Are there (gated) communities in US where guns are not allowed?

[HamburgerBoy]

Comparing the UK and USA for homicide is silly for many reasons. That 300% homicide difference? Keep in mind that blacks make up about half of all murderers and murder victims in America, which is something that does not apply anywhere in Europe. It's the leading cause of death for blacks between the ages of 16 and 34. Doesn't even make the top 10 for whites (not sure if equivalent data exists for Hispanics but it should be a relatively minor cause there as well). Bring that murder rate down in line with the rest of the population and you've already closed the gap to around a 100% difference. The war on drugs is of course a major contributor there. By far a bigger issue than guns are a handful of cities with Central America-level violence; in Europe, most cities aren't even much more criminal than rural areas (for example, iirc Berlin has the highest homicide rate around 2-3 times higher than the national average, compared to Baltimore or St. Louis where it's 10+ times higher). Decades of failed Democratic governance compounded by bipartisan efforts to throw non-violent criminals in prison created the mess.

Guns are only really a major risk factor for suicide or for homicide if you are black. Studies looking at risk factors of gun possession sometimes intentionally over-represent blacks on the basis that they are the most at-risk of gun victimization, even though they are actually at less risk of suicide. To say guns universally make people less safe is silly when there are hundreds of millions of non-suicidal non-black people in the country (and also sets up a false narrative where self-defense only counts when you're at risk of death).

 

[fskimospy]

Comparing the UK and USA for homicide is silly for many reasons. That 300% homicide difference? Keep in mind that blacks make up about half of all murderers and murder victims in America, which is something that does not apply anywhere in Europe. It's the leading cause of death for blacks between the ages of 16 and 34. Doesn't even make the top 10 for whites (not sure if equivalent data exists for Hispanics but it should be a relatively minor cause there as well). Bring that murder rate down in line with the rest of the population and you've already closed the gap to around a 100% difference. The war on drugs is of course a major contributor there. By far a bigger issue than guns are a handful of cities with Central America-level violence; in Europe, most cities aren't even much more criminal than rural areas (for example, iirc Berlin has the highest homicide rate around 2-3 times higher than the national average, compared to Baltimore or St. Louis where it's 10+ times higher). Decades of failed Democratic governance compounded by bipartisan efforts to throw non-violent criminals in prison created the mess.

So to be clear you are arguing that the US and U.K. cant be compared because their population demographics are different? That makes no sense. In fact, that's a great reason TO compare them.

Guns are only really a major risk factor for suicide or for homicide if you are black. Studies looking at risk factors of gun possession often intentionally over-represent blacks on the basis that they are the most at-risk of gun victimization, even though they are actually at less risk of suicide.

This is a very serious accusation of what amounts to academic fraud on the part of large numbers of researchers spanning the country over the course of several decades. Can you provide empirical support for this and what research you think this applies to? Be as specific as possible.

 

[Amused]

It seems like the entire premise of the OP is flawed, considering private ownership of firearms is perfectly legal in Belgium. Yes, there are more checks to go through, and a person is not guaranteed the right, but there are over 700,000 privately owned firearms in Belgium.

Is he waffling? How typical.

 

[highland145]

5 posts in and the OP is dead because of type 2 insulin overdose. Easter peeps, ftl.

 

[chucky2]

I'm from Europe and find it very disturbing how everybody in the US is allowed to walk around with a gun. I'm not talking about mass shootings but I read that most people are killed by guns in domestic situations.

Therefore I was wondering if there are any neighbourhoods where gun posession is not allowed, so if you wanna live somewhere where no guns are allowed except for police like in Europe.

And what are the rules in certain gated communities? Do some of those have ristrictions on gun posession?

OP what you want to do is move to Chicago. It's longtime Democrat run, in a longtime blue state, and has severe restrictions on firearms in the city (and also Crook County, of which it is the major part of). Also, since firearms cost money, it would be best to visit the less well off areas as obviously they won't be wasting their money on firearms they can't afford (I mean, if you're on the Gov teat, surely you aren't wasting money on non-essentials), and thus will be safer. I can list some places that ought to be amazingly safe, just let me know if you'd like help...

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Oops... how did this get in this thread?

 

[Cozarkian]

If you think that courts cannot enforce voluntary contracts that prohibit gun ownership by one of the parties you are badly mistaken. As an example of this, just go look at countless leases throughout the country that prohibit gun ownership as a condition of housing. They are all entirely legal and the courts will enforce them.

By the logic you appear to be putting forth that would mean the state cannot enforce any private contract that it could not make into a law on its own. This is clearly false.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&context=californialawreview

I don't think that and no, the logic I am putting forth does not mean that. There is a difference between transferring a leasehold and a free simple estate and there is a difference between a restriction on the rights of a party to a contract and permanent restrictions on the alienability of property that would limit the rights of non-parties.

This is my logic:

1. I refuse to sell my house to a black person = prohibited by FHA
2. I sell my house to a non-black person on condition it can never be sold to a black person in the future = unenforceable per Shelley v. Kraemer

By parallel reasoning

3. I refuse to sell my house to gun owner = permissible unless it violates state or federal law
4. I sell my house to a non gun-owner on condition it can never be sold to a gun owner = unenforceable per Shelley v. Kraemer

Also note I said "likely" in my original post, because while they are parallel on their face, the court could find some argument to distinguish the 2nd and 14th amendments and to limit Shelley v. Kraemer on its facts.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think that and no, the logic I am putting forth does not mean that. There is a difference between transferring a leasehold and a free simple estate and there is a difference between a restriction on the rights of a party to a contract and permanent restrictions on the alienability of property that would limit the rights of non-parties.

Can you explain why? The central ruling in Shelley v. Kraemer is that the state enforcing a contract is state action, and the state cannot take actions that violate the constitution. Therefore, if a contract has a provision that would be unconstitutional if the government enacted it, the government can't enforce a private contract with that provision. This is clearly a very problematic ruling if it were actually applied, although as I mentioned before it's basically ignored.

This is my logic:

1. I refuse to sell my house to a black person = prohibited by FHA
2. I sell my house to a non-black person on condition it can never be sold to a black person in the future = unenforceable per Shelley v. Kraemer

By parallel reasoning

3. I refuse to sell my house to gun owner = permissible unless it violates state or federal law
4. I sell my house to a non gun-owner on condition it can never be sold to a gun owner = unenforceable per Shelley v. Kraemer

Also note I said "likely" in my original post, because while they are parallel on their face, the court could find some argument to distinguish the 2nd and 14th amendments and to limit Shelley v. Kraemer on its facts.

If you read what I linked you will see that the courts have basically never applied Shelley v. Kraemer in that way (or really almost any way) despite tons of opportunities to do so over the last 60 years. For all intents and purposes the courts simply ignore it, which is why you see courts enforcing private agreements that would be unconstitutional if the government did it all the time. For example courts routinely enforce non-disparagement clauses, something that would be blatantly unconstitutional if the government did it. I imagine the courts have declined to expand the application of Shelley v. Kraemer to any other area other than the exact scope of its ruling (racial housing covenants) for the exact reason stated in what I quoted, that being that if you take Shelley v. Kraemer's reasoning to its logical conclusion you have functionally destroyed the difference between the private and public spheres.

With that in mind I find it unlikely that the courts will suddenly develop a newfound taste for Shelley v. Kraemer in regards to the 2nd amendment when they have so studiously ignored it for so long. I really do suggest reading that article though, I found it really interesting. I hadn't heard of Shelley v. Kraemer before but the ruling sounded insane to me. At first I thought it must have been overturned, but it turns out instead the courts basically pretend it never happened.

 

[OutHouse]

All I can say is that in Belgium where i'm from shootings are very rare. Yes there are criminals but they don't use excessive force that often like in the US where there seem to be killings on a daily basis.

So people in the US can't go live in a gated community which doesn't allow for guns except for the police?

you really need to find better info about your home country.

http://www.xpats.com/belgium-leads-western-europe-gun-related-homicides

More than 11% of families in Belgium possess a firearm, one of the highest numbers in Western Europe,

 

[soulcougher73]

Chicago is a gun free zone (or so ive heard) and we see how that turns out...

 

[chucky2]

Chicago is a gun free zone (or so ive heard) and we see how that turns out...

If you listen to the Grabbers, their logic is that because everyone else (who interestingly has no gun problems like the lovely sChity of Chicago) has guns around Chicago, that it's their fault Chicago has gun issues. Or better put, because all the other kids can handle having peanut butter and apples with minimal mess, it's their fault that little Nicky is a complete mess...therefore no PB and apples for anyone. The Grabbers always bring the lulz...

 

[spacejamz]

so does the OP plan on just staying inside his bubble community forever? I guess with amazon pantry and pizza hut, you never have to leave the house anymore...

 

[theeedude]

Gated communities and gun culture are symptoms of same conservative delusion that you can ignore societal problems and make a castle just for yourself.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So to be clear you are arguing that the US and U.K. cant be compared because their population demographics are different? That makes no sense. In fact, that's a great reason TO compare them.

This is a very serious accusation of what amounts to academic fraud on the part of large numbers of researchers spanning the country over the course of several decades. Can you provide empirical support for this and what research you think this applies to? Be as specific as possible.

I'm saying they can't be compared without careful consideration of the demographics, something which blanket statements about gun homicide stats neglect.

It's not fraud if it's openly stated in the methods section. Two examples:

https://academic.oup.com/aje/articl...ns-in-the-Home-and-Risk-of-a-Violent-Death-in

Data for this study are from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey, which is based on a nationally representative 10 percent systematic sample of decedents aged 15 years or older in the United States (25). All 50 states with the exception of South Dakota, which was excluded because of a state law restricting the use of death certificates for research purposes, are represented in the National Mortality Followback Survey. The sample was drawn from death certificates received by the National Center for Health Statistics from state vital registration offices. To produce more reliable estimates, Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Institutional Review Board.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=article

To clarify these issues, we conducted a population-based case-control study to determine the strength of the association between a variety of potential risk factors and the incidence of homicide in the home.

Shelby County, Tennessee; King County, Washington; and Cuyahoga County, Ohio, are the most populous counties in their respective states. The population of King County is predominantly white and enjoys a relatively high standard of living. In contrast, 44 percent of the population of Shelby County and 25 percent of the population of Cuyahoga County are African American. Fifteen percent of the households in Shelby County and 11 percent in Cuyahoga County live below the poverty level, as compared with 5 percent in King County

 

[rommelrommel]

How is it fear, uncertainty, and doubt though? Again, homicide is a leading cause of death for young to middle aged adults and guns are the source of most of that. Armed (har) with that knowledge, it's perfectly reasonable to not want to be around guns. If anything the FUD goes the other way as studies show that people UNDERESTIMATE the risks of firearm ownership as evidenced by the fact that so many people buy guns for personal protection despite empirical research showing that it accomplishes the opposite.

I personally think that trying to find a housing area where guns are not allowed is a waste of time. That being said, saying that someone should concern themselves with alcohol consumption (which they may enjoy and therefore get utility from) before concerning themselves with gun ownership (which they clearly don't get utility from) is silliness. If I had the option to live in a community where it was guaranteed nobody had a gun I would prefer it but that doesn't mean I have to stop eating cheeseburgers before I state that preference.

Pardon? Personal enjoyment from alcohol is utility but owning a firearm is not? Who exactly in this thread is on their soap box regardless of the question asked again?

 

[shortylickens]

I'm from Europe and find it very disturbing how everybody in the US is allowed to walk around with a gun. I'm not talking about mass shootings but I read that most people are killed by guns in domestic situations.

Therefore I was wondering if there are any neighbourhoods where gun posession is not allowed, so if you wanna live somewhere where no guns are allowed except for police like in Europe.

And what are the rules in certain gated communities? Do some of those have ristrictions on gun posession?

I find it disturbing people lie constantly to make a point.
If you have to lie to make a point, then you dont have a point.

 

[FIVR]

This US is sort of "different" than almost any other nation. The level of law enforcement activity and crime is incredibly varied. You can find some cities that haven't had a murder in years. You can find towns that have never had one... but you can also find cities that are awash in crime and murder. It's incredibly hard to say anything specific about crime in the US, as a whole.

I've come to recognize that pretty much any gun control restrictions are a liability in almost any candidate, politically speaking. Americans have been brainwashed to love guns. You might as well buy one unless you've got small kids or you're suicidal. Then you can be SWAT warrior and shoot the next dark object that surprises you in your apartment at night. Fun stuff and also very much the American way of doing things. Shoot first, pay for lawyers later.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm saying they can't be compared without careful consideration of the demographics, something which blanket statements about gun homicide stats neglect.

It's not fraud if it's openly stated in the methods section. Two examples:

https://academic.oup.com/aje/articl...ns-in-the-Home-and-Risk-of-a-Violent-Death-in

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=article

Ahh I see the issue, you don't understand what oversampling is. During the election there was a similar misunderstanding from Trump supporters about the polls. This is probably what led you to the wrong conclusion that this is about race when in fact the increased odds ratios for homicide and suicide persist regardless of race. I mean come on, researchers aren't stupid, they don't intentionally screw up their own work.

Oversampling is a research choice where you deliberately include more subjects from demographic groups you are interested in in order to get more reliable estimates in specific subgroups but they are in no way over represented in the study as a whole as the weight of individuals in the over sampled group is reduced in proportion with their increased sampling.

For example, take an imaginary poll. Let's say the demographics of the population you are studying are 90% white and 10% black but you're especially interested in the black people. You are going to poll 1,000 people but if you do that you will only have polled 100 black people so if your error terms are going to be huge when looking at that subgroup. The answer to that is oversampling. What you do is you poll 300 black people instead of 100, but then weight each one of their responses 1/3 as much in your overall numbers. This way you get more accuracy in the specific group without screwing up your total population.

TLDR: No, they are not over represented at all. You misunderstood a common statistical technique.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

My bad. I checked the second paper over again more thoroughly and saw that they did actually delineate risk factors in gun ownership according to demographics, and the factor of race on gun availability and homicide was much more minor than I expected as well, so I was wrong there too. Thanks.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Canada is a good community that doesn't have millions of kooks wandering around with pistolas