Buffalo Business First Editorial Fails to Look at How Guns Save Lives Too

In a rant-filled editorial for The Buffalo Business First, Gary Burns doesn’t pull any punches. He states clearly: “killing – that’s what guns are for.” He goes on to cite several examples of tragic shootings, but fails to offer so much as one example of how a firearm saved a life. Thus he never notes, “protection – that’s always what guns are for.” Read more

Chicago’s Daley Calls for Strict Registration and Training

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley looks to make it, or rather keep it, difficult to legally obtain a handgun in the Windy City. While the long standing handgun ban has been overturned in the recent SCOTUS ruling, Daley seems to be on the offensive offering that the process of obtaining a gun should be as difficult as possible.

The Chicago Sun Times offered some thoughts in a news item, noting that Daley is hiding behind “first-responders” and could model new laws after those in place in Washington, D.C. The nation’s capital’s laws were noted in the paper:

“Washington requires gun owners to get five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years. Gun owners there are further required to submit fingerprints and allow police to perform ballistic tests. They must keep revolvers unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks unless they have reason to fear a home intruder.”

While this might seem reasonable, consider that the point of the case was so that people could have guns to defend their homes. What good is a disassembled firearm when you have an armed intruder in your home? And the suggestion of “unless they have reason to fear,” is vague at best. The rest of these restrictions are also a bit extreme. What exactly is done in five hours of safety training? And more importantly, the costs of these measures isn’t mentioned.

Couldn’t it be argued that these are just additional taxes on the poor and middle class? Rich people might not need to buy a gun for protection for example. But the paper further notes it could be even more expensive for those who want a gun:

“Those provisions apparently don’t go far enough for Daley, who hinted strongly at an insurance component to protect public safety workers and taxpayers.”

Here too Daley is off the mark. While we admit that first responders should be protected, is there really an added danger for them if an individual owns a gun? Couldn’t it be argued that first responders might not need to respond if criminals suddenly have to worry about breaking into homes where the owner might be armed? It wouldn’t be open season on every elderly person’s home any longer.

Even Police in Chicago Think Mayor Daley is Wrong

While Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is calling for what seems to be a total gun prohibition, some law enforcement officers think he is off base. CBS2Chicago.com quoted the mayor as saying:

“Does anybody have a right to carry this gun in Washington, D.C. – into a federal building, into the Supreme Court, into the White House or Congress? No. Why should we allow them to carry them in America?”

Well, we would respond to the mayor and say the Constitution of the United States of America says we’re allowed to carry the guns. And we’re not alone. The Second City Cop Chicago Police blog responded by noting:

“So they can only cover the cost of the first 666 guns turned in? Leaving aside the obvious biblical references of ’666 guns,’ why would anyone even thing about turning in the one thing that’s going to keep you safe in the current economic downturn and manpower crisis?
 
“Guns are about to become legal across the board. Why surrender anything unless it isn’t functional, and then you can use the $75 toward a more reliable weapon. Silly mayor.”

Silly mayor maybe. Scary mayor who wants to turn America into a police statement is more like it.