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

[momeNt]

That's exactly what I'm doing, because the OP's argument is based on protecting human life through the exclusion of a_thing. Starting with guns is a silly place when there are other factors which would have a far greater impact on the original goal. Not sure how to make that clearer.

I wouldn't call it silly.

Both of you guys are marginalizing one in favor of the other. It's possible to include both in a search. Although I would caution the OP not to just search for gun ownership but just general criminality. They do not necessarily go hand in hand. Criminality is socioeconomic and environmental.

 

[fskimospy]

That's exactly what I'm doing, because the OP's argument is based on protecting human life through the exclusion of a_thing. Starting with guns is a silly place when there are other factors which would have a far greater impact on the original goal. Not sure how to make that clearer.

Your argument is illogical then and starting with guns makes perfect sense. The OP clearly does not obtain any utility from gun ownership and so starting with things that offer you nothing is a perfectly sensible place to start. Maybe the OP likes drinking, maybe the OP needs a car for work or likes owning a car. All of your suggestions that he look to exclude things that offer him utility before excluding things that do not is frankly dumb.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

While crime levels are of course overall lower in Belgium than the US, it's the stats for FEAR of crime that I find interesting.

The stats for "Feels safe walking alone... Worries about being attacked... Worries about being mugged..." and Belgium scores worse than the US in those categories.

I'm just left to wonder, are people just more paranoid there?

I don't think it's paranoia, it just not being allowed to participate in your own protection. That's why so many people carry guns in the US. They understand that the police show up after a crime, they don't magically appear beforehand to prevent things from happening. Having your own gun allows a person to feel that they're capable of reacting to a threat that they would not be able to handle unarmed and that the police would not be able to handle at all.

That being said, isn't it better to be afraid of being a crime victim than to actually be a victim? Maybe Belgium has it right, a little more fear is a pretty good trade-off for a lot more safety.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Your argument is illogical then and starting with guns makes perfect sense. The OP clearly does not obtain any utility from gun ownership and so starting with things that offer you nothing is a perfectly sensible place to start. Maybe the OP likes drinking, maybe the OP needs a car for work or likes owning a car. All of your suggestions that he look to exclude things that offer him utility before excluding things that do not is frankly dumb.

I was working under the supposition that he was more concerned with protecting life than merely not inconveniencing himself through the process of said protection. Maybe that was an incorrect assumption.

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: Are you more concerned with protection of human life by exclusion of risk factors, or by restricting things not important to you specifically in order to provide a protected life with a perception of zero consequence?

 

[fskimospy]

Sort of. Restrictions prohibiting homes from being sold to Black people were indirectly struck down by court decisions stating while the homeowners could privately agree to them, it is unconstitutional for the government to enforce them.

The same theory likely applies to restrictions on gun ownership.

Private parties restricting sales to black people were not struck down because of the constitution, they were struck down because those agreements violated federal law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act

The theory does not apply to restrictions on gun ownership as there is no federal law that I am aware of that prohibits housing discrimination based on gun ownership. The Constitution does not apply to private parties outside of a few very, very small exceptions.

 

[fskimospy]

I was working under the supposition that he was more concerned with protecting life than merely not inconveniencing himself through the process of said protection. Maybe tha

I don't know why you would think that he was trying to live the safest life possible through the exclusion of all risk factors from his OP as absolutely nothing in it indicated that. He indicated he does not like guns and that guns are a risk factor for death. His statement is entirely accurate. It makes zero sense to advise him on all other possible risks to human health. Why stop at cars? Why not give him advice on a good diet and exercise regimen? Why not give him tips on limiting sun exposure? Heart disease and cancer are far greater threats to people than cars are, after all.

I don't see why people are having such a hard time respecting the question that was actually asked other than the fact that when guns come up some people get super defensive. His question was reasonable and his position on guns is probably smarter than most people in the US as he correctly identified them as a risk factor that carries little utility with it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Why stop at cars? Why not give him advice on a good diet and exercise regimen? Why not give him tips on limiting sun exposure? Heart disease and cancer are far greater threats to people than cars are, after all.

I don't see why people are having such a hard time respecting the question that was actually asked other than the fact that when guns come up some people get super defensive. His question was reasonable and his position on guns is probably smarter than most people in the US as he correctly identified them as a risk factor that carries little utility with it.

I was working up to that, actually. I was starting with cars because it's an object one owns similar to a gun. Breaking out into risk factors caused by other lifestyle choices (diet, outdoor activity, etc) dives 'down the rabbit hole' a bit.

My principal point was that people spend too much time worrying about certain things, because they've been fed FUD throughout their life regarding certain things. The fact that deaths due to alcohol, something accepted nearly universally not as a need, but as a want which carries with it an order of magnitude greater risk of death than one by firearm, wasn't brought up, but this is, shows that the OP is feeling this FUD and sweating this as well.

 

[fskimospy]

I was working up to that, actually. I was starting with cars because it's an object one owns similar to a gun. Breaking out into risk factors caused by other lifestyle choices (diet, outdoor activity, etc) dives 'down the rabbit hole' a bit.

My principal point was that people spend too much time worrying about certain things, because they've been fed FUD throughout their life regarding certain things. The fact that deaths due to alcohol, something accepted nearly universally not as a need, but as a want which carries with it an order of magnitude greater risk of death than one by firearm, wasn't brought up, but this is, shows that the OP is feeling this FUD and sweating this as well.

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.

 

[momeNt]

I don't know why you would think that he was trying to live the safest life possible through the exclusion of all risk factors from his OP as absolutely nothing in it indicated that. He indicated he does not like guns and that guns are a risk factor for death. His statement is entirely accurate. It makes zero sense to advise him on all other possible risks to human health. Why stop at cars? Why not give him advice on a good diet and exercise regimen? Why not give him tips on limiting sun exposure? Heart disease and cancer are far greater threats to people than cars are, after all.

I don't see why people are having such a hard time respecting the question that was actually asked other than the fact that when guns come up some people get super defensive. His question was reasonable and his position on guns is probably smarter than most people in the US as he correctly identified them as a risk factor that carries little utility with it.

To be perfectly fair, I think that this particular discussion has been the least defensive conversation about guns in a while.

Considering heart disease and cancer can potentially be cumulative, how you live in your 15-44s where vehicles and homicide are the primary risk factors, does not mean that you should forsake good diet and exercise until you enter the age group where the risk factor is most prevalent. So that is also a good point.

With that being said, sitting down for extended periods of time is an independent risk factor for mortality, mainly heart disease. Irrespective of weight and diet, having employment or lifestyle that requires long periods of sitting will raise your risk of dying compared to standing lifestyles and employment.

If you do have a desk job, strongly consider a standing desk, or a motorized desk to limit extended periods of sitting.

Easier than vehicle or gun elimination, sitting elimination is something that really can be achieved by everybody, and ultimately carries the highest overall risk factor if you combine all age groups and causes of death.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

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.

Yes, at rates lower than other leading causes of deaths.

Armed (har) with that knowledge, it's perfectly reasonable to not want to be around guns.

That's fine, as long as it's acknowledged that there's things which may provide a higher level of safety by avoiding. I try to help massage that into people's minds (hence my posts in this thread).

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.

Possibly true, although most gun owners I know are well aware of the dangers of firearms. The ones likely to underestimate it are also likely to be killed by other risk factors, or by their own lack of attentiveness, such as locking up said firearms so they aren't used against them.

All of this is really just a knowledge exercise I provided for the OP. From my experience, most people think the dangers from firearm inflicted injury/death are far higher than they actually are. This is doubly so for people external to the United States looking inward.

 

[fskimospy]

To be perfectly fair, I think that this particular discussion has been the least defensive conversation about guns in a while.

Considering heart disease and cancer can potentially be cumulative, how you live in your 15-44s where vehicles and homicide are the primary risk factors, does not mean that you should forsake good diet and exercise until you enter the age group where the risk factor is most prevalent. So that is also a good point.

With that being said, sitting down for extended periods of time is an independent risk factor for mortality, mainly heart disease. Irrespective of weight and diet, having employment or lifestyle that requires long periods of sitting will raise your risk of dying compared to standing lifestyles and employment.

If you do have a desk job, strongly consider a standing desk, or a motorized desk to limit extended periods of sitting.

Easier than vehicle or gun elimination, sitting elimination is something that really can be achieved by everybody, and ultimately carries the highest overall risk factor if you combine all age groups and causes of death.

Yes, and if the OP had said something to the effect of 'I'm trying to limit my risk factors for mortality to the maximum extent possible' then a discussion about diet, exercise, cancer risks, etc should absolutely come before a discussion of gun ownership. He didn't though.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, at rates lower than other leading causes of deaths.

That's fine, as long as it's acknowledged that there's things which may provide a higher level of safety by avoiding. I try to help massage that into people's minds (hence my posts in this thread).

Possibly true, although most gun owners I know are well aware of the dangers of firearms. The ones likely to underestimate it are also likely to be killed by other risk factors, or by their own lack of attentiveness, such as locking up said firearms so they aren't used against them.

All of this is really just a knowledge exercise I provided for the OP. From my experience, most people think the dangers from firearm inflicted injury/death are far higher than they actually are. This is doubly so for people external to the United States looking inward.

If you think most people view the dangers of firearm ownership in excess to what they really are then why do people who buy guns state that their primary reason is for personal protection more often than anything else? Basically by definition that shows they are underestimating the dangers of firearm ownership because research indicates owning a gun increases your odds of homicide and suicide.

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/03-12-13 Gun Ownership Release.pdf

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If you think most people view the dangers of firearm ownership in excess to what they really are then why do people who buy guns state that their primary reason is for personal protection more often than anything else? Basically by definition that shows they are underestimating the dangers of firearm ownership because research indicates owning a gun increases your odds of homicide and suicide.

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/03-12-13 Gun Ownership Release.pdf

Sorry, let me rephrase, I meant that the people who tend to not be gun owners (or desire to be gun owners) tend to view the dangers in excess of what they really are. Gun owners *tend* toward those more on the more knowledgeable side, as presumably they research firearms as part of the purchase/usage of them.

Didn't meant to confuse the topic there.

Now, having said that, most of those 'self protection' people are under the exact same kind of FUD that they're under threat of imminent attack from some malicious external force which would invariably require the business end of said loaded firearm (in reach of their bed/door, naturally). There's a super healthy dose of irony there.

 

[Zaap]

I don't think it's paranoia, it just not being allowed to participate in your own protection. That's why so many people carry guns in the US. They understand that the police show up after a crime, they don't magically appear beforehand to prevent things from happening. Having your own gun allows a person to feel that they're capable of reacting to a threat that they would not be able to handle unarmed and that the police would not be able to handle at all.

Most people I know don't carry guns though. They may have one in their home, but I don't think that's a big factor in it either. Most people simply WOULD NOT KNOW there was crime going on in their city- no clue about it- were it not for hearing about it on the evening news or some other medium. Living in fear of it personally is just silly for most people. Sure, be aware of the (slim) possibility of it affecting you personally, but live in fear of it? Nah.

That being said, isn't it better to be afraid of being a crime victim than to actually be a victim? Maybe Belgium has it right, a little more fear is a pretty good trade-off for a lot more safety.

Good question, but I don't see the need for these to be either-ors. Whatever they do right in Belgium, good for them. But then there's no need for undue fear of crime. There's no need for it in most of the US either.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry, let me rephrase, I meant that the people who tend to not be gun owners (or desire to be gun owners) tend to view the dangers in excess of what they really are. Gun owners *tend* toward those more on the more knowledgeable side, as presumably they research firearms as part of the purchase/usage of them.

Didn't meant to confuse the topic there.

Now, having said that, most of those 'self protection' people are under the exact same kind of FUD that they're under threat of imminent attack from some malicious external force which would invariably require the business end of said loaded firearm (in reach of their bed/door, naturally). There's a super healthy dose of irony there.

I agree it's possible that people who don't own guns overestimate their danger, I don't know as I haven't seen any research on that. People definitely overestimate their risk of being the victim of crime though, that much is clear.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Good question, but I don't see the need for these to be either-ors. Whatever they do right in Belgium, good for them. But then there's no need for undue fear of crime. There's no need for it in most of the US either.

But where is the line between paranoia and justifiable fear? A person living in the worst areas of Chicago has a pretty valid fear of being a victim and a family in Iowa corn country probably doesn't. Somewhere in between there's a tipping point.

We're stuck in the "Everyone has a gun, this is a madhouse, I need one too" fear and they're stuck in the "I don't have a gun to protect myself" fear. Is it possible to live without one or the other?

 

[momeNt]

Yes, and if the OP had said something to the effect of 'I'm trying to limit my risk factors for mortality to the maximum extent possible' then a discussion about diet, exercise, cancer risks, etc should absolutely come before a discussion of gun ownership. He didn't though.

Isn't the point of this place to critique and ridicule each other? Simply answering a question as asked is beneath most of us. Save that for OT, this is P&N.

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't the point of this place to critique and ridicule each other? Simply answering a question as asked is beneath most of us. Save that for OT, this is P&N.

Haha, fair enough.

 

[Zaap]

But where is the line between paranoia and justifiable fear? A person living in the worst areas of Chicago has a pretty valid fear of being a victim and a family in Iowa corn country probably doesn't. Somewhere in between there's a tipping point.

We're stuck in the "Everyone has a gun, this is a madhouse, I need one too" fear and they're stuck in the "I don't have a gun to protect myself" fear. Is it possible to live without one or the other?

I dont believe for one second people in Belgium, for the most part, are stuck in any 'I don't have a gun to protect myself" fear.

My whole point is -and this is aside to the whole debate over guns- most people in first world countries actually DON'T have anything to fear, and will live their entire lives without personally being much affected by violent crime. Most people don't walk around- not in the US or anywhere- with an urgent wish to have a gun to protect themselves. Now- the reasons for that we can debate all day long- that guns being owned by others -or not- may have an affect on that. But it's just true.

Being 'paranoid' when you live in the worst area of Chicago- sure. That would explain people in Chicago having a high fear of crime. It doesn't explain people in Belgium though.

I personally think it's sad if you live where it's actually very safe, and carry on your life as though you lived in the worst slum of Chicago or where ever. That's just a person reacting to news reports and hysteria, not to what's actually going on in their lives.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I dont believe for one second people in Belgium, for the most part, are stuck in any 'I don't have a gun to protect myself" fear.

My whole point is -and this is aside to the whole debate over guns- most people in first world countries actually DON'T have anything to fear, and will live their entire lives without personally being much affected by violent crime. Most people don't walk around- not in the US or anywhere- with an urgent wish to have a gun to protect themselves. Now- the reasons for that we can debate all day long- that guns being owned by others -or not- may have an affect on that. But it's just true.

Being 'paranoid' when you live in the worst area of Chicago- sure. That would explain people in Chicago having a high fear of crime. It doesn't explain people in Belgium though.

I personally think it's sad if you live where it's actually very safe, and carry on your life as though you lived in the worst slum of Chicago or where ever. That's just a person reacting to news reports and hysteria, not to what's actually going on in their lives.

And that last point can be applied to guns as well, which is what generally riles up the 'gun nutters'. Responsible ownership of basically everything from spatulas to machine guns are perfectly safe, irresponsibility is what leads to most issues.

 

[mect]

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.

 

[Zaap]

And that last point can be applied to guns as well, which is what generally riles up the 'gun nutters'. Responsible ownership of basically everything from spatulas to machine guns are perfectly safe, irresponsibility is what leads to most issues.

I agree 100%. I'd add that responsible people aren't to be punished for the irresponsibility of others.

 

[Cozarkian]

Private parties restricting sales to black people were not struck down because of the constitution, they were struck down because those agreements violated federal law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act

The theory does not apply to restrictions on gun ownership as there is no federal law that I am aware of that prohibits housing discrimination based on gun ownership. The Constitution does not apply to private parties outside of a few very, very small exceptions.

Everything I typed was accurate:

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

The FHA came 20 years later and broadened protections to include voluntary discrimination, but racial restrictive covenants were already unenforceable.

 

[fskimospy]

Everything I typed was accurate:

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

The FHA came 20 years later and broadened protections to include voluntary discrimination, but racial restrictive covenants were already unenforceable.

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

Shelley's attribution logic threatened to dissolve the distinction between state action, to which Fourteenth Amendment limitations apply, and private action, which falls outside the Fourteenth Amendment. After all, Shelley's approach, "consistently applied, would require individuals to conform their private agreements to constitutional standards whenever individuals might later seek the security of judicial enforcement, as is often the case."7 This Article shows that, primarily for this reason, neither the Supreme Court nor lower courts have applied Shelley's attribution rationale. Courts routinely enforce contracts whose substantive provisions could not have been constitutionally enacted by government.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Didn't know that. Interesting.