82 Comments - GMatts - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:50 pm: I am against making the names available. But, how about this: IF it should ever become effective, the authority in charge would have to also advise the FOID card holder that his/her name was inquired about, and the FOID card holder must be given the name of the person/entity inquiring. Fair is fair, right? Transparency goes both ways. - Old Milwaukee - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:51 pm: That totals around 330 murders. Since 2007, there have been over 60,000 murders in the U.S. Not a great argument. - 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:52 pm: Congrats to the ISRA. You get to keep a public record secret while momentum builds to allow concealed carry. Full gun rights with absolutely no restrictions, transparency or responsibility. Is there any restriction on gun rights that the ISRA supports? - Matt - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:52 pm: Considering the fact that millions of people in the US have concealed carry permits, I think these numbers work in their favor. It’s tough to get the exact number of conceal carry permits, but an MSNBC article from a year ago puts it at 6,000,000. It’s probably more if some states let you carry without an actual permit (I’m not sure about that). Disregarding the fact that the “279 private citizens killed” doesn’t seem to take into consideration justifiable homicides, this all ends up being 331 incidents among 6,000,000 permit carriers. That’s .005% of concealed carry permit holders that commit a murder, and 99.995% who abide by the law. Damn good track record if you ask me. Legalize it. - matty - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:52 pm: Im glad this information is public. It certainly should be. Im still trying to understand the absurdity of the arguement that making FOID holders names would compromise public safety…. They seem to be grasping at staws… - John A Logan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:53 pm: How many deep breaths do I have to take around this place before commenting? I am on number 26. Think I will leave this post alone. - Demoralized - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:54 pm: So are we talking about an “acceptable” murder rate? That’s not a very good argument, either. - Razer - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:00 pm: Who exactly, make up the “The Violence Policy Center “, and what are their credentials? - Old Milwaukee - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:03 pm: No, demoralized, we’re talking about arguments that don’t make any sense. The vast majority of murders happen by people who don’t have a conceal carry permit. That’s what the numbers say. - 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:04 pm: “A well regulated militia…” It seems to me that this part of the 2nd Amendment is always overlooked when debating gun laws. The Constitution doesn’t say the militia can not be regulated. It is up to the states and Congress to regulate the militia, and thus certain restrictions and regulations are exactly what the Founders intended when they drafted this important right. - Secret Square - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:06 pm: On a much lighter note… did that headline set some kind of record for the number of acronyms cited? - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:07 pm: So… 99.45 percent of gun killings are performed by people without concealed carry permits. Is the intent of the Violence Policy Center to highlight that the vast majority of murderers are also unlicensed? Shocking. - Bill - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:12 pm: Why should FOID holders have any more privacy rights than holders of Illinois drivers licenses, state ID cards or any other state certificate or license? What are they trying to hide? - Solomon - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:12 pm: Obtaining a gun is not difficult at all, FOID or no FOID. The licensing effectively only obstructs law abiding citizens and lazy killers who can’t be arsed to drive to Kentucky to buy a gun. - grand old partisan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:13 pm: == Is there any restriction on gun rights that the ISRA supports == Think, for a second, about the concept of “restricted rights.” Seems kind of oxy-moronic, doesn’t it. A right that is restricted isn’t much of a right. The Second Amendment provides for a “regulated” right to arms-bearing. In McDonald, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that restrictions, such as outright bans, are a step too far, constitutionally speaking. They go beyond regulation, and enter the realm of infringement. Gun-control activists suggest that concealed carry is a step too far in the other direction. That owning a gun for use on private property is one thing, but allowing people to carry one in public is another. I’m certainly not obtuse about this distinction. But, consider again the concept of “rights.” What other rights would we accept the exercise of to people’s private property. How about the freedom to assemble? One could argue that for the sake of public safety and order, the protestors in WI should vacate the Capitol and convene on private property instead. But rights are rights, and if you are only allowed to exercise your rights on private property then they really aren’t rights at all. Similarly, while you can constitutionally regulate the carrying of a gun in public, say by requiring a back-ground check and permit, you can’t (or, at least shouldn’t) ban it outright – restrict it, if you will. If you do, you risk running into the same constitutional threshold as the one violated by Chicago in the McDonald case. - Matt - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:19 pm: Well I wouldn’t say obtaining a gun is too easy. It’s day 53 since the ISP cashed the check for my FOID card. Absolutely no reason I would be denied. Says I have to wait at least 57 days. - amalia - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:22 pm: the killings committed by permit holders are horrible, of course. but they are dwarfed by the total numbers. it’s not a good argument. and the source is very suspect, it would seem. looked up the Violence Policy Center and though they have lots of good info, they are also advocates of banning handguns. Why would the side against concealed carry not have law enforcement quote the statistics instead of those who are far to the left? Mike Madigan has a chance to do something good on the gun issue. Pass Conceal Carry and pass another measure that the other side wants, like some law enforcement need on purchases, requiring that purchases all go through a background check. There are reasonable regulations proposed, and the S.C. decision written by Scalia points to restrictions as totally possible. Why not ask police what they need and then give conceal carry a pass too? - RMW Stanford - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:24 pm: The majority of empircal research has showed either no increases in major crime associated with concealed carry, or a possible small decrease, these numbers seem to be in line with that. Particular when you take into account that at least some of the killings took place in the shooters home were it wouldn’t have matter one way or the other if the shooter had a concealed weapons permit. - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:24 pm: I just googled the number of concealed carry permits by states. FL, PA, and TX have approximately 1,600,000 ccp’s. I have read statistics that there are approximately 300,000,000 guns owned by private citizens in the US. I’m pretty shocked at how low the numbers are for people killed by concealed carry permit holders. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:25 pm: Hey, VPC - let’s see the ratio of “bad” shootings attributed to CCW holders against those by people that own or carry illegally, and also against non-CCW legal gun owners (who have a lower level of scrutiny than CCW holders.) Any shooting is horrible, but you know what they say about statistics. Razer - VPC is an anti-gun organization that masquerades as a think tank. It’s about as unbiased as the NRA. I’m torn on the FOID privacy issue - I think GMatts’ idea is on target with the addition that the license holder must be notified with certified mail/return receipt confirmation no later than 14 days before the requestor gets the notification. What was the story I heard yesterday about the DOC inmate who was requesting FOID status of his victims? - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:25 pm: 47th ward, I am not sure how you can say there are no restrictions on gun ownership in Illinois. Every FOID card holder must still undergo background checks every time they purchase a firearm. I don’t believe the ISRA is against a reasonable process to acquire a CCW permit, including training. In your last post you mention the well regulated militia. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruled last year that individuals have a right to posess firearms. It appears they have ruled that there are 2 distinct parts to the amendment - that they are not intertwined. I agree that there need to be restrictions - those restrictions will have to be agreed upon by the GA, etc. All of which will be scrutinized according to the SCOTUS decision. - Joe - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:25 pm: @Gmatts - Records request are public. If someone makes a request, that request is public. - Quinn T. Sential - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:27 pm: This information is obviously half a loaf and does not offer a fair comparison. and is instead the apple vs. orange. I have to ask; where is the comparative data on Law Enforcement Officers Killed by NON Concealed Handgun Permit Holders (May 2007 to the Present) Private Citizens Killed by NON Concealed Handgun Permit Holders (May 2007 to the Present) Mass Shootings Committed by NON Concealed Handgun Permit Holders (May 2007 to the Present) Murder-Suicides Committed by NON Concealed Handgun Permit Holders (May 2007 to the Present) A quick look at the comparative data would certainly seem to be more “fair and balanced”. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:27 pm: Ooof - “…14 days before the requestor gets the information.” - power to the people - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:29 pm: == am against making the names available. But, how about this: IF it should ever become effective, the authority in charge would have to also advise the FOID card holder that his/her name was inquired about, and the FOID card holder must be given the name of the person/entity inquiring. Fair is fair, right? Transparency goes both ways. == Nothing in FOIA allows or requires a government agency to notify the subject of a FOIA request that they will be divulging information. When the AP requests the names and salaries of every state employee, as well as the city they live in, the AP gets that list without each person receiving notice. Why should it be different for FOID card holders? The notion that someone is less protected because their name appears on a list of thousands of gun owners (remember, just their name was to be released - not address, not city, not county - just name). I would think those people whose names ARE NOT on the list are the ones who should be frightened because the supposed criminals who are going to review the list will most likely hit the houses without guns. Should boating licenses be exempt from FOIA because someone might steal a boat? Should the names of people who have seniors ride free passes be exempt because someone might mug an old lady to get her transit card? If everyone can know how much money I make, why can’t I know if you have a gun? - 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:31 pm: I’d regulate firearms in the same way we regulate cars. Each firearm would have a unique and traceable ID number from the manufacturer and they would be licensed by the state. Owners and operators would need to be tested and licensed too, and mandatory liability insurance would be required. Then I’d have no problem with concealed carry, open carry, whatever. Nothing about how Illinois regulates vehicles prohibits Illinoisans from keeping and driving cars. It should be the same for firearms. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:32 pm: @Bill =Why should FOID holders have any more privacy rights than holders of Illinois drivers licenses, state ID cards or any other state certificate or license? What are they trying to hide? = Being a FOID id card carrier for many years, Bill, I can say I have nothing to hide. In fact, I didn’t know that the list was not released or available in any way. I had no thought about it whatever. Now that the debate is warming up - my thoughts are that the requirment that gun owners secure a FOID card in order to purchase and possess a firearm is improper and should not be required. I believe Illinois is the only state in the nation that requires such an id. Remember, tho, that background checks are required in all states - and that would continue in Illinois even if there is no FOID id requirement. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:33 pm: Here, this should tick everyone off on both sides of the issue. I’m a typical gun owner and shooting enthusiast, and I’d support: * Shall-issue CCW; * Firearm Preemption; * All private party sales need to be called in to ISP by the individuals to determine the buyer’s eligibility; * Severely increased penalties for illegal use of a firearm or carrying without a CCW; * Open records (name and expiration only) for FOID and CCW with mandatory confirmed notification to the licensee as detailed above. - power to the people - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:33 pm: I like you Ken in Aurora. - umm - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:36 pm: “Now that the debate is warming up - my thoughts are that the requirment that gun owners secure a FOID card in order to purchase and possess a firearm is improper and should not be required. I believe Illinois is the only state in the nation that requires such an id. Remember, tho, that background checks are required in all states - and that would continue in Illinois even if there is no FOID id requirement.” Actually, 12 states have some form of registration requirement, either at the state or local level. Background checks are required in all states for handguns, not long guns. - Long-time Lurker - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:37 pm: Rich — I think you put more acronyms in this single headline than most teens use in their text messages! WOW! Thanks for giving me a giggle at the end of a long week. - not so fast - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:37 pm: Concealed carry? Why not open carry? Faster access and greater deterrence. Besides, some folks might want to avoid concealed carriers. - just sayin' - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:37 pm: This reminds me that I was thinking during the whole Madison, WI protests - the one thing they really needed throughout the crowds on both sides: concealed firearms. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:40 pm: “Nothing about how Illinois regulates vehicles prohibits Illinoisans from keeping and driving cars. It should be the same for firearms.” The difference is that firearms ownership is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. I hate to trot out this old saw, but should we license free speech, too? There’s a very large nugget of truth there. For firearms ownership I personally think the state needs to determine whether an individual is legally prohibited to own weapons and provide a way for people to check this eligibility. Every step beyond that is problematic - I’m willing to live with the FOID, but it really should be replaced with some form of instant check as used in most other states. And I’m OK with CCW holders having to meet a higher standard - training, a more extensive criminal check than is performed for a FOID now plus checks of mental history records. But any CCW must in my opinion be “shall issue”. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:42 pm: “I like you Ken in Aurora.” *Blushes.* Are you single? What gender? ;) - tak1885 - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:42 pm: “I’d regulate firearms in the same way we regulate cars. Each firearm would have a unique and traceable ID number from the manufacturer” - 47th Ward -Every firearm has a serial number engraved on the stock and the barrel. This serial number is linked to person who is purchasing the weapon and is available to law enforcement officials. - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:43 pm: “This reminds me that I was thinking during the whole Madison, WI protests - the one thing they really needed throughout the crowds on both sides: concealed firearms.” Most or many CCWs would not be valid at an event like the Madison circus - public gatherings are commonly defined and prohihited. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:45 pm: 47th ward, Currently, all firearms already have a unique and traceable ID # from the manufacturer. The potential problem with requiring a license for each firearm is that 2nd amendment proponents continue to point out that possessing firearms is a right, much like the right to a free press. We don’t require printing presses to be licensed. Bear with me now, I am not trying to be inflammatory - the right to bear arms came about as a direct concern about an overreaching central gov’t abridging the freedoms of the populace. The idea of the gov’t knowing where every gun is held - or for that matter, where each printing press is held - gives the gov’t a roadmap to confiscate the guns (printing presses) thereby overturning our rights. Again, not trying to be inflammatory - just describing what I know of the gun rights groups. I am not trying to compare guns and printing presses as to their relative lethality. Just bringing what some believe is the framers’ intent into the conversation. The liability insurance thing is as explosive - I have a few examples to describe but fear they will not be approved. I have no problem with people requesting a CCW permit be required to undergo a thorough (and regular) background check and proper training. - 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:46 pm: Dan, my earlier point was not that there are no restrictions on guns in Illinois. My point was to wonder aloud what, if any, restrictions the ISRA would support. Machine guns are banned by the federal government. Sawed-off shotguns have been banned. I don’t think anyone is lobbying to change those rules, but I have to say, this fight over FOID lists is kind of odd to me. And you helped prove my point when you say Illinois should do away with FOID. I realize I’ve posted a lot on this subject, but I want to tell my fellow readers here that I am not anti-gun at all. Some of my Democratic friends are, but I don’t share some of the concern/fear these friends have. I just think we can find ways to ensure guns are used as safely as possible and that there is some accountability within the firearms industry and among certain enthusiasts who give every gun owner a bad reputation. The overwhelming majority of firearm owners shouldn’t feel threatened by reasonable restrictions on what we all agree is a delicate balancing act between freedom and responsibility. And if the ISP releases the list of FOID card holders, my name will be on it. - Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:48 pm: The Violence Policy Center has put together lists of people killed by concealed carry permit holders or those carrying legally concealed guns Here’s another twist. How many of the homicides actually involved a concealed gun? The way it was worded, the homicides could have been committed with a sword, or an unconcealed gun, by someone who happened to have a c/c permit. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:50 pm: ===Think, for a second, about the concept of “restricted rights.” Seems kind of oxy-moronic, doesn’t it.=== lol Rights are defined by the courts, often not in an unrestricted way. For instance, try exercising your 1st Amendment right to peaceably assemble by holding a protest march in Chicago without a city permit. Get a clue or go away. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:50 pm: 47, a minor clarification to your 2:46: Fully automatic weapons and short barreled long gins are actually allowed under Federal law - for example, a short barreled rifle is a $200 tax stamp and a lot of paperwork. Illinois law does not allow for these classes of weapons. IIRC more states allow them than don’t, but I don’t know the numbers offhand. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:51 pm: umm, Registration of firearms and the FOID id requirment are not quite the same thing. It is curious, some states require you to register the firearms, some states require you to register yourself as the purchaser. In Illinois, the gun is not registered, the owner is. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:52 pm: =“I like you Ken in Aurora.” *Blushes.* Are you single? What gender? ;) = Is this gonna become a dating site? capitolfaxhookupblog? - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:53 pm: - I hate to trot out this old saw, but should we license free speech, too? - We already do folks, and press. Wanna be a reporter and get access to important people? Better have a press pass. Wanna stage a large protest in certain areas? Gonna need a permit. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:54 pm: “Is this gonna become a dating site? capitolfaxhookupblog?” So long as Rich gets a cut of the action… - Razer - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:54 pm: @Ken in Aurora , That’s what I figured; so basically the information is so skewed that it’s useless. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:55 pm: ===basically the information is so skewed that it’s useless.=== No. - 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:56 pm: Don’t forget libel laws either. Free speech is fine until someone gets hurt. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:57 pm: “We already do folks, and press. Wanna be a reporter and get access to important people? Better have a press pass. Wanna stage a large protest in certain areas? Gonna need a permit.” I’d argue that background checks are analogous to your examples and are an acceptable restriction. We shouldn’t tolerate onerous restrictions on *any* right. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:59 pm: - We shouldn’t tolerate onerous restrictions on *any* right. - That’s why we have the courts to decide what’s onerous. I was just pointing out that saying a right can’t be regulated is a silly argument. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:00 pm: “@Ken in Aurora , That’s what I figured; so basically the information is so skewed that it’s useless.” I wouldn’t say skewed, I’d say selective. I have no doubt that their data is good, but IMO their interpretation is designed to support their position. I don’t think VPC is evil, they’re just very focused on their message. VPC = NRA. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:01 pm: The press pass and a large protest do not describe the totality that is freedom of speech. There are reasonable restrictions to many activities - they don’t constitute an abridgment of freedom. That is why I used the printing press, rather than the free speech in my piece - to avoid that connection. The need for a permit for a “large protest” is all about managing large numbers of people in a small urban area - not a limit or control on speech (see neo-nazi marches in Skokie). I can get access to many of those same people and I don’t need a press pass. I have had a variety of contacts with my elected officials and have never been a member or the 4th estate. Those are crowd control issues, not free press controls. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:03 pm: “That’s why we have the courts to decide what’s onerous. I was just pointing out that saying a right can’t be regulated is a silly argument.” I think if you look at the context of what you originally quoted plus what I’ve posted elsewhere here today you’ll see that we’re in agreement. I don’t beleive I have ever advocated no regulation of firearms ownership - quite the contrary. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:05 pm: - There are reasonable restrictions to many activities - they don’t constitute an abridgment of freedom. - They’re still restrictions to constitutionally guarenteed rights. Does purchasing a handgun describe the totality of bearing arms? - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:06 pm: - you’ll see that we’re in agreement. - I’m cool with you Ken, just clarifying. I’m a gun owner myself. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:09 pm: *guaranteed, I’m getting sloppy. - one day at a time - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:09 pm: Take the time to read each synopsis of the events listed in the VPC CCW shooting lists. While it all had CCWs, the majority appear to be unrelated to personal defense shootings. In my reading many appear to be shootings by individuals who were illegally using a firearm, some even in illegal events. Just because a drug dealer a shoots someone in a drug deal; or someone commits suicide; or shoots an estranged love interest or is mentally deranged and shoots up the office does not mean a concealed carry permit was the root cause. The fact of a CC permit involved is minute compared to all shootings where CC’s were not issued. - Razer - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:10 pm: Sorry Rich, but “yes” - Springfield Skeptic - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:10 pm: Unless I missed it, the statistic missing in this argument is how many times a crime is prevented by the presence of a firearm in the possession of a person carrying legally. No shots fired. Just the deterence of the firearm in a particular situation. I heard yesterday on a Springfield radio program that the FBI puts the number at approximately 750,000 annually in the U.S. - Peter Snarker - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:12 pm: I would like to see how many gun crimes were committed in illinois by foid card holders. Does the vscp have those stats? - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:16 pm: I don’t want to be seen as sucking up (much), but props to Rich for providing a forum for rational discussion of these topics without having to wade through the comments from the small but vocal contingent of knuckle-draggers on either side of the argument! - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:18 pm: Whoops - must have triggered the moderation penalty box with a phrase in that last one. Sorry, Rich - you’ll see it wasn’t inflammatory to anyone here! - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:18 pm: “I realize I’ve posted a lot on this subject, but I want to tell my fellow readers here that I am not anti-gun at all. Some of my Democratic friends are, but I don’t share some of the concern/fear these friends have. I just think we can find ways to ensure guns are used as safely as possible and that there is some accountability within the firearms industry and among certain enthusiasts who give every gun owner a bad reputation. The overwhelming majority of firearm owners shouldn’t feel threatened by reasonable restrictions on what we all agree is a delicate balancing act between freedom and responsibility.” What more restrictions could you possibly want? This is the most unfriendly state towards gun owners in the entire country. This is the only state in the country that doesn’t allow for any form of concealed carry. In the city of Chicago, one has to jump through enormous hoops simply to register a gun to keep in the home for self-protection (most states have those kinds of requirements for concealed carry). And as we all know, the courts had to force the city to allow even that. That’s why gun owners are so upset over releasing the names of people with FOID cards - they don’t trust the intentions of policymakers in this state. Short of repealing the 2nd Amendment, what more restrictions could any gun control supporter possibly want? - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:18 pm: ===the majority appear to be unrelated to personal defense shootings.=== Yeah, those police killings and mass shootings were all self defense. - JellyBean - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:21 pm: Bill - FOID card owners are protecting themselves from criminals who break in to steal weapons. In the age of the internet, a name can lead someone to your door, andjust because they have weapons does not mean that they sleep with a loaded gun. - 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:25 pm: ===what more restrictions could any gun control supporter possibly want=== I’d like a restriction that ended the violence in our society. But like repealing the 2nd Amendment, that isn’t going to happen. I’d settle for regulations that could trace an illegal weapon used by a criminal back to the idiot who sold it illegally. Can we start there? And yes, I know there are serial numbers on firearms. But there doesn’t appear to be a database of weapons and owners that gets audited. How do so many criminals seem so well-armed that law abiding people need to carry their own weapons? Help me address that problem, and I’ll support you’re right to own a howitzer. - John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:28 pm: A “well regulated” militia, in the language of the day, was an outfit of volunteers that were all able to load, fire, clear out, reload, all to command, uniformly. Similar language applies to clock’s ability to keep time accurately. - one day at a time - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:34 pm: ===the majority appear to be unrelated to personal defense shootings.=== Yeah, those police killings and mass shootings were all self defense. What??? I sure wouldn’t consider them self defense or personal defense… - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:35 pm: LOL. You apparently are not attuned to any sort of sarcasm. - John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:40 pm: >>>I have to ask; where is the comparative data on >>>Law Enforcement Officers Killed by NON Concealed Handgun Permit Holders (May 2007 to the Present) >>>Private Citizens Killed by NON Concealed Handgun Permit Holders (May 2007 to the Present) hmmm, here are Chicago Homicides (all) for those years. 2007: 442 2008: 510 2009: 458 2010: 435 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago And in a ten year period from 2000 to 2010, 51 cops were killed with their own guns. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112002865.html?hpid=topnews - MrJM - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:47 pm: When killing people with concealed guns is outlawed, only outlaws will kill people with concealed guns. – MrJM - Steve Bartin - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:58 pm: Does anything think if concealed carry came to Chicago that the murder rate would drop to Houston’s levels? - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 4:00 pm: # –Most or many CCWs would not be valid at an event like the Madison circus - public gatherings are commonly defined and prohihited.– Not true. Folks have been outside Obama appearances for years with firearms, exercising their “rights,” if not their responsibilities or brains. Try the google. - Peter Snarker - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 4:02 pm: All the stats in the world dont matter - this debate will always be about who can “monger” the most (1) fear and (2) paranoia. Stats? Please, that’s for us state-government-heads on here with Rich. Run the two below commercials (off the top of my head) and all your damn stats wont matter at all. ANTI - CCW TV ad (target: suburban mothers): … cue scary music… mother dropping children off at school. Scary guy lurks in a nearby “abduction van”, he slides his CCW permit into his wallet and gets out of the van, heading toward the school, looking very devious and child molester. Voice over: “Does Illinois REALLY need more availability of weapons?” PRO-CCW Ad (aimed at fathers and single women): Cue scary music. Woman walking to her car on a deserted and menacing urban street… stat comes on screen showing that police budgets and patrols have been cut a gazillion percent over last few years and average response time is now 11 minutes (or whatever)… the scary man (hey! maybe the guy from the abduction van in the anti-ccw commercial!) walks aggressively towards the woman. Cell phone is hopeless - she could be dead by then… VOICEOVER: Illinois, let’s give ourselves a fighting chance. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 4:03 pm: “hmmm, here are Chicago Homicides (all) for those years. 2007: 442 2008: 510 2009: 458 2010: 435″ There you go! 100% done by shooters without a CCW. ;) - Wensicia - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 4:10 pm: ==Does anything think if concealed carry came to Chicago that the murder rate would drop to Houston’s levels?== No, I don’t think these laws have much effect in poor, high minority urban areas like Chicago’s. - Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 4:11 pm: @ wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 4:00 pm: And they’re idiots for it IMO. But please note I said “most or many”, and that I was referring to CCW - most of the Obama protesters have open carried from what I can remember. I stand by my comment, but don’t have the time to do your research for you. - Todd - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 4:24 pm: The real question about the VPC stats is did the permit make the differance in the place of possession or carrying. Some of them tok place where the permit was required, on the public way, and several should notnhave had a license or permit. Many others took place in the home where no carry license is required. Or they used rifles which the illinois legislation doesn’t apply to and is a red herring. Take FOID cards as an example. Last year there were 229,500 background checks on purchases. Of those 596 were denied for cause. That is like .002% of all people purchasing firearms for 2010. Will there be some who make a mistake or do something wrong. Yes a small percentage. But i wager i can find more stories on a given day about cops breaking the law than RTC holders doing it. the VPC is resorting to a high pitched squeel as that is all they have left. The joyce foundation is slowing cutting off their funding and all 4 of them maybe looking for work in the future These are the same guys who want to regulate bolt action rifles as if they were machineguns. They write sensational press releases and socalled studies to try and scare people and make some one think they are relevent to the debate - 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 4:34 pm: Thanks Todd, I’m glad you’re here, you always bring well-reasoned arguments to this debate. What do you think is the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? I think that’s the common ground between ISRA members and gun control advocates. Do you think Illinois can take steps on its own, or is a federal solution needed? You’re an expert, and from what you’ve posted previously, I know you and I agree that criminals should not have guns. Can you help me understand what reasonable, practical and effective steps we can take to disarm the criminals? I’ll stipulate that criminals, by definition, don’t follow the law. But legitimate sellers are involved in this somehow obviously. And manufacturers too. What responsibility do they have to prevent guns from being used by criminals? How can we end the practice of straw purchases without trampling on the rights of law abiding people? - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 4:38 pm: –most of the Obama protesters have open carried from what I can remember.– Perhaps. But if it was concealed, how would you know? –Today, what I’m saying to you is this: when you’re facing a loaded gun, what’s the difference?– Jack Nicholson as Frank Costello in Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed.” How Jack, at 70, didn’t get an Oscar by acclamation (he wasn’t even nominated) for that role is a great mystery to me. - Todd - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 5:22 pm: Thanks Todd, I’m glad you’re here, you always bring well-reasoned arguments to this debate. What do you think is the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? I think that’s the common ground between ISRA members and gun control advocates. Do you think Illinois can take steps on its own, or is a federal solution needed? You’re an expert, and from what you’ve posted previously, I know you and I agree that criminals should not have guns. Can you help me understand what reasonable, practical and effective steps we can take to disarm the criminals? I’ll stipulate that criminals, by definition, don’t follow the law. But legitimate sellers are involved in this somehow obviously. And manufacturers too. What responsibility do they have to prevent guns from being used by criminals? How can we end the practice of straw purchases without trampling on the rights of law abiding people? 47 First lets enforce the laws on the books. Chicago and coo co have clammored for new laws. They dreamed up gunrunning. A class 1 felony for 3 illegal transfers. Ok. But when a guy like tyrus mccants gets 18 months probation for a gun running conviction what good is passing any new laws? We passed a straw purchase law to help prosecutors i dont see where they have used it. Instead they want to pass a law on reporting lost or stolen guns because they say that is what the straw buyer says happened when they trace the guns. I asked them if they had ever got the straw buyer to file a police report for the stolen gun so they could charge them with a felony for false police report They have start there before we start thinking of adding more restrictions on gun owners. We have a background check for retail sales. Beyond that your gonna have to convince me that its not designed to create more red tape and hassle gun owners. And until they delete the database they are not suppose to have on purchases, we wont particpate in anything else. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.