Chicago’s Daley Looks for New Gun Bans
Even as the Supreme Court hears the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the anti-gun zealot mayor is working over time in an effort to create a prohibition of guns. The Chicago Sun Times reported:
“Daley backed changes to state law that would require background checks for those buying a gun in a private sale, ban assault weapons, require that gun dealers be licensed and limit the number of handgun purchases to one per person per month. Those were all ideas that failed in previous legislative sessions.”
We’d like to ask Daley, or anyone in favor of limits, why they think this would work? Criminals clearly aren’t following the complete ban on handguns in Chicago, so if the Supreme Court overturns the ban, why would criminals suddenly listen to a new law on the limits of guns one can buy? This only hurts the law-abiding citizens.
On a positive note, the paper adds:
“The mayor also is asking the General Assembly to make it a Class 1 felony to knowingly sell a gun to a known gang member.”
Now that is a gun law that actually makes sense. So why should good men like Mr. McDonald have to be treated almost as bad as the gang members?
Chicago Columnist Offers Insight in Gun Crime in Chicago
In discussing how a legally purchased handgun was used in a grisly and tragic murder in the suburbs of Chicago, Daily Herald columnist Chuck Groudie offers a unique look at the gun debate. While he doesn’t exactly take sides, he does stress that this was also not a random case of violence. This was a case of pre-mediated murder, and one point Groudie doesn’t offer is that if the Kramer family had a gun they could have fought back.
Give his piece a read, and you decide whether a second legally purchased gun wouldn’t have meant a very different outcome.
Philly Inquirer Thinks Legal Guns Will Mean Illegal Gun Trafficking
The debate in the Supreme Court this week (McDonald v. Chicago) is one being editorialized in numerous papers, and we must take note of some of the weak arguments made by The Philadelphia Inquirer including:
“A gun-rights decision by the Supreme Court two years ago threatened to make it more dangerous to walk the streets of Washington.”
Is there even any evidence that the streets of Washington are any more dangerous? Worse still, somehow the editors of the Inquirer seem to think that allowing citizens to legally obtain firearms will lead to more illegal guns:
“That will lead to a greater proliferation of handguns – with the inevitable increase in illegal gun trafficking.”
We must ask why criminals will wait for legal handguns, and further ask if anyone really thinks someone would suddenly just buy guns legally, only to sell them illegally?
Seattle Times Throws Biased Sidebar in Gun Debate Story
The Supreme Court could decide once and for all if Chicago’s prohibition of firearms is truly constitutional, and while The Seattle Times this weekend ran a rather fair story on the issue – citing legal issues and past cases – the editors felt it necessary to include this sidebar:
Gun facts
By some estimates, about 90 million people in the United States own a total of some 200 million guns. Roughly 30,000 people in the United States die each year from gun violence; more than half are suicides. An additional 70,000 are wounded.
The Associated Press
These “facts” are clearly anti-firearms, stressing only the worst sides of guns. That clearly seems to be the intent doesn’t it?
USA Today Article Presents Both Sides of Chicago Gun Debate
In a rather surprisingly unbiased piece, USA Today tackled the issue of the gun debate currently raging in Chicago, offering voices from both sides. There were however a few choice passages that show just how out of touch the anti-gun crowd has gotten:
The Chicago School Board, backing the city, counters: “We tolerate few restrictions on the right to free speech because of its salutary effects, and because ’sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me,’ as the children’s rhyme goes. Guns, on the other hand, will kill you.”
Yes, Chicago School Board, guns can kill you. That’s the point – and if you read the article 76-year-old Otis McDonald says he wants a handgun because he is fearful of the gangs and drug dealers in his neighborhood. Those young thugs likely are armed better than soldiers in some third-world national armies, but listen to the anti-firearm zealots and somehow keeping law-abiding citizens from owning what the Constitution guarantees will somehow make the streets less safe! We hope the Chicago ban on handguns is overturned so that Mr. McDonald can sleep a big better knowing that he can protect his wife and his home.
Washington Times Editorial Offers Pro-Gun Take
Why is there all this focus from the media about “getting guns off the street?” Apparently few in the mainstream media bother to point out that less guns doesn’t always mean less crime, but an op-ed piece for The Washington Times sets the record straight and we were happy to see these words:
“This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise.”
It is just a shame that it took an editorial to actually do research on this subject!
Chicago Tribune/AP Article Shows True Colors of Politicos in Chicago
The Associated Press polled some canidates for the upcoming U.S. Senate race in Illinios. It shows a great lack of understanding from some Democratic candidates, but the worst response seems to have been from Alexi Giannoulias:
“No one needs a semiautomatic weapon on the streets of Chicago, and no convicted felons or domestic abusers need a weapon anywhere in Illinois.”
What exactly does he mean by “semiautomatic?” This is a major problem, as candidates such as Giannoulias throw around terms loosely to scare the public. Does this mean no semi-automatic hunting rifles? No .22 target pistols? And what does “on the streets,” mean? Too often “on the streets” translates into “anywhere in the city.”
Update on Illinois Gang Gun Law
The Chicago Tribune has filed another piece on the Illinois gang gun law and frankly we’re both pleased and confused that his law didn’t exist previously. The paper reports:
“Gang members caught with loaded guns would face mandatory prison time under a new law signed Thursday by Gov. Pat Quinn and hailed by Chicago authorities as a unique tool for fighting street crime.
“The statute sets a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum of 10 years behind bars for unlawful use of a weapon by a gang member; under previous law such an offense was punishable by probation. Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, who pushed for the measure, said she believes it is the first state law to include gang membership as an element of the criminal offense.”
While normal law abiding citizens in Chicago have had to jump through hoops to obtain a gun permit, gang members only faced probation for violating the law. Does that make any sense, even in Chicago?
Crack Down On Gangs? Finally!
File this under, why didn’t this happen sooner? The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that a new Illinois law is aimed at cracking down on gang members with guns. And those caught with illegal guns could be sent to prison for three to 10 years for having the firearm.
Of course some in the mainstream media will jump on this, and say, “just wait for the gun lobby to suddenly offer support to gangs” or something equally stupid. The point is that law abiding gun owners should, and likely will, cheer about this news. This is the point. The bad guys shouldn’t have the guns. Guns aren’t bad things, they’re just bad things in the hands of bad people. Send the bad guys away and guns just go back to be things, not bad things.
Detroit Latest City to Hold Firearms Buyback
The state of Michigan has probably been hit as hard as anywhere by the global economic crisis, a.k.a. the recession, and the city of Detroit is the latest to hold a gun buyback. The problem we see is that the buyback offers a mere $20 for each firearm. How many rare and valuable items will be essentially sold for $20 when these items could have fetched far more money for the owner?
The Detroit News ran this piece that offered this insight:
“‘Getting unwanted and unused guns out of homes can help prevent unnecessary or accidental shootings that can occur when these firearms are left unsecured,’ Police Chief Warren Evans said.”
With all due respect, is there any proof that getting “unused guns” out of a home will prevent accidental shootings? If the firearm is unused, as in not regularly taken out, doesn’t that mean that it could just as easily remain there? And wouldn’t trigger locks, and safe storage also provide accidental shootings?
The Detroit Free Press ran its own story that further offered some interesting information:
“Participants can get $20 for each gun that is turned in. There is no limit to how many guns each person can turn in; however, funds will cover only the first 75 that are turned in, police said.”
So let’s get this straight. The city only has $1500 for this program. That’s sort of a why bother? That means the most the city can hope for then is that residents show up, find out there isn’t even the $20 and will decide to simply hand over their guns for free. Incredible. Talk about the worst type of bait and switch this holiday season.
Even The Chicago Tribune weighed in on this one:
“Police Chief Warren Evans says by ‘getting unwanted and unused guns out of homes,’ accidental and unnecessary shootings can be prevented. Removing guns from city streets also is part of ongoing police enforcement efforts.”
Was it such a slow news day that The Chicago Tribune had to weigh in on a happening in Detroit? And more importantly, where did the Chicago paper get the added insight that removing guns from the streets was part of the effort by the Detroit PD? If this was the case wouldn’t the hometown papers pick up on this? Maybe the Chicago paper wanted to suggest that these buybacks are about “getting guns off the street,” something that we’ve never seen solid proof regarding, and given that Chicago has its own gun buybacks, maybe this is just a reminder to the residents. But from the words spoken by the Chief, it sounds like this is more getting guns out of the home instead.
