then the person who brought the gun can be arrested in Chicago just for possessing the gun.
It makes it easier to reduce even if you can't eliminate the number of guns in Chicago.
It isn't a matter of reaching 0 guns in Chicago, but older people like me who don't want to have to carry a gun to go to the grocery store or a church in a crowded city can be fairly certain that really and truly only criminals (who can be arrested for having committed the crime of having a gun on them) will have guns. Most other people will not have guns. Because by very definition, that 19-year-old (nothing against 19-year-olds, but it is an example of someone under 70 and with a surer eye and hand than I at 72) is a criminal. He is violating the law against carrying or possessing a gun in a city.
It might be that it could be legal to have a gun in your home but not carry it. The problem is that when you have people living in relatively crowded situations, guns add to the risks. So does excessive noise. We have noise laws in Los Angeles. If people make a certain level of noise after a certain hour, we can call the police. And people do. Guns are a threat in cities more than they are in rural areas. Guns can be protection in rural areas. In cities, we have local police who are our protection (hopefully but not always) and guns if only because of the possibility of gun accidents and guns used in domestic violence are a huge threat. Guns plus alcohol are a problem everywhere. Think of Dick Cheney.
So I favor restrictions on gun possession, carrying and use (no target practice in your 20 x 30 backyard) but I do not favor any but the most reasonable gun restrictions (no one needs an atomic bomb in their backyard or even a tank turret with whatever they put on tanks or other war material) in rural areas. Each town or city or rural area should determine its gun laws, and let gun owners beware.
This variation in laws could be accomplished through gun licensing. Rural areas might choose to have no gun licensing at all. Cities could choose to license guns.
The First Amendment doesn't just protect the right of free speech. It also protects the right of freedom of assembly. If you live in a town of 1000 people, you probably enjoy almost perfect freedom of assembly. Chances are that half the town can walk down main street for a demonstration without needing a "permit." But if you live in a big city like Los Angeles, your freedom of assembly (and thus of speech in many cases) is "regulated" meaning that you have to pay a fee for police protection and get a permit if your demonstration is going to be larger than a certain size. There are probably some exceptions to that requirement of a permit such as really spontaneous demonstrations (depends on the laws) and other things spelled out in local ordinances.
Why should our Second Amendment rights, the freedom to own say a gun, be exempt from the Supreme-Court approved regulatory limitations on our First Amendment rights?
And should our Second Amendment be read to limit the kinds of weapons that we may possess to those that were available at the time the Constitution was written or to any weapon, any gun, that can be made?
There are a lot of reasonable questions to be asked in this area. I favor different restrictions on gun possession according to local government. People who like guns could choose to live in places in which guns are OK. If you are retired and have poor eyesight and a tremor, for example, you could choose to live in a place in which guns are not allowed. Why not give people that choice?
= new reply since forum marked as read
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
