Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

A look ahead

Posted in:

Illinois

* As I told subscribers this morning, the Poynter Institute put together a very informative page for journalists about school shootings. Click here to read it and an accompanying piece about covering mental health issues before you read my weekly syndicated newspaper column…

Before Friday’s horrific school shooting in Connecticut, people on both sides of Illinois’ concealed-carry debate were saying privately that they did not expect Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal her major loss at the hands of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court in Chicago voted 2-1 to declare Illinois’ strict laws on carrying guns unconstitutional and gave the General Assembly 180 days to come up with a new, less restrictive law.

“A right to bear arms … implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home,” the majority opinion decreed, saying Illinois had failed to show that bans on concealed carry and other restrictions on gun owners had any positive effect.

Appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court could be harmful to the anti-gun cause, both sides admitted last week. New York’s wealthy, influential and strongly anti-gun mayor, Michael Bloomberg, could oppose an appeal out of fear that the conservative Supreme Court justices wouldn’t preserve New York’s law, which allows him to keep most concealed guns off the city’s streets.

Other states that allow limited concealed carry, such as Maryland and California, will also probably oppose an appeal for the same reason. They don’t trust that the Supreme Court would uphold their restrictive laws.

This isn’t to say that Madigan won’t appeal. Her office has been publicly silent since last week’s appeals court ruling. In the wake of the grade school massacre, she may feel increasing pressure to file an appeal. Then again, she could just kick this to the General Assembly.

The National Rifle Association claims it has enough votes to block any attempt to enact a concealed-carry law in Illinois that is, in its opinion, too restrictive. Proposals to require million-dollar insurance policies, difficult training procedures or other significant restrictions are “off the table,” Todd Vandermyde, the NRA’s lobbyist, said.

There’s no doubt that the pro-gun side has built clear majorities in both chambers in favor of concealed carry. A ruling from Madigan’s father, House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), however, required the pro-gunners to find three-fifths majorities because the legislation would override local ordinances. The NRA is just shy of that in the House and barely at the threshold in the Senate.

But the NRA’s majorities were built on promises to restrict the right to carry guns to specific places and to mandate strenuous training. Schools would be off limits, for instance. Training would be required to obtain a gun permit. Those provisions were put into the last bill the NRA pushed as a way to attract more votes.

The question now becomes whether the NRA can hold on to its majorities in the Legislature in the face of a strong and panicked push by the other side to pass a restrictive bill in line with last week’s court opinion. The ruling specifically mentioned as reasonable keeping guns out of schools, government buildings and businesses that don’t want them and further stated that “a person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others.”

But Vandermyde said gun-rights supporters came out of the woodwork after the appeals court decision was handed down. He claimed that several black legislators had previously confided that they’d like to vote for concealed carry but couldn’t. Now, Vandermyde said, many of them pledged to side with the NRA.

The NRA’s coalition may be tough to hold together, however, if Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Gov. Pat Quinn, Speaker Madigan and the strongly anti-gun Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) team up to pass a restrictive concealed-carry bill. Several legislators who might like to support concealed carry also have jobs with the city and state or have loved ones who do.

But the NRA and Vandermyde don’t actually have to pass a bill. They just have to make sure that the other side cannot. And anyone who has been around the legislation process for more than a minute knows that killing a bill is always a lot easier than passing one.

If the NRA successfully delays legislative action until the 180-day time limit has passed, then, barring any further delays, the state’s current gun restrictions would be declared unenforceable.

Despite last week’s mass shooting, I wouldn’t bet too much money against the gun guys at the moment.

* And gun control wasn’t even mentioned in last weekend’s Democratic 2nd Congressional District slating attempt, which irked Dan Mihalopoulos…

If the Democratic bosses had bothered to ask some questions about gun control, they might have found more reason to sort out a favorite.

State Sen. Toi Hutchinson of Olympia Fields voted with the National Rifle Association’s positions 92 percent of the time and has enjoyed the Illinois State Rifle Association’s endorsement. Rival Deborah Halvorson, a former congresswoman from Crete, also had NRA backing.

At the other end of the spectrum were Robin Kelly (a lifetime grade of F from the NRA for her votes while a state lawmaker) and the pistol-packing Trotter (only voted with the pro-gun lobby 33 percent of the time).

The top three trending topics on Twitter on Saturday were Newtown, #NRA and #GunLawsAreAJoke. But will the anger over the shootings and at the rise in gun violence in Chicago be sustained? Will it translate into Democratic voters who demand to know the gun-control positions of the candidates before the Feb. 26 primary?

They clearly can’t leave that job to Beavers or to the party bosses.

* Related…

* Lisa Madigan’s political aspirations could hinge on concealed carry

* Oh, murder tree - Oh, murder tree…

* Editorial: A gun battle worth fighting

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 9:53 am

Comments

I’m extremely surprised to learn that Hutchison voted with the NRA. What kind of bills are those?

Comment by state worker Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 10:00 am
One of things that tend to get lost in the discussion of the Court’s opinion last week is that conceal carry is one thing, but equipment is another.

The NRA has won on conceal carry. Given the Supreme Court’s conservative tilt, it would be foolish for Madigan to take it up and make bad law.

However, that is not where it ends for reasonable gun control. Nothing would prevent Illinois from imposing reasonable controls on matters ranging from types of weapons to types of ammo to the size of the magazine. All of those things should be on the table. Illinois could become a leader on some of those issues. Equally appealing is that the Supreme Court’s decisions do not seem to ban that type of regulation.

We need leaders now in Springfield who can drop some of the usual rhetoric (on both sides) and get to work on some of the details that can make a real difference.

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 10:32 am
My bet on the gun lobby would depend on how far they try to push the GA. There will be a lot of public pressure to pass a bill that has some reasonable restrictions. What that means, I don’t know, but it seems unlikely the GA will allow the clock to run out. I think Friday’s events will resonate long enough to have an impact, and the anti-gun folks will make sure it does.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 10:59 am
Unfortunately, the NRA has won the battle…the war waged with guns and blood on innocents in schools, neighborhoods, and other public places will go on…the NRA should have a fee in membership dues to pay for for armed guards in every school in America…

Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:02 am
****Nothing would prevent Illinois from imposing reasonable controls on matters ranging from types of weapons to types of ammo to the size of the magazine. All of those things should be on the table. Illinois could become a leader on some of those issues.****

No snark intended, but given Illinois’ past record regarding firearms, I am pretty sure that no one is looking to Illinois to take the lead on anything gun related.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:02 am
My feeling right now is that at both the State and National level we will have a lot of head shaking and hand wringing but in the end the NRA folks will come out on top. With the proliferation of guns in our country and the way the present courts are reading Amendment #2 it will be hard to keep acts like last weeks shooting from happening again.

With the media’s scattergun coverage it is hard to glean the truth of how and why we have 28 dead in a small town. It seems they need to fill thier special coveage with content so they throw everything out there.

Having said that it would seem the mother of the shooter followed the gun folks playbook for protection. She seemed to have enough firepower to take on everyone from the Amish Mafia to the Navy Seals.

I find it then ironic that she becomes the first victum and her weapons are used in this tragedy. As I posted last week, I do not wish to carry because I do not want to be responsible if I can not maintain control of that weapon. I do hope what happened last week can help to bring about a reasoned CCW law here.

Comment by Bemused Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:07 am
There are too many moving parts to really speculate. Lisa is going nowhere. She can’t survive without the protection of her father. She just does not have the intellect to stand on her own. Obama will probably parachute her into a federal judgeship in his last year.

Other states creates an interesting issue. What if Obama wants those statutes struck down so he can control the conversation on federal legislation or a Constitutional Amendment.

The problem with gun control is just as the court says. There is no evidence of a positive effect. Bad people still find ways to do harm either with illegal guns or other weapons. All gun control does is prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselfs.

It is easy in the wake of last week’s shooting to go crazy, but if you are really concerned about safety consider the counter arguement. If the first teacher to see the shooter had a gun this man probably never enters the school and if he does the damage is far less. It does not matter if you are talking about an elementary school or the City of Chicago. A zone where criminals know law abiding citizens have no way to protect them selves creates hunting grounds for criminals.

Comment by the Patriot Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:09 am
Given this State’s record of messing things up, I’m going to guess that Lisa appeals and that the GA ends up running out the clock (hoping for a stay from the appeal) or we get a very last minute deal nobody will like.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:11 am
Sorry, I still don’t want anyone carrying in a school. There are too ways a situation like Patriot describes to go wrong.

Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:14 am
Great argument Pat, because what we really need in a room full of toddlers is a loaded automatic weapon. Great plan. No additional danger there!

By the way, could you explain to me why you would need a 30 round clip to hunt deer? Are deer really that smart and quick?

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:14 am
The reports today are that the principal and (I believe) the school psychologist attacked the armed intruder even though unarmed themselves. In a last, desperate attempt to save the children in their classrooms, two teachers reportedly placed themselves between the shooter and the children. Of the 5 adults murdered at the school (all women), we have reports that the four mentioned above attempted truly heroic action.

It was all to no avail.

Can we agree that such great and undeniable selfless courage on the part of these women would POSSIBLY have had better effect had they been armed in SOME way?

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:23 am
@Jeeper, was the shooter wearing body armor? could a handgun shoot through that? should we arm teachers with AR-15s? and issue them body armor?

Comment by amalia Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:37 am
“A zone where criminals know law abiding citizens have no way to protect them selves creates hunting grounds for criminals.” That of course pre-supposes that the “hunter” chooses his target(s) based primarily on weapons status, something that I highly doubt.

Comment by Skeptic Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:38 am
The only gun control measure that will satisfy gun control advocates is the total elimination of the 275 million current weapons from citizens. Any other type of control would leave guns legally in the hands of citizens, and when the next insane person goes on a rampage, there will be new calls for further restrictions, until eventually confiscation is all that’s left.

We can further presume that criminals will obtain guns and extended clips or semi-automatics no matter what, just like they are ignoring the laws about murder.

So, the logical effect is that gun control laws are effecting only one class of people, law abiding citizens. Gun control laws are aimed at the very people least likely to break them and for some reason, and have the effect of disarming the very people least likely to use the gun illegally. Gun control advocates think the criminal will suddenly follow the law. The only way to assure a criminal will not have a gun is if all 275 million guns are confiscated.

We should be looking at the root causes of mass killings, violent behavior gone untreated, the breakdown of the family structure and things like that. These areas have room for improvement, and can be affected by government action (mainly more money), which reinforces the need for government to prioritize its limited resources. Could the money spent on green energy crony corporations or high speed rail be better spent on support for families and children with developmental problems?

Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:40 am
- The only gun control measure that will satisfy gun control advocates is the total elimination of the 275 million current weapons from citizens. -

Cinci, that’s just ridiculous. There are plenty of measures that could improve safety without limiting the rights of law abiding citizens.

Why not crack down on straw purchasers by requiring gun theft to be reported within a short amount of time? Is there a rational argument against this that doesn’t involve the fantasy that the government is going to come take all your guns?

What’s wrong with a reasonable waiting period on gun purchases?

There are many people that are far to the left of me on this issue, just as there are many probably to the right of you. Just because they aren’t happy isn’t a reason to do nothing.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:51 am
Patriot- Please expand on your statement regarding Lisa Madigan “She just does not have the intellect to stand on her own.”

That’s a serious slam against a well-respected elected official. Got anything to back that up?

Comment by DuPage Dave Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:54 am
STL,

You are aware Ilinois already has waiting periods?

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:56 am
“We can further presume that criminals will obtain guns and extended clips or semi-automatics no matter what”

Well said! And since we will have people who hold up banks, no matter the laws, let’s just legalize bank robbery.

Great argument, Cincy.

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:57 am
Still waiting to hear why you would need a 30 round clip to take down Bambi.

Cincy? Pat? Anybody?

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:59 am
This incident causes me to wonder about the wisdom and real reasons for closing state mental institutions…putting mentally ill persons in the “community” based programs may not be in the best interest of public safety…our jails are where many criminals with mental and emotional problems are held to the tune of $30,000 per year…and when their term is up, they are released back into the community…some folks are a real danger to society and their families, as was Adam Lanza…

Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:59 am
One of the biggest issues as I see it is the large gulf between what the two sides consider to be “reasonable gun control”. I doubt either side can take issue with the need to keep guns out of the hands of most psychiatric patients and criminals, but that’s where the commonality ends.

A large factor is that much of what the antigun side wants is based on technical naivety regarding firearms and makes no logical sense. It’s like female reproductive rights being controlled by a bunch of old men. Oh, wait…

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:03 pm
=== - Skeeter - Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:59 am:
Still waiting to hear why you would need a 30 round clip to take down Bambi. Cincy? Pat? Anybody? ===

Still waiting to hear what anything 2A related has to do with hunting. Anybody?

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:05 pm
RNUG - I’m not just talking about Illinois. And I’m aware there are waiting periods, but I’m also aware of the different rules for gun shows, where lots of guns are bought and sold.

The straw purchasing problem is the bigger issue to me, any concealed carry bill should include a measure to prevent it.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:06 pm
“The only gun control measure that will satisfy gun control advocates is the total elimination of the 275 million current weapons from citizens.”

Really? Exactly who, pray tell, is advocating for this?

Get a grip.

Comment by charles in charge Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:06 pm
—If the first teacher to see the shooter had a gun this man probably never enters the school and if he does the damage is far less.—

I do NOT want teachers carrying weapons in our schools. I would much rather have 1). Metal detectors and Xray machines in every school to detect firearms being brought in and 2) a presence of sworn police officers to operate that equipment and provide a security detail. Expensive? Perhaps. But at some point we need to be willing to pay for things that are important to us. If our children’s safety isn’t worth it, what is?

Comment by Anon-amiss Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:06 pm
Ken,
So based on your argument, hunting people is the proper criteria for the 2A? That you need a lot of bullets to prevent the overthrow of Aurora?

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:09 pm
Charles,
Actually Anita Alvarez made a substantially similar argument.
She’s wrong.
Move on.

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:10 pm
Skeeter said:

“Still waiting to hear why you would need a 30 round clip to take down Bambi.”

That may well be a reasonable compromise, if I remember, the expired “assault weapons” ban limited clips to 10 rounds. I will wait for Todd to lay out the plusses and minuses.

STL said:

“Just because they aren’t happy isn’t a reason to do nothing.”

I believe that unless root cause corrective actions are taken, anything else is nibbling at the edges with no other purpose than to make people and politicians feel good. Why not ban violent video games? Well, because of the First Amendment, or so the argument goes. The Second Amendment is just as valid and of equal importance as the First. Why not lock up more of the criminally insane? Fourth and Fifth Amendment, that’s why. We seem to be willing to attack one of our rights, and get all huffy about other rights that we like.

So, back to the root causes of these problems. Broken families, violent culture, no support.

Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:11 pm
STL,

In IL, the waiting period applies regardless of the venue, be it dealer, show or private sale. Doesn’t mean people don’t break the law, but 24 hours and 72 hours (hand guns) is the law.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:12 pm
=== Ken, So based on your argument, hunting people is the proper criteria for the 2A? That you need a lot of bullets to prevent the overthrow of Aurora? ===

Weak sauce, Skeeter. Point out the suitability for hunting clause in 2A, please.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:13 pm
“Still waiting to hear why you would need a 30 round clip to take down Bambi.”

a. When Bambi is breaking into your house and has a gun with a 30 round clip!

or

b. You are a really bad shot!

Comment by Nuance Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:14 pm
@Amalia: Was he wearing body armor? I think so.

No, most handgun rounds will not defeat body armor to the best of my knowledge. His head was still exposed and would have been the target of choice. In any event, it would have been difficult for him to continue on his purpose of killing children if the distraction of an armed opponent had presented itself. The delay COULD have have allowed the police to arrive before he killed everyone he saw in two classrooms, though. Would that not be preferred?

The problem for the school was immediate: stop the shooter and save the children. The multiple attempts by unarmed women to do those things all failed. (That said, I hope that - in a similar situation - I would display the same level of courage though that is by no means assured.)

The portion of the equation most easily changed is the unarmed state of the staff and teachers. If you entirely prohibit firearms on school property, as is currently the case, the teachers and staff can die for their students but they cannot really save them except by stealth, as demonstrated in this case.

The the current demonstrably failed law/policy combination requires one to hide successfully from the attacker until the police arrive. Given enough time, the attacker(s) will root out every hidden target of their attack. When will the police arrive? When will they enter the building? How many hidden people will be discovered and killed in the interim?

Changing the law and the policies to require a certain fraction of the school personnel to be trained, armed and routinely drilled in the action plan would give them a chance to save the children.

@Cincinnatus: While research into “root” causes is desirable, that research should start after the incident investigation is done and the reports have all been filed.

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:16 pm
A lot of common semi-auto pistols hold 10 to 13, especially smaller calibers like .22’s, so a limit of less than 10 would outlaw a lot of existing guns.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:20 pm
“Straw man” purchases are already illegal under Federal law, I think. One of the questions on the 4473 asks if the gun is for someone else. The form is signed under penalty of perjury BEFORE the federally mandated “instant background check” is performed if you bought from a dealer and before the (state mandated) waiting period starts.

Convicted felons and those legally determined to be mentally ill are also legally barred under federal law.

***WAKE UP!!***

All of the proposed “solutions” have ALREADY FAILED.

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:24 pm
Anon-amiss @ 12:06 pm

I could live with police at the schools.

When my son attended high school in Springfield, during school hours all the public high schools had at least one armed police officer on site at the entry door / check-in station. He’s been out of school a few years but I still see police cars in the parking lots, so I assume that policy has continued.

The police pressence was as much about community policing as it was security, but it seemed to work. The gang members didn’t bring guns on to school property, although over the years a small number were found stashed a short distance off school property.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:26 pm
I’m going to give Cinci the benefit of the doubt, which is rare for me. I think the real debate this country needs to have is about massacre control and too often we jump to gun control and forget the many other issues involved in tragedies like this one.

Mental health issues need to be front and center as much as anything. We need to confront the facts and end the stigma. Treatment should be widely available and instead of arming teachers (dumbest idea ever) we should train them to help spot students in need of psychiatric evaluation. Parents too. We should have doctors and trained professionals in every school district. There is much more we can do to identify and help these people. We just have to want to do it.

Then we can look at legal steps that can be taken to better regulate our “militia.” Those who strongly support tougher gun control measures would be wise to consider a national push to amend the Constitution. It won’t be quick or easy, but unless we can accomplish that, many of the laws proposed will be simply struck down.

There is a process available to change the Constitution. If enough people feel strongly about this, let’s have that conversation. Until then, there are no easy solutions for the violence problem in this country.

Guns don’t kill people, they just make it very easy for people to kill each other.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:27 pm
“The portion of the equation most easily changed is the unarmed state of the staff and teachers.” I.e. “Peace through superior fire power.” Until one of these teachers has a lax moment (they are humans dealing with large groups of kids after all), and one of his/her students gets hold of the gun. And for every “The gun would have saved…” I’ll bet you can find “Gee, I didn’t think it was loaded.” I can’t see how more weaponry is the answer to any of our society’s problems.

Comment by Skeptic Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:29 pm
It is encouraging to see that the usual knee-jerk “let’s have more gun control” arguments are not so obvious in our media, this time. Perhaps, we might actually see something done which will result in improved safety in our schools and other public places…which are currently the most likely targets for psychopaths.

Since this sort of disturbed person is likely to attack targets which are “soft” and most able to provide the largest number of defenseless victims, wouldn’t a requirement that a certain number of administrators and teachers be required to conceal-carry result in a less vulnerable appearance for our schools?

As parents, why would we not trust school administrators and teachers with the tools to provide safety and security for our children? If the facts are true as presented in the Connecticut shootings, the school administrators would have been able to stop the shooter with a .38 snubby…….saving many lives.

It is counter-intuitive to propose this idea….but without some some actual positive change in the nature of the security picture presented by our schools, we will certainly see more deaths in the future.

Comment by JoeVerdeal Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:31 pm
47th Ward @ 12:27 pm:

As Rich pointed out the other day, per the State Constitution, all able bodied residents in Illinois are considered part of the militia.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:31 pm
“Why not crack down on straw purchasers by requiring gun theft to be reported within a short amount of time? Is there a rational argument against this that doesn’t involve the fantasy that the government is going to come take all your guns?”

STL, a few points from seeing how things actually worked out in practice:

First off, watched a few particularly egregious ’strawmen’ type gun purchasing organizations where guns were being purchased out-of-state by street gangs and brought back to Chicago. Took a joint CPD-ATF/FBI task force up to 4 years to bring cases to the federal grand jury - and we were talking a whole lot of weapons here (easy in excess of 500 guns). Not that long ago, either.

We’ve already got the laws in place - it’s all about execution and getting the cases over the finish line. And the enforcement end is where we are missing out.

Second, found out that the existing gun prohibitions in Chicago, Evanston, and Oak Park all worked against reporting of gun theft. Why?

Because in at least some cases, the citizens reporting the thefts seemingly got themselves in more trouble than the thieves with the law enforcement folks. So, the practical result was the victim ended up ahead of the game if the stolen weapons weren’t even mentioned (particularly if they had had the guns for a long time, because records were really bad).

When you create a “No good deed goes unpunished” mentality in law enforcement, don’t be too surprised when you end up with a shortage of good deeds in the general public.

Comment by Judgment Day Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:33 pm
Jeeper - Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it can be effectively enforced. It would help quite a bit to require people to report gun theft. That way when the cops show up 6 months later with a gun used to kill a kid, the previous owner can’t just say “Oh, it was stolen” and face no penalty.

Can you give me a valid reason we shouldn’t do that?

Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:33 pm
Skeptic and I were apparently typing our opposite view….at the same time.

Skeptic….I can see how the sort of scenario that you propose could play out. I would suggest, however, that the sort of body count that we have seen in the last few days would take a hundred years to accrue by accidents of the kind you suggest. Those who carry are well aware of the dangerous potential of the weapons at hand…..as would anyone who has a dangerous tool of any sort.

Comment by JoeVerdeal Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:36 pm
@Skeeter: So you think an offhand comment by Anita Alvarez in some old interview that she doesn’t believe people should own guns (which is distinct from proposing that the government should confiscate all guns) counts as “serious advocacy”? Please. The spectre of confiscation is nothing but an NRA trope, not an actual policy proposal that exists in the real world.

Comment by charles in charge Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:38 pm
There WAS AT LEAST ONE police officer at Columbine.
FAIL.

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:40 pm
teachers and administrators might not need to have firepower. stun guns and tasers might do the trick and be less controversial.

Comment by wizard Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:41 pm
- Second, found out that the existing gun prohibitions in Chicago, Evanston, and Oak Park all worked against reporting of gun theft. Why? -

Those prohibitions are gone, so do you think this is still an issue?

I’m not saying I think this would solve the whole problem, it just seems like a common sense way to throw one more barrier between criminals and guns without affecting law abiding owners.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:42 pm
===all able bodied residents in Illinois are considered part of the militia.===

I know. I just don’t understand why “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” is so poorly regulated that we end up being less secure.

Someone suggested that the framers meant “well regulated” in the sense that they were able to operate their firearms with great skill. I can’t recall if that was a paraphrase of how the courts have ruled on that issue. For me, “well regulated militias” that include all able bodied men (and women), means government has the power (and duty) to regulate who, how, when and where the 2nd Amendment applies to gun ownership.

Maybe some Con law scholars here can tell me why I’m wrong. Please tell me how a well regulated milita can or should be free of any regulation?

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:43 pm
Why don’t the 2A advocates remember the part where it says a ‘well-regulated militia?’

BTW, if you really think owning a gun will keep you safe if the government ever does turn on us, you’re crazy.

Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:43 pm
Joe, so if there is training, there are no problems? Fascinating! Can you tell that to the 18,000 people who are injured every year in fire arms related accidents? Or the 700 who are killed every year in firearms related accidents?

That’s not homicides. That’s accidents. I thought you said those didn’t happen.

But Joe wants more guns in schools. Sounds like Joe lacks the judgment to carry a weapon.

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:44 pm
Would expect Lisa to appeal, now. If she doesn’t, she is going to appear weak to anti-gun supporters. Regardless, expect magazine capacity limits to be a part of any concealed carry legislation, partially based on what is actually being sold-many of the “concealed carry” handguns in .380, .38 special, and 9mm have capacities of less than 10 rounds. A gun that WILL be carried for concealed carry has to be small and lightweight. Neither of the handguns used last week are actually suitable for concealed carry for most people, they are too hard to conceal.

Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:45 pm
charles in charge @ 12:38 pm

Gun confiscation in other countries is a fact of history … and in most cases it was done one small salami slice at a time until firearms ownership was either totally banned or so restricted there wasn’t any practical difference.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:46 pm
I’ve seen several mentions of amending the Consititution. Does anyone here think that is remotely likely? There are a lot more gun loving red states than gun hating blue states. A Consitutional amendment that could pass would not be to the liking of most of the readers at this site.
I’m being facetious, but the sort of thing that could pass would more likely be mandatory carry for everyone than a repeal of the 2nd Am.

Comment by titan Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:47 pm
Skeeter @ 12:44 pm:

Formal training and proficency testing is not always a requirement to own a gun … so you can’ say whether or not those accidents were by trained owners. The IL FOID has no training requirements. The same is true in other states; for example: CT has no training requirement for rifles or shotguns, they do require training for hand guns.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:53 pm
I’m pretty pro-gun. What I think would be reasonable for a start:

1. Strengthening of mental health issue reporting to disqualify inappropriate people from firearm ownership with a corresponding appeal process to restore individuals inappropriately classified.

2. Strengthening domestic violence incident reporting to disqualify inappropriate people from firearm ownership with a corresponding appeal process to restore individuals inappropriately classified.

3. Requiring all private party sales to be run through a low or no cost instant check process that certifies the eligibility of a purchaser to own firearms. (Yes, this will tick off some of my shooting brethren, but it’s what I believe.)

4. Shall-issue CCW on the Texas or Wisconsin model but including meaningful training with preemption and severely strengthened penalties for carry without a CCW.

What do *you* consider to be reasonable?

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:54 pm
Interesting RNUG.

So all those 18,000 injuries and 700 deaths per year were due to lack of training?

Have you ever heard of police officers mistakenly shooting a person? Does that happen? It must not, since according to you training solves all of our problems.

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:55 pm
Re: arming teachers. I can’t see the most important group of voters in the state (suburban soccer moms) getting behind that.
Besides, think of the liability issues. One accidental discharge where somebody gets hurt and the school district is looking at a lawsuit in the millions.

Comment by Guzzlepot Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:57 pm
“Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it can be effectively enforced.”
That would imply the legislature is engaged in “theater” rather than “regulation.” I think that is true on many issues, especially “gun control.” What they have done on this issue is immoral as they KNOW in advance that their “solutions” are NOT GOING TO WORK as they have already failed elsewhere. The legislature gets people killed that should not have died by keeping them from defending themselves and others.

“It would help quite a bit to require people to report gun theft.” I believe this is already law here. Perhaps the authorities decline to prosecute these cases?

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 12:58 pm
Skeeter,

I know accidents happen, probably better than most, because I had a son killed in a hunting accident. I was just saying there is no basis to judge whether or not those accidents were by trained owners.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:00 pm
And stricter mental health requirements wouldn’t have stopped this shooting. The guns were the shooter’s mother’s guns, and she acquired them legally. Waiting periods wouldn’t have stopped it either

Comment by Guzzlepot Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:01 pm
STL:

You are trying to bridge an enormous gulf of distrust. Just as an example, I happen to know of one case where a homeowner had a number of weapons in his home for a long time - probably had pretty much forgotten about them (they were just ‘there’). They got stolen, and reported. Apart from getting into trouble with local law enforcement for having the weapons (would have been perfectly legal if he had been outside of Cook County), he got into a giant hassle with insurance company. After all this, the owner feels he has been victimized several times over. Think that guy isn’t bitter, and probably tells everybody he knows his story?

You’re fighting history here - it doesn’t take very many of these types of situations to convince people that government is not only anti-gun, but is actively scheming to take away their guns.

Just sayin…

Comment by Judgment Day Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:01 pm
I’ve heard some suggest we should arm the teachers. That’s crazy! I think we need to control the sale/access to military style weapons. Has anyone questioned why a seemingly well-educated, well-meaning mother would pull her mentally/emotionally challenged kid out of high school and the train him how to shoot? What about that? Limit assault-weapons and the age when you can teach your kids to shoot?

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:03 pm
Want to float a question here that I am sincerely interested in of late, try and move this past the hypothetical what-ifs.

Are there any real life situations in the US that have played out along the lines Jeeper suggests, where a massacre (say five or more lives at stake) was prevented because some armed mass murder-wannabe was shot down or wounded or chased off by gunfire, because some ordinary law abiding citizen (not a cop in other words) happened to have a gun handy on the scene?

Any examples of this actually happening in the last twenty-plus years?

I ask because I keep hearing this hypothetical scenario about how many lives are being saved because of the possibility of armed response. What I actually keep reading however is about more people and now children getting mowed down by murderers with semis.

Comment by ZC Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:10 pm
*** 3. Requiring all private party sales to be run through a low or no cost instant check process that certifies the eligibility of a purchaser to own firearms. (Yes, this will tick off some of my shooting brethren, but it’s what I believe.) ***

I cannot buy a gun from anyone without a FOID card, which effectively already “certifies my eligibility” to purchase a gun. I also have to keep a record of the sale of the gun for a decade in case the gun is used in a crime and the fuzz comes knockin’ on my door.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:12 pm
Skeeter….You have done a fabulous job of putting a bunch of words in my mouth that I have not said….or thought.

If you will read what I said, you will see that all that I am suggesting is that accidents are possible…and that it would take many years to have so many accidents happen that as many would be killed as were killed in one day….last week.

Good grief!

Comment by JoeVerdeal Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:12 pm
@RNUG: The contention at issue is that “gun control advocates” (a monolithic group, evidently) will settle for nothing less than confiscation of all firearms. This is obviously a patently untrue statement. Nobody’s talking about confiscation. Furthermore, while I thank you for the history lesson, anyone who is actually acquainted with the legal and political landscape in THIS country, RIGHT NOW, understands that confiscation is an impossibility and only gets mentioned at all in order to stoke people’s fears that the gubmint is coming for their guns. It works, too.

Comment by charles in charge Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:15 pm
@Anonymous: WE ALREADY TRIED THAT! IT DID **NOT** WORK.

What IS crazy, is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:17 pm
ZC- There are not enough mass murders in the country to give you the answer you are looking for. Add to that the fact that most loons target “gunf ree zones” and you will likely be waiting a long time for any meaningful data.

However, there are litterally hundreds, if not thousands, of instances anually where someone legally uses a firearm to protect themselves from a criminal. I used to get the NRA’s monthly hunting magazine and there was a section devoted to news clips and police reports detailing these events.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:17 pm
I am Anon 1:12 and 1:17.

Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:19 pm
Pearl, Mississippi, 1997: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:21 pm
A short math problem for anyone thinking that limiting magazine capacity will have an impact on crime. One of the ‘reasonable restrictions’ often cited. From my experience in the shooting sports:

Shooter A and Shooter B both need to fire 60 rounds. Assuming both are decent shooters, they can draw from a holster in 1.5 seconds, and fire a round every .4 seconds.

Shooter A has 6 magazines that he bought during the Clinton AWB in 1994 and by that law, can only hold 10 rounds. Shooter B has 4 magazines that he purchased after the AWB expired and can hold 15 rounds - “High Capacity”.

How much time will it take Shooter A to fire the 60 rounds?

Shooter B?

Comment by Champaign Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:24 pm
>>>>>>“The only gun control measure that will satisfy gun control advocates is the total elimination of the 275 million current weapons from citizens.”

>>>>>>>Really? Exactly who, pray tell, is advocating for this?

Dianne Feinstein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein

http://www.spectacle.org/0504/bowen.html

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:25 pm
ZC @ 1:10 pm:

A Portland, OR mall shooter on Tuesday was supposedly threatened by a CCW owner (who did not shoot due to other people in the line of fire) immediately before committing suicide.

Here’s a link to the local TV station story:

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:25 pm
Almost forgot: Shooter A and Shooter B can both reload their pistol in 1.5 seconds.

Comment by Champaign Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:26 pm
charles in charge,

With 275M guns in circulation, and murder and gun control measures already on the books (and being ignored), what other laws can be passed that would be effective in stopping the criminally insane>

Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:30 pm
Rich, too bad you posted the link to the Poynter story about the need for better mental health reporting and then in your subscriber-only post referred to the Newtown shooter as a “crazed gunman.” Way to go.

No one has officially confirmed whether the Newtown shooter has any type of disability diagnosis. Any “information” has come from leaks. So no one knows. Until then, people with mental illness are basically not going to come out of the woodwork as long as people sound like they’re on a national witch hunt for anyone who sounds like they have a psychiatric disability.

In other words, real discussion about mental illness ain’t gonna happen on a blog whose owner talks about “crazed gunmen.”

Comment by Quill Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:32 pm
Ken -

What about the mental health or domestic violence reports of others in the household? In the current event, the mother may have passed the background reporting, but would the other household members? Some might find it reasonable that no guns be allowed in the households where criminals or those with mental health issues live.

Comment by late to the party Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:34 pm
Joe, in your world, is 20 more or less than 600?

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:35 pm
@Cincy: Who said I’m here to advocate for gun control measures? My only point is that it’s ridiculous, and willfully ignorant, for you to claim that everyone who supports any gun control measures really wants to confiscate all 275M guns. Do you actually believe that?

Comment by charles in charge Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:36 pm
Furthermore, for those who think that people with mental illness should be targeted as person who should be denied gun permits, you should think of better criteria that have more to do with how a person could or woudl functionally use the gun. It is not only people with mental illness who may kill—it is people without mental illness too. Denying gun permits on the basis of disability label makes as much sense as denying gun permits on the basis of race. Just get rid of the guns.

Comment by Quill Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:36 pm
charles in charge @ 1:15 pm

Legal and political landscapes can change quickly. All the recent pro-gun decisions (Heller, McDonald, Moore) were decided by 1 vote majorities. Change one judge and you might have had a different result.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:38 pm
I sometimes wonder how supposedly intelligent people can connect a need for “gun control” to the tragedies like the one at the school that many, including myself, are appalled by if they are being honest instead of pushing a political agenda.

Disturbed personalities have always, and will continue to, try to assuage their “pain” by attempting to make others suffer. Those that view themselves as “entitled losers” will try to do it in a manner that gets them recognition. None of that has anything to do with the general availability of guns - large or small capacity.

If there was any real discussion that was actually meant to be meaningful, there would be a discussion about how Hippa regulations hinders the ability of background checks, or there would be discussion on how to prevent these disturbed individuals from becoming homicidally disturbed.

Try this for consideration:

Some individuals do not seem to be able to “fit in” socially with any degree of ease. When they head off to kindergarden the other children will tease and bully them in one way or another. The authority figures do little to modify what is going on. If the socially inept individual cannot learn to modify their behavior, the exclusionary behavior usually escalates. By the time they finish with school, they are angry, bitter, and antisocial which then leads to failures in the world of work. They now are set up to explode if the following three factors are at work.

1. They are angry and hurt and generally believe that others are “bad” people who either participate in or condone hurtful behavior toward them. (They become egocentric)
2. They lack meaningful social relationships.
3. They view themselves as a “failure” but only because they were not “helped” or given a “chance” to succeed.

Put these three conditions together in people over the age of 16, and you have a very dangerous person who may only be controlling their anti social behavior by a thread. Tragedy only awaits a trigger - and I do not mean a gun’s trigger.

If they can access a gun or guns, the job gets easier, but it is not true that if guns are unavailable to them, that there still won’t be a tragedy. The same day, a half a world away, another such person was stalking through a grade school with a knife exacting the same kind of revenge- it just was buried because of our problems and because it did not involve guns.

I prefer to use a riding lawn mower to mow my grass, but lacking that I will use a power mower. Lacking a power mower, I will use a reel mower. Lacking that I would use a scythe. Some methods are easier, but I am still going to mow the grass. The same is true with these disturbed individuals. They will use the easiest tools available, but they will still perform, even if it means using a knife or hatchet to get the job done.

So, why are we not focusing on the real problem? Gun control may be an easy answer, but it is not an intelligent solution because it will not solve the problem.

Comment by EZ Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:41 pm
@RNUG: Even when Congress passed the assault weapons ban in the ’90’s, existing guns were grandfathered in. NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUN AWAY.

Comment by charles in charge Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:42 pm
Guzzlepot says….Re: arming teachers. I can’t see the most important group of voters in the state (suburban soccer moms) getting behind that.
Besides, think of the liability issues. One accidental discharge where somebody gets hurt and the school district is looking at a lawsuit in the millions.

This is a good point. In order to deal with the liability issues, schools and school staff would obviously have to have statutory protection from lawsuits.

The suburban soccer-mom thing would not be so simple to resolve. You are pointing out the difficulties of selling ideas that are exceedingly counter-intuitive to current-day minds.

I am wondering if a security-related, protective function for teachers and school administrators would have appeal for males with Myers-Briggs INFJ traits…?? If so, that might actually have a positive effect on education, by providing additional positive male role models in our schools. Again…..very counter-intuitive…and not very safe, politically. Good solutions are frequently such.

Comment by JoeVerdeal Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:46 pm
Quill,

To rational people it is incomprehensible that someone “sane” would perform these types of mass shootings. In common langauge, I consider such a person a “madman”.

Rich’s coverage has been the most even-handed I’ve read. You couldn’t even begin to have a rational discussion on most newspaper sites.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:49 pm
“Just get rid of the guns. ” Is it that simple?

Really???

Assume you could snap your fingers and eliminate all guns, all ammunition, all facilities to manufacture either AND all knowledge of how they work in an instant.

People would still kill other people.

Let’s face it, murder came before the gun. You need to change people not tools.

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:51 pm
RNUG: you have not been reading widely enough then. Check out this story about why amateur diagnoses are dangerous: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-s-koplewicz-md/adam-lanza-aspergers-mental-health_b_2316848.html.

Not saying it is not possible that the shooter had a serious psychiatric issue. But I am saying that no one has the facts, and pejorative language in public is causing families and people with serious psychiatric issues to go deeper into the closet, at a time when we need their help to shed light on what can be done.

Comment by Quill Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:54 pm
The President’s speech last night made clear that the fight to at least enact another Assault Weapons Ban, if not more sweeping “gun control” measures, is on throughout this country including here in IL. Unlike years past, it appears that the events in CT makes such a ban likely to pass. Statements made by Todd V. and others like those made last week (e.g., there will be no agreements to keep schools and other public places free of concealed weapons) will only hurt the NRA and its allies all of whom are reeling and should be laying low for awhile.I think Todd and Brandon will be shown to have spoken too boldly way too soon.

Comment by Oh Yeah Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 1:58 pm
There may be more “gun loving red states than gun hating blue states” but I bet more people live and vote in the blue states.

FTR, I don’t think we should ban every gun currently owned by someone who knows what they’re doing with them (and that includes keeping them empty and locked up when not in use). No one here has convinced me any civilian has a real use for a semi or fully automatic weapon. And don’t tell me about how many people are killed by cars or knives every year. Cars are not designed to kill people. Knives have uses other than killing people. Assault weapons are designed to kill people. That’s all they are good for. Let’s get rid of them.

Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:01 pm
@Oh Yeah: I don’t recall “laying low” being a winning strategy for the NRA in the 1960s… It just allowed others to paint NRA as a collection of kooks. The “gun-nut” expression is still around doing its intended job of disqualifying everyone not in line with ever more “gun control” proposals.

The time to “lay low” is when no one is trying to pummel you…

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:03 pm
>>>>>>Even when Congress passed the assault weapons ban in the ’90’s, existing guns were grandfathered in.

Which is why such a ban is non-smart and not effective.

>>>>>>>>NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUN AWAY.
Then why bother?

>>>>>>>>NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUN AWAY.
Are you sure?

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:08 pm
@Cheryl44: I am curious; just who in this thread has advocated for fully automatic weapons?

Convincing YOU is not the problem; convincing the legislature IS. If they are interested in facts - see relative casualty count Afghanistan v Chicago for 2012, above - THEY CANNOT RATIONALLY DEFEND CURRENT LAW IN ILLINOIS.

Neither can you.

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:12 pm
Jeep,
Great ALL CAPS. Nothing insane about that at all. Have you thought about counseling?

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:15 pm
@ZC - I seem to recall at least a couple of the school shootings of the last decade were ended early due to off duty police/CCW holders retrieving weapons from their vehicles and confronting the shooters.

Comment by titan Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:15 pm
@Jeeper. thanks.

but I do not think a hand gun vs. the Bushmaster would have accomplished much. and putting an assault weapon in the hands of teachers is just nutty.

but I also don’t think the problem from Friday is just a gun problem. I’m as inclined to disagree with the ACLU on mental health issues (too many rights for the individual, individuals who often do not get put in facilities when really needed) as I am with the NRA (too few regulations on the products). It’s a multi faceted problem.

but on an every day basis, I worry about police officers and individuals who are attacked, many times with guns. I think the answer is stemming the flow of guns to problematic individuals. so my answer includes universal background checks (all sales, including private sales), and, yes, bans on large capacity clips and an authority that decides if a particular kind of gun can be sold, as in is it too powerful to go on the market. in today’s NYTimes there is a story about the Newtown area where there is conflict about informal shooting ranges, targets coated with something called Tenzite (something like that, I just learned that in the article) that only explodes when a very high powered weapon hits the target. that kind of thing sounds way out of bounds to me. if the first amendment is open to regulation, so is the second amendment.

today, amazingly, I’m with Joe Manchin, full NRA guy until now, who wants assault weapons and big clips banned.

Comment by amalia Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:17 pm
@skeeter: are you blind? I put one clause in ALL CAPS.

Is that your best effort? Pathetic.

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:18 pm
Really Jeeper? Then somebody must be posting in your name since this page is full of ALL CAPS posts from you.

That should be the new test for gun ownership — if you spend a lot of time posting in ALL CAPS, you are too wound up to handle a weapon.

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:22 pm
>>>>>> I do not think a hand gun vs. the Bushmaster would have accomplished much.
How do you know?

>>>>>> and putting an assault weapon in the hands of teachers is just nutty.
How do you know?

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:26 pm
*** targets coated with something called Tenzite (something like that, I just learned that in the article) that only explodes when a very high powered weapon hits the target. ***

It is called Tannerite. It is a combination of ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder. It only ignites when hit by a high-velocity round. A shotgun, machine gun or handgun will not ignite it. Technically, it explodes, but not like a hand grenade. It is more like a M80, but with a lot of smoke. Most ranges use it for their long-range targets, as it provides a visual confirmation that you have hit the target. I do not think that tannerite is not much to get excited over. Google it and decide for yourself.

Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:28 pm
@ ZC 1:10pm & @ Amalia 2:17pm

Colorado church shooting in 2007. Armed CCW holder acting as security for a the Church stopped an active shooter armed with .223 Bushmaster

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_church_shootings

Personally I want to see more services for mental health in the State. Governor Quinn is closing centers & prisons resulting in more persons with mental health issues being released into the community with little to no safety net. Yet it’s the firearms he wants to focus on for our “safety”?

Comment by Blue Dog Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:29 pm
@ ZC 1:10pm & @ Amalia 2:17pm

Colorado church shooting in 2007. Armed CCW holder acting as security for a the Church stopped an active shooter armed with .223 Bushmaster

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_church_shootings

Personally I want to see more services for mental health in the State. Governor Quinn is closing centers & prisons resulting in more persons with mental health issues being released into the community with little to no safety net. Yet it’s the firearms he wants to focus on for our “safety”?

Comment by Blue Dog Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:29 pm
=== I cannot buy a gun from anyone without a FOID card, which effectively already “certifies my eligibility” to purchase a gun. I also have to keep a record of the sale of the gun for a decade in case the gun is used in a crime and the fuzz comes knockin’ on my door. ===

But issuance of a FOID doesn’t guarantee continued eligibility.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:30 pm
A bit of research courtesy of John Fund:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:30 pm
For those of you advocating banning guns or assault rifles, are you prepared to give the government permission to search every home in the country in order to remove them? Because I can assure you, most gun owners will not line up and turn them over. There are 250-300 million firearms in the US. There is no way to “get rid of” these guns. The reality is the guns are here to stay.

Comment by Anon* Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:31 pm
“Joe, in your world, is 20 more or less than 600?”

I think we can blame this on the “New Math” they’re teaching in schools. I think what he’s arguing is that 20 x 1 > 1 x 600 or “Twenty at once is worse than 600 separately.”

Comment by Skeptic Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:32 pm
@Skeeter: Most of posts contain some words in CAPS (included here so you see the contrast) for emphasis. Others contain entire sentences all in caps because I considered the entire idea worthy of emphasis.

If that offends you, please consider my churlish upbringing.

Otherwise, please respond to WHAT I said rather than HOW it was typed.

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:32 pm
Champaign -

I believe the Arizona shooter was stopped while he was reloading. So, I guess the answer is ‘enough time to stop a shooter from doing even more damage.’

Comment by late to the party Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:34 pm
“wouldn’t have stopped it either”

I can challenge the pro regulators to come up with a good series of regulations that would have prevented this tragedy.

All I have heard to far are the traditional chestnuts, waiting periods, limits of guns per month (Sen Durbin today), size of magazines etc. None of these would have prevented this event. I am open to ideas that would help stop these events.

However, providing some defense in a trained person having access to lethal or non-lethal defense would likely make the biggest difference in deterring, or impeding the progress of of a determined bad guy. That may be the most fruitful path toward improving safety.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:35 pm
Anon*,
Are you new to this country? Welcome! Let me give you a few basics. First, nobody wants to take away everybody’s gun. If you think people are out there lurking who want to sneak into your house and ban every gun, then you lack the judgment to handle a weapon.

Second, we have what are known as “search warrants.” To the extent that certain guns are banned, a search warrant would be issued for particular persons.

Glad I can clear this up.

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:37 pm
- more persons with mental health issues being released into the community with little to no safety net. -

That’s an outright lie. Quinn is transitioning people into community based care rather than institutionalized care, not sending them out into the streets. Those who have needs that can’t be met by community providers are placed in one of the several remaining institutions.

You may not like Quinn, and you may believe institutionalized care is the best approach, but that doesn’t entitle you to make things up.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:37 pm
@Slick Willy, thanks. just think it’s indicative of a mentality that wants to see visual evidence of powerful gun action and I find that offputting.
@Blue Dog, thanks for the case reference. but acting as security is far different from a teacher/principal running out from a meeting.

I do agree about mental health services and more needed. Also, I find myself in regular disagreement with those who believe most juvenile offenders can be handled in the community. there are many crime victims who experience sexual assault, even murder by juveniles and it makes them no less a victim. I’m not sure what the numbers are now, or what the parameters are for putting juveniles into facilities in communities, but if I were such a victim, and alive, I would raise hell about having a juvenile anywhere near me after an attack.

Comment by amalia Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:38 pm
=== Can we agree that such great and undeniable selfless courage on the part of these women would POSSIBLY have had better effect had they been armed in SOME way? ===

Can we agree that no one will ever be allowed to engage in bashing teachers or the teachers’ unions again?

Frankly, I find the argument by some that we just need to build a better mouse trap disingenious when, in the previous breath, they argue that disarming the mice is fruitless.

In this case, we don’t have to speculate. NIU has armed and well-trained campus police. It did not deter, it did not prevent, it did not stop the shooting there.

Comment by Sophocles Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:51 pm
Some will find this an interesting read about a study performed by the Secret Service:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335825/secret-service-preventing-school-violence-william-van-ornum

Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 2:52 pm
@Sophocles: That’s a pretty tall name for someone engaging in very shallow thinking.

What does any of this have to do with one’s opinion of teachers’ unions?

To what “better mousetrap” arguments are you referring?

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:00 pm
@Sophocles: I reread you most recent post.

Please accept my apologies.

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:06 pm
Thanks for the links, I appreciate them and will take a look through them. This will definitely help me formulating my opinion.

Which is not to say I automatically trust these links … Will consider though. Take the Pearl shooting Jeeper mentioned. OK, I followed that Wiki link and it sounds good, a school shooter with a rifle apprehended. Wiki says, “Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother’s car.”

Click down to the original CNN reporting the Wiki article cites, however, on the Pearl shooting, and it says, “Woodham was fleeing from the high school when an assistant principal ==rammed his car into Woodham’s mother’s vehicle to stop him.==”

OK, so there’s one way to “subdue” someone, indeed within his car. Not sure the .45 had much to do with it however. But perhaps it emboldened the principal to make the attempt or there was a follow-up.

Other accounts of the incident are so different from the CNN article they make me wonder what was going on, it gets a bit Rashomon. Looking around, by 1999 an op-ed writer in favor of gun rights in Colorado was describing the scene this way: “Myrick foiled that plan. He saw the killer fleeing the campus and positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun pointed at his head, crashed the car. Myrick approached the killer and confronted him. ‘Here was this monster killing kids in my school, and the minute I put a gun to his head he was a kid again,’ Myrick said.” No mention of Myrick using his car to ram Thompson’s car at all, not in this op ed.

In terms of Pearl High as of today that leaves me … nowhere, sincerely, either way. But I’ll keep digging. Again thanks for suggestions.

Comment by ZC Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:15 pm
Cinci and RNUG exhibit the kind of black-and-white approach that would logically lead to no gun laws at all, since even one law is supposedly just the first step down the slippery slope to a total gun ban.

As George Will puts it, life is lived on a slippery slope. A police force could become a Gestapo. A tax could become confiscation. On the other hand, life is a balancing act, not a Libertarian litmus test.

Comment by reformer Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:24 pm
@Skeeter
If you read some of the posts on here and other media sites you would be aware there are people advocating exactly that. As to search warrants, how exactly would you go about getting a search warrant for whom? Most states do not have central gun registry. And in states where there is a registry for certain weapons would that support an affidavit for search warrant absent corroborating information? No. Maybe before you blather on about my post you should face reality. There is no way to legislatively solve this problem. There are already too many guns available to prevent them being used illegally.

Comment by Anon* Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:33 pm
all this leads to convoluting the need for compromise, and the window period for days to resolve still continues…my guess without any result !!!

Comment by railrat Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:43 pm
You would require — require? — teachers to carry concealed weapons? What could possibly go wrong?

Comment by soccermom Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:48 pm
One of the problems with an “assault weapon ban” is defining precisely what an “assault weapon actually is. Every time it has been tried (that I am aware of) some pretty basic firearms end up included, including many of the most popular hunting shotguns.

Another problem is that many guns that might not fall under the definition of “assault weapons” can be easily modified by private individuals to perform in a manner similar to what the framers of “assault weapons” bans were intending.

A comment on “bushmaster versus handgun”. The current practice of “spray and pray” is not, and never has been a substitute for real gun control. These perpetrators of mass violence are trying to “get” as many people as possible and are often ill trained or at least undertrained in firearms in a violent confrontation, so they believe a bushmaster type of weapon is ideal. Given a chance to draw and return aimed fire against one individual, I would willingly take the right handgun over the bushmaster.

Comment by EZ Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:48 pm
i’m always amused at these little debates. for instance, many legal conservatives who advocate “for” the 2nd amendment call themselves originalists. but the constitution was (originally) written in the time of muskets and single-shot pistols. seems to me that originalists (if they were intellectually honest) would have no problems with laws against multiple clips.

but the one that just fascinates me is why draw the line at guns? after all, a tank fits the definition of “arms.” so does a bazooka. if you want to deter violence, it seems to me that arming oneself with a weapon of mass destruction would do the trick!

there just doesn’t seem to be logical consistency here. more guns in a compact urban environment is *not* a path to greater public safety. plenty of gun control advocates note that ms. lanza, the very first victim, had a gun, but it didn’t protect her!

otoh, owning a hunting rifle in rural areas seems reasonable. having a pistol in some of our desert regions is almost mandatory. any smart kid growing up in those parts of texas, arizona or even california knows how to kill a rattler with a handgun.

still waiting, btw, for an instance where some concealed carrier stopped a planned massacre with the use of their sidearm…

Comment by bored now Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:53 pm
“Sigh”
Perhaps one new requirement could be that every public school be protected by one certified and armed police officer. I know they have police in most of the high schools already. Sad to say, but maybe they need armed officers in the middle and elementary school levels also. Perhaps some federal dollars could shake free for this purpose. I like that solution better than arming the teachers.
“Sigh”

Comment by Jake From Elwood Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:55 pm
I have seen a few posts arguing that our forefathers would not condone citizens owning “assault weapons” or large clips and that the 2nd Amendment was written when firearms used black powder and had long reliad times.

However, I feel I should point out that the 2nd Amendment was created, in part, as protection from other citizens as well as a tyrannical and overly oppressive government. And I would like to further argue that the disparity between the weaponry that citizens are allowed and that of which governments’ are allowed has grown by a LOT. That’s not to say that our forefathers would want us all to have tanks, drones and nukes, but I certainly think they would sympathize with semi-automatic large magazine rifles.

Comment by Control Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 4:06 pm
@ZC: The Wikipedia story contains the following: Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School.

The perpetrator was leaving to commit further murder at a third location. Crashing into the car kept him at location #2, saving lives.

It also contains: However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother’s car.

Does the use of the .45 to hold the perpetrator for police not “count” somehow?

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 4:08 pm
Sure Jeep, because nothing says “trustworthy” like Wikiepedia.

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 4:13 pm
Skeeter,
Do you have any real points to make or are you just going to make smarmy comments reflecting other posts?

Comment by Anon* Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 4:28 pm
Bored — Yeah, I’ve been thinking about invoking my 2nd Amendment right to own a small thermonuclear device. Because nuclear bombs don’t kill people; people kill people.

Comment by soccermom Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 4:29 pm
news report man “slashes children with a knife” in asia.. ok now what?? tick tock tick tock

Comment by railrat Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 4:43 pm
@soccermom: Nice reductio ad absurdum!!

Thank you for playing. Don Pardo, please tell SoccerMom about her WONDERFUL Prizes…

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 4:44 pm
When Adam Lanza shot out the glass to enter the Sandy Hook School building did this automatically alert the police and notify the school staff to go into a lockdown? If this had happened the teachers would have been alerted soon enough to take appropriate and timely action to protect themselves and their students.

Comment by Ruby Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 5:14 pm
–“The only gun control measure that will satisfy gun control advocates is the total elimination of the 275 million current weapons from citizens.”–

Try, just once, to make an argument that doesn’t require an absurd strawman.

Anyone talking about banning hunting? Anyone talking about banning guns in the home? No.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 5:28 pm
=== There may be more “gun loving red states than gun hating blue states” but I bet more people live and vote in the blue states. ===

Immaterial for the topic you quoted - a constitutional amendment.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 5:37 pm
=== - bored now - Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 3:53 pm: i’m always amused at these little debates. for instance, many legal conservatives who advocate “for” the 2nd amendment call themselves originalists. but the constitution was (originally) written in the time of muskets and single-shot pistols. seems to me that originalists (if they were intellectually honest) would have no problems with laws against multiple clips. ===

By presenting this argument, I presume you are also intellectually honest enough to believe the 1st only covers hand powered printing presses and excludes all other technologies used by the press?

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 5:41 pm
=== Skeeter, Do you have any real points to make or are you just going to make smarmy comments reflecting other posts? ===

Is this a rhetorical question or a soliloquy?

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 5:44 pm
So, for some, armed teachers are the answer? That’s all you’ve got?

Decent column by David Gergen.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinion/gergen-gun-culture/index.html?hpt=op_t1

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 6:01 pm
I think all automatic weapons, pistols or long guns, should be banned. Wait, they already are!

I used to hunt, don’t anymore (too old to take to the field, really). I hunted with shotguns with plugs, so if I recall correctly I had 3 rounds available in either a pump gun or my brothers old Browning semi.

If I had a 30 round mag, I would have 1) spent a lot more on shells 2) had a very sore shoulder 3) have scared the s__t out of a much larger number of Bob-whites, though I doubt if I would have hit many more.

With my rifle (22 semi) I think I loaded about 12 long rifles, and I don’t ever remember firing all of them at one time. We hunted mainly squirrels with the rifles, every now and then rabbits.

I have a hard time coming up with hunting reasons for a 30 round mag (trying to stop a charging rhino with a 22-250 or 25-06?). From you who know far more than me, what is the rationale for needing high volume magazines?

Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 6:01 pm
Wordslinger-
Works in Isreal.. they had a school massacre in the early 70’s. Since then they introduced a program to allow parents and grandparents to get training to work security for the school… In a country w/ plenty of guns not to mention huge threats of terrorism and attacks on civilians they have not had a successful school attack since then.
There have been a number attempted but always stopped before mass murder occured… always by local volunteer security armed w/ pistols.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 6:39 pm
There’s something highly-attractive about an intelligent and reasonable man who knows and can discuss guns and ammo rationally and thoughtfully…regardless of whether he’s right or wrong.

I’m not flirting, Steve. Just sayin’.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 7:06 pm
Ron, are there perhaps a few differences between Israel and the United States?

Tell you what — when Canada and Mexico outnumber us by a 10 to 1 ratio, and spend the better part of 60 years trying to drive us into the sea, and are chronically launching missiles and sending suicide bombers into the public square, I’ll give it a think.

Until then, let’s tighten are thinking caps a little bit.

Besides, I think you’re talking about the disputed settlements, not Israel proper.

If you want to go the Israeli route on gun control, I’ll call you. But you don’t have the cards you think you do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 7:13 pm
wordslinger
I know about Isreal’s concealed carry laws. BUT the funny thing is you say more armed folks wont help, I show you an example of where it has and you blow it off saying we and Isreal are to different.

Its nice to have a discussion but not with folks that will only recognise others have valid points and arguments… You are the type that would call for an ban Like the UK or Australia… then dismis my argument if I said you cant compare these tiny population countries that are island nations.

yet you would dismiss the comparison here. Your mind cant be changed and you cant have a reasoned discussion. No longer will respond to wordslinger because that all he is..

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 7:23 pm
–I know about Isreal’s concealed carry laws. BUT the funny thing is you say more armed folks wont help, I show you an example of where it has and you blow it off saying we and Isreal are to different.–

You use an example of communities that are under existential threats from organized, armed political organizations.

Perhaps there are other solutions for our mass murderers other than arming everyone to the teeth.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 7:29 pm
just wondering, anyone on this thread have actual family who were in any of the militia that started this country? I’m always careful not to state what forefathers would have wanted.

Comment by amalia Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 8:37 pm
Read the Poiynter article about states and mental health care. The capacity to provide care is very much tied to the commitment of resources by a state, mental health programs are very state driven. So think about this. In 2008, Illinois invested $230 million in GRF grants to provide community-based mental health care, including contracts with hospitals to provide inpatient beds. In 2013 the state is investing $114 million…

Comment by Waffle Fries Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 8:47 pm
Amalia, yes. Revolution and 1812.

Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 9:21 pm
I could never support Senator Hutchinson or Halverson due to their support of the NRA..where I live there seems to be nightly shootings. It sounds like Ms Robin Kelly would be best for law abiding families in the second congressional district!

Comment by 2nd CD voter Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 10:06 pm
Steve@6:01

From what I have seen here and some other sites the High Cap Mags are needed to take on those Navy Seals the Gubmint is going to send at us when we have to straiten them out.

Comment by Bemused Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 10:12 pm
Bemused, clearly the shooter in Aurora needed an AR-15 with a 100-round-drum in case the 82nd Airborne was after him.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 10:59 pm
@steve schnorf, good to know there’s someone else out there with real Revolution in their blood. I celebrate the date of the militia papers of my patriot.

Comment by amalia Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:11 pm
With all the talk about mental health systems, I am afraid I must ask some questions:

1. By the time someone has decided to gear up and go kill people hasn’t the time to worry about his mental health come and gone?

2. Will a psychiatrist be available to do an “emergency rush” clinical analysis when the shooter arrives at the site chosen for his killing spree?

3. Will that clinical workup save any lives?

4. Isn’t the proper task of the people on-site when this guy arrives saving themselves and each other, regardless of the attacker’s state of mental health?

Solve the urgent problem - survival at the time and place of the crime - first though it arises last. By the time this problem exists, the solutions to all the others are moot as those opportunities have been irretrievably lost.

Once this last problem is solved in a repeatable way, there will be time to worry about the perpetrator’s mental health, social skill level, assimilation into peer groups and all the other things that are, though important, far less urgent than survival when and where this sort of attack takes place.

Comment by Jeeper Monday, Dec 17, 12 @ 11:38 pm
amalia @ 8:37 pm:

My wife’s family was here before the Revolution; they claim one of the signers of the Declaration.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 18, 12 @ 12:21 am
Ken_in_Aurora: an originalist MIGHT argue that, i couldn’t say. i am not an originalist…

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 18, 12 @ 12:54 am
There is a whole lot more to be learned about the shooter Adam Lanza. This morning it is being widely reported that he was being medicated for example. Illinois does not have the fiscal resources even if it were appropriate to institutionalize all people with profiles similar to Adam Lanza. It will not happen.

School districts also will not be able to pay to have full time police officers in all schools. In Chicago the school district has to pay the CPD for all police in the high schools, it would cost millions more to place them in the hundreds of elementary schools. Once Sandy Hook’s coverage is past so will some of the ideas about arming teachers or having police in every school.

Comment by Rod Tuesday, Dec 18, 12 @ 7:07 am
A great discussion. Yes, there is a role to be played both in mental health and gun control.

I cannot explain the ideation that leads one with a mental illness to fantasize and carry out a mass public shooting. But even those who disagree with a ban fail to make any argument against more reasonable safeguards, like a psychological screening.

As for the conceal carry issue, given the court’s current stance (which i suspect is about to change), I actually recommend Illinois become an open carry state. When I ride the el every morning, I want to know who is packing so I can stand on the other end of the platform. I imagine law enforcement feels the same way.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Dec 18, 12 @ 7:46 am
–Appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court could be harmful to the anti-gun cause, both sides admitted last week.

I don’t really buy it. It’s just as conceivable the NRA doesn’t want a decision that would uphold the strict laws.

It doesn’t matter, the lawsuits are coming, probably for many years. The Supremes, on 5-4 rulings, opened this can of worms and now they’re going to have to eat some.

They’ll be legislating from the bench on what “reasonable restrictions” and “sensitive areas” are covered.

Who’s on that bench in the coming years, and how they see things, will tell the tale.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 18, 12 @ 7:53 am
>That may well be a reasonable compromise, if I remember, the expired “assault weapons” ban limited clips to 10 rounds. I will wait for Todd to lay out the plusses and minuses.

Comment by Tommydanger Tuesday, Dec 18, 12 @ 8:14 am
@RNUG….cool! i have no claims on the Declaration, but I have had family “over here” since the 1640s from one grandparent and the 1740s from another.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Dec 18, 12 @ 8:44 am

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Who invented Squeezy?

Last 10 posts:

Reader comments closed for the weekend (11-22)
Isabel’s afternoon roundup (11-22)
The Waukegan City Clerk was railroaded (11-22)
Whatever happened, the city has a $40 million budget hole it didn't disclose until now (11-22)
Manar gives state agencies budget guidance: Cut, cut, cut (11-22)
Roundup: Ex-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis testifies in Madigan corruption trial (11-22)
Open thread (11-22)
Isabel’s morning briefing (11-22)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password) (11-22)
Live coverage (11-22)