A gun rights group sued New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) and other state officials on Saturday over an emergency order banning firearms from being carried in public in Albuquerque.
The National Association for Gun Rights, alongside Albuquerque resident Foster Haines, filed suit just one day after Grisham announced the public health order temporarily suspending concealed and open carry laws in the city.
The group argued that the order violates their Second Amendment rights, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Gun homicide rates arent arbitrary
Is it gun homicide rates or violent crime rate that is used for determining where carrying is restricted?
Guns only have a role of homicide, they lead to more homicides, so they should always be restricted.
Guns are a force equalizer, they make victimizing anyone- weak or strong, a risk
Then why is it more likely to die from a gunshot if you own a gun? Aren’t guns supposed to make sure you don’t die?
Most firearm related deaths are suicides.
A lot of reasons, people who feel the need to buy a gun are likely at higher risk of gun crime. For any significantly high enough group of people who own guns, some will be reckless and hurt themselves or provoke others. People are unempathetic and don’t realize pointing a gun at others constitutes a deadly threat- to name a few reasons. Why do* you think?
Guns are designed so that their owner can immobilize a threat to their life as effectively as possible, that doesn’t mean all people use them for their intended use case. Cars aren’t designed to crash, but the more people that drive cars increases the risk of crashes. I personally am in a lot of cities at night- and would feel safer with a gun. I’m not exactly of a threatening stature, I’d rather be able to defend myself in those situations than just be at the mercy of basically the person attacking me who’s bigger than me. There are tons of examples of people be paralyzed, getting concussions, or killed by people attacking them with fists, blunt objects, or knives when they’re getting mugged. There is only one way I could (if carrying a gun were possible) credibly deter that.
I assume you must be referring to just giving them your wallet, because having a gun doesn’t really protect you from hand to hand violence by an attacker. Fights are risky and guns are a much much better tool for aggression than responding to a suddenly violent situation. Unless they’re calling you out from across the saloon, by the time you know you’re in danger they’re usually too close. Carrying a gun just means you also get to give them your gun, not that you start blasting the bad guys.
You are naive to assume that always resolves it, there are also various reasons that someone cannot afford to do that.
Why not?
Agreed, I’d rather people have the opportunity to get what they can to minimize that risk.
That’s not true, you can shoot someone who is attacking you still. You can shoot someone who’s running at you with a weapon.
Why do you assume they would know you have a gun?
How many times have you heard of muggers randomly beating people up once they’ve surrendered their valuables in your local area vs. just online paranoia? You say “you spend time in cities at night”, but I’ve lived in cities for decades, including walking late at night, seen drug dealing and been shouted at by mentally ill homeless people, and both never have felt the need to be armed and also never needed to be so. My preparation for a questionable area is “don’t bring a lot of cash”, not fantasies about how someone holding me up with a knife will somehow let me draw and use a gun while they stand there. Handguns just aren’t good self-defense weapons.
And if you can afford a gun, you can afford to lose the loose cash in your wallet. You’d need to be mugged regularly for a gun to be cheaper than the cash.
Minimizing risk is giving them the money, or failing that actual self-defense courses for close combat, not imagining a ranged weapon will protect you when at arms length. There’s a reason self-defense courses don’t teach gun-fu, but instead de-escalation/situational awareness, followed by running away, and only then if that’s not immediately available, stunning attacks that give you the window to escape. Even highly skilled combatants want to get away from a fight ASAP. If you try to point a gun at someone with a knife to you, you’re likely to just end up in a wrestling match followed by likely losing it and getting shot.
What scenario are you imagining where your attacker is running at you waving a knife from a distance? That’s just not how muggings work. Even in this scenario, anything under 6 meters means the attacker stabs you before you draw and fire.
The irony
How so? Of course if more people have guns there is more of a risk of someone getting shot, I don’t think anyone denies that.
They make a lot of things a fatal risk. Bad relationship? Road rage? Wanna be famous? Guns have let all these things be motivation for murder.
Kitchen knife
Baseball bat
Car
All far from comparable alternatives to a gun. Seriously, i encourage you to look up baseball bats in road rage incidents, and imagine a gun instead. And all of these things have roles outside of homicide.
Neither are abortion rates. You’d support a governors ability to end all abortion in a state under a public health emergency?
Abortions are beneficial
To be fair, so are some homicides
Never
Hitler says what
Hitler was pretty pro homicide
He was also pretty xenophobic. Unfortunately, thats a bad combination.
Classic whatabout-ism:
Can Governors create Laws?
That is basically the bog standard gun nut talking point:
“The issue isn’t all these guns being used to shoot kids that are firing rounds specifically designed to cause horrific trauma to bodies and negate the effectiveness of the body armor cops wear. The issue is that the world is not a utopia. So fix hunger, crime, wealth inequality, gender dynamics, space travel, and energy production. Then we can talk about my sick ass assault rifle”. Right wing nutbags will add on “people not having christian values” and left wing nutbags will say that any form of gun control is inherently racist.
Instead of having all these laws, we should simply solve the problem of evil.
The problem with the term “abortion” and banning it is that an “abortion” is an umbrella term for many things.
When a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (embryo is forming in the fallopian tube, baby cannot develop and it will kill the mother) the “fix” is called an abortion. There is no scenario where the embryo can mature (they *need" to be attached to the uterine wall) and it would 100% kill the mother.
Another one is an incomplete miscarriage. It’s when the embryo/fetus dies, but doesn’t come out. And the fix is usually a D&C, which technically (in medical terms) results in, and is considered, an abortion.
While I personally do not agree with abortions (in the context of avoiding an otherwise healthy pregnancy). I would never shame or coerce someone from getting one. It’s not my decision, and it doesn’t involve me. I’m not part of the equation.
And despite my disagreement, I think anti-abortion laws are not only wrong, but also harmful.
The problem with the term ‘gun rights’ and banning them is that ‘gun rights’ is an umbrella term for many things. When a person owns a firearm for self-defense or hunting, and it is used responsibly, it is considered an exercise of ‘gun rights.’ There are also situations where the use of firearms is necessary for self-defense and protection.
Another example is target shooting or competitive shooting, which is a legitimate and responsible use of firearms. These activities are all grouped under the term ‘gun rights.’
While I personally may not agree with unrestricted access to firearms (in the context of avoiding unnecessary risks and violence), I would never shame or coerce someone from exercising their Second Amendment rights. It’s not my decision, and it doesn’t involve me. I’m not part of the equation.
And despite my disagreement, I think restrictive gun control laws are not only wrong but also harmful.
Just like with abortion, the debate over gun rights is multifaceted and involves differing perspectives on individual rights, public safety, and the balance between regulation and personal freedom.
Your argument is basically “people who don’t break the law are fine, so we shouldn’t let people who do break the law ruin for the rest of us”. Sounds like nuance, but it’s not.
The colloquial abortion is only the fetus-deletus one
What? I assume you’re suggesting that elective surgery to terminate a healthy pregnancy is “the only fetus-deletus one”.
If that is what you mean. Then no, you are wrong. Because the scenarios I outlined above are not hypotheticals. They are literal and direct examples of women who were refused treatment for those conditions in states that have banned abortions. The medical staff were legally unable to provide the medical intervention those women needed to save their lives. Some of them had to travel out of state to get treatment. I don’t know what happened to all of them.
No. But if a republican were to have data showing a public emergency related to wide spread abortions and imposed a partial ban that provides carve outs for medical and hardship purposes? I would be angry, but that would likely get widespread support throughout the country as it removes most of the horror stories of abortion bans and just leaves people having their lives ruined because of a broken condom.
And… that is what we have here. If your job requires you to carry a firearm (cop or rent a cop), you still can. Otherwise, you can leave it in your trunk with a trigger lock or whatever else. Nobody loses the Right to own fifty assault rifles and, if King Chuck comes a knocking you can still pull your M4 out of your trunk and defend America. You just have a few extra steps before unloading on the station wagon that you feel cut you off in a parking lot.
You somehow missed the fact that this isn’t a law. No elected member of the New Mexico Legislature voted on this. This is one person in the Executive Branch deciding they can write and impose law at their will. And you support this?
And you ignored their comment completely.