensed gun dealers in the greater D.C. area. So you effective can not own a handgun there still. There has been attempts to chance that law but it continues to be to held in place by anti-self defense factions within the government. IE the political left.

As a small caveat this idea has no bearing upon the carrying of handguns. Which is still very VERY illegal in D.C. This is merely related to the near ownership of handguns. Which is pretty much the optimal weapon for self defense. Don't believe the hype that 'Double Barrel Biden' says about it.

Evidence that gun laws don't work in America (5, Insightful)

troll -1 (956834) | about 7 months ago | (#45889489)

America is not like Europe. If strict gun laws worked then you'd expect Chicago's gun crime to be low instead of among the highest in the nation. All the criminals in Chicago have guns, irrespective of what the law says. The only people affected by these laws are law abiding citizens who may want to protect themselves. Banning guns would make us all safer if you could ban them from everyone, everywhere.

Talk about missing the point (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45889603)

Chicago has such a huge murder rate for two reasons. One, it's gun laws are way too lax. People are still allowed to buy guns there. Two, those laws are not strictly enforced enough. There are no common sense door to door searches. If either of those things were true, they wouldn't have a problem. Instead, we have Republicans that lobby to make gun crimes worse in Chicago. They even call it Shitcago to demonstrate their hate. They hate the place so much they want fewer gun laws which will create more murders. That is what you are asking for.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...