Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Another paper demands answers
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Poll Results; Rockford Files; Tenhouse; Winkel; DuPage (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
Do you think we have too many gun laws, not enough, or just about right? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 7:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Another paper demands answers
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Poll Results; Rockford Files; Tenhouse; Winkel; DuPage (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Too many and we don’t enforce the ones that we have too well. We, in my opinion, need to join the other 48 states who have some form of concealed carry and then join the other 28 states who have some form of 3 strikes you are out. Once we start putting those who commit crimes with guns away for a long time we will see our violence with guns decrease. But then, we are too worried about other meaningful legislation like allowing prostitutes to sue their pimps.
Comment by Paul Powell Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 8:02 am
The gun laws already on the books need to be enforced. There should be mandatory sentence for the carrying of a gun in the commission of a crime. No probation and no parole if you possess a gun in the commission of a crime. That would end a lot of the revolving door and plea bargains. Good citizens have the right to posses and “I believe” carry those weapons. Where conceal carry has passed crime has decreased.
Comment by The Conservative Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 8:03 am
Too many and when you add too many judges willing to cut deals that put the offender back on the street.There should be manadory sentencing for people who violate gun laws.I am not to crazy over the concealed law.
Comment by DOWNSTATE Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 8:18 am
Amen (to Paul Powell), and Amen (The Conservative).
Comment by zinged again Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 8:19 am
Way, way, way too many.
Comment by Jechislo Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 8:27 am
Too many ‘ganstas’ with guns. Not enough law abiding citizens with registered guns.
Comment by Schiznitz Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 8:51 am
Rich,
Maybe you intended it this way, but these ideological questions are always effective at bringing out the political leanings of your commenters, and the site’s readership in general.
Call it an informal poll, if you may. But I think we all know which way the scales tip (topple?).
Comment by JohnR Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 8:53 am
Too many, and I blame the NRA.
Illinois needs reasonable gun control, and we don’t have that. We have an incoherent jumble of laws that ulimately does nothing to prevent crime.
I admit that I am not a fan of guns. I don’t see the point. However, I fail to see any reasonable basis for Chicago’s law outlawing handguns, particularly since it does not seem to be enforced. Laws like that get passed when the extremists on each side take over.
We do need some reasonable restrictions on weapons. There has to be a line where we can say “This weapon is reasonable, and that one crosses the line.” As many gun nuts will tell me, that line may not be clear and our current laws don’t solve the problems. That is why we need to get the NRA involved so that we can work together for reasonable restrictions.
The NRA has dropped the ball. Their opposition to things like cop-killer bullets does nothing but to turn over the law-making to those who lack the experience with guns that I assume many NRA members have.
We have a situation where those with the most knowledge and experience are refusing to participate in the process.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 9:07 am
we need concealed/carry? are you serious? we need fewer guns not more, and certainly not more that are concealed…
so to answer the question, we need better enforcement of existing laws and new laws that make it much harder to own a handgun…
Comment by Mongo Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 9:08 am
Mongo,
Im too lazy to look up 48 other states statistics but i’m fairly certain that violent crime goes down once concealed carry laws are implemented. Since the criminals are concealing guns on the way to rob innocents then the innocents should be able to pull out their concealed surprise once the criminal gets there.
Comment by just watching Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 9:13 am
I think there might be too many. I think a citizen should not be punished for having a weapon but a criminal should be punished for having a weapon with the intent or during a commission of a crime. Indeed I’d go further if he’s a felon he loses his right forever.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 9:41 am
Bubba, comments like yours (now deleted) can get you permanently banned, not to mention turned in.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 9:42 am
I don’t think state laws that treat the whole state in one manner are effective. The state is diverse. It runs from rural to exurb to suburb to city. In the city and burbs where there are a lot of people there needs to be more restrictions. In the rural areas where people have grown up with guns, know how to use them, and don’t feel the need to employ them on their neighbors, there can be much less restrictions.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 9:54 am
enforce current gun laws and tougher sentences for criminals using guns in a crime. limit access to guns, especially hand guns, and require stricter registration and licensing procedures. gun owners should have some responsibilty when their guns or stolen or lost and later used in a crime. maybe, they should not be allowed to have guns in the future.
Comment by Ron Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 9:59 am
I like Ron’s idea.
We should extend it to automobiles as well. If your car is stolen and is used in a crime, you should bear some of the responsibility of the crime. Maybe you should also not be allowed to own an auto in the future.
Comment by Leroy Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 10:20 am
We have too many. Let’s face the facts: criminals who commit crimes with guns are not worried about breaking the law to acquire them in the first place. Chicago’s restriction against handgun ownership in one’s own home is the type of draconian law usually imposed by police states. Burglars used to do their business when people weren’t home, and were careful not to carry any weapons while “working”, so as not to incur additional charges in the event they were caught. These days, all bets are off, and women and the elderly are especially at risk. People have a basic human right to defend themselves in their own homes. That being said, however, people who insist they have the “right” to own AK-47’s for “sporting use” do nothing but grant some form of legitimacy to those of Mayor Daley’s ilk who believe that no one but himself, the police and his own personal bodyguards have the right to own handguns. As always, the reasonable point is in the middle of the two arguments.
Comment by Uncle Slappy Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 10:26 am
Just two states still don’t allow any concealed carry. It’s hard to believe that Illinoisans are inherently less responsible than citizens in 48 other states.
Comment by respectful Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 10:34 am
Skeeter –
Since I represent the NRA in Springfiled, I guess you aim your comments at me. Pun intended.
However, your use of the term cop killer bullets shows ignorance of the issue. What is a cop killer bullet? I would say any bullet that kills a cop. From a .22 long rifle to a .44 mag –doesn’t matter. But the anti-gun crowd have tried to use that term for so called armor piercing ammunition. A generic term with broad implications.
It started with so called teflon bullets. The teflon coating was to aid in keeping gun bores cleaner — NOT to aid in getting through soft body armor. But antis seized on the issue and try to ban so called amrmor piecing ammunition. Well, vests are tested to stop certain bullets, based on physics of mass/energy and speed. Look inside the panel on a vest and it will tell you what it is rated to stop. Most vests cops wear will stop handgun ammo up to a 357 and shotgun rounds. They never were nor intended to stop centerfire rifle ammo. The ban that has been proposed in Illinois and congress would outlaw all centerfire rifle ammo. Ammo that is used for hunting and target shooting.
We wrote the current law that out laws handgun ammo specifically designed to penatrate vests based on construction. i.e. steel cores and such.
Cops also have the same problem that most of us do, we want to be comfortable in what we wear. They will weigh comfort vs prtection. We have not yet been able to design a vest that weighs as much as a t-shirt that stops a tank round.
So you can get up set at the fact that NRA and ISRA fight all these broad bills aimed at law abiding citizens which do nothing to stop criminals, and use buzz words to do it. But the fact is these broad general terms, like assualt weapons, sniper rifles, pocket rockets, saturday night psecials, and cop killer bullets are used to hide very broad sweeping guin control measures.
Any time there is the hint at workig toward some middle ground, look for the antis to push it for a ban or to never agree to anything. Case in point, the federal brady law. Waiting period sunsets when the background check system kicks in. Records to be destroyed unpon completion of background check. Bradys’ now want the waiting period back and to keep records for ever. So what it the point of even trying to talk when all they will do is use it to grab for more.
Second point, we have heard about one gun per month. Everyone says how can you be against that? Who needs more than 12 guns a year. I’ll be happy to expand on that later, I have two sons, but today in newspapers New York anti-gunners are seeking a one gun per 90 day law. they just made our point for us.
All the while, legislators like Cullerton will say trust us, we are never going to do X or Y. And the income tax increase was only suppose to be temporary.
Happy to answer any questions.
Todd
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 10:39 am
They’ll take my rolling pin when they pry it out of my cold dead hands.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 12:41 pm
I am a big NRA fan, but I do think they could do more.
1. Come up with a system to ensure only legitimate law abiding citizens by guns at gun shows.
2. Initiate more home safety courses to ensure gun responsibility it taught in the home for gun owners.
3. Assist gunowners in ensuring children don’t have open access to guns.
Laws and politicians have woefully failed. I think the NRA should promote guns and responsibility. With rights come responsibility.
Gun laws only punish law abiding citizens. Enforce the ones we have. I really don’t know how much an extra year in jail plays into the mind of someone about to committ armed robbery.
England saw a huge increase in violent crime when guns were outlawed. It may have not hit the U.S media, but I was there, I saw stabbings on the Tube. You can mug someone in the plain view of a police officer and as long as you are faster there is nothing they can do. They don’t have guns, and even if they did, they know you don’t so they couldn’t shoot you.
In England, when an officer sees a crime, he shouts, “Stop, or I shall shout stop again.”
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 12:44 pm
Leroy,
I could agree with your automobile line if the automobile was left unlocked with the engine running when it was stolen. Many guns are stolen that are already loaded and left in an unlocked place. I understand that some people want to sleep with their guns loaded and ready beside them, but when they wake in the morning can’t they at least lock it up? When they go on vacation, can’t they at least put it in a safe? I’m not talking about people relieved of their weapon by an armed robber, I’m talking about guns stolen through careless storage procedures.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 12:56 pm
As someone who works on the gun issue for a living I think there is a middle ground but it’s unlikely we get there. One of the main problems is how people look at the issue. People in the gun rights camp like to talk about guns and crime, where people on my side are more concerned about how guns make it so easy to take another person’s life and how guns in a home make it more likely that someone in that home will be shot whether accidentally or on purpose or even use the gun to kill themselves. That disconnect between the 2 sides will continue to prevent progress. One thing both sides agree on is that there needs to be a better job done on the enforcement side. Prohibited persons continue to posess and have access to guns, because of simple things like a FOID card not being taken away from someone who has a restraining order.
The number of 48 states with conceal carry is misleading since a number of those states have may issue standards as opposed to shall issue standards. Also it’s not as if there was a groundswell of support for these laws in any of the 48 states. They were passed against the will of the great majority in all of those states because of the political strength of the gun lobby and weak legislators who weren’t willing to stand up to them. The NRA deserves credit for getting these laws passed by using their political power and strength to their advantage, but it’s not like people are jonesing to carry concealed weapons in any of these states. In most states the number of CCW permit holders is 2-5% cartainly not even a significant minority.
There are still some things we could do in our state to minimize gun violence but compared to other states our laws are very good.
I don’t have time to go on, but like Todd, I’d be happy to answer questions about these and other gun topics. You can call 312/341-0939
Peace
Thom Mannard, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
Comment by Tommy Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 1:45 pm
Let me see, would I rather listen to the vast majority of law enforcement officers and victims of gun violence who recognize the need for there to be strict control over gun ownership
or
a bunch of paranoid right wing militaristic nuts not living in reality??
A very tough choice for us common sense people.
Comment by Big Mike Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 1:49 pm
Until recently Chicago was the murder capitol of the country, despite draconian gun laws in the city. The Chicago murder rate is still higher than in big cities from states with shall issue concealed carry laws.
Comment by respectful Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 2:23 pm
So many gun laws in this state, so little accomplished.
Isn’t a definition of insanity “doing things again and again, expecting different results?”
The only thing some of our “very good” laws do is alienate and harass the law-abiding gun owners in this state.
Comment by Brian Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 2:43 pm
Yeah Skeeter, I don’t see the point in protecting yourself and your family if need be or hunting….
Too many laws. Period. People should have the freedom to have guns and carry them. You can’t take the guns away. The only thing that would happen is law-abiding people turn in their guns, criminals keep them. That would leave any person fair game for robbery or murder. I also understand that gun accidents happen and that is the basis for much anti-gun legislation. But accidents happen with anything, cars for instance. And I don’t see anyone (except maybe the amish?) advocating the banning of cars.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 3:26 pm
Well it’s nice to hear from Tom.
48 states have a carry law of some kind. That includes New York, California, Massachestes to name a few. Even those states considered to the left of Illinois on gun laws, have a carry law. Granted someof them are may issue and you have to be an anti-gun politician like Diane Fienstien to get one, or be a body guard of an anti-gun activists like Rosey O’donnel to get one.
But to date, none of the states that have passed a RTC law have repealed them. And none of the blood in the streets has happened. Look to the cops ion Texas that opposed it that admit the fearmongering didn’t happen and the law works.
The issue there is why should illinois reisdents be any less trustworthy than those in 48 other states?
I’ll agree that a gun does make it easier to make a mistake and that they are such that they make it easier to do damage than a knife or something else. But that ole line about a gun being 43 times more likely to ingure someone in your own home is just hooey.
Based on that math, with my two kids, 43 x 2 = means that I am 86 times more likely to have an accidently/mistaken shooting. Mutilplied by the number of guns I have and the odds are over 2500 times more likely that something is going to happen. I doubt it.
there are some 270 million guns in the country, if Tom’s assertion was correct, thre would be a lot more shootings of family members.
The problem again lies that one side wants to take away from the other not matter what they get. Tom told the press he could go for destruction of records in 90 days. When given a chance to support the bill, he opposed it.
kinda hard to deal on an issue when one side continues to move the goal posts. But if you understand that many on that side simply want to ban firearms period, then you already know where the goal posts are. Just take a look at Their friends over at Gunguys.com
Illinois laws should be made to work for the law abiding citizen, and against the criminal. how many waiting periods do I have to go through? I already got a bunch of guns, why should I have to wait for one more?
If I have passed a background check, why then does the Governor and Tom seek to ban firearms I use for hunting, competition, home defense and general fun?
Anyone want to hazard a guess of the number of gun laws we have here in Illinois?
Todd
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 3:49 pm
Yes, too many guns laws are on the books. Do not forget that firearm possesion is a collective right spelled out in the Bill of Rights. If we applied the “logic and reasoning” used by the anti-gun forces to other rights we could license, restrict, forbid and control video and digital cameras and computers because they make it so easy to make, view and distribute child porn. No one would stand for an attack on First Amendment rights from that direction.
Also, last time I checked, the only two governments that required the FOID card were Illinois and Cuba. Makes you kinda proud, doesn’t?
Comment by Eagle I Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 3:59 pm
Rich, you imp! Toddzilla v. Tommy No Guns. The debate is on. Pull up a yawn chair. Crack open a cold one. This should get more posts than the McDermott boomlets.
Comment by Hairy Charlton Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 4:11 pm
Lovie,
If somebody designs a car that, when used properly, sprays body armor piercing pieces of lead across a row of houses killing innocents inside I think somebody is going to want to ban that car.
Using guns for self-defense? Ridiculous. You are far more likely to shoot a family member (intentionally or not) than to ever shoot an intruder.
If you want to walk through the woods with a long hard object and try and kill small animals, more power to you. We all have our strange habits.
But don’t claim that in doing so you are doing anything to protect yourself. Be honest. You like guns because you want to feel powerful. That’s O.K. But be honest about it.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 4:40 pm
Many years ago the various governments decided that it was too expensive to protect property rights. The answer today from good police departments is — take him to court and sue him.
Now the governments choose to ignore personal rights to self protection. Concealed carry gives pause to impulse criminals. It won’t change the odds of accidents, mistakes or impulse anger within the home. Sharp carving knives to a good enough job there and do not make as much noise.
As long as governments consider policemen a revenue raising group and not ‘to serve and protect’ concealed carry after education and BI is a good idea.
Stark punishment will still be necessary for crimes committed with a lethal weapon
Comment by Truthful James Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 4:41 pm
Todd,
Educate us. Here is your chance.
Why do you want the records destroyed at all?
The government keeps my car registration for ever. They keep records of my dog license forever.
Why should gun records be destroyed and how does that serve any interest?
That is exactly what I was talking about when I noted that the NRA too often takes extreme positions.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 4:44 pm
Truthful,
Please tell us how a concealed weapon will prevent a bad guy from sticking a gun in your back.
What are you, Quick Draw?
Do you intend to spin around and then unholster your weapon and shoot the bad guy?
Tell us how that works, Jimmy.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 5:00 pm
Skeeter –
I am going to answer you as if it was an intelligent question.
Nothing will protect you from having a gun stuck in your back. Nor from a pane of glass falling from the fortieth floor, nor from that speeding driver careening off a light pole into you.
That’s the tyranny of the off chance. But you know and I know that s— happens. It is less likely to happen with concealed carry.
Just so you know. I also want full immunity from wounding and or killing home invaders.
Comment by Truthful James Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 5:37 pm
I’d feel alot safer if every gun owner were as intelligent and reasonable as Todd, or if he was the one with all 270 million guns.
Personally, I think research has demostrated that gun laws are much less effective and much more cosmetic when passed on a state or local level. Tougher restrictions on purchasing do little good when someone only has to cross the street or the state line to get what they want, and as we’ve learned in Iraq, it’s much easier to enforce peace on the border than on every street corner.
Passing ineffective local laws only feeds into the conservative argument that ALL gun laws are ineffective; so public health advocates would be smart to drop this fight on the local and state level and focus strictly on the national level, where you can actually pass a law or two that might help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and whackos without interfering with the leisurely pursuits of hunters and sportsmen.
This would also compel Todd to find something else to do for a living, and since he keeps whipping the crap out of gun control advocates with one hand tied behind his back, they might want to help him ease into an early retirement.
Lest people think I’ve gone all soft in the head, anyone who believes that arming the general public will make us all safer needs to go to Blockbuster tonight and rent a few spaghetti westerns, or better yet, check out the hit HBO series “Deadwood.” The Wild West was not the picture of idyllic peace you seem to remember it was. Guns don’t make people civilized, good upbringing makes people civilized, or has the Family Values crowd somehow forgotten that?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 5:51 pm
Skeeter –
first off federal law says they should be destroyed. Second, it seems hypocritical that Lisa and others want phone records kept secret, for privacy issues, but the City of Chicago shoul dbe able to snoop around what guns I buy for no good reason. It’s privacy. for the same reasons that some feel the right of privacy for a woman to have an abortion, or the phone records as I cited, or search and seazure issues.
The Government said I was not a phrohibited person for buying a gun, After that none of your business. it’s no more extreme then people who object to the datamining of phone calls.
And, the law says that is whatis suppose to be done. Remeber what I said about the oter side never dealing in good faith, here you have it. one they agreed to the destruction of records and now don’t want it, and then when then set a benchmark in the press and get called on it, they run as fast as they can from it.
James — we already passed the law about home invaders suing you. And Illinois is not a retreat state. e already have the castle doctrine other states are passing.
Todd
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 5:57 pm
Rich -
Thank you for putting the question of guns up on your blog. Guns are an important issue in our nation, given the fact that we are losing more than 30,000 people (half the Vietnam War’s total American casualties) to gun violence each year.
However, as with all polling, HOW the question is worded says a lot about its perspective.
As a gun violence victim myself (my sister, her husband, and their unborn child were brutally murdered here in Illinois sixteen years ago by a teenager whose only motive was that “he wanted to see what it was like to shoot someone”), I would challenge us all to ask this question instead:
“Do we have too many deaths by guns? Not enough? Just about right?”
I think when we word it this way, we begin to see the problem in the question.
And I think, then, the answer is too many deaths.
This is especially true when you look at where we stand statistically with other and similar nations. Our degree of comfort with these high numbers should trouble all of us who care about human life and living in a safe and civil society.
Guns can be viewed as a public health issue. Once, the deaths from car accidents before seat belts reached higher and higher numbers, the public began to require laws to make them safer. The manufacturers resisted, as gun manufacturers, represented by the NRA today do now. But they were forced to adopt common sense regulations. We have all benefitted from this, and without losing our right to drive. In fact, car makers themselves now have learned that they benefit in their marketing by being aligned with those who care the most about public safety. They can brag about having safer vehicles than other manufacturers and this helps them sell cars. Gun makers and gun advocates would be wise to learn from history.
Gun makers are deeply concerned about a declining legitimate market due to the durability of their product and the declining interest in guns over the last several decades. The nation has urbanized and suburbanized, and quite normally, fewer and fewer people are interested in firearms. The gun industry long ago realized that if they are to remain profitable, they cannot ignore the illegal market, and so they turn a blind eye to the criminal sales that they know occur, and that they know they could minimize, if they wanted to.
You would not know that the interest in guns is declining, however, by the amount of attention that lawmakers pay to gun laws, because of the influence of the NRA and its zealously ideological membership.
The number of those who have posted here who have said “enforce what laws we have” may not realize that the NRA has been actively campaigning, as has the ISRA and Todd, to take away the good laws we have now and keep many of them from being enforced.
I would bet that when the NRA speaks of too many gun laws, they do not believe passing a concealed carry law would be adding just one more law. So counting the number of laws is really a red herring.
Cases in point showing the NRA’s resistance to sensible and rational legislation, regulation, and enforcement include (and there are too many to list here):
*They fought the assault weapons ban that nationally led to a 60% drop in deaths by assault weapons over a 10 year period.
*They have been constantly fighting the laws in place that allow law enforcement to investigate gun crime. No one who is a “law-abiding gun owner” should fear the record-keeping that police need and use to save lives every year. Gun proponents have systematically worked to weaken gun laws that are now in place so that even when we do try to enforce them we still come up short.
*The majority of the citizens of Illinois, like those of the other 48 states with some version of concealed carry, clearly don’t want concealed weapons to be carried in this state by civilians simply because they “want to” (a good idea given what we have seen elsewhere). But the NRA and ISRA are working to pass another gun law that would allow this because their sales are lagging, and they would do anything to protect their multi-billion dollar industry’s profitability. They market Concealed Carry based on fear.
*When the Centers for Disease Control began reporting accurate statistics that revealed that gun deaths were second only to vehicular deaths nationwide, the gun lobby’s response was to pass laws prohibiting the CDC from reporting on firearms fatality statistics. Passing laws that suppress data hurts our ability to address a problem. Why is the gun industry trying to suppress facts from public view?
*Even though NRA vice-president Wayne LaPierre insisted at an NRA convention that the NRA supports gun-free school zones, the NRA lobbyists have been hard at work making sure that gun-owners could carry firearms and ammunition onto school property, ostensibly for hunting purposes?!
*Even though the NRA publicly admits in its literature that firearms are “dangerous” their lobbyists refuse to let the state pass sensible laws regarding safe storage, trigger locks or child proof access, all of which the NRA officially recommends.
*Here is the worst, recently, of the laws that the NRA is trying to keep us from enforcing: The NRA-backed Tiahrt amendment federally prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from even examining their own crime gun trace data, and from making that data available to those who want to enforce the laws for public safety. All gun dealers are federally licensed and sell to purchasers after having passed a cursory background check thanks to the good work of the people like Jim Brady. But most crime guns come from the largely unregulated secondary market and straw purchases. Guns used in crimes are traced as best they can through the chain of purchases and when that data was available to us, we were able to find a disturbing pattern that showed that just a handful of dealers are responsible for selling the majority of the guns used in crime. 85% of all dealers had zero crime gun traces, but the NRA every year for the last three years has spent significant funds to pass laws to suppress this data rather than working to shut down the dealers that are giving the industry a bad name.
Todd attempts to paint people as being “anti” - anti-gun, I assume. Does that mean that it is proper for me to refer to his position as “pro-gun violence”. When he begins using semantics to distract and deflect from the real issue that innocent people are dying, and half of those are gun owners committing suicide with their own firearms (a fact the NRA avoids — apparently they only care about gun owners who are alive to purchase guns), he does us all a disservice.
There are plenty of magazines and books published by the gun industry (using and coining the same terms that Todd admonishes — where do you think these terms come from, anyway?) that tell us what they think an assault weapon is, and these tactical firearms originally intended solely for military use, are now the preferred weapon of choice for drug-dealers and gang-bangers who buy them on the un-regulated secondary market, because “pro-gun violence advocates” refuse to cooperate with law enforcement who want to eliminate straw-purchasing through sensible regulation.
Like Thom Mannard of the ICHV, and Todd, I invite questions if you need more information. 312-341-0938.
Jennifer Bishop
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Comment by Jennifer B. Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 6:11 pm
Gimme some of what you are smoking Jennifer B
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 6:35 pm
Yeah Skeeter, we all have weird habits… like eating. Yikes!
I don’t give a crap about your stupid statistics, “You are far more likely to shoot a family member (intentionally or not) than to ever shoot an intruder.” I don’t care. It is about freedom, not about statistics. Once again proving, I am about freedom, you are about statistics!!!
Comment by Lovie's Leather Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 7:46 pm
Todd,
Interesting response.
I’m sure it answers some questions — just not the ones that I asked.
Let me re-phrase.
The records are government records. Is that correct? Telephone records are not government record, are they? Are abortion records government records?
Do we have laws the require the destruction of auto license records?
How about dog licenses?
Is there any reasonable reason to believe that gun records should be treated any differently?
What exactly are you people afraid of? Why do you insist on protecting criminals and terrorists? Who else benefits from destroying those records?
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 7:46 pm
Truthful,
What do you propose to do with a person who shoots their own child, thinking they are shooting a home invader? Do you convict that person of murder?
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 7:48 pm
I’m not cap “T” Truthful, but I think you do have to charge that person with Involuntary Homicide because with more care they could have ascertained that it was not an intruder. Not that they have to be locked up for life, but there should be consequences.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 8:05 pm
Lovie,
Here’s an idea: Try and be Truthful once.
“It is about eating”?
No it isn’t. If it was about eating you would head over to Jewel. They have a great meat department. It is about your joy in walking through a forest with a long hard thing in your hands and trying to kill something.
To each his own. Be my guest. It doesn’t bother me. We all have our weird habits and if you like to wander around with something long and hard clenched in your hands and then see a small explosion come from it, I am not going to tell you that you are wrong.
I too believe in freedom, even if we have different ideas of a good time.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 8:16 pm
Thank you founding fathers for the second amendment
Comment by Bill-O-Rights Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 10:37 pm
Skeeter –
The records are part government, part private. The Government madated a check to make sure that the person bying the gun, was not a prohibited class of individual. The Federal law says those records once completed shall be destroyed. That was how the federal law was written and signed off on by the Brady Bunch. Now they don’t like living up to the law.
There may not be laws that call for the destruction of other records. I don’t speicalize in all of those, but I do know that certain criminal records can be destroyed, and is allowed for under the law.
But the firsat point is why won’t the other side live up to the law?
Your second point of what are people affraid of, is simple, government types to don’t like people with guns, i.e. Mayor Daley and those like Jennefer who think that people should not have them in a way they do not like.
Case in point is chicago’s admission that the look for people with FOID cards and then see if they have any guns using the database.
Just like the lefty liberals who get so upset at the data mingin to stop terrorists, what is there to be affraid of? it’s none of your business, Blago’s business or Daley’s business what I bought and when once I have passed the background check. quite simple.
Given the forced confiscation of firearms in LA after the hurracaine, it seems quite obvios that those who dislike guns, the anti-gun crowd, seek to dissarm people no matter what the case.
Don’t forget that the Brady Bunch et al were opposed to the law to protect the home owner to shot a burglar in his own home. They are the same people who think dissarming people in the wake of a disaster, when the federal, state and local government collaspe and you are left on your own is a good thing.
As far as who else benefits, mostly the gun owners who retain their privacy. it does not stop or prevent the tracing of a firearm. Notice what Jennefer was complaingin about. the lasck of a national database on private sales. i.e. registration of all firearm sales.
Everytime we have seen this tried, is leads to the confiscation of firearms. Britian had it and so did the Aussies and that is what it led to in those contries. CA has it on semi-autos and when the AG there changed his mind about what was legal, everyone got a notice to turn in their guns.
I hope this answers your question more directly.
As far as Jenenfer’s comments, well as for RTC, if you ask our members, few if any would argue for the industry selling more guns. more people with carry permits has had an influance on the types of products offered, but you get 200 of my guys and gals in a room and you’ll hear about self defense and protecting their families. Not the industry.
Sure we believe in criminal gun free school zones. Incase you didn’t know it, it is legal to bring a gun to school.720 ILCS 5/24(c)(3).
And Illinois does not have an unregulated secondary market. As far as changin the laws and enforcing them sure. We want to reform the laws to make them work. I wrote the straw purchase law in this state. But when we pass a Right to Carry Law, it will required the modification of other statutes.
We also thik that the State should live up to the intent and letter of the law on the federal records.
Waiting periods, we offered modifying them so that if you had a gun, and went through the waiting period, and you traded it in for another one, you didn’t have to go through it again. We didn’t say stop the background check, we simply said hey I got a gun, been through the waiting period, how many more times do I hav to do it?
When is enough enough? does it make any sense that under the letter of the law if I give my son a gun for Christmas, I have to withold it until the waiting period expires? I don’t think so.
i’m in the process of building 7 new rifles. how many times do I have to wait? What has changed? If I pass the background check, at some point it is simply paperwork and red tape to harrass someone.
The NRA trains more cops then all the anti-gun groups combined. We offer more safety courses then all of them combined. We, and I specifically have spent more time working giving them tools to fight the criminal elelments obtaining guns than all of them combined.
I worte the straw purchase law, got it intorduced and passed. Iworte the stronger backgorund check language the same year. And i wrote the law to fix the single offense charge the supreme court tossed out last year. Jennefer and her group can’t even come close to the number of laws we have given the cops in Illinois to use to stop the illegal trafficing in guns.
and waht does it get us, the guys that bought the gun smuggled into cook county jail get two years probation. That is where the problem lies.
Todd
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 10:54 pm
Well Skeeter, it isn’t just about eating. It is about population control of deer. Just today I was eating some deer jerky that one of my supervisors killed. MMM was it good. I would rather kill and eat it than hit it with my car (which I did last november…) You see, it is cheaper to get a hunting license and kill a deer than to go to Jewel and buy meat. But if you want to spend more money to get a lower quality of meat, that is your freedom. But I am sure you can find some statistic that says jewel meat is better than the meat I killed myself….
Every year we also buy a whole hog and half a cow and put it in the freezer. The steaks and pork chops in those animals is so much better than anything you could buy at a store and is much cheaper because we buy in bulk. Maybe we should ban the killing of animals, Skeet, because animals are people too, right?
Comment by Lovie's Leather Thursday, Jun 8, 06 @ 11:34 pm
LL.
Good to see you ran away from your prior “We need guns to eat” argument. We both know that argument was pretty ridiculous.
With regard to deer: I’m not sure who you think you are arguing with. I don’t care if you eat deer. It doesn’t matter to me in the slighest. I’m not a huge fan of it, but I eat game often. Quail, rabbit — good eatin.
With regard to frozen meat comment: Be my guest on that one two. Personally, I prefer meat fresh (with the exception of dry aged steak). If you prefer old meat, it is a matter of taste.
I do hope that LL is a female though. Personally, as a male, I do not see the point in walking through a forest with a long hard thing that makes little explosions. But you may be different. You a McCain voter?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jun 9, 06 @ 9:14 am
Todd,
Just to clarify my man. Regarding the destruction or records after ninety days, my comment was in regard to the federal standard, where your cronies in Congress decided we should destroy these records after 24 hours as opposed to the 90 day rule that had been in effect. I said that if its a choice between 24 hour destruction or 90 day destruction I would obviously support the 90 day rule. As for Illinois I will repeat what I and many of our law enforcement officers in our state have said, if you are not a criminal you should have no concerns about what records are being kept. Furthermore if those records are used for purposes other than they were intended, the law enforcement officer should be punished. You love to throw around isolated incidents and try and set policy, but we will continue to fight along with law enforcement to keep these records available for their use in investigations. It’s funny how your friends in DC love to keep all kinds of information on us, but when it comes to guns that’s an entirely different story.
Your continued paranoia about people on my side wanting to take away all your guns is laughable. Are there some on my side who would like to do it absolutely, but does anyone in their right mind think it will ever happen in this country? We are not Auusies or Brits. For the record I support anyone who is not prohibited to be able to make an educated choice on whether or not to own a firearm. Do I think there should be a restriction on the types of firearms that can be owned by civilians, absolutely. Your insensitive comments about the gun used in the death of Starkesia Reed not being relevant was straight out of the LaPierre playbook. You know as well as I that if her killer is using a handgun or another type of rifle beside an AK-47 that she wouls likely still be alive today.
I know you love to praise yourself for how effective you are in S-field and I’ll give you credit for being succesful in tinkering on the edges, but why haven’t you been able to get your number one priority passed a CCW law. Must be tough to swallow sometimes when 96% of the rest of the country has done it. I look forward to the continued fight on this one.
Like you I would urge all readers to check out gunguys.com and I would also urge the to learn more about NRA shill and CCW advocate John Lott at whoismaryrosh.com.
Hope all is well with the wife and kids. See you in Yorkville.
Peace
Tommy
Comment by Tommy Friday, Jun 9, 06 @ 11:59 am
This is too good to ignore. As per usual in these types of exchanges, the rational folks like Skeeter, Jennifer B., and Tommy seem to be eating everyone else’s venison. All else is emotional hyperbole and smoke screen.
Todd is the only one who is coming close to engaging in legitimate debate and he’s still nowhere near the bullseye with his incorrect assertions, speculative assumptions, off-topic tangents, and slightly paranoid perspective, not to mention a complete lack of understanding of statistics.
The point is, we do have too many gun deaths each year. We have a lot of gun laws, few of which are comprehensive enough to do a lot of good. As long as people can buy guns by the van load in Georgia, New York and DC will always have problems.
We also have a lot of guns. Using Todd’s number, which I won’t dispute since we have no records to prove this estimate - thanks NRA - it is estimated that there are over 270 million guns in the US. That figure, by the way is the private ownership number. It does not include official or military ownership.
Do the math. If we were to start a comprehensive mass gun confiscation program tomorrow, something that none of the “antis” that I know would support by the way, we would have to pry one gun out of nearly 2000 cold dead hands every day in every state for a period of ten YEARS to eliminate firearms from private ownership. Sorry guys, gun confiscation just isn’t a viable threat.
The harrassment issue is also dead in the water. So you have to plan for Christmas. What else is new? When I applied for my FOID card I was glad I had to submit the information I had to in order to get my card. In fact, I wanted there to be more detail. When I go through a background check for a firearm purchase, I want it to be more complete. Come back tomorrow, sure, no problem. Glad to comply. You see, I care about my gun ownership and want to protect the reputation of what I care about.
I also don’t want to have to shoot back so I don’t want the wrong people to buy a gun, even if it means that the gun industry won’t be able to enjoy the luxury that it has become accustomed to over the years. So, I think Todd is looking at this from the wrong perspective. This is not harrassment. It is taking reasonable precautions to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. As a gun owner, I support that completely.
When it comes down to it, it’s access to firearms that enables people to commit crimes with guns. That’s why our country has so many gun deaths and injuries each year as opposed to other countries. Take the gun out of the equation and yes, people will still get stabbed, but they’re not going to get shot. People will try to kill themselves, but using something that may give them a second chance. I have a friend that I wish that were true for. If she had used pills rather than blowing her brains out with a brand new S&W, she would have had a better chance of surviving. She might have succeeded, but not with such certainty. Gun suicides are rather unforgiving.
What I don’t understand is why the “gun pros” want to make this all about themselves and what they WANT rather than what all of us need. Seems terribly selfish to me. Don’t they see that they are protecting the criminals’ interests when they keep things easy for themselves? It’s just not right, or honorable.
Sure, there’s some extremism on both sides, but I’ve seen legislators pay back their NRA contributions with their votes and that’s just wrong. The fact that the NRA has been recognized as one of the most effective lobbying groups around is tragic. And they do this with only 4 million members? Really!
They crow about getting legislators in and out of office when there really are very few single issue voters on this. They claim that concealed carry reduces crime when crime has been on the decline for many years now and they are riding the coattails of another social pressure. Ridiculous. They’re buying votes. That much is clear. This is why they so interestingly took such a hard stand on campaign finance reform a couple years ago. They were afraid it would affect their influence.
Too many gun laws? Depends on how you count. Does allowing the retiring game warden to keep his issued firearm count as a gun law? The NRA has never met a proactive gun law that it likes. All the NRA has ever supported in recent memory has been more reactive laws. That is, laws that have an effect after the gun is purchased. This is very telling. If that were not true, the NRA and the Bradys would be working together rather than at opposition nearly all the time.
And by the way, for Todd to take credit for actually having written legislation does not inspire my confidence, especially after reading his posts.
Now, the Second Amendment issue. How foolish people are to think that the Second Amendment could be used to protect the commercial interests of an entire industry.
Want to have some fun? Look up the work “infringe” but do it with the oldest dictionary you can find, Webster’s edition from the 1830s. You should be able to find it on the Internet without trouble. You’ll find that “infringe” didn’t mean then what it means today. Today it has mutated into more along the lines of “trespass, or limit, or restrict.” The word “impinge” or “abridge” would be more appropriate. But back then, the word “infringe” meant something much stronger. It meant “to cancel, break or abolish” If properly paraphrased, the end of the 2A would read “…shall not be abolished or cancelled.” So, technically, from a historical perspective, as long as we have the right to own firearms, regardless of the hoops we may have to jump through, the holy Second Amendment is not violated in any way. England, Canada, Australia, and other countries often decried for their “draconian” gun laws would not even violate the 2A. It’s just a matter of degree as to where the line is drawn on ownership.
The problem we have is that money has bought a lot of gun laws. A lot of liberal gun laws. That’s right. The NRA promotes LIBERAL gun laws. That is, they want as many people to own guns as possible and they work for that.
I don’t want liberal gun laws. I want conservative gun laws that prevent the criminal element from getting their hands on them. Laws that conserve peace and safety, not threaten it.
Two things happened to me recently that made my blood run cold. I appeared at a school gun safety event sponsored in part by the Chicago Police where a number of guns were displayed on a table. When the kids walked in the room the response was terrifying. They were impressed by the firepower on display. They started acting out amongst themselves. A collective “Woooo, look at that,” and “I want one of those,” came from the boys. That’s when I knew we are all in trouble if we don’t scale back manufacturing levels to that of the legitimate market of serious gun owners in this country.
The second moment came when I was walking past a magazine rack that contained a hip-hop magazine boasting a gun article on the cover. I picked it up and read it. I was again horrified to see how something that I care about has infiltrated into the culture of violence. These are not hunters, folks. These are not defensive gun users. These are people for whom guns are a disposable commodity. You never commit a crime with the same gun twice. This is a completely different attitude from Todd and the others of us who actually are long-term owners. Do you even know this bunch of folks is out there? Do you know that the industry loves and thrives on them? The industry has sold its collective soul to these people, 30 pieces of silver per gun.
There is an aggressive gun owning population out there and I believe that all of us, Jennifer, and Todd included, have a moral responsibility to come to the table to figure out how we can come back to a responsible and rational center on this issue. This aggressive population should not be using the downstate hunters to carry water for them.
Want to know why I don’t belong to the NRA? Because I can’t stand associating with people who would endanger me and my children with their legislative agenda, who try to cozy up to police with one hand and sell guns and ammunition designed to kill the police with the other, who deceptively chop up statistics for their own purposes, who lie to the public, who lie to their members about what’s going on in the world, and who don’t care one bit about the victims of gun crime whether it be the family of a little girl in the Englewood neighborhood in Chicago, or their own life member who got a bad diagnosis from the doctor and put his own gun in his mouth. I challenge Todd to show me that he, the ISRA, and the NRA care about these people. More guns is not the answer.
How about this for a set of signs:
Heard him busting up my place,
I took my gun from off the wall
Held him at gunpoint for police
The second one killed us all.
Guns enable crime.
In memory of the Indiana family who did have a gun and they all still wound up dead.
I really don’t want you folks calling me so I’m not going to give you my phone number. But let’s all start working together so that we don’t all wind up dead, shall we?
See you around the Capitol.
Guitar Man
Comment by Guitar Man Friday, Jun 9, 06 @ 1:19 pm