Both sides to Quinn’s AV
Friday, Aug 3, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Southtown Star editorial board freely acknowledges that Gov. Pat Quinn’s decision to replace a bill’s language with an assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban was political posturing and likely unconstitutional. But the paper still supports the proposed law…
We could scold Quinn for grandstanding except that he is right on the merits. Citizens can judge his motive for themselves.
But we believe this nation eventually will overcome zealotry on both sides of the gun control issue and arrive at a compromise regarding the possession and sale of military-style assault weapons. We fear that some horrific event, or series of events in close succession, will occur as to make it inevitable.
If there is little middle ground now on the weapons, Quinn might have been wiser simply to regulate the magazines that supply their bullets — magazines that can enable a shooter to kill 100 people without taking a breath.
High-capacity magazines were used in virtually every mass shooting in the U.S. from Columbine in 1999 to last year’s attack in Arizona where six were killed and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was wounded to last month’s theater attack in Colorado.
California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C., ban or limit the use of such magazines, and more states, including Illinois, should.
Getting rid of assault rifles and their magazines is the right decision, even if the Legislature isn’t willing to take that step now. Sooner or later, it will.
* Steve Chapman didn’t write about the big massacres, but instead looked at crime statistics to prove his point that the assault weapons ban proposal is essentially meaningless…
Jesse Jackson claims that the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, reduced the number of these guns used in crimes. In Miami, he says, they were implicated in 4 percent of murders in 2004, but today, the figure is 21 percent.
What Jackson omits is that the number of murders in Miami is virtually unchanged — from 69 in 2004 to 68 in 2011. Maybe that’s because guns not covered by the ban are just as capable and lethal as those that were. If you ban red cars, fewer people will die in red cars. Just don’t expect overall highway fatalities to change.
If allowing these guns stimulated more killing, the national murder rate wouldn’t have declined by 13 percent after the ban expired. But that’s what happened.
Prohibiting “assault weapons” is a pointless gesture. Those who propose a ban are only proving they don’t understand basic facts about guns and violence or don’t care.
In my mind, at least, both pieces have some truth in them. Ignoring the use of the high-capacity magazines aspect of the proposal and focusing solely on the assault weapons ban is a convenient way to get around a real problem. But there’s also little doubt that the weapons ban itself can be seen as more hype than substance.
- The Other Anonymous - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 10:47 am:
Even if we accept Chapman’s logic, isn’t the fact that semi-automatic assault weapons spray more bullets quicker? And while other guns may result in an equal number of fatalities, why would we want to make it easier or more convenient for a shooter?
- RNUG - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:07 am:
The Other Anonymous @ 10:47 am:
Uh … exactly how? With a semi-automatic, you still have to pull the trigger each time you want to fire a bullet. And it’s what, one or two seconds to change a clip, regardless of the number of cartridges it holds.
- chefjeff - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:09 am:
Semi automatic weapons fire one bullet every time the trigger is pulled. They do not “spray”. The word “assault” really has no meaning in the context of weapons, except to spread fear to people who do not know very much about firearms. Most handguns are semi automatic. Reloading is accomplished in a matter of seconds whether there is a seven round clip or a 14 round clip. Banning large capacity magazines is merely chipping away at the Second Amendment, in my opinion.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:17 am:
Advocating semi-auto bans and magazine limits makes the people who are afraid of weapons or who just know nothing about them somehow feel better.
*sigh*
- Wensicia - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:20 am:
If replacing clips is so easy, why would you need large capacity magazines? You’re still firing the same gun, how is this hurting your Second Amendment rights? Where, exept in law enforcement or the military are LCMs needed?
- reformer - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:25 am:
Holmes had a 100-bullet magazine. Would it emasculate the Second Amendment if there were a federal ban on such large-capacity magazines?
- Ghost - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:38 am:
The fallacy in the gun debate to me has been the assumption that without guns, these individuals seeking to harm others would be unsuccessful or reduced in their ability to harm multiple people.
The proble. Is the increase of people who, for whatever reason, want to commit mass murder, not the tool used. The batman guy had grenades and explosives all over his apartment; the school shooters had pipe bombs. Suppose we ban semi automatic guns, and are so successful that you. Ant find or obtain them in any way. So instead of shooting into a crowd the batman guy takes and hurls grenades and bombs; or plants a duffle bag with an ied! We would have even greater loss of life! Does no one recall Oklahoma city? Not a single automatic gun was used.
So if we adress the issue by trying to go after tools will we limit all flammable liquids, fertilizer, fuel and laundry detergent?
The problem is the social crisis and the need for spotting and caring for sick people, not the tools they deploy in their madness. I would say cutting social support and medical card is a greater factor in these problems then guns.
- Ghost - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:40 am:
Card = care
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:06 pm:
‘100-bullet magazine’
Which jammed, preventing further use of the weapon. Were the injuries caused by his shotgun or handgun any less devastating? If the shooter had 20 shot magazines, the carnage would have been similar.
All more regulation does is make things more complex for legal users without eliminating the downside the regulators claim to be concerned about.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:15 pm:
===If the shooter had 20 shot magazines, the carnage would have been similar.===
The plan on the table is to ban anything over 10 shots.
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:37 pm:
10 - 20 makes no difference.
Had the proposed law been in place, the outcome would have been the same.
- Thomas - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:54 pm:
How about this? Make it a capital crime to murder someone no matter the means. If they are tried and convicted of the crime, put them to death! So no one would ever murder anyone else because it’s against the law! You will be put to death if you violate that law. Oh wait, that didn’t work did it.
- East Sider - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:17 pm:
It is difficult for those of us who are experienced gun owners to engage in a debate on guns with people who have little/no knowledge of guns, how they function, etc. The pro-gun control crowd really needs to spend a few hours at a shooting range and learn what “semiautomatic” and “assault rifle” really means.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:38 pm:
East Sider - I’m a gun owner, have fired many different types of guns, and am for more gun control than currently exists. I find it difficult to engage in debate with people who think there are no limits to the second amendment.
- House of Pain - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:42 pm:
What needs to happen is Quinn should step down and run for the senate. He could replace Jacobs who will be gone after Nov. With Hendon and Jacobs gone they really could use the comic relief and then he could introduce all the bills he wants.
- Thomas - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 2:19 pm:
Small Town Liberal – Are you a resident of Illinois? Do you know what a *F.O.I.D.* card is? It’s a Firearms Owner Identification card. It’s issued by the Illinois State police. Photo and background check required. If you go into a gun store in Illinois you can’t touch a firearm without presenting this card. You can’t buy a firearm without having one of these cards. You can’t buy ammunition without one of these cards. How’s Illinois crime rate compare with some other states without these *reasonable* gun control measures? An *assault* rifle is by definition a gun capable of selective fire, full automatic or semi automatic. Only the police and military can own *assault* rifles in Illinois. Do we really need more gun laws? REALLY?
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 3:20 pm:
Thomas - Yes to all questions.
- East Sider - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 4:14 pm:
The FOID card is just another way to inconvenience law-abiding gun owners. I buy my ammo (along with my gas, booze and other various items) across the river in Missouri, where they don’t require me to present a silly FOID card.
- Thomas - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 4:16 pm:
I find it difficult to engage in debate with people who don’t understand that the patriots that created the United States overthrew a legitimate government by force of arms to create the United States. A slippery slope my friend. If we should have some reasonable limits to our second amendment rights, why not some reasonable limits on our first amendment rights, and our third amendments… You could always move to Norway where strict gun laws keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and insane folks. Just some *reasonable* restrictions. Oh yeah, that didn’t work either.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 4:39 pm:
Thomas - There are limits on those other rights. As I said, very difficult to engage…
- East Sider - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 5:14 pm:
Small Town Lib: We already have limits on the 2nd Amendment, too. Further limits have done nothing to reduce gun violence. The Columbine massacre happened during the assault weapons ban. So did the Jonesboro massacre. I think mental health should be our focus.
- Thomas - Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 5:27 pm:
Leibniz and the *many windowless monads.* Let’s put restrictions on the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of honest citizens (because criminals not obey laws) and scratch our heads when the crime rates go up. I WILL NOT give up any part of my constitutional rights so *liberals* can sigh and say ah, but we must TRY to do something. You are playing the part of the fool. CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY LAWS. THAT’S WHAT MAKES THEM CRIMINALS. By your logic, we should outlaw motor vehicles to reduce bank robberies. 99.99% of all violent bank robberies involve the use of a motor vehicle. Only the police and military should be allowed to own and operate motor vehicles. Oh yes, and of course politicians. They’re special.