* The TRS board isn’t scheduled to meet again until February, but staff is taking a look at its investments in gun manufacturers…
Illinois’ largest pension fund is gathering information about investments it might have in gun manufacturers in the event the system’s trustees want to re-evaluate those investments.
The Teachers’ Retirement System took the action after last week’s mass shooting at a school in Connecticut that left 20 children and six adults dead.
The California State Teachers’ Retirement System said Monday it is reviewing its investments in a private equity firm that, in turn, owns the company that manufactured the rifle used in the shootings.
“We are going to be gathering information about whether any TRS assets are invested with gun manufacturers, in the event that the board of trustees decides to re-evaluate any investments in the portfolio,” said TRS spokesman Dave Urbanek. “With a $37 billion portfolio, it takes some time to go through the layers of business transactions and the depths of corporate ownership to get to what might be there.”
* The California move could cause a decline in some gunmaker stocks, but not everybody is convinced…
With this recent tragedy, gun sales are up, Ruger and Smith and Wesson shares are down. That is a typical short-term market reaction that represents a buying opportunity. Ruger is not likely to have a major revenue decline even if there is a return of an assault weapon ban and high capacity magazine ban. In California, if anything, Ruger benefited from the nation’s tightest assault weapon ban. Ruger’s equivalent .223 caliber rifles, with wood stocks lacking pistol grips, remained on the market, albeit with 10 round magazines. Ruger does have a gas piston AR15 type rifle priced at the high end of the AR15 market, so a decline in sales or loss in sales of this rifle are unlikely to have a major impact on Ruger’s bottom line.
* And Illinois is in the top tier on background checks this year…
The [FBI] reported more than 16.8 million background checks by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System through the first 11 months of 2012, already the highest total for any year since the system was introduced in late 1998 — and nearly double the total from a decade ago even without data from December. Among states, the number of checks performed so far this year is highest for Kentucky (2,329,151), Texas (1,196,176), California (981,798), Illinois (923,920) and Pennsylvania (835,293).
As mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, a background check is required in order to buy any firearm at retail. The background checks don’t necessarily correlate to the number of guns actually sold as buyers might have changed their minds about their purchase, or might have bought multiple weapons.
* Sales are soaring and prices are rising…
With President Barack Obama endorsing sweeping gun restrictions in the wake of the school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, prices for handgun magazines are surging on EBay (EBAY) and semi-automatic rifles are sold out at many Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) locations. […]
On EBay Inc.’s auction website, shoppers have recently bid up gun magazines. The current bid for four Glock handgun magazines, ammunition for one of the guns used at Newtown, is $118.37 compared with $45 on the day before the shooting. The bid for seven Glock magazines hit $201 on Dec. 17 from $71.01 before the massacre.
* Nate Silver looks at demographics…
Gun ownership has declined over the past 40 years — but almost all of the decrease has come from Democrats. By 2010, according to the General Social Survey, the gun ownership rate among adults that identified as Democrats had fallen to 22 percent. It remained at about 50 percent among Republican adults. […]
White voters were substantially more likely to own guns than Hispanics or blacks. But white Republicans were more likely to own guns than white Democrats.
And based on demographic inertia, the differences seem likely to grow over time.
About 35 percent of Democratic voters age 65 and older reported having a gun in their home, against about 25 percent of those ages 18 to 29. But gun ownership rates bore little relationship to age among Republican voters, and were constant at about 55 percent among all age groups. That might suggest that gun ownership will continue to decline among Democrats while holding steady among Republicans, further increasing the partisan gap.
Gun ownership rates are highest in rural areas, where guns are more likely to be used for hunting as well as personal protection. A slight majority of Democratic voters in rural areas said they had a gun in their home, according to the survey, although the rate was somewhat higher, 65 percent, among rural Republicans.
In urban areas, 40 percent of Republican voters said they had a gun in their home, while 20 percent of Democrats did.
The differences are most apparent in suburban areas. There, 58 percent of Republican voters said there was a gun in their household, against just 27 percent of Democrats.
* A good friend of mine has a son with Asperger’s, and that kid is now having problems with other kids at school because of the Connecticut shooting. So, this was a welcome piece…
Critics, though, say that if you want to understand how such a statement might be taken, try this hypothetical substitution: “Law enforcement officials said they were closely examining whether Mr. Lanza is gay.” There is, for a reasonable person, the suggestion of cause and effect. It is very unlikely that that sentence would have appeared in The Times without further explanation.
* Meanwhile, back when Rahm Emanuel was running the DCCC, he was infamous for recruiting conservative, often very pro-gun Democratic candidates. In other words, he helped create the gridlock over the federal assault weapons ban. When he became President Obama’s chief of staff, he deliberately put an assault weapons ban on the back burner. As Ted McClelland notes, “the anti-gun Brady Campaign gave Obama an F during his first year in office.” Sun-Times…
Author Daniel Klaidman wrote in his book “Kill or Capture” that after Holder said he would push for the ban, “Emanuel was furious. He slammed his desk and cursed the attorney general. Holder was only repeating a position Obama had expressed during the campaign, but that was before the White House needed the backing of pro-gun Democrats from red states for their domestic agenda. The chief of staff sent word to Justice that Holder needed to ‘shut the —- up’ on guns . . .
* But now, Emanuel is demanding an assault weapons ban. Maybe it’s because he’s mayor of a city with way too many gun-related murders. But as we’ve discussed before, the assault weapons issue has become standard Democratic schtick every time something bad happens.
* Earlier this week, CBS This Morning pressed Emanuel on his record. He mostly filibustered…
O’DONNELL: And that you went – and said – the chief of staff sent word to Justice that Holder needed to shut up on guns.
EMANUEL: (unintelligible) Let me say this, Norah: President Obama always stood for getting this done – number one. Number two, I passed the Brady Bill, the assault weapon ban. It is very, very important that we do that. The fact is, in 2009, the President and the entire government was very clear to say this, as the attorney general knows, in getting all the President’s legislation done and working with Congress to do that.
O’DONNELL: But I want you to explain that, because, were you worried about the political backlash of taking on and pushing for the assault weapons ban? Why didn’t – why didn’t Obama do that?
EMANUEL: No, because, first of all, the President’s record is very, very clear on this. It’s clear when he was a state senator. It was clear when he was also a U.S. senator. It was clear also as a President, and he was dealing as you well know with a myriad of issues. And he was pushing very hard and making sure, also, that we had the funding to do everything we needed to do in the Justice Department.
O’DONNELL: But the Brady campaign, I mean, in the first year, gave Obama an ‘F’ - an ‘F’!
EMANUEL: Yeah, well, you know – yeah, but-
O’DONNELL: You know? And there was a report in The New York Times on Sunday that after the Aurora shooting, that the Justice Department – I know you weren’t at the White House then - but that the Justice Department went to the White House with ways to expand the background check system, in order to reduce the risk of guns falling in the hands of mentally ill people, and there was a decision made not to go that far. What I guess I’m trying to ask is not assign blame, but politically, how hard is it to take on the NRA?
EMANUEL: First of all, having fought to pass the Brady Bill and the assault weapon ban, the last time we really had gun control, it is very hard. That’s why what you have to focus on is criminal access and the type of guns and make it a law enforcement issue. When I worked for President Clinton, we had all the police chiefs in D.C., and that’s why I also think now the proximity to the vote is very, very important. I think it’s essential to have a vote of conscience - put it up, people notice what happened here – number one. Number two is – it has to be about people – the type of criminal access to the type of gun, which is why you showed earlier the type of gun, because I think when people see that, it’s clear that gun is not for the streets. It’s not for sports. It’s really a gun of war.
Video is here.
* Related…
* Teachers union rips idea of arming teachers: “It’s ridiculous to think bringing guns into a school or classroom would somehow make that area safer,” said Charlie McBarron, a spokesman for the Illinois Education Association. “It’s hard to understand how a sane person could make that serious suggestion.”
* Chart Of The Day: At least according to Google’s search stats, Friday’s shooting is clearly making an impact
- Holloway - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 11:28 am:
How many assault weapon shooting are the in Chicago each year? We talking hundreds? Several dozens?
- vole - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 11:52 am:
“the assault weapons issue has become standard Democratic schtick every time something bad happens.”
And the GOP does not have a perpetual everlasting schtick for the assault weapons industry no matter what happens?
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 11:53 am:
Is the purpose of the investments in a retirement fund the return, or a social policy statement? When taxpayers have to foot the bill for guaranteed results, I guess the latter…
- Downstate Illinois - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 11:56 am:
Schools have already worked on numerous ways to reduce violence in the schools. There’s no way though to eliminate entirely, and it’s very difficult if not impossible to protect the school from a crazed lone gunman.
Schools should be looking at what they can do after a gunman enters the building. In Minnesota school officials can carry weapons if authorized by the principal.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/in-minnesota-guns-in-schools-may-be-legal-for-now.php
Hall monitors probably shouldn’t carry guns as they would be too accessible for use, but I have no problem with a gun in the principal’s desk or safe to be brought out only in the most extreme of emergencies.
As far as McBarron’s comment, I’m far more sane and realistic than he’s ever been considering some of the radical positions the IEA and NEA has taken over the years.
- Dozer - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 11:56 am:
According to the 2001 Chicago Murder analisys, out of 362 murders, 1 was committed with a rifle, 5 with a shotgun, 5 unknown and the rest with handguns.
if you take on its face, the “assualt weapons” issue that most of them are rifles. it seem insignificant to the crime rate. i.e. AR-15s, AKs, FNs and the like.
Also shotguns that are semi-auto or hold more than 5 rounds don’t seem to be an issue either.
Seems like more media and hype than actual problem.
- vole - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:06 pm:
“Seems like more media and hype than actual problem.”
The Newtown dystopia was not fiction.
- the wonderboy - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:11 pm:
At least McBarron spoke in specific terms. Downstate…which specific “radical positions” do you speak of? I’m not sure your broad swipe adds to the discussion.
- The Ghost in The Darkness - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:17 pm:
Dozer you right. No one wants to tackle mental health, hell Quinn is closing the places. . In 2012 there was 1 one person killed in Illinois by a rifle (type not stated) according to the FBI website. If Quinn Emanuel and these other clowns think getting rid of guns is the answer, then the question is why do they have armed bodyguards. No one will ask them that. Some idiot said the other day they need to post a list of names and address in Illinois of people who own guns. Makes it a little easier for the criminal to visit the un-armed.
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:21 pm:
Well, if Illinois and California government employee pension plans want to divest themselves of the nicely performing firearm sector in their portfolios, that’s their choice. While they are at it, maybe they should divest themselves of all US issued debt because the US is probably the largest supplier of military arms on the planet. Considering how much financial trouble most state and local government pension plans are in, maybe they should take a holiday from political correctness. In any event, those of us who don’t have politicians available to tax everyone else to support their retirement will keep an eye out for deals in the stock market if these plans decide to shoot themselves in the foot.
- Dozer - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:22 pm:
oops typo 2011 report.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf
Vole — no one says Newtown didn’t happen. but when looked at in total, the number of rifles or shotguns used in ANY type of crime is very small. 6 out of 362 or about .016% for Chicago which is seeing an increase in the murder rate.
legislation that effects .016% of the murders is not a solution, but a PR campaign to say look we did something. Even though it will have zero effect.
Obama, Rahm and Quinn are now responsible for having 100s of thousands of these firearms fly off the shelf in the last couple of days. So what do you propose? confiscation? going house to house Mr. & Mrs. American turn them over? that won’t work nor will it happen.
there are 300 million firearms in the country. and that number is growing. AR-15s are THE most popular rifle for the last 5 years. An estimated 3 million plus in sales annually.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:38 pm:
I was for it before I was agin it. Or the other way around. I have a hard time keeping track. Good thing the media has a memory. They help me remember.
Cincy, when it is OPM it’s easy to have a strong stance.
- Kelly Dietrich - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:41 pm:
*Meanwhile, back when Rahm Emanuel was running the DCCC, he was infamous for recruiting conservative, often very pro-gun Democratic candidates. In other words, he helped create the gridlock over the federal assault weapons ban. ”
Rahm’s job at the DCCC was to win races. It was not to promote a specific ideology or issue, only to win as many seats as possible and he did a heck of a job. He backed the best candidate to win the district, even if it wasn’t popular. He was usually right.
If he helped create the gridlock, which seems to imply it was intentional, then he also helped create gridlock on every other issue that wasn’t passed or addressed. I just don’t see his current support for the ban as inconsistent or somehow a change from his personal politics.
- vole - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:48 pm:
Dozer,
Your numbers obscure the proportional lethality of assault rifles with high capacity clips. One assault rifle used to kill 26 children and teachers does not equate to one handgun a gang banger used to kill another gang banger in Chicago.
As for the popularity of assault rifles: the Mexican drug cartels are not exactly clamoring for handguns when they have such good access to assault rifles from the US.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:54 pm:
Nate is a rock star. He has more brains for breakfast than all other pundits together have all day.
–“the assault weapons issue has become standard Democratic schtick every time something bad happens.”–
I’m still rolling that one around in my head. I can’t quite figure it out.
For many, an assault weapons ban and gun control are firmly held positions that perhaps only get attention when “something bad happens.”
The thing is, “something bad happens” quite often.
For the record, for those who track policy positions like a baseball box score, many commonly accepted “conservatives,” from Rupert to Peggy Noonan to David Gergen to Joe Scarbourough to NRA “A-Rated” politicians are also peddling “the standard Democratic schtick” on assault weapons.
- vole - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:56 pm:
change that to
Your numbers obscure the disproportionate lethality of assault rifles with high capacity clips.
- vole - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:06 pm:
Wordslinger,
There have been a lot of bad happenings during Obama’s four years when we did not hear that standard Democratic schtick when we should have heard the schtick from both sides of the aisle were it not for the cover both sides needed from the NRA.
So, show us the freaking non standard, red and blue SCHTICK! And make it stick permanently this time. None of the sunset nonsense with the previous lame assault weapons “ban”.
- USMCJanitor - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:28 pm:
-Vole
Dozer you are incorrect. Magazine capacity has nothing to do with lethality. Current timelines reported show almost 20 minutes from 911 call in CT to first responders in the building… Magazine (not clips) changes take 2 or 3 seconds…
rifles are meant to extend range of a shot. The CT shooter (i hate to say this) would have been MORE LETHAL with the pistol shots… a 9MM is almost twice the size of the 5.56 mm round fired from the rifle and if the rifle is firing typical FMJ rounds you actually have better survivability since it passes through the target with less damage at those short ranges…
Sorry. You are using emotion and not an understanding of ballistics here. My guess… most of these shots were head shots since they were almost all fatal. Rifle or pistol, caliber small or large… these kids were herded and told by lock down policy to sit and wait for the attacker to come. Mag limits and rifle bans would not change stop this.
- USMCJanitor - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:30 pm:
That was meant to say vole was incorrect abotu dozer’s comment.
- Tracy - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:40 pm:
So if Dozer is right, Chicago didn’t have an assault weapon problem in 2001.
What about the numbers in 2012? Surely if the assault weapon ban expired in 2004, the number of assault weapon shooting in Chicago had to skyrocket, right?
What are the numbers for 2012? I’d prefer a fact-based approach to address this problem.
- vole - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:41 pm:
USMC: the obviously ludicrous argument from you is no match for the ludicrously obvious killing capacity of assault rifles equipped with high capacity magazines. And explain the thousands of assault rifles marketed to the Mexican gun cartels from US arms merchants. Add the tens of thousands of deaths in Mexico to US gun deaths and the statistics cited by Dozer would not be nearly as lop sided.
- vole - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:48 pm:
And I might add that if we had any sense of shame in this country about gun violence we would be equally appalled by the 10s of thousands of deaths in Mexico that have been abetted by US gun merchants (and the trade of illegal drugs) as we are to the dystopian massacres by those wielding assault weapons in the US.
- USMCJanitor - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:53 pm:
so when your “lethality” arguments fails you turn to shame… or to turn to those in mexico fighting a drug war. neither of which relate to CT. great argument for the weak minded. not for those of us using logic only.
- USMCJanitor - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:55 pm:
Tracy,
Why should those of us NOT proposing new laws find stats for you? the reality is like dozer stated, year over year 1% or less of murders in chicago were from rifles, of ANY type. in 2004 every gun grabber screamed that suddenly assualt weapons would be used in millions of crimes, yet rifle use in crime has remained flat.
again. even if we dig up the FBI numbers for you, you will jump to emotion and say “if we could just do X”. I would rather spend our time finding logical solutions that impact crime and murder vs politcal grandstanding.
- Dozer - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:03 pm:
Vole –
==Your numbers obscure the proportional lethality of assault rifles with high capacity clips.==
No they don’t. they belie the true gun of choice for average crime - a handgun. In a closed environment like a room, it is just as devastating. Given most modern 9mm have 15-19 round magazines as standard; they would have created the same body count.
Like USMC I think most of this was done up close. The ME also talked of 3-11 shots in victims. That means survivability is not good with that many multiple gun shots. What makes a firearm “leathal” depends on the circumstances but 99% revolves around the caliber and cartridge & shot placement. It is the engine that drives the gun. A 9mm in that room would have the same effect. A 9mm at 200 yards would not. So a rifle will be more lethal at that distance than a handgun would or a rifle chambered for a handgun ammunition round.
A 12 gauge shotgun in that room would also be very devastating. Even with their limited ammunition capacity. But again, out past 30 yards not so.
People who don’t understand firearms want to attribute powers i.e. lethality to things that don’t change it. A rifle in .22 LR caliber with a 30 round magazine would not be as lethal as a Glock with a 10 round magazine. The power comes from the caliber and ammunition. Not pistol grips. Not folding stocks. Not bayonet lugs. Not even 20 or 30 round magazines.
Tracy – I had a typo in the first post the report is from 2011 — latest available.
- vole - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:04 pm:
OK USMC, I accept your logic — the lethality of many military and police style handguns which too can be equipped with or without high capacity clips make them assault weapons too. They are very lethal killing machines. Sorry for the twisted logic. Assault weapons, short or long barrel, are assault weapons.
- USMCJanitor - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:07 pm:
vole. good now we are on the same page. So what you are saying is that an assualt weapon ban as it sits now does nothing, therefore you want any guns that you can ban.
Would you be willing to discuss other options (besides a ban) that you are willing to negotiate? I can be logical with it.
- vole - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:21 pm:
USMC, how about negotiating new strict limitations on carbon emissions, you know, another great source, besides hand and shoulder cannons of our dystopian future? Maybe the state can disinvest itself of any interest in coal companies or coal fired utilities. And the state can sell its ownership of the World Sport Shooting Complex in the interests of shedding some of its schizophrenia on guns. Negotiating up here boss.
- wishbone - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:32 pm:
The problem is that people with known mental health problems have access to firearms. Anyone who has repeatedly threatened suicide, threatened others, or actually attacked another person should be reported to local authorities by a competent mental health professional, and denied further access to guns until the problem is resolved. This intervention can be done in a low key way by non uniformed officials. In virtually every mass shooting incident I am aware of there was plenty of advance warning to the health professionals involved, but currently patient privacy trumps public safety. Out laws need to change to treat this problem the way we handle the terrorist no fly list. People can be added to the “no gun list” for good cause without judicial oversight subject to appeal if authorities over step reasonable bounds. The idea that people will refuse to seek mental health assistance out of fear of losing their guns is not a reasonable objection to this approach. In the vast majority of cases these troubled individuals are be well known in advance of their tragic actions and this will not change. What will change is their access to guns, and their ability to murder scores of innocents.
- PrairieFire - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 3:03 pm:
I think it is really interesting that Kentucky leads the country in background checks this year with 2,329,151.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the estimated population for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is only 4,369,356.
That is a _lot_ of possible gun purchases!
- PrairieFire - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 3:22 pm:
Um, arguing which weapon is more lethal at close range misses the point.
A 9-mm. Glock has of muzzle velocity 375 m/s (1,230 ft/s) and standard magazines can hold 17 bullets not counting keeping one in the chamber.
A typical AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of 975 m/s (3,200 ft/s) and standard magazine of 30 rounds. One reason for its adoption was the faster speed of the round was thought to compensate for the diminished stopping power compared to M-14.
But it doesn’t matter if you get hit by a car at 40 mph or 60 mph, you’re just as dead.
The discussion should be whether civilians should be allowed to own AR-15s, AK-47s or similar rifles. And I am of the belief that limiting the sale of high capacity magazines (say anything over 10) is just common sense.
- PrairieFire - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 3:27 pm:
And for anyone foolish enough to suggest that having guns in the schools would be a preventative or a deterrent, Garry McCarthy put it in perspective this afternoon on WBEZ.
To paraphrase, police officers are given 18 or 21 months at the academy and receive weapons training throughout their careers. And they still make mistakes. The same goes for soldiers.
To think giving someone a two-week or three-week weapons training course and then tell them it’s okay to carry the weapon or have it close at hand at their jobsite won’t lead to mistaken shootings and more tragedies is just painfully naive.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 3:32 pm:
Wishbone is right, this is the core problem: “currently patient privacy trumps public safety.”
- USMCJanitor - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 3:53 pm:
PrairieFire,
the McNutterbutter chief is not being truthful. Having more than 1 cop in the family I can tell you the Illinois certified Law enforcement course is 400 hours. 10 weeks. 2.5 months not 18 to 21. The length of the average boot camp.
Now during that 10 weeks they study law, procedures, radio usage, evidence handling, etc.
exactly 1 week is given to firearms training of all types.
Then you are assigned your weapon and a training officer (FTO) at your department for specific amount of time. Probation time depends on department and your scores. You are not without your weapon or told not to use it, you are on the street.
As for re-training.. NOPE. Unless you are in a SWAT/Tactical or HBT team you are not retrained. You have to REQUAL… shoot at a paper target, once or twice a year based on department and state regulations.
They do not train and retrain, the budget for ammo for each cop in Chicago is 50 rounds… A YEAR! and most (not all), but most dont shoot except to practice the day or two before they have to requal.
Sorry to rain on your parade of facts but a quick google on The Illinois law enforcement training standards will show that McPolitcalHack is feeding you BS.
- USMCJanitor - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 3:58 pm:
Prairie Fire,
So can I have my AR-15 w/ a 10 rnd magazine or is that too scary also? because my hunting rifles are WAY more powerful than my ar-15…
BTW, AK-47s are illegal. they are full auto. and full-auto has been regulated out of existence for civilian use since the 1930s. You can get a look-a-like that operates no different than an AR or a hunting rifle, but they are not AKs. (from someone who has shot w/ and been shot at by real AKs).
Finally… so lets just assume I go along with the 10 round mag limit.. What next? Next time some guy shoots up a mall w/ 4 10 round mags is that just too much? Mag changes take seconds. 10 or 15 rounds make no difference.
- Dozer - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 4:04 pm:
Prariefire –
You are correct at the specs on the ammunition. But also correct that at close range it won’t make a difference.
The question is going to be what limits can be placed on the right? I think Heller spelled those out and drew a line at machineguns/full autos. Semi-autos are not anymore lethal than other guns. Again that is determined by the caliber and ammunition. But because they look like machineguns, anti-gunners have worked to make people think they are machineguns.
I think on the magazine part you will have a hard time limiting them to 10 as the most popular handguns come with 13-19 round mags. Based upon Heller’s common use doctrine, I think the limit isn’t going to be lower that 15 – 20 when the Courts rule on it.
As for the guns in school, seems funny that when the conversation is about guns, bans and restrictions are ok, but not their employment to stop these horrific acts. We know that when he heard the cops, the shooter ended it. That is how it goes most times. In Oregon this past week, a concealed carry permit holder being there ended the shooting.
Why would you trust you kids to a person 6-7-8 hours a day, and then say they are to incompetent to handle a firearm with some training? Some very brave women went out of their office to confront the gunman. Don’t you think they should have had more in their hand than a high heeled shoe, book or stapler?
Is the best answer you can have is to lock the door, turn out the lights, hide and hope the cops get there first?
Try these articles:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/18/beyond-symbolism-protecting-the-children/
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/15/against-monsters/
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/county-police-chief-recommends-arming-school-personnel/
those come from cops. McGumby is a political hack
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 4:07 pm:
== If he helped create the gridlock, which seems to imply it was intentional ==
I didn’t get that sense from Rich’s comment. I got the sense that he was simply pointing out Rahm selected and helped put these individuals in office. Those individuals then chose to oppose gun control. Did Rahm do that specifically to create “gridlock” on gun control? Doubtful.
His actions as Chief of Staff, however, speak far more clearly. He didn’t just contribute to gridlock - he actively tried killing gun control legislation.
== So if Dozer is right, Chicago didn’t have an assault weapon problem in 2001. ==
@Tracy - Dozer actually had a typo. The statistics he lists are for 2011, not 2001. The link he posted is for the 2011 Chicago Police Department Murder Analysis report printed on May 24 2012.
So, an amended comment should read: “Chicago didn’t have an assault weapon problem in 2011.”
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 4:12 pm:
== Garry McCarthy put it in perspective this afternoon ==
Did you happen to catch Chief McCarthy on WGN TV Tuesday?
They ran a poll during the broadcast: Should teachers with a concealed carry license be allowed to bring a gun to school?
The results were running 74% - 26% in favor at the time. Unfortunately, it appears WGN removes their poll after each newscast.
I would like to have seen if those numbers diminished, since I cannot believe nearly 3/4 of the public supports teachers licensed under concealed carry being able to bring weapons to school.
That was shocking to me.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 4:36 pm:
=== I would like to have seen if those numbers diminished, since I cannot believe nearly 3/4 of the public supports teachers licensed under concealed carry being able to bring weapons to school. That was shocking to me. ===
Cognitive dissonance?
- PrairieFire - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 4:56 pm:
@Formerly - Just because an a bunch more people called in saying teachers should be allowed to bring their guns in doesn’t mean the Public feels that way.
@UMSCJanitor - You bring up an interesting point. Should you, should citizens be allowed to own weapons that powerful? As you say, your hunting rifles are far more powerful than an AR-15. But I’m betting a decent do-it-yourselfer can convert an AR-15 to fully automatic fire. Do your hunting rifles have that potential? Could they hold 30+ round magazines?
And, yes, I believe civilians/everyday citizens should not be able to own an AR-15 at all. I understand why it is a popular gun with sport and competitive shooters. If it wasn’t a good weapon, the US armed forces wouldn’t have used it for so long. But does that mean civilians should be legally allowed to own one? Not in my mind.
With the current legal and political climate, improved, common sense gun control laws aren’t going to be passed any time soon. But I still believe this debate on whether or not citizens should have access to these types of weapons should continue.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 5:23 pm:
===They ran a poll===
Meh. Don’t ever, ever believe TV call-in surveys.