talk about politicizing a tragedy

[bossy22]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-daley-guns--webfeb20,1,7317239.story


Nothing that he proposes would have prevented the tragedy. I don't like it when either side uses a tragedy to further a politcal agenda, especially if there agenda had very little to do with the tragedy at hand.


edit for wrong link

[villager]

1. That Crazy-ass Daley! He wants to license state gun dealers! The nerve! And ban semiautomatics!

How dare he!?

Because, you know, gun lovers never politicize anything...

[johnbraun]

2. Sigh...

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

[villager]

3. sigh: And here I was quoting from the linked article!

How outre was that?

[benEzra]

10. Unless I misread this, I think the point was...

that most of Daley's proposals are unrelated both to Illinois violent crime in general, and to the recent tragedies in particular.

Only 4 out of 487 murders in Illinois in 2006 involved ANY type of rifle, including "assault weapons," and no one has been killed with a .50 BMG target rifle in the USA in the last quarter-century. That makes Daley's proposals unrelated to the problem he says he is addressing.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

[villager]

17. I guess you misread it: he was talking about (some) pistols, the size of ammo clips

.50 calibre weapons, and horror of horrors: child safety devices to prevent household gun accidents!

[bossy22]

18. size of the ammo clip

has very little to do with lethality- i need to find the study (by the US gov) that showed that most gun homicides are commited with less than 5 shots fired. and the pistols he wants to ban are not the ones commonly used in crime.

and dont get me started of .50 calibre firearms....do you even know how expensive those things are. about 3,000 for a single shot one and about 8,000 for a semi-auto one. the store i work for only sold 2 of them in the last year- to a Orthodontist and a wall street man. not to metion the ammo costs 3.50 a shot.

You are not anti-gun violence you are just anti-gun

[benEzra]

21. The article says a ban on "assault weapons" (which are almost exclusively rifles),

a ban on .50 caliber precision rifles (which have never been used in a single U.S. homicide), a limit on the capacity of ALL firearms (not just pistols) to only 10 rounds, and "more stringent requirements to safeguard firearms in places where there are children ages 17 and younger," which suggests a mandatory mode-of-storage law (e.g., D.C. style, no loaded/functional guns even if accessible only to the owner). All of which is the same stuff Daley et al has been pushing for years, which has put him significantly at odds with downstate Dems.

Daley's "assault weapon" proposal would define an "assault weapon" as any self-loading rifle with a handgrip that sticks out, among other things, and would outlaw the most popular civilian target guns (many of which are made in Illinois, e.g. Rock River Arms and DSA).

Practically all of which is almost completely irrelevant to criminal violence in Illinois, since (as I pointed out) only 4 out of 487 murders in Illinois in 2006 involved any type of rifle.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Illinois stats:

Total murders...............................487.....100.00%
Handguns....................................380......78.00%
Edged weapons................................46.......9.45%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).......35.......7.19%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................14.......2.87%
Shotguns......................................6.......1.23%
Rifles........................................4.......0.82%
Firearms (type unknown).......................2.......0.41%

National stats:

Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

As I said, rifles are not a crime problem and never have been, particularly in Illinois.

[Boomer 50]

29. Child safety locks are damned dangerous

1. they give a very false sense of security letting a person put his or her guard down when it absolutely dangerous to do so. It's akin to leaving your keys in the car and putting a steering wheel lock on and letting kids have access to the driver seat.

2. Most "trigger locks" are either designed to place a bar across the front of the trigger or they are misused by owners when they incorrectly install them on the gun with the locking bar in front of the trigger, most of the time, this means the gun can be fired with the lock in place.

As to the other points in your post, there has never been a criminal use by a private citizen of a .50 BMG firearm in the United States. Magazines (you amusingly refer to as clips) and limitations are useless. During the time when the 1994 AW ban was in place, I saw more LE only mags in the hands of private citizens than I care to count. Most of them got these magazines directly from law enforcement departments when they got new magazines. The worst offenders? NYPD and the DC Park Police.

I'd really like to know the background of the people that propose these stupid laws is. I would be surprised if any single one of them has ANY background or training in firearms technology or safety at all. These people ARE NOT QUALIFIED to put forth proposals like these as they have no experience or understanding of firearms or firearms technology.

[benEzra]

6. Illinois had 487 murders in 2006. All rifles COMBINED accounted for 4 of them.

Illinois had 487 murders in 2006, according to the FBI. All rifles COMBINED--including so-called "assault weapons"--accounted for only 4 of them. Tell me again how "assault weapons" are such a crime problem in Illinois.

Furthermore, not a single person in the entire United States has been murdered using a .50 BMG target rifle in the last quarter-century. That also includes Illinois...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Yes, the mayor is grandstanding, and using this tragedy to further an UNRELATED agenda.



BTW, do you know what a "semiautomatic" is?


Marlin Model 60 squirrel hunting rifle, .22LR


Remington Model 7400 deer rifle


Benelli hunting shotgun

"Semiautomatic" refers to a gun that fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and won't fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. Semiautomatics are legal throughout Europe, and I think semiauto .22 rifles are still legal even in the UK, of all places.

[SecularNATION]

9. Of course he doesn't.

"Do you even know what a semiautomatic is?"

Villageidiot doesn't know jack shit about guns. That in no way keeps him from regularly running off at the mouth about them.

[DonP]

7. Gun Dealers are already Federally licensed and regulated

There is no such thing as a state gun dealer. By law they must be Federally licensed. They operate within a state but the ruling laws are all Federal.

Of course they have to get business permits from their city and county, and in some cases the township they sell in.

The Federal laws pre-empt the state and local laws they want to put in place. Besides, I don't know of any state laws that require the kind of record keeping and supervision that class 1 FFL's have to deal with.

This has more to do with Daley wanting to be able to deny licenses state wide than it has with him feeling they are really unregulated. He views the entire state as his province to control and run. His annexing of property from two suburbs abutting O'Hare fields is just one example of his belief that his will pre-empts anyone else's laws.

It's not about crime control for Daley, it's just about control.

[SteveM]

14. What? Daley wants to ban my 103-yr.-old semi-auto rifle?

[L1A1Rocker]

4. Disgraceful

It would be worth debating IF the proposed laws would have done something to have prevented the tragedies he sites, but no, that is NOT the case. Only one word comes to mind.

[DonP]

5. Daley's posturing might work more effectively ...

... when he says "guns never solve anything" is he would just lead by example and announce that the armed guards surrounding him (even while he's making these pronouncements) and his extended family would now be disarming because their "guns would never solve anything either".

But that's different, he's obviously a more important than we mere peons. I guess Orwell was right, some animals are more equal than others.

If you're the mayor you are entitled to armed protection. If you are an African-American single mother in a crime ridden neighborhood you can just trust 911 and the Chicago police and their great reputation for protecting the community.

His spokesperson later acknowledged that none of the latest series of gun laws he's suggesting would have made any difference in the NIU shootings.

[SteveM]

15. Phone 911 or pull out a 19ll. Which is faster?

[Turbo Teg]

24. I'll pick 1911 every time if that's what I had but,

My tool of destruction is a Glock, or Bushmaster AR-15.

[damntexdem]

8. Oh how horrible: trying to do something effective to prevent further tragedies!

The stupidity of U.S. gun laws, or lack of them, should be allowed to continue unabated -- but no breaches of NRA etiquette will be allowed.

The true tragedy are U.S. laws and attitudes that allow these tragedies to continue.

[benEzra]

11. OK, tell me how banning rifle handgrips that stick out

is "something effective to prevent further tragedies," when out of 487 murders in Illinois in 2006, all rifles combined accounted for only 4 of them. Tell me how legislating rifle stock shape would have changed that.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Or, tell me how outlawing .50 BMG target rifles is "doing something effective" to address gun violence, since no one has EVER been killed with a .50 BMG target rifle in the United States in the quarter-century or more they have been on the market.

There is a word to describe the use of tragic events to further an unrelated agenda. That word is "grandstanding."


----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[DonP]

12. How many more pounds of gun laws do you want?

Buying a gun in Daley's Illionis is not as easy as he makes it out to be.

First you have to apply for and get a FOID card from the Illinois State Police before you can as much touch a gun or ammunition in this state. That's about a 6 week wait while they do a background check on you, if you're lucky.

Then you have to find a store to sell you a gun. That's a real problem if you live in Chicago or Cook County no gun store can or will sell you a handgun of any kind or a so called "assault" weapon and that includes most modern semi-auto shotguns.

Plus, they are not cheap by any means. A decent quality pump shotgun, even used, is still going to be $300+ and a handgun will start at $600 or better for a semi-auto and maybe $500 for a small off-brand revolver.

Then you have to buy it and fill out a form 4473 for each gun you want to purchase. On the form you are asked, under penalty of perjury among other things, if you have ever been treated for a mental disorder or been placed under involuntary hospitilization.

You then have to pass another background check, the NICS check where they clear you by checking all police, FBI, Interpol and other State and local police records to determine if you have ever committed a felony or had an order of protection filed against you. If you have been committed to an institution at any time in your life this is where it will show up, even if you lied on the form 4473 and FOID card application.

Then, after you've cleared the NICS check, you have to wait from 1 day for a shotgun or rifle to 3 days for any handgun (again, assuming of course you move out of Chicago and Cook County) to pick the gun up at the dealers, who keeps a record of your purchase.

Or, you can go to selected street corners and buy or rent one from your friendly neighborhood gang banger. It's a little riskier, but a lot shorter on the paperwork and records, unless he decides to turn you in to the cops for a reward after he rents you a cheap gun.

How much more difficult do you think we need to make it for honest people to buy a gun before the criminals start to be even a little disturbed by your new set of rules?

With 22,000 laws already on the books for gun control, what is your new proposed law(s) that will somehow make a difference to criminals and the mentlally unbalanced?

Heck, why not just start the on the formal repeal of the second amendment. All you need is 2/3 of the states, super majorities in both Houses of Congress and a Presidential signature and it's done!

That should be easy.

[SteveM]

16. According to Channel 21 (Chicago), Daley was asked if his proposals ...

would have worked to stop the NIU murders, and the question was avoided and not answered.

[bossy22]

20. the usual

Daley believes because chicago is having problems, places like Vermont and N.H. should make their gun laws like chicago's is. hes a chicago version of schumer- never misses an oppurtunity to push for gun control

[L1A1Rocker]

27. I'm not suprised

[EricTeri]

13. i must have missed where this had any chance of being effective

Could you please point out to me what this law would definitively do to prevent "tragedy"?

[jody]

19. Do you know the Dem Party says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms,

and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[ac2007]

22. That's not protection; that's gun control

How does banning private party intrastate sales where allowed under State law (this is a State powers issue and should not be within the purview of the Federal government) and banning the most popular centerfire rifles in America protect our 2nd Amendment rights? Sounds like more gun control to me.

Those two line items make most people automatically distrust the Democratic party. I really wish they would back off. A lot more independents such as myself would be far more likely to trust them nationally if they were to start listening to the American public and leave our legally owned property alone.

[jody]

23. Federal, state, and local laws ban sale of firearms to people such as convicted felons & drug users.

Such sales can be prevented for sales through FFL dealers assuming NICS is accurate.

How do you propose to prevent such sales for "private party intrastate sales"?

[Turbo Teg]

25. Well, if you look at history

It doesn't really matter anyway, since criminals will always find a way to get a gun. ALWAYS. On top of that, I don't need the government telling me what I can and can't do with my own personal property.

[jody]

26. My question was to ac2007. Do you have an answer?

[ac2007]

28. I don't.

Under the law, both seller and buyer have a legal responsibility to comply with the law. If a seller knowingly sells a firearm to a prohibited person, they can be held liable. If the act was particularly heinous and even if the seller didn't believe the buyer was prohibited, they can still be charged. It is still illegal to sell a gun privately to a known felon or drug user. The people who engage in private sales tend to be quite responsible about it. I, for one, require the buyer to sign a bill of sale attesting to the fact they are not prohibited under the law along with their contact info. I've done three private sales and did that each time and that was to people I knew and all had CCWs!

Private sales represent a very small percentage of gun sales and for the most part are done between those who know each other. Plus, they only apply to residents of the same state and only when the State allows it. Many states restrict it or don't allow it at all. Overall, they are not a problem from a gun violence perspective.

The private sale issue is really one of personal freedom. It is not having the Government interfere in one's freedom to dispose of lawfully acquired property as one sees fit. Only with guns do we apply special standards. If an alcoholic buys a used car from you and a year down the road kills someone drunk driving, you would not be held liable. The same standards are not applied to guns or other dangerous items.

If the Government could demonstrate that private sales were a significant source of crime guns, then they MIGHT have a case for controlling them tightly. But that is not the case here.

And as the NIU incident and VTech demonstrate, among others, going through an FFL is not necessarily an indicator of future safety. NICS is not perfect and despite improvements to its database, there will always be errors. It is the nature of the world. No database can be perfect. Criminals and the mentally ill will still slip through the cracks.

I don't want private sales restricted. They serve a valuable role. In a paranoid, distrust of the Government sense, it keeps them guessing. Not knowing who has what guns is healthy for a free society. Even in a back of the mind role, it helps to remind our elected representatives that we are the sovereigns in our country and their power derives from us.

I don't why people keep demanding more and more diminishing and restriction of our freedoms. In the name of safety? Safety is illusory at best. It is a feeling, an emotion, a sense of being. Feelings should never serve as the basis on restrict our rights and freedoms.

You're welcome to disagree. Guns are tools in my view. They have no will and can be used for good or evil. Only a human hand can determine which. Punish the user, the one who provided it if they acted criminally in doing so. But don't punish the tool nor the 99% of other tool owners who have done no wrong with their acquisition, use and disposal of same.

[jody]

32. I agree guns are a tool for self-defense, but there remains the problem of private sales to people

who cannot legally own a firearm.

For example, what is wrong with having private sales cleared by an effective, efficient NICS?

[ac2007]

35. Because it is an unwarranted infringment on my freedom to choose

It raises the costs of private sales. Dealers are free to refuse to do person-to-person transfers. Many do now. Others charge high fees for the service ($50 or more).

And frankly, where does it stop? What happens when a person-to-person sale cleared through NICS results in another NIU? What will be called for then? Waiting periods? What if the Government changes the rules for NICS? For example, if NICS is down for 3 days, legally the dealer is permitted to release the firearm to the transferee without liability without an approved response. If that was repealed, an extended downtime or defunding of NICS operations can be used to effect a total prohibition on gun purchases.

When NICS was taken down for 3 days in PA, there was outrage. No gun sales could be processed. What if it had been a 5 day outage? 2 weeks? A month? Legally, dealers could have released the guns after 3 days but what if threats of prosecution or liability from the State prevents them from doing so? Is that not an infringement on our rights? Is that not a chilling effect on our freedoms?

Remember, the existence of NICS is a compromise by gun rights supporters. It was developed to replace the 3 day mandatory waiting period/extended background check imposed by the Brady law for handguns only. In exchange for the instant check, gun rights supporters agreed to allow all guns to fall under the system. In hindsight, I believe that was a bad decision. Since then, NICS and gun laws have been expanded to cover more classes of prohibited persons and there doesn't seem to be a stop to the creeping infringement on our freedoms.

There is no compelling reason to require a NICS check for private sales. The "if it saves one life" logic is a red herring. If we applied that logic broadly, we'd have no knives, swimming pools, cars, alcohol, etc. Restrictions on these things take lives too and we don't call for more restrictions and regulation on them to "save just one life".

Finally, the demands for more restriction, regulation and compromise will never stop. The next compromise, the next give on our part become the next jumping off point for the next series of restrictions, controls, etc when the next tragedy occurs. And once we lose this freedoms a piece at a time, we never, ever get them back.

[jody]

36. I understand, you want to allow private sales to people who under 18 USC 922 cannot legally

possess a firearm?

[ac2007]

38. Yes and no

The short answer to your question is: Yes.

Long answer:

What you describe is already illegal. And me allowing anything is beside the point. The law makes it clear under what narrow circumstances a private person may sell a firearm to another. It is already a crime to knowingly do so to someone who is prohibited.

Also realize there is nothing stopping anyone from voluntarily going through NICS today via an FFL. I want it to remain exactly that: voluntary.

Yes, it is possible for a prohibited person to acquire a firearm in violation of the law in a private sale. The key here is they would know they are prohibited and can be held criminally liable if caught with the gun. Yes, they may go on a shooting spree with such an arm. How often has this happened?

The question you should be considering is why is it acceptable or desirable to demand diminishing out rights and freedoms as a solution to a non-problem? Democrats cry about government overreach and stripping of our rights and freedoms in other areas and fight back but then turn around and demand even more government control in areas of life they feel uncomfortable with. Why is that?

Our rights are not a buffet to pick and choose from. We have to take all of them, even the ones we don't like.

Private party sales are already a rare event. And they can be regulated by the States. And are. Leave it there.

Or does the idea that private citizens can do with their guns as they choose within the bounds of the law without government oversight bother you? I honestly think that is what it is with a lot of folks. I think they are bothered that people are free to do with guns as they see fit without the government acting as nanny and overseer to ensure they are doing the right thing by their definition.

[jody]

41. Lots of words but IMO you dance around the private sale of firearms to people who cannot legally

possess a firearm.

Have a nice day and goodbye. :hi:

[krispos42]

37. I have an idea about that.

States can make it a law that when you perform a private sale, the seller has to keep a record of the person he is selling to. Driver's license number and expiration date, name, and address. And the buyer has to keep a similar record of the person they bought from.

They don't have to mail them in to the government or anything, but just keep them in a filing cabinet and produce them to officers with an appropriate warrant.

This way there is a paper trail for all guns (except stolen ones) BUT the trail is decentralized and non-electronic, so there's no trolling or illegal records retention.

[ac2007]

39. I do this already

This is pretty much the content of my bill of sales. Along with a paragraph that states: "The buyer attests under penalty of law that they are not prohibited from possessing the listed firearm under all Federal, State and local laws at the time this bill of sale is signed.". And a similar paragraph for the seller.

I have these documents for my protection. If something were to ever happen criminally with a gun I sold, it will be traced back to me. This documents help cover my hindquarters but is not a guarantee against prosecution. There is always a risk in a private sale coming back to bite you in the ass which is why I've only ever done them with friends who I know are not prohibited (I shoot with them, they own their own guns and a couple are law enforcement).

[jody]

42. Some states require a private sale be processed through NICS. Are there other ways to insure the

prospective purchaser is not in NICS.

[Indy Lurker]

30. Simple

The seller is required to inspect and record the buyers FOID card number.

The seller is also required to keep a record of the sale for 10 years.

Daily had a homeless man arrested for not keeping records for 10 years after a gun he once possessed was used to kill someone.

[jody]

33. I assume you are citing the policies in one or more states. Do you propose that for all states? n/t

[Boomer 50]

31. That was tried with part of the 1968 GCA

And was shown to be totally useless in relation to crime and was repealed with FOPA 1986. Same with the ammunition record keeping requirements and interstate travel restrictions.

[jody]

34. I understand, so are you proposing that private sales be allowed to people who are not legally

authorized to possess firearms?

[ac2007]

40. As stated, proposing nothing

There is nothing to be proposed. Such an act is already illegal. The fact that a small number violate the law should not serve as a justification for the limiting of the rights and freedoms of the majority. This in and of itself can become a form of tyranny.