Detroit police chief: Legal gun owners can deter crime

[MRT144]

What an idiot... if anyone tries to rob you, obviously you should attempt to kill them.

Ben's really a fundamentalist muslim when you think about it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben's really a fundamentalist muslim when you think about it.

That's right, polytubbies. On 9-11, all the 3000 people in the tower deserved to die.

Self defense is self defense. If some Joe Blow carjacks me by sticking a gun in my face, I am legally entitled to shoot to kill.

There's a difference between self defense and terrorism, MRT.

[Ben Kenobi]

LOL, You probably were targeted because of how much of a ****bird you are cosmically.

Explain how my landlady felt seeing her unlocked heirloom door that was a gift from her then late father trashed by moron boy attempting to break in. I was lucky. I had nothing of mine stolen and didn't suffer any lasting injury, despite the home invasion.

Or the girl who got pulled through the window till. Did she deserve that? You gonna tell her to her face that what happened to her was her just desserts?

I fact on all 5 occasions, someone else suffered more than me. Like I said, I was fortunate. It could have been much worse.

You're right though. I did get targetted when I had an excellent Catholic boss who paid me well. That was a good year and I really made some strides financially that year. They did manage to trash my motel room and take stuff that I had great difficulty replacing. Some of which I won't ever be able to.

And you're a ****bag, but then I think we already knew that MRT.

[Ben Kenobi]

if anyone tries to rob you, obviously you should attempt to kill them.

This is Texas. You and your pal want to run over, and try to force a driver out at a stop light by shoving a gun in his face? If the driver doesn't get you, the car behind him will. And Texas will give you the daily double bonus if you get both of em.

[DinoDoc]

Mugging in the UK, virtually ignored by the police, and basically a slap on the wrist if caught.

This sounds like idiocy is rampant in your police and legal system.

[DinoDoc]

What an idiot... if anyone tries to rob you, obviously you should attempt to kill them.

The thief does assume the risks inherent in his profession.

Most of those cases involved citizens who defended themselves by killing criminals. Among them: 77-year-old Willie White, who in March 2012, fatally shot a man who’d broken into his northwest Detroit home.

Prior to the incident, White’s home had been broken into several times. The break-ins stopped after he killed the 18-year-old intruder, he said.

“I think these criminals would definitely think twice if they knew more citizens were armed,” White said. “I know it stopped them from breaking into my place.”

[MRT144]

Explain how my landlady felt seeing her unlocked heirloom door that was a gift from her then late father trashed by moron boy attempting to break in. I was lucky. I had nothing of mine stolen and didn't suffer any lasting injury, despite the home invasion.

Or the girl who got pulled through the window till. Did she deserve that? You gonna tell her to her face that what happened to her was her just desserts?

I fact on all 5 occasions, someone else suffered more than me. Like I said, I was fortunate. It could have been much worse.

You're right though. I did get targetted when I had an excellent Catholic boss who paid me well. That was a good year and I really made some strides financially that year. They did manage to trash my motel room and take stuff that I had great difficulty replacing. Some of which I won't ever be able to.

And you're a ****bag, but then I think we already knew that MRT.

You lived in a place with heirloom doors. I think Oerdin is no longer King of the Hipsters.

And I would have told that lady that even though she doesnt deserve it, renting out to intellectually dishonest *******s such are yourself carries its own risk with God himself.

[Ben Kenobi]

You lived in a place with heirloom doors. I think Oerdin is no longer King of the Hipsters.

The place I live *now* has heirloom doors. On the inside though. To be fair it's the first time since that other place about 6 years ago. I'm just a renter, MRT. It's not like I'm an interior designer.

And I would have told that lady that even though she doesnt deserve it, renting out to intellectually dishonest *******s such are yourself carries its own risk with God himself.

Steady rent check, quiet no-drama renter. Yeah, she was really broken up about that door. It brought the whole room together.

[DinoDoc]

Judge scraps Chicago's ban on retail gun shops

By Dahleen Glanton and Jason Meisner

Tribune reporters

7:03 AM CST, January 7, 2014

A federal judge on Monday stripped away a key element of Chicago's gun ordinance, ruling that it is unconstitutional to prohibit licensed gun stores from operating in the city.

U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang found that the city failed to convince him that banning the sale of guns by licensed dealers was necessary to reduce gun violence.

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.

Chicago, the last city to allow residents to have handguns in their homes, once had one of the strongest handgun crackdowns in the country, making it a primary target of the National Rifle Association.

Overturning the ban on retail gun stores and private gun sales was the last major hurdle gun rights groups faced in their hard-fought battle to dismantle Chicago's tough firearm prohibitions.

The latest court ruling in the long legal fight came one day after Illinois, the last state to approve a concealed carry law, began accepting applications from residents who want to carry concealed firearms in public.

But gun shops won't likely be showing up in Chicago any time soon, since Chang delayed his ruling from taking effect to allow the city time to appeal.

Roderick Drew, a spokesman for the city's Law Department, said in a written statement Monday that Mayor Rahm Emanuel “strongly disagrees” with the judge's decision and has instructed city attorneys “to consider all options to better regulate the sale of firearms within the city's borders.”

“Every year Chicago police recover more illegal guns than officers in any city in the country, a factor of lax federal laws as well as lax laws in Illinois and surrounding states related to straw purchasing and the transfer of guns,” the city's statement said. “We need stronger gun safety laws, not increased access to firearms within the city.”

Since the U.S. Supreme Court forced the city to rewrite its firearms ordinance in June 2010, the city has faced a series of legal blows from the lower courts.

Gun rights advocates said they feared the city would stall the process, using zoning and other regulatory measures to make it difficult for businesses and individuals who want to open a store. After the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Chicago's ban on gun ranges in 2012, the city rewrote the law but added restrictions that made it difficult to find a location in the city to open a range, gun advocates said. That case still has not been resolved.

Todd Vandermyde, Illinois lobbyist for the NRA, said Chang rejected all of the city's arguments in his 35-page decision.

“The city is going to have to allow retail gun shops to operate and they are going to have to allow individuals to transfer firearms in normal transactions,” Vandermyde said. “So the question now is: How much more money does Rahm (Emanuel) want to spend fighting it?”

Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said the financially powerful NRA has systematically fought to water down gun laws in Illinois and across the country.

“That's the NRA's game plan. They keep filing suits and filing suits to chip away laws and get to their ultimate goal of a complete armed citizenry,” he said.

Though the 7th Circuit Court has ruled favorably for the NRA in recent cases in Chicago and Illinois, Walsh said other federal appellate courts have not followed suit.

“All too often the narrative is that the NRA is this monolithic machine that is winning everywhere, but that really isn't the case,” he said. “There has been the fear mongering by the NRA and gun manufacturers, but it does not necessarily translate.

“What we have seen is people, not just in Illinois but across the country, are successfully passing laws aimed to keep gun violence down.”

Chang found that the city's “blanket ban” on sales and transfers of firearms violated the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

He acknowledged that Chicago has a serious problem with gun violence but said the city had not demonstrated how allowing the sale of firearms would pose a “genuine and serious risk” to public safety.

“Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes the ordinance tries to serve,” Chang wrote.

The city argued that banning guns shops deterred criminals from getting weapons, in part because gang members were less likely to travel to suburban stores. The city also said gun stores are frequent targets for burglars and accused the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of poor oversight when it comes to firearms dealers.

But Chang rejected those arguments, citing statistics that showed criminals rarely buy their weapons from legitimate dealers. The judge also said regulation and licensing could alleviate most of the city's concerns without keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

“The stark reality facing the city each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun,” Chang said. “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.”

The ruling stems from a 2010 lawsuit filed by three residents and an association of Illinois firearms dealers. In addition to challenging the ban on gun sales, the suit alleged the city improperly allowed residents to have guns inside their houses but not in their garages, back porches or outside steps. The suit also challenged the city's restrictions on the number of firearms a person could legally have in a home.

Last year, the city amended its laws on carrying firearms in public and on the number of guns allowed in a home, and those aspects of the lawsuit were dropped.

Eugene Kontorovich, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University, said the judge recognized in his ruling that if you have a constitutional right to own a gun, you also have an inherent right to be able to obtain one. The city's blanket ban on gun sales violated that principle, he said.

“This is part of a broader package strategy to slow-walk gun rights,” Kontorovich said Monday. “It's been a shotgun approach. …They could have been a lot smarter and said we will allow gun sales but we're just going to regulate the heck out of it.”

Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said the ruling sends a clear message to the city.

“You would think they would get the message, but they don't,” he said. “Law-abiding citizens have the right to own firearms if they use them legally.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...99,print.story

[Ben Kenobi]

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

It's a sad day when the fricken Canadian is the one arguing for this.

[C0ckney]

You've stated it. What evidence is there for your position other than your faith that guns are evil?

Where? Your ass = 'statistics?'

http://www.rolim.com.br/2002/_pdfs/armas_protecao_risco.pdf

this paper discusses various aspects of violent crime and the use of arms in brasil.

[DaShi]

The thief does assume the risks inherent in his profession.

Most of those cases involved citizens who defended themselves by killing criminals. Among them: 77-year-old Willie White, who in March 2012, fatally shot a man who’d broken into his northwest Detroit home.

Prior to the incident, White’s home had been broken into several times. The break-ins stopped after he killed the 18-year-old intruder, he said.

“I think these criminals would definitely think twice if they knew more citizens were armed,” White said. “I know it stopped them from breaking into my place.”

Unfortunately that benefit diminishes as more of the population becomes armed. Criminals are going to commit crimes. If the criminal has a reasonable reason to believe the victim is armed, he will be more likely to use lethal force against the victim to protect himself. This is demonstrated in Cockney's scenario. Once the second assailant knew the victims were armed, his best option was to shoot them.

[C0ckney]

Um estudo do IBCCrim (Instituto Brasileiro de Ciências Criminais), sob a coordenação da socióloga Luci Gatti Pitrocolla, analisou o risco de uma pessoa que possui arma de fogo ser vítima fatal de um roubo.

O trabalho examinou todos os casos de latrocínio registrados nos mais de 800 000 boletins de ocorrência de 1998. Foram isolados aqueles em que a vítima possuía e portava arma de fogo e comparados com o número de vítimas desarmadas. Resultado: a parcela da população que possui arma de fogo corre um risco 56% superior de ser vítima fatal numa situação de roubo que o resto da população. Entre as vítimas de latrocínio que estavam armadas, apenas 13,8% conseguiram evitar a ocorrência sem se tornarem vítimas, porém, destes, 57% eram policiais civis ou militares.

Além disso, diz a pesquisa, o porte de armas nessas situações aumenta o número de vítimas. Os latrocínios contra portadores de armas causam, em média, 2,2 vítimas. Quando se considera o total de casos a proporção é de 1,5 vítima por crime. Uma vítima armada, além de ter maior chance de morrer, acaba colaborando para que outras pessoas também sejam vítimas fatais desse tipo de crime.

a study from the brasilian institute of criminal sciences, coordinated by sociologist luci gatti pitrocolla, analysed the risk of a gun owner being a fatal victim of a robbery.

the study examined every robbery case from more than 800,000 incident reports from 1998. the cases in which the victim was carrying a gun were isolated and compared with those involving unarmed victims. the results were that the part of the population that carry a gun run a 56% greater risk of being a fatal during a robbery situation than the rest of the population. among the robbery victims who were armed, just 13.8% managed to escape the situation without becoming victims themselves, however, of these, 57% were policeman or soliders.

as well as this, says the study, the carrying of guns increases the number of victims in these situations. robberies against gun carriers result in, on average, 2.2 victims. when all cases are considered, the number is 1.5 victims per crime. an armed victim, as well as having a greater chance of dying, ends up causing others to become fatal victims of this type of crime.

[Ben Kenobi]

He goes on to say,

"Para José Fauri, pesquisas como essa são sempre apenas parcialmente verídicas, pois não levam em conta os crimes que foram evitados e, portanto, não se transformam em registro policial."

Essentially - the data doesn't support the evidence that gun owners are more likely to face confrontation than those without. The suppressive effect hasn't been tested at all. They only look at confrontations and he cautions against using the data to support confiscation, when there is evidence to suggest that a suppressive effect will cull all but the most determined theives.

[C0ckney]

it's amusing, although not surprising, that you ben, with no knowledge of portuguese, are trying to lie to me, a fluent speaker, about what something written in the langauge says. the two line section you quoted, doesn't say what you claim it says. who do you think you're fooling?