Freedom budding all over: The Chicago gun ban case

[Little-Acorn]

Now that the Supreme Court's DC v. Heller decision is history, the Second Amendment Foundation has set up a blog to follow the course of a similar case challenging Chicago's almost-identical gun ban. It can be found here: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

Text of the case filed, may be found here: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-con.../complaint.pdf

Interesting in that one of the plaintiffs is a cop, authorized to carry a gun on duty, but forbidden to have one in his home, just as Heller was.

Funny thing happens when a few law-abiding people (like the DC residents) finally get the right to defend themselves against rampant crime. Next thing you know, everybody wants the same right.

Let the joy be universal!

[avatar4321]

I'm really happy to see when good decisions are made by the Court to protect the rights of all American citizens.

It's just a shame there is half of the court that really doesnt know Jack.

[midcan5]

The recent supreme court decision overturning DC's ban on handguns will have two effects. It will make the NRA lawsuit happy and it will result in more injuries and deaths. For society as a whole it will have no benefit as most people are law abiding and most feel an alarm and/or a baseball bat are sufficient protection. The wild west remains alive only in the minds of those who see handguns as a divisive issue to be throw around rather than considered.

[avatar4321]

it will remind the politicians that they cant keep the people unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

[Hobbit]

The recent supreme court decision overturning DC's ban on handguns will have two effects. It will make the NRA lawsuit happy and it will result in more injuries and deaths. For society as a whole it will have no benefit as most people are law abiding and most feel an alarm and/or a baseball bat are sufficient protection. The wild west remains alive only in the minds of those who see handguns as a divisive issue to be throw around rather than considered.

You have used several fallacious arguments here. You have made a hasty generalization on the general population's squeamishness towards firearms as well as a hasty generalization on the mindset of most gun owners, when I can guarantee you have neither a large enough sample size nor sufficient data to back up those generalizations nor do you have the data collected by another to know that. Then there's an appeal to consequences, claiming that you are correct in your assertion that a gun ban is Constitutional not by reconciling your position to the Constitution but by arguing that the consequences will be negative, which is not only beside the point but also contains an implied anonymous source fallacy. You state as a certainty that injuries and deaths will increase from the lifting of a gun ban, despite studies cited many times on this and other websites that the opposite is true. This implies access to a source of information supporting this thesis, yet the source is never named and thus cannot be refuted.

This is on top of the slothful induction fallacy in which you deny the strong inductive conclusion of an argument (that gun bans increase violence) despite strong evidence to the contrary (numerous statistics that support that conclusion) and the fallacy of exclusion whereby you ignore evidence which does not support your conclusion. That fallacy is further compounded by the ad hominem (circumstantial) attack on that evidence when the source of that evidence supports a position with which you disagree. Then there's the quick appeal to popularity embedded in your anonymous source fallacy where you argue that you are correct about the Constitutionality of owning guns based on the fact? that most people don't think guns are necessary. Then there's the appeal to motives and appeal to consequences fallacy of claiming the NRA will file more lawsuits, which implies that that is the reason the NRA is in favor of this decision.

And don't even get me started on the false analogy fallacy that appears in nearly every anti-gun argument where America is compared to another country which has banned guns and compares levels of violent crime without accounting for the fact that most of those countries do not have such things as racial tensions and a criminal immigrant underground that contains many violent criminals while ignoring the more valid comparison of areas and countries prior to gun bans to those same areas after gun bans are in place, which goes back to the fallacy of exclusion, where these comparisons are discarded because they almost universally show an increase in violence following the ban.