Summations Only

Why base any law on this inside-the-home/outside-the-home distinction if that is "unenforcable"...?Why take that failed approach rather than copy a more successful approach (e.g. the New York approach) Well if one is going to prohibit things like guns it is worth looking at how others have successfully done so elsewhere.

That's what I'm saying... that Chicago law was worthless. Because our legislators are idiots? Oh, I'd rather guns not be prohibited. And I'd also like to not have to abide by stupid laws...

It seems that there is no reason to think that prohibiting guns in Chicago is "unenforcable". It's simply the way they tried to implement that.That's what I'm getting from the situation as you decsribe it.

Seems to me they are spending their money on trying to ensure felons, domestic abusers, the seriously insane and so on don't have legal access to firearms. Even if they reside outside of the city of Chicago.I don't argue they've found the optimum way to achieve this but I think we can agree we don't want seriously psychotic, wife beating liquor store robbing hunters legal access to one of the most deadly inventions humankind has dreamed up. To own a handgun you need a Pistol Permit. I presume this is like FOID, though I don't know if a physical piece of plastic exists.Rifles were recently fine outside of the city of New York, though some rifles and shotguns are now restricted generally.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well I think you're being naively generous in that assessment; don't forget that we know that our ex-governors were criminals. I don't think we can take our legislators' word for it on what their motives were.It seems to me that they want to know who is capable of buying a firearm. I mean, look at the way they went about it. Rather than focusing on the felons and insane, they look to everyone else but them. Analogy time:Let's say that I own a bus company. I then have everyone with brown, black, and blonde hair provide me with their name, address, phone number, gender, race, social security and drivers license number, and also a photograph of themself. And then I tell you that my reason for all that was to keep the redheads off of the bus.You see what I mean? As long as its not at the expense of everyone else's right.And "not optimum" is about the most lenient description you could offer. Chicago's law was an unconstitutional failure.If you want to keep redheads off your bus, then you stop them when they try to get on. You don't make a detailed database of all the non-redheads. So then, if the same thing is applied to different tests, and the results are wildly different, then we can figure that the thing wasn't a factor in the results.Are the people who run NYC a bunch of criminals?
What's their police presence like?
How's their education system?
What's their percentage of blacks?I'm sure there's much more impactful factors than gun permits.

The reason is that you are unable to come up with a way to enforce the prohibition in practice.

Not really. It could just be the way it was enforced, or rather, more than likely NOT enforced. People here complain about everything just like in every other city.Criminals are involved in our political system, I'm sure.Our police presense is good, but I'm sure many would like more of a presense.Education is rather good, but certainly not the best. The public schools have all the same issues as other places.There are black people here, yes.- Oni

And now we cut to the chase.

No - I'm saying that they should implement prohibition in a manner that has successfully worked in practise elsewhere.If that entails abandoning the inside/outside aspect (which you seem to be highlighting as "unenforcable") then so be it.

Just for shits and giggles.NYC
Immigrant Africans, Caribbeans, and African Americans make up 25.1% of New York City's population
SourceChicago
The racial makeup of the city in 2010 was 32% black
SourcePlease continue.

He probably counts ALL Puerto Ricans and Dominicans as blacks too. Even the white ones.- Oni

To be fair, I don't know many people that aren't criminals. I'm not. I'm observing what reasonably independent people are writing about it. It seems to have been a reaction to the 1960s high profile assassinations. The wording of the law prohibits certain people from legally purchasing weapons. So that's how I conclude that. I did not read the authors of the legislations opinions. They already know: Anyone with money. What are you talking about? How are they not focussing on the felons and the insane when they institute procedures for ensuring that felons and insane can't legally purchase firearms? This doesn't seem remotely related to the firearms issue. Let me modify it.Let's say that I own a bus company. I then have everyone provide me with their name, address, phone number, gender, race, social security and drivers license number, and also a photograph of themself. And then I tell you that my reason for all that was to keep the redheads off of the bus.If your intent is to ensure redheads don't get on the bus, it seems you'd need people to prove they aren't redheads. So you think it is more important that everyone has access to guns, that you'd be prepared to let homicidal maniacs have weapons to ensure everyone else isn't inconvenienced? Are you saying that the government does not keep records of felons in a database? People who have been hospitalized with a mental health problem? People that abuse their spouse? Yes. You think that the number of people with higher amount of melanin in their skin impacts gun crimes more than the proliferation or regulation of firearms?

Like, been-to-prison criminals? Four of our last seven governors actually went to prison. Its more than that... They made it illegal to possess a handgun outside of your home. Hell, its illegal for you to just hold a bullet if you don't have a FOID card, which is silly. No, you can't legally buy a gun without a FOID card. I meant capability in the legal sense. Obviously laws can't stop people who don't obey laws. Because by widening your focus to every single person in the state, you're failing to focus on the felons and insane. Looking at everybody is the opposite of focusing on somebody. Or you could just prove which people have red hair and leave the rest of them alone. You've loaded your question differently than I would. I wouldn't "let" homicidal maniacs have weapons because of an "inconvenience", no.I now see that you wrote "legal" access in what I was replying to, so I could have phrased that better. Right. So if you want to prevent those people from getting guns, you create a system to check against those databases at the point of purchase. If you just want to prevent those people from having guns, you don't need to build a database of information for every single person who is interested in obtaining a gun. That they went the route of building a database of information for every single person who is interested in obtaining a gun, exposes the fact that they were interested in more than just preventing those people from getting guns. Maybe we should spend more time investigating the criminals, rather than bothering all the law abiding citizens. I think the majority of people who shot somebody, and the majority of people who were shot, were black.

Most criminals manage to avoid prison. Especially the wealthy white ones. I guess that says something about the quality of criminal you guys like to elect Sounds sensible. Bullets are the bits that do the killing right? Well I think it is sensible for a government to keep track of who is legally allowed to control weapons of certain power and above. Your original complaint was that they were looking at everyone but those that are disqualified from ownership. It was this that I was seeing as problematic. What information does the government have and use that you feel they shouldn't (as it relates to the topic obviously)? Do you feel the same way about driver's licences? That is - the government should only track the people who are forbidden from driving a motor vehicle? Unfortunately there is a tension between these concepts. In order to investigate people to see if they are criminals, it sometimes requires bothering people who are not. You should probably expend some energy into discussing why you think this is the case, to avoid appearing to be a racist.

Fixed that for ya. Sensible? It was ruled as unconstitutional. Not without a barrel and a firing pin. Well, maybe if you threw it really hard or dropped it off of a high enough building. "Old-fashioned fascism will take it away!" Ah, yeah, I shouldn't have excluded them from the "everyone" grouping, you're right. I don't know what they use or have, but I trust them with as little as possible. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. The data isn't all that great, but blacks do make up the largest portion of both murder victims and killers according to this site:Breaking news and analysis from the U.S. and around the world at WSJ.com. Politics, Economics, Markets, Life & Arts, and in-depth reporting.There's a big chunk of "unknown" in the killer data. And that doesn't necessarily correlate directly with gun crime, but where I come from, almost all of our gun crime is black-on-black.Here you can find a map of the murders in St. Louis along with the predominant race of the sections they were in:A Divided City - Graphic - NYTimes.com