Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Nothing here yet
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - This just in…
Posted in:
* I agree with Steve Chapman…
The headline on last Sunday’s Chicago Tribune was stark and arresting: “A thousand shootings.” That’s what Chicago experienced in the first six months of 2013. It works out to more than five a day.
So what crime issue got Gov. Pat Quinn worked up last week? The danger posed by Illinoisans holding state permits to carry concealed firearms. “My foremost duty as governor is to keep the people of Illinois safe,” he said in issuing an amendatory veto of a bill to legalize concealed carry in the last state without it. […]
Quinn responded: “Following a weekend of horrific violence in Chicago in which at least 70 people were shot and 12 killed, this was the wrong move for public safety in Illinois.” But of those 70 shootings — or the 1,000-plus shootings that preceded them this year — it’s safe to wager that few if any involved legal weapons used by individuals legally entitled to own them. […]
Opponents, however, never tire of insisting that letting individuals tote firearms will unleash mass carnage. The Washington-based Violence Policy Center makes much of the fact that since 2007, by its count, 516 people have been killed by permit holders.
But a quarter of those were suicides, which are not a danger to public safety. Though the figure sounds high, it’s less than 90 a year — in a country with more than 50,000 homicides and suicides annually.
The number of licensees who make lethal misuse of their guns, likewise, is a microscopic percentage of the estimated 6 million people who are authorized to carry. The overwhelming majority behave in a responsible, lawful way. The people behind the epidemic of violent crime in Chicago, by contrast, don’t bother with permits and wouldn’t qualify for them.
For this group, the new law is irrelevant. Politicians who use the ongoing slaughter as a reason to oppose it only confirm that when it comes to government’s most important function, they haven’t got a clue.
Some people just hate guns and everything to do with guns, so anything that expands gun rights is viewed with hostility.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 11:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Nothing here yet
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - This just in…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Steve Chapman wrote an excellent column. Few if any of the Chicago shootings were done by lawful FOID card holders. Pat Quinn and Rahm Emanuel are rather silent on why someone in a dangerous situation shouldn’t be able to carry a handgun. Like the story down below.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-hate-crime-woman-girlfriend-attacked-in-south-austin-20130711,0,2505444.story
Comment by Steve Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 11:32 am
There are more privately owned guns in the United States than there are privately owned cars or TV sets. I don’t see anyone’s gun rights being cramped too much.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 11:52 am
Is that study/report on-line besides the newspaper story?
Comment by Where Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:01 pm
Ever heard of Google?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:05 pm
The people in the gun culture don’t want to take responsibility for anything.
They want to be able to sell their firearms to crooks and then report the gun stolen. And they want to be able to evade all regulation and accountability.
I’m actually OK with “conceal carry” provided it’s clear to the gun nuts they haven’t been deputized to enforce the law just b/c they are carrying a firearm.
I’m a little frustrated that the politicians who want to reduce firearm homicides through sensible regulation didn’t attach sensible regulation to allowing “conceal carry”.
But most of the members of the General Assembly aren’t creative thinkers. They aren’t really trying to help their constituents as much as they are trying to help themselves. And the General Assembly seems like a courage free zone.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:10 pm
well played. Those of us in the middle on this issue are consistently shocked by the ridiculousness of the partisans and politicians who cowtow to them on it. Compromise and move svp.
Comment by shore Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:11 pm
It would be interesting to know how many of the homicides would be considered domestic violence. At 90 a year there would be approximately 2 homicides per state (great at math aren’t I
) and with the rate of domestic violence you would have to assume a number of these could be, further reducing the public safety threat outside of your own family.
Comment by Nuance Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:12 pm
Of what use is a gun to me when I am walking down the street and someone tries to rob me and my gun is locked up in a safe in my home with a trigger guard on it? Dismissing the issue by saying alot of folks own guns is missing the point of the second half of the 2nd amendment. I accept that there can be reasonable restrictions on that second half - the question remains, what is reasonable? The USPS was just told it can’t deny a man the right to store his handgun in his trunk when he visits the local post office (Bonidy vs USPS). The man actually contacted the USPS to inquire about the practice and was told he couldn’t do that. Nope, not cramping his rights too much. Bonidy has won that case - as have the lawful owners of firearms in Illinois won the right to conceal carry. The cramping is being relieved.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:13 pm
Question for Steve Chapman: how many of those shootings involved firearms that were legally manufactured and distributed?
How did these legally manufactured firearms go from the firearms industry to illegal end users?
Should public policy and the law be used to reduce the flow of legally manufactured firearms to illegal end users?
The firearms industry is going to whine about this, b/c a big chunk of its annual demand is driven by illegal end users. Are we going to be able to craft public policy to reduce the flow of firearms to illegal end users?
It seems a little duplicitous of Chapman to whine about Quinn not being focused on the problem when Chapman will be one of the people pushing against the government regulating firearms in a way that reduces the flow to illegal end users.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:15 pm
Who is a member of the “gun culture”, Mr Nyberg? I do not own a gun shop so can’t engage in the egregious act of selling a gun illegally and then claim it was stolen. Yet I own several firearms. Am I a member of the gun culture?
I was quite disturbed to learn that there is evidence that gun shops are selling guns illegally and then claiming they are stolen. If true, it is monstrous. I agree that the law enacting bodies in this country are not addressing common sense measures to ensure the safety of us citizens. So, what else is new?
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:16 pm
So .0064% of permit holders commit homicide?
6 million permit holders
387 murders
So for every murdering permit holder, there are 15,503 law abiding holders.
These statistics are incredible and very telling. It’s why the pro-gun folks get so incredibly frustrated. Facts are facts, yet emotions get far too involved in this.
Comment by Anon Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:17 pm
People who live in fear aren’t going to be helped by having a firearm with them when they go out.
A coward’s problem is in himself.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:17 pm
Of the 75% of the non-suicide shooting deaths by CCW permit holders (which would be about 387) over those years - how many were deemed unjustified? How many were not people legitimately defending themselves?
The gun violence we have in Chicago seems to come overwhelmingly from people who couldn’t get a CCW permit (and in other states, not much from people who do have CCW permits).
The Illinois system (and more so, the Chicago way) to date seems to be akin to prohibiting senior citizens from driving because teenagers cause a lot of traffic accidents.
Comment by titan Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:19 pm
Word, you really are getting out their on the rehtoric.
Yes there are a lot of firearms in the hands of private citizens. But just because peoplemcomply with restrictions, does not mean that there are not restrictions onnthose rights. Take the current FOID situation
Now youmhave to get a goverment approved id and background check to exercise your right. For the last couple of years, the FOId process has regularlly taken longer than the alowed 30 days. If you dont have a valid FOID and are in possession of any guns or ammo, you are in violation of the law.
Every day i get asked about people waiting over 90 days tomget their FOID either as a firsttimer, or renewal. How is that not restricting their rights?
How is forcing someone to,wait 90 days or more just to be able keep,a firearm in their home right? And not “cramping” their rights? What should I do, if they dont get my renewal done, move all my guns out of the house?
Should a woman receiving threats have to wait 90 plus days to be able to get a gun if she wants tomprotect herself?
Again, just because some can tollerate or put up,with the roadblocks doesn’t mean their isn’t a chilling effect or “cramp” on their rights.
Comment by Todd Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:20 pm
Let’s regulate every firearm in the state. If you bring it into Illinois and intend to keep it here, you register it.
If you own it, you register it.
If you sell it or give it away, you report it.
If it’s stolen, you report it.
If it’s stolen and you didn’t have it properly secured, you lose your right to own firearms. And this goes for businesses too.
If firearms are properly regulated, the incidence of firearm crime will drop precipitously. But firearm industry profits will go down too.
And that’s what this fight is about. Because firearms industry profits are what fund the NRA.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:21 pm
The guns rights advocates behave the same way. Attempts to pass reasonable laws to keep guns out of the hands of inappropriate individuals are met with hysterical histrionics by the NRA and its surogates. The real questions are why are there so many guns in criminal hands. Why are guns so easy to get for 16 year olds ? When I was 16 I won’t have had a clue where to get one. If the gun advocates start addressing these issues, oppostion to CC might lose steam. I know this is a national issue, but it makes no sense to me that buying a gun from a dealer requires a background check but getting one at a gun show does not. I know I am going to open the door for all the “God given rights” folks, but the concerns by gun control supporters such as myself are valid. Too many young people are dying in Chicago and across the country because guns are easily had. The NRA, ISRA, CC advocates and other guns rights supporters need to see the other side. If you are a responsible gun owner, gun trafficing from gun shows should concern you. The number of kids, many innocent bystanders, being killed should concern you. You should be at the forefront to support measures to stop this insanity. Many of those that continuously oppose reasonable measures claim claim to be responsible gun owners. A responsible gun owner wants only responsible people possessing firearms. If you oppose every attempt to bring the urban insanity under control I question whether you are really as responsible as you claim.
“Some people just hate guns and everything to do with guns, so anything that expands gun rights is viewed with hostility.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:21 pm
Funny how a pretty reasonable article can stir up folks…
Comment by RonOglesby Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:38 pm
Mr Nyberg, the GA has spoken. CC is the law of the state. You can stop campaigning now. Breath in, breath out. Inhale, exhale. Use a paper bag if it’ll help the hyperventilating.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:40 pm
It’ s always laughable to hear politicians in Illinois and especially Cook County talk about “reasonable” gun laws. Until the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s 1982 handgun ban : politicians in Cook County said Chicago’s law was reasonable. Is it reasonable for only police officers to be able to walk around with guns??? Check out this report from the University of Illinois-Chicago Political Science Department on police corruption. It makes mince meat of the “few bad apples” concept.
http://www.uic.edu/depts/pols/ChicagoPolitics/policecorruption.pdf
60 Minutes on the false confession capital of America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSo_9Xo_78E
Jon Burge torture legacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XGJR0QYNBM
Comment by Steve Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:45 pm
@Steve
I remember a father of a good friend of mine had a bunch of articles clipped from when they passed that ban.
So of the most outspoken about it were local community leaders and reverends (mostly black) arguing about how it will keep them from being protected and it was just white politicians trying to keep them from having guns.
How things have changed.
Comment by RonOglesby Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:50 pm
We have never had effective gun control laws in this country, for decades. I usually stay out of this war, because in my opinion, it’s thoroughly lost, and we might as well move on to other fights that could still be won. But this would be my response to Chapman …
If you can drive a few hours (or a day) to another state or another county where you can legally pile up on guns, then there never have been effective gun laws in the US - anywhere. Studies that attempt to study the influence of -local- gun laws on crime levels, and homicides, and ignore this gigantic elephant in the room, are always going to be subject to the obvious challenge. It would take enormously fine-tuned and comprehensive policy research to figure out the impact of lesser gun laws on crime rates, and we don’t have that research, because in part the NRA works very hard to make sure it doesn’t get funded, and so we’re left with crude anecdotes about Florida that don’t attempt for any kind of serious multivariate causal specification.
Amazingly, criminals in Chicago have ready access to guns, when they can drive a few hours to purchase them legally and bring them back in the trunk of their cars. Shocker. If they had to fly overseas and bring them back, would there be such a copious number of guns? Of course not.
If we had implemented a system decades ago where the entire -country- had truly effective and rigorous gun bans, there would be a lot more kids alive today. Because no, the criminals and street gangs would not have easy access to guns. (Where do you imagine they would get them from, do you think they would have built them in their basements?)
So fundamentally, it’s not about hating guns per se. At least for me. It’s about the tradeoff between more guns and the increased number of dead kids. (If they were stabbing each other with knives, which used to be the way it went down, before the ready access to guns exploded, there would be as a matter of physics fewer deaths). And I’ll stay away from the “moral responsibility” of it - that most gun owners are lawful and responsible. Fine. That people who misuse guns should be held liable for their actions - OK. I see that world, and that point of view.
It’s just that bringing up the moral responsibilities at times blurs the factual tradeoff: there are a lot of kids lying in pools in blood in American streets - and occasionally, classrooms - who would up and walking around today alive, if we’d been willing to trade off that aspect of personal freedom in a meaningful way - at a nationwide level.
We weren’t, and they aren’t. Again, maybe that’s an acceptable tradeoff, maybe it wasn’t. But that’s the world we created for ourselves, over decades. I see it as fairly irreversible now - the guns are out there in America, they are now piled up from the floors to the ceilings in basements everywhere. So we might as well resign ourselves.
But I don’t think it’s fair to say, “You just hate guns, blindly,” to point out that as a society we collectively decided to do it this way. Or for the people who participated in this system to wholly exclude themselves from the consequences of the system they tacitly endorsed, and for those of us in the gun control crowd to still point out the obvious from time to time.
Comment by ZC Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:50 pm
RonOglesby:
Check out the Chicago Mob figure who pushed Chicago’s handgun ban.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/chicagos_handgun_ban_and_rico.html
Comment by Steve Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 12:53 pm
Carl Nyberg @ 12:21 pm
You DO realize that in 1968 the FOID card was the compromise; register the owner, not the weapon?
If Illinois changed to only registering the weapon (like a lot of States), then I assume you would be in favor of eliminating the FOID card and the background checks associated with it? After all, the weapons would all be properly regulated …
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:00 pm
Carl — lets go issue by issue. . .
Let’s regulate every firearm in the state. If you bring it into Illinois and intend to keep it here, you register it.
***Not gonna happen. It is none of your business what other people own. WE are already registered with the state via FOID cards. that’s as far as it’s gonna go and if we can repeal that we will. It has outlived it’s usefulness.
If you own it, you register it.
*** Again Not gonna happen.
If you sell it or give it away, you report it.
***Again this is registration — NOT GONNA HAPPEN. get over it.
If it’s stolen, you report it.
***already passed about to be come law
If it’s stolen and you didn’t have it properly secured, you lose your right to own firearms. And this goes for businesses too.
***Go scratch. If I lock my doors and leave and someone breaks in, that is somehow my fault? You’re nuts. You don’t loose rights for someone breaking into my home
If firearms are properly regulated, the incidence of firearm crime will drop precipitously. But firearm industry profits will go down too.
And that’s what this fight is about. Because firearms industry profits are what fund the NRA.
Comment by Todd Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:03 pm
@AFSCME
What makes you think legal gun owners like myself don’t care? Have you ever considered that the problem isn’t so much that they don’t care so much as they have a differing opinion on how to address the issue??
You say “If you oppose every attempt to bring the urban insanity under control I question whether you are really as responsible as you claim.” Do you support Stop and Frisk? (I don’t) Do you support a 3 strike law? How about a 10 yr add on charge for felony committed with a firearm? How about bringing back the Death Penalty for Murder and conspiracy to commit murder? All of these items could help the “Urban Insanity.” however i doubt we could all agree on just one of those.
You see reasonable people can have a disagreement on how to address an issue it doesn’t mean they do not care. I care very much for what is happening in Chicago and the Inner Cities that doesn’t mean i am ready to surrender my civil rights. You cannot argue that a ban on Males congregating in groups would help stop the violence. How about sweeps through the Southside unannounced door to door seizing all illegal firearms and Narcotics. For that matter road blocks and searches along every street. It is kind of like the call for the National Guard just because something might help doesn’t mean it is a good idea.
Personally I’d like to see State Police pulled from across the state to assist in policing. As well as the 10 yr add on with a prohibition from allowing those inmates to transfer out of a max prison. I’m also for expanded asset forfeiture. If someone is caught Knowingly selling a firearm to a felon then they should spend sentence plus 10 as well. I think the idea of the State Police making it possible online to check the Validity of a Foid is a wonderful idea and i really don’t know why it hasn’t been done yet.
No Law abiding gun owner or firearms company wants to sell a weapon to a Criminal. Those that provide weapons knowingly to felons deserve to be caught and prosecuted. Before we create new laws maybe we should see why Chicago is one of the worst districts for prosecution this.
After all blago is gone that should have freed up some resources.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/28/chicago-los-angeles-new-york-prosecuted-fewest-federal-gun-crimes
Comment by Mason born Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:03 pm
The people who love guns will not allow public policy to be used to reduce firearm violence.
They are the willing rubes of the firearms industry.
They want to have a culture of fear. Look at how much Republicans love the post 9/11 era. And they really wanted Benghazi to revive that.
So, having a system that allows firearms to be used in crimes isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. The authoritarians and Right Wingers want to tear down trust in society. They want to have society be less egalitarian and more hierarchical.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:13 pm
ZC
–If we had implemented a system decades ago where the entire -country- had truly effective and rigorous gun bans, there would be a lot more kids alive today.–
I am going to assume that you mean well and believe that this would do something 2 things.
a. Firearms are a globally traded commodity and if all the U.S. Firearms were banned the world would continue ticking on. FYI last i heard a blackmarket fully auto AK in Sub saharan africa is usually less than 300 bucks.
b. The drug cartels who at the moment are shipping Ton’s of illegal completely BANNED product into the country are not going to decide that their people should be unarmed.
c. it is infinately easier to smuggle a gun then drugs. Toss a gun into a gas tank drive over border drop tank commit crime.
d. The U.S. Military “secured” the border to Iraq, a country smaller than the state of TX, yet the Insurgetns still managed to flow guns, bombs, and fighters back an forth. Do you want the Army to secure our border that way??
Sir the Jenie is out of the bottle, unless you can go back and rework the chemistry so gunpowder doesn’t go boom, all your ban does is ensure the law-abiding who obey the law are victims.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:15 pm
ZC, are you suggesting that it would be impossible for criminals to smuggle firearms into the USA from a foreign country? Really?
BTW - the rate of murder has been going down in the USA, not up. This despite the fact that gun laws restricting the right to conceal carry outside the home are being relaxed. We can’t rely on the screaming news stories with massive headlines as data to determine how dangerous the world is.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:17 pm
Mr Nyberg has jumped off the cliff, metaphorically. Painting large swaths of the community with your hateful rhetoric will not score points with us rubes. Using logic and facts are powerful tools. Using bumper sticker slogans only makes you look like a nut.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:21 pm
This article seems to me to be well thought. I like facts over emotion.
I can be considered part of the gun culture. I have used firearms for more than 40 years. I own the same .22 my father bought me at Western Auto when I was 7 years old. I do not advocate arming criminals, nor irresponsible ownership of any property.
There are those who believe every firearm owner is a irresponsible, criminally intentioned threat to society. The facts do not bear this out.
I am a member of only the VFW, not other organizations I do see issues with some gun advocacy groups that also use the same emotional plots as the gun control culture groups do. Both do little to serve the public in those regards.
Just my two cents while I wait in Portland for my airplane ride back to central Illinois.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:21 pm
Gun advocates are famous for saying that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But yet their objective seems to be to get more guns in more people’s hands. It’s like saying the best way to stop traffic fatalities is to put more vehicles on the road.
Comment by Dinosaur Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:23 pm
Carl
–The people who love guns will not allow public policy to be used to reduce firearm violence.–
How about we start a groundswell for some public policy changes right here and now.
a. A 10 yr mandatory add on sentence for using a firearm in the commision of a felony.
b. A 15 yr sentence for knowingly transferring a firearm to a criminal. (BTW that would make you a felon and take away your gun rights.)
Let’s go here is a “gun lover” advocating for changes to public policy you with me??
Comment by Mason born Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:39 pm
ZC - Even outside of IL all gun buyers must pass the NICS background check before purchasing a weapon.
It’s also illegal to sell them across multiple borders.
Everyday gangs move tons and tons of drugs and contraband all over the country and across international borders. People must be naïve to believe that registering guns or blaming gun stores in IN has anything to do with gang violence.
Comment by Allen Skillicorn Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:41 pm
Dinosaur, interesting point. Are you aware that traffic deaths have consistently been dropping despite the fact that there are more vehicles on the road every year?
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:41 pm
@Carl Nyberg
- Yes, AND those right-wingers are in black helicopters outside your house. RIGHT NOW!
The anti-gun folks must love the PR you bring to their side. No wonder you lost.
Comment by GetReal Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 1:43 pm
Dupage
You mean like how the National Homicide rate has been dropping despite more guns than ever.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
Comment by Mason born Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 2:01 pm
I was trying to lead Dinosaur in a subtle manner Mb - but your link works, too.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 2:05 pm
Dupage
Sorry I’ve never been good at subtle. It’s why i work with numbers.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 2:15 pm
Mason
“Do you support Stop and Frisk? (I don’t) Do you support a 3 strike law? How about a 10 yr add on charge for felony committed with a firearm? How about bringing back the Death Penalty for Murder and conspiracy to commit murder? All of these items could help the “Urban Insanity.” however i doubt we could all agree on just one of those.”
I am leaning towards stop & frisk, but doubt if it is constitutional. 10 year add on: yes. Death penalty, absolutely yes.
“No Law abiding gun owner or firearms company wants to sell a weapon to a Criminal. Those that provide weapons knowingly to felons deserve to be caught and prosecuted. Before we create new laws maybe we should see why Chicago is one of the worst districts for prosecution this.”
What about background checks for all gun purchases ? Do you support this concept ? The current law makes as much sense as if I had to pass a driving test to drive a car bought from a dealer, but could drive without any test if I bought it at a car show. Background checks would stop some of the purchases by inappropriate persons, but more importantly, would make it easier to flag trafficers purchasing large numbers of weapons.
Maybe my last post didn’t sound like it, but I am a pragmatic moderate. I am not a “gun grabber”. I was trying to point out that every attempt to address the cause of the carnage that is occurring in parts of urban America is met with stiff resistance, especially from the well funded NRA. While, I guess, if I had to cast I vote, I would probably not vote for CC, but I am also not a voice against it. What I am an advocate for is ending the gun pipeline that is bringing large numbers of guns into the urban areas and ending the lives all all too many young people. While it may not stop every gun from getting into the wrong hands, rigid background checks would make it much harder to traffic guns, and would create a trail for law enforcement to follow and prosecute.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 2:21 pm
Mr Nyberg: The problem I see with your solutions is, felons/gangs don’t now and would not in the future follow any of those solutions. If enacted however, you would have identified, speaking generally here now, the law abiding citizen while the felons/gang members (criminals) would remain armed, unregistered, unknown, not incarcerated and finally, unaffected running the streets continuing the murder and mayhem. Next solution!
Comment by Rufus D Doofus Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 2:29 pm
AFSCME
I personally, and get a lot of crap for it in some circles, would like to see the Foid replaced with a Instant background check on all sales that the seller can make. i should be able to call ISP sell i am selling to AFSCME may i and get a yes or no. I already have to wait 24 hrs or more to deliver firearm they should be able to answer by then. Let ISP give a confirmation number that check was done and approved require it to be kept for 10 yrs. Better than Foid by mile. I think what you miss is in this state the FOID is supposed ot be a background check and i am required to keep that foid number for 10 yrs. (personally i photo copy and save in perpetuity) The problem is the Foid is worthless as it is now but there is no alternate for me to check. Which on a personal level is why i don’t sell to private individuals if they aren’t family.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 2:37 pm
==suicides, which are not a danger to public safety==
Give me a break Chapman. Suicides are a danger to public safety. Just yesterday only blocks from my residence a suicidal person decided to get in a shooting stance towards police officers in the parking lot of a business at a well-trafficked intersection. Several shots later the intersection was partially closed for hours from the afternoon into the night. Thankfully this person didn’t have a gun, but what if they did? Or better yet, what if they were positioned differently within the parking lot and the shots from police towards this person were also directed in the directions of traffic? Is suicide the biggest public safety issue in regards to allowing concealed weapons or even gun issues generally? No. But to say suicides and suicidal people and their actions are not a danger to public safety is just not true and not productive.
@Steve
How comes so many of those “Tribune” links go to Blogspot and not, you know, the Chicago Tribune or an actual newspaper archive.
Mason, how does the death penalty curb “urban insanity”? Stop and frisk doesn’t. Why if you “care very much for what is happening in Chicago and the Inner Cities” so much that you aren’t willing to “surrender my civil rights” do you support a host of measures that strip citizens in these areas of their civil rights?
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 3:10 pm
I don’t dispute that fear of prosecution - of being tried for breaking a law - doesn’t seem to deter criminals who want guns. So laws across states or communities with disparate penalties seem to have little effect. So I’m forced to agree with those who state this current concealed carry fight is unlikely to have much impact on crime rates, no matter how it winds up.
The deterrent is access to the physical gun in the first place. As to whether stricter federal gun laws could have kept the overall firearm levels lower … Well, I should not overstep my expertise. I’ve stated my opinion, and I’ll leave it at that. It does not seem at all intuitive to me that it’s easier to smuggle mass quantities of guns rather than drugs (is it impossible, though? No. Of course I won’t defend that, just that there would be fewer). But, again, I’ll stop there…
Comment by ZC Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 3:13 pm
A lot of insightful facts, particularly re. the %s, yet, as others in the Legislature have even acknowledged, some of the safeguards the Governor has proposed, I believe, would keep the Public safer and should be passed into Law. And it’s a pretty extreme jump on Mr. Chapman’s part, and needlessly demeaning, to go from a Gov. who merely has referenced the fact of the extraordinarily high number of shootings in Chicago as ONE reason he’s proposed greater safeguards, out of the MANY legitimate concerns/reasons he’s delineated, to spout about how Gov. Quinn hasn’t even “got a clue.” Those were still 519 LIVES which WERE lost due to guns in the hands of Legal Permit Holders–519 fellow citizens who would likely, but for those bound and determined to kill themselves, otherwise be alive today…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 3:30 pm
You and I agree alot on what needs to be done. Requiring background checks on all sales, and making it easy with an online system, makes sense & would make trafficing much harder. Your first sentence about getting alot of crap is what my first post was about. The reason some people are so up in arms about CC is the rhetoric from some of the gun advocates (OK I’ll call some of them nuts) that hysterically oppose anything that concerns gun safety. I would like to see rigorous background checks and required gun safety instruction in order to be licensed. Vets & law enforcement would not have to take classes. These simple steps would not only make it harder to traffic guns and get guns if you have a criminal record, but it would also ensure that a firearm owner knows how to use & store the gun safely.
“I personally, and get a lot of crap for it in some circles, would like to see the Foid replaced with a Instant background check on all sales that the seller can make. i should be able to call ISP sell i am selling to AFSCME may i and get a yes or no. I already have to wait 24 hrs or more to deliver firearm they should be able to answer by then. Let ISP give a confirmation number that check was done and approved require it to be kept for 10 yrs. Better than Foid by mile. I think what you miss is in this state the FOID is supposed ot be a background check and i am required to keep that foid number for 10 yrs. (personally i photo copy and save in perpetuity) The problem is the Foid is worthless as it is now but there is no alternate for me to check. Which on a personal level is why i don’t sell to private individuals if they aren’t family.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 3:35 pm
Precinct
–Mason, how does the death penalty curb “urban insanity”? Stop and frisk doesn’t. Why if you “care very much for what is happening in Chicago and the Inner Cities” so much that you aren’t willing to “surrender my civil rights” do you support a host of measures that strip citizens in these areas of their civil rights?–
You are kind of making my point sir. There are a lot of things we could do that would help to curb the so called “urban insanity” (not my term). The problem is we live in a society of Liberties that have to be protected. You see sir i Believe all Civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution need to be protected whether it is the freedom to assemble, Privacy, or bearing arms. As for the Death penalty yes i am a fan. If we kill the boston bomber he will never bomb anywhere else. We can argue about deterrent factor all day but that criminal will not commit again.
Please tell me how the two items i seriously proposed at 1:39 pm violate any ones civil rights.
ZC
This is why it is easier to smuggle firearms then drugs. Drugs must be kept dry and pure to prevent chemical breakdown. They also give off clear odors and chemical residue that can be detected by equipment and dogs. Firearms on the other hand are made of steel, plastic, and oils. if you place a firearm in a car there is nothing to detect since it is made of steel, plastic, and oils. A firearm can be tossed in a barrel of motor oil, fuel, solvents, or even a Sewage truck transported to it’s destination unloaded cleaned and used. When i was in the service a CPL in Motor T was discharged because he took an AK from Iraq placed inside the fuel tank of a Humvee and brought it back to states. The only reason he was caught was he got drunk and was shooting his mouth off.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 3:40 pm
Just The Way - Regarding the 519 deaths by CCW holder - Where your argument falls apart is that we don’t know if the CCW holder was actually carrying in public when the incident occurred. How many of these were suicides, domestic violence, or an idiot mishandling a loaded weapon ? Any gun-related death inside the home has absolutely nothing to do with CCW.
Comment by boog Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 3:45 pm
Just
I will agree that 519 people appear to have lost their lives because of CCW. That is one side of the equation do you really think there were no lives saved by CCw on the other side of that equation? That works out to only 104 deaths per year do you really think less than 105 people defended their lives?
I doubt CCW will affect what is happening in Chicago either way and even Quinn should know that. However if you are the person living in that neighborhood and that firearm saves your life or your families than your CCW has really saved all that matters hasn’t it?
Comment by Mason born Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 3:49 pm
-I would like to see rigorous background checks and required gun safety instruction in order to be licensed.-
I believe those are in the bill - which is now law. Also, vets get credit for their military training, LEO’s have always had a free pass to carry, and every retail gun transaction in Illinois, including gun shows, must go through the NICS system.
Comment by boog Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 3:54 pm
Also, keep in mind that Illinois concealed carry will weed out a lot of these bad actors. Lots of states simply don’t have the training requirements, background checks and mental health reporting that our new CCW law has.
I’m not saying that anything will be perfect, by any means here. But this is a pretty darned good bill for a “shall issue” law.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 3:55 pm
Rich
I wanted to ask you something the next time a CCW issue came up. I heard some Yahoo on the radio saying the law as passed had nothing in it requiring you to abstain or limit Alchohol intake. Wasn’t there a provision that required you to follow the same standard as the DUI aka .08 or did that somehow get cut?? I assumed i missed it if he was right but i thought that was the selling point for Raoul?
Comment by Mason born Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 4:06 pm
Yes, Rich. It’s a decent bill.
Yeah, there are some little things than need tweaking, but overall it’s a good start.
The Carl Nybergs out there are going to find out that the sky isn’t going to fall because of this bill.
In fact, little will change at first, and then there will be a slow change in the dynamic as smart predatory criminals find a new line of work and not-so-bright ones find themselves cleansed from the gene pool.
The really nifty thing is Carl Nyberg and those of his persuasion will benefit from safer neighborhoods thanks to gun owners like myself who have been trained and carry our firearms for defensive purposes. Criminals will be deterred by potential victims possibly having the means with which to decisively fight back.
There is much to be improved in this bill, but there is much already in the bill that other states have needed to fight for to achieve.
Hopefully, in ten years, Illinois will be like Florida and have lots of active permits in circulation and firearms-related violent crime at historic lows.
I’m sure Carl Nyberg and crew won’t thank the NRA, ISRA or Guns Save Life for that, but heh, that’s okay.
John
Comment by John Boch Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 4:14 pm
John
Can you answer the question i asked Rich at 4:06?
Comment by Mason born Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 4:15 pm
Maybe the traffic fatalities wasn’t the best analogy. However, gun advocates like to equate Chicago’s gun control laws with all of the gun deaths to indicate that gun control does not work. They never like to talk about the years when Chicago had twice as many murders than now.
Comment by Dinosaur Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 4:29 pm