SCOTUS tells Chicago to shove it.

[Darius871]

Here's the part I was referring to that's directly on-point; it's not exactly a new concept in constitutional law:

Municipal respondents maintain that the Second Amendment differs from all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights because it concerns the right to possess a deadly implement and thus has implications for public safety. Brief for Municipal Respondents 11. And they note that there is intense disagreement on the question whether the private possession of guns in the home increases or decreases gun deaths and injuries. Id ., at 11, 13–17.

The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g ., Hudson v. Michigan , 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon , 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984) , which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large”); Barker v. Wingo , 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id. , at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that the Court’s rule “[i]n some unknown number of cases … will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets … to repeat his crime”); Mapp , 367 U. S., at 659. Municipal respondents cite no case in which we have refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding on the States on the ground that the right at issue has disputed public safety implications.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZO.html

[Darius871]

On the other hand, the rapist with the gun gun permits the rapist to better control the woman, no?

Let's just hope she's a better shot.


Seriously, without even having to argue whether pepper spray is effective enough (it's not), or whether tasers can be as reliably aimed and maintained on a large and agile assailant (they aren't), or whether either is useful at all against multiple assailants (they sure as hell aren't), let's not forget that for every self-defense shooting there are countless self-defense brandishings that go unreported. Nine times out of ten that'll be enough, even with an armed attacker who'd rather get away and look for a less feisty victim. Nobody likes getting shot and having to explain it.

[Asher]

I hope you someday understand how silly that sounds.

The whole concept of a society where everyone carries guns should be terrifying to any reasonable person.

[Darius871]

If ten people have to die in intentional crimes I have nothing to do with just so I can can have the peace of mind of knowing I can wave a gun in some mugger's face to save the $3 in my wallet, so be it. It just plain feels hella-kickass, and I couldn't perform with my wife otherwise. Ain't no gummint taking that away from me.

[Asher]

There is no hope for your country.

If you reach for your gun, wouldn't the mugger (who has his own gun) simply blow your brains out first? Carrying a gun to defend against muggings ensures the situation escalates, which actually puts you in MORE danger.

[Darius871]

The whole concept of a society where everyone carries guns should be terrifying to any reasonable person.

Besides, who said anything about "everyone carries guns"? Obviously I'd be for disqualifying certain diagnosed mental conditions and all felons (scratch that, all non-traffic criminal records), with mandatory minimum sentences for disqualified possession. See how many hardened criminals have guns from anything other than the black market, which would inevitably exist under any degree of gun control (albeit at different prices).

[Hauldren Collider]

Very few criminals obtain guns legally anyway, and virtually all sport users obtain guns legally. Gun control doesn't make it much harder to get a gun.

Consider this: Locks are for honest people. Criminals just break windows. If you're going to break the law and kill someone, getting convicted on a gun charge is not something you're worried about.

[Hauldren Collider]

There is no hope for your country.

If you reach for your gun, wouldn't the mugger (who has his own gun) simply blow your brains out first? Carrying a gun to defend against muggings ensures the situation escalates, which actually puts you in MORE danger.

You are not considering the deterrent effect of civilians being armed. You're less likely to rob someone knowing they are also armed.

[Darius871]

There is no hope for your country.

If you reach for your gun, wouldn't the mugger (who has his own gun) simply blow your brains out first? Carrying a gun to defend against muggings ensures the situation escalates, which actually puts you in MORE danger.

Where is this assumption that the mugger will have the gun coming from? Every one of the half-dozen or so people I know who've been mugged got clocked with a blunt object or outnumbered by fists. The types of people engaged in petty thefts are typically either A) disqualified from possession on the basis of prior criminal record and/or B) too ****ing dirt-poor to buy a gun even if they could (that's why they're resorting to crime). That, and be damned sure you pull first. The thrill of the quickdraw McGraw routine is half the fun.

Or even better, have an actual open-carry regime so the mugger can actually see your piece before you have to pull it, in which case he looks elsewhere for some milquetoast victim and there isn't even any situation to "escalate."

[Asher]

Very few criminals obtain guns legally anyway

The market of available illegal guns is larger when there are more guns available legally. They get stolen, etc. and made available in the black market.

Have you considered that before?

[Asher]

Where is this assumption that the mugger will have the gun coming from?

From the assumption that he's a criminal who could easily find a gun on the blackmarket (which is massive due to the popularity of LEGAL guns in your country), and the assumption that he knows he needs a gun if the person he's trying to rob will probably also have a gun?

[Hauldren Collider]

The market for illegal guns is larger when there are more guns available legally. They get stolen, etc. and made available in the black market.

Have you considered that before?

This court case covers state-level gun control. Given that federal gun control has already been struck down, adding gun control to a single state is pretty damn pointless since you can pretty easily (as in, without any difficulty whatsoever) smuggle things across state borders.

[Asher]

This court case covers state-level gun control. Given that federal gun control has already been struck down, adding gun control to a single state is pretty damn pointless since you can pretty easily (as in, without any difficulty whatsoever) smuggle things across state borders.

Probably, but this isn't what I'm arguing. I think the gun control laws should be on a federal level, just by virtue of any other kind of ban is impractical to enforce in any reasonable way due to the lack of border control.

[Darius871]

From the assumption that he's a criminal who could easily find a gun on the blackmarket (which is massive due to the popularity of LEGAL guns in your country), and the assumption that he knows he needs a gun if the person he's trying to rob will probably also have a gun?

A) A black market will exist under any gun control regime. The only difference is that tightened supply may increase prices to a level not cost-effective for the very bottom margins of the criminal element, which aren't necessarily the most violent ones.

B) Even with the more vibrant black market here, an illegal gun would tend to exceed the legitimate price range of several hundred dollars, which is well beyond the means of your ordinary street mugger. Find a better example.

C) Quit being a pus*y and learn to draw first.

[Asher]

A) A black market will exist under any gun control regime. The only difference is that tightened supply may increase prices to a level not cost-effective for the very bottom margins of the criminal element.

Yes, it's basic supply/demand. A huge market of legal guns means it's easier to steal/otherwise acquire legal guns and put them on the black market. The influx of supply lowers price. Lower price increases number of criminals with guns.

Any questions? It sounds like you're not even contesting this, which is good.

B) Even with the more vibrant black market here, an illegal gun would tend to exceed the legitimate price range of several hundred dollars, which is well beyond the means of your ordinary street mugger. Find a better example.

It's not that uncommon for muggers to have guns. It's a valid example.

A friend of mine in Sacramento was mugged by a dude with a gun.