Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Chicago Handgun Ban

One of the more high profile court decisions as of late (at least locally) has been the reversal of the handgun ban in Chicago. I touched on it a little in my introductory post, but I’ll reiterate. Chicago’s handgun ban had been in place since 1982. You could not purchase a gun inside the city limits. You could own one; however it had to be purchased before ’82.

Growing up in the suburbs, I always heard a lot of debate about this law on the news. On one hand, this would lower the total number of guns in Chicago, leading to less usage of guns. However, on the other hand, Chicago residents would have a significantly lowered sense of security if one was to threaten their home. Obviously it was a heated debate, and those who argued it stood their ground.

Personally, for a long time, I thought it was a good thing. I just figured that if they were banned, the overall number of guns would keep going down and down until they're all gone, and then all the violence would be gone.

Unfortunately, I was ten years old, so I didn't really think outside the box. It ultimately comes down to the fact that if you really needed a gun, you could get one. And that's what people- primarily criminals- did. Whether it was one way or the other, guns were acquired. Obviously those who passed the law meant well, I'm just not sure back in 1982, they could picture the violence that is seen these days in Chicago.

Some quick examples


Ever since 1982, criminals would be able to get their hands on guns without it being on their conscience, and residents had no solid way to defend them selves...and if they did have a gun purchased after 1982, they too would become a criminal.

However this past June, after a three month debate in the Supreme Court, the law was struck down. To make a long opinion short, it was ruled unconstitutional, in violation of the second amendment. 

A few days after this law was repealed, a Rasmussen Poll was conducted. Its results showed that 67% of those surveyed said cities do not have the right to ban handguns. Not only had Chicago had its ban overturned, Washington DC also had their ban overturned two years prior. It seems as if people are becoming more accepting towards guns.

One of the reasons may be increased crime in metropolitan areas. Could it be due to the economy? A Rasmussen poll also shows that 80% of Americans think so. Personally I'd agree. It seems when the economy plunges into a recession, the "average" person has to resort to things they never thought they'd do to get by. I think it's safe to assume that crime is another unfortunate result of the rough economic times of the past few years.

Back to my initial topic- I think that it was a correct move to overturn the gun ban. I'd figure, with crime so bad in Chicago that the governor is considering bringing in the National Guard, some type of move must occur to quell this seemingly increasing trend. While it is still too early to see if the reversal of the ban has saved lives, only time will tell.



Sunday, September 5, 2010

Concealed Carry

One area of gun control which has many different approaches to is concealed carry. According to a recent Rasmussen report, 47% of adults oppose "open carry" laws. While it may seem like a straightforward "Yes or No" issue, there are many in-betweens. First of all, there are four different jurisdictions which dictate concealed carry.

Unrestricted- No permit required to carry

Shall Issue- Permit shall be issued if certain requirements are met

May Issue- A permit can be issued, but only by local authorities, and if requirements are met

No Issue- Illegal to publicly carry a firearm.

As of September 5th, 36 states are shall issue. 10 (Including California & New York) are may issue. Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont are unrestricted, and only the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, and Illinois are no issue.

My opinion on it is this: I'm comfortable with Illinois' status, most likely because I have lived here my whole life and I'm used to it. I think that, hypothetically, if two people were in a heated dispute (or even not heated; it could just be a stupid argument) and guns were involved, things would get messy pretty quick. Just thinking about my experiences here on campus- I see people doing stupid things (including myself sometimes), and if a gun were injected some of these situations, they would most likely end poorly. Especially with alcohol present. If two people were in such a heated argument that they actually did want to shoot each other, the fact that they would have to go all the way home to get their gun is probably enough time for them to calm down about things.

I can see the other side of the argument though. I'm sure that one would be less likely to rob any public place due to the fact that somebody could have a gun on them. Also, think about all of the "Crime Alerts" that have gone out in these first few weeks. If people were able to carry guns on them, I'm sure all these criminals wouldn't be jumping people anymore.

I guess it just comes down to if one is intelligent enough to carry a gun in public...well, not just that. Obviously many factors go into each individual owner, and while reviewing every single gun owner on a case by case basis would be a good thing, it certainly is not going to happen. I'm sure I could take a look at some research done on these factors to come to a more accurate conclusion...maybe tomorrow!






Some other topics I will eventually go over

-Application process for a FOID
-Gun Shows
-2010 Senate / Gubernatorial Candidates & Guns
-International views on guns
-I'll try to eventually (reluctantly) incorporate some quantitative reasoning into some gun-related topic
-Firearm training process
-Firearm crime in Chicago