St Louis representative urges resident to obtain guns for self-protection

[Howzit]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10951824&ch=4226713&src=news

[spin]

1. The representative does make a point...

The police and the mayor don't like his idea. He's right when he points out that guns in the hands of criminals is a problem.

If the citizens do listen to the alderman's advice, crime might drop. I also like his ideas on promoting activity for the youth in the city.

[jeepnstein]

2. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...

[hoplophile]

3. When police are unable or unwilling to Protect and Serve then it is

up to the people to do it for themselves. Better arm up to at least the level that the police do since you'll be doing the job they should be.

[JonQ]

4. I don't see anything wrong with responsible gun

ownership in the hands of law abiding citizens. Seems like a great idea to encourage.

But I'm sure many will be righteously outraged that anyone is encouraged to actually use their 2nd amendment rights. For some reason all the other ones are good and should be used, but we are supposed to be secretly ashamed of anyone using the 2nd. Makes little sense to me.

[SheilaT]

5. The problem here is that there are some of us

out there who sincerely have no desire to own a gun.

[DonP]

6. That's fine

I have no problem with anyone that chooses to not own a gun. The issues arise when other people decide they somehow have the moral authority to make that decision for the rest of us.

[SheilaT]

7. I, as you no doubt realize, have no

problem with legal gun ownership. But every so often I see a push for everyone to own a gun, and I'm a little concerned that this original post refers to that kind of thing. Several years back some small town somewhere (Utah? Montana? somewhere out west) tried to REQUIRE everyone there to own a gun. Not a good idea, in my opinion. That's all I want to point out.

[spin]

9. Was it Geuda Springs, Kansas?

GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan. (AP) — Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

Noncomplying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by City Council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-11-23-kansas-guns_x.htm

Most of the efforts to get everyone in a town to own firearms are symbolic and the laws are never enforced. Kennesaw, Georgia is the town usually associated with laws requiring gun ownership.

On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the ordinance.

Reports of resulting burglary-rate statistics

Gary Kleck, a criminologist and gun-control critic attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law.<3> Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime. (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners of America). Others have challenged this conclusion, however, citing data showing that the number of burglaries in the 10 years spanning the passing of the ordinance remains roughly the same, while burglaries dropped in the city of Morton Grove following their gun ban.<4>. These statistics are in turn disputed because the report in question lacked important considerations such as proportions for the population and growth over time.

Current statistics indicate that Kennesaw's crime rate<6> is lower compared to surrounding cities like Marietta<7>, Smyrna<8>, Alpharetta<9>, or Atlanta<10>.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

If the crime rate does indeed fall in towns that "require" gun ownership, it's probably because the publicity causes the criminal element to target a different city. Smart criminals avoid confrontations with armed homeowners.

[SheilaT]

11. No, it was somewhere else, far more recently.

Just don't recall where.

[benEzra]

10. You are free to choose not to, and I respect and support that choice.

Your home, your choice.

I choose differently; my home, my choice.

The beauty of a free country is that we are allowed to choose for ourselves; you have your gun-free home, and my wife and I have the guns we choose to own.

[jeepnstein]

12. I can apprecieate that.

Just as the state cannot take away our Constitutional Rights, it also cannot compel us to invoke them. They are OUR rights.

If you are not comfortable with a firearm, for whatever reason and there are plenty, you shouldn't feel pressured to own one. It's all about freedom as far as I'm concerned.

Those yahoos who mandate ownership of a firearm see them as some kind of cure-all in much the same manner as others see bans as a cure-all. Neither side is facing reality. We have the right to be armed if we choose and I honestly believe most people choose wisely.

[slackmaster]

13. I think I speak for every gun owner on this board when I say we respect your right not to own one

:hi:

[JonQ]

15. I don't think they were advocating making it mandatory

Encouraging citizens to vote, or speak out or otherwise use their civil rights in no way forces them to do so.

Just like being pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortions should be required, just that people should have the right to choose.

[jmg257]

8. Good for him. One of the reasons the right is secured. nt

[jody]

14. St Louis should either recognize citizens RKBA or pass a law obligating the city to pay for

all damages a crime victim might incur because St Louis did not protect that victim against crime.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html
QUOTE
(c) Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes. Cf. Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 47, n. 2, 62, n. 32. Against that backdrop, a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication than the Colorado statute’s direction to “use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order” or even to “arrest … or … seek a warrant.” A Colorado officer would likely have some discretion to determine that–despite probable cause to believe a restraining order has been violated–the violation’s circumstances or competing duties counsel decisively against enforcement in a particular instance. The practical necessity for discretion is particularly apparent in a case such as this, where the suspected violator is not actually present and his whereabouts are unknown. In such circumstances, the statute does not appear to require officers to arrest but only to seek a warrant. That, however, would be an entitlement to nothing but procedure, which cannot be the basis for a property interest. Pp. 9—15.
UNQUOTE

IMO the city will find that it's much cheaper to let law-abiding citizens keep and bear arms