Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Serious Questions For Those Who Oppose Gun Laws [View all]Buzz cook
(2,586 posts)63. Post Hoc doesn't quite fit.
Because the OP wasn't pointing at something that had happened and then claimed that something had occurred because of that happenstance.
He was using the rather silly quote that anti law people use to defend gun ownership and then applying that to Chicago. A simple answer to that question from the anti law side would be that Heinlein was a sci-fi author and what he has to say is irrelevant to the gun law debate.
Instead you and others take umbrage to the question.
1.Since Heller and McDonald expanded gun rights in Chicago, including concealed carry, has gun crime increased in the city, no less from those lawfully empowered to own and carry firearms?
This is a very poorly written sentence. From what I can scan from it you mean, has there been an increase in violence amongst those people who have recently purchased guns in Chicago?
If that is your question my answer is I don't know. Do you?
2.Does permitting law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves under current standards make Chicago more violent or less "polite?"
If guns are used as a means of self defense and there are more people with guns, then by definition violence would increase. You would argue that the violence in those cases would be justified, but none the less it is violence.
But your question is flawed, because it assumes that all uses of a firearm purchased and owned legally will be legal. The odds don't favor that position.
Simply, you and the OP (or the OP's Google dump sources since he rarely, if ever, actually shares his own thoughts or participates in his own threads) do not set the terms of the gun debate, particularly since the current status quo, polling trends, electoral realities and established jurisprudence favor those supporting firearm rights.
And yet the OP started this thread and in this thread he has set the terms of this thread, is that not so?
Setting the terms of any debate requires that sides agree on those terms. So far on the national level I have yet to see any agreed on terms or even clearly defined sides. The same is true of the micro level here on DU.Then each thread is its own island.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Unlike the Controllers who just carry the default assumption everyone wears a black hat
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2015
#14
Unlike those of us who don't have a special talent and can't be certain who is the bad guy
liberal N proud
Aug 2015
#15
Where I live lots of people carry, every day. No special talent required to not fear them.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2015
#17
You seem upset others aren't sharing your delusions. Try to not "lose it."
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2015
#28
That pretty well explains why you lot want to stick it to everyone, rather than just the criminals.
beevul
Aug 2015
#23
So pre judging is bad ... except for you pre judging all gun owners - ironic, ain't it?
DonP
Aug 2015
#30
The questioner isn't "serious," he/she is just spewing the usual. Trash this.
Eleanors38
Aug 2015
#11