Open discussion about gun laws and proposed bans

First topic message reminder :

Hi all,

I just realized that not only is Obama a good at selling B.S. to the population, he is also a very good gun salesman. I went out to buy an AR type rifle as a Christmas present to myself. Everywhere I looked was sold out of all AR and AK type guns. All of the stores were willing to give a quote but none could commit to a delivery date. So far I didn't run into any price gouging but I am sure that is only a few days away.

So, instead of a new AR, I ended up buying a new washer and dryer - Even though I can't shoot my eye out with those, they sure don't make for a good Christmas present

Chris

Why ban 30 round magazines? What will this solve? Will it prevent a murderer from committing murder? The 30 round magazine is nothing more than something for the media to over-hype.

Again, let's look to some more facts (published by the City of Chicago).

Percentage of murder victims with a prior arrest record 76.9%

Percentage of murder offenders with a prior arrest record 87.3%

Those two facts tell a very interesting story. Both the victims and the offenders, by a large majority, have a history of crime.

Over 50% of murder offenders were between the ages of 17 and 25 (most are aged 17 & 18). I wonder if this is also the prime age for gang bangers?

Here is another very interesting fact, in 1991 the number of murder offenders was 1083, in 2011 it was 173. Perhaps this data shows a self correcting problem. If 80% of offenders and 80% of victims have a criminal history AND if the number of murder offenders continues to drop as the data shows, at some point all of the criminals may be eliminated.

And again, the majority of murders were committed with handguns, most probably by illegally owned handguns (it is unlikely a gang banger has an FOID card) and, based on the facts, owned by criminals.

Looking at the facts, I simply cannot see any proof that making 30 round magazines will solve anything. I cannot see any proof that making guns illegal will solve anything as only law abiding people will actually have to "turn their guns in". Generally speaking, criminals don't follow the laws so expecting them to turn in their guns should a law be based is absurd.

The real common thread to this whole murder issue is that it is committed by criminals. If the criminals are behind bars where they belong, they won't be out in the population killing each other (as shown in the data) or killing innocent people.

I suggest everyone look into the statistics published by various government sites to see the real truth of what is going on. Here is a link to the Chicago PDs data

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf

Solve problems by looking at and understanding the facts, not by what the ignorant people (primarily the media) are saying. Their pay (revenue/profit) is based on viewership, their motive is to make more money and they make more money by creating controversy and talking about it on air.

Chris

WVBE Shooter wrote:This kind back and forth debate is exactly why I regularly check the BE Forum there are many intelligent minds with valid points.

The school system has to do a better job protecting our children.
Retired or off duty law enforcement sounds like a great idea. If we were to drug test those who receive federal assistance I am sure the savings would pay for the protection.

In my earlier post I was hard on assault rifle owners. I realize ar15's are used in three gun competitions and that is fine. But please explain to me why a 30 round clip is needed. The three competitions I have seen do not use 30'round clips. Part of the competition is reloading while shooting. The elimination of bump stocks and high capacity mags is needed. Another idea might be a buy back of these items to initially fund better school protection.

One last thought, I fly all over the US and the number of TSA agents seems ridiculous. A few less TSA agents and armed guards at schools seems like a possible solution.

Again, I don't think that banning things will make any difference in protecting innocent lives and lead to other bans when the initial ones fail. I have talked to shotgun folks who, like you don't see a need for some things. Many think that handguns only have one purpose, to kill people, and should be banned. I'm old enough to remember the anti-gun mantra on "Saturday Night Specials". They harped on it for years. If many of the antis would have had their way back then, there would be few suitable handguns available for concealed carry today. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed and now we have many states that issue concealed carry permits. As a whole, the violent crime rate dropped over many years. In most of the school shootings over the years, the little black rifle wasn't used, yet now there is a call for banning them. Believe it or not there are teachers and administrators who often carry a handgun except in "Gun Free Zones". Allowing these people to be armed would be a good step, IMHO. I would think that there are some school administrators who may now think that they need firearms training, and be armed, but they are prohibited. It is wrong to prohibit teachers and school administrators self-defense, while affording a crazed person a worry-free environment, i.e. "Gun Free Zones". The former will obey the law, while the latter seem to view the area as a "shooting gallery".

WVBE Shooter wrote:In my earlier post I was hard on assault rifle owners. I realize ar15's are used in three gun competitions and that is fine. But please explain to me why a 30 round clip is needed. The three competitions I have seen do not use 30'round clips. Part of the competition is reloading while shooting. The elimination of bump stocks and high capacity mags is needed. Another idea might be a buy back of these items to initially fund better school protection.

The same reasons that make standard-capacity magazines useful in competitions (under stress a shooter might miss and need to take 'make-up' shots; less time spent swapping magazines improves scores; etc.) also make them useful for self-defense. We Bullseye shooters (and people who participate in other pure-target disciplines) never need to worry about swapping magazines or stage planning, as that isn't part of our discipline. Perhaps the "run'n'gun" matches you've seen did not include stage designs that would necessitate magazine swaps, but it is sometimes required.

Bump-stocks: eh. Not that useful. I have one, and it's a fun toy for sure (a good way to turn money into noise very quickly, just like the already-restricted/NFA full-auto stuff), but it is nearly impossible to control when stationary, and definitely impossible when on the move. However, is that a reason to ban them? I don't think so. A bump-stock wasn't used in the Newtown, CT shooting, and as far as I know the only reason we're talking about them now is because the talking heads featured them in the wake of the shootings and claimed they were an easy modification to make the modern sporting rifle 'more deadly' by allowing the shooter to shoot faster. What they (and the SlideFire promo videos, and most of the other home-made bump-stock videos) don't show is that it really only works within about 10 yards; outside of that you're much more likely to miss the target, and thus it's much less effective than quick-but-aimed-fire. But it's on the news because it helps with the fear-mongering.

As to "buying them back", that implies the authorities owned them in the first place -- they didn't. And if the authorities are prepared to give the owners of standard-capacity magazines and bump-stocks even a tenth of what the owners paid for them, they would quickly have little cash left to pay for school protection.

As I recall, from another highly-publicized school shooting, the investigative panel found that larger-than-normal capacity magazines would NOT have had an effect on the outcome (p. 74; pdf). Even more important than having a lot of ammunition (in both cases) was the fact that shooters had a lot of time. What finally ended the shooting spree - at both Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook ES - was the arrival of armed first responders, upon which the shooters both committed suicide. Swapping magazines after 10 or 30 rounds takes just a few seconds; when the armed first responders take 20-30 minutes to arrive, it makes little difference.

For those that think CCW holders DON"T make a difference in these types of shooting just remember Nick Meli and what could have happened at that Oregon Mall shooting if Nick had not been around.



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



I never heard of Nick Meli on our local news. Seems that the news media doesn't want to paint CCW holders in a good light, at least in my part of the country. If I never googled Nick Meli I would have never known the good this young man did without ever firing a shot. These cowards go to gun free zones like schools and malls for a reason, THEY'RE GUN FREE. once confronted they shoot themselves like the cowards they are.



Virgil

Jerry Keefer wrote:

sakurama wrote:
The NRA's flippant response of adding armed security guards to every school is a useless suggestion
Gregor

Hmmm, " flippant", really?? you do have an attitude.. this happens to be an area that I am fairly familiar with. I retired from L/E with 30 years service almost 4 years ago..
I worked for one of the highest murder rate cities per capita in the country. We had armed police regularly assigned to schools in the city. Most schools in the surrounding counties have armed school resource officers who are active duty police.
What could be better than a retired officer working these positions? Most officers, nationwide, are eligible for retirement at 25 years service and are still in their late 40s, early 50s. Seasoned vets.!! No training necessary.!! And that's "flippant" ?? It's a no brainer.. Many/most of the big city schools already have assigned police...Take a few billion $ from the ridiculous green jobs stimulus, etc., and keep our kids safe. It's not the guns...It's the people. 100 years ago the world population was 1 billion people.. Now there is 7 billion. The ratio of nuts has increased by at least 7 fold..and probably more..
I truly hope you never have to live with what you are willing to accept.
Jerry

Hi Jerry

This response always bugs me when I hear it as well. Why do we never hear about it when an armed person (or policeman) stops a shooting from ever happening. For example, about 2 years ago at the high school I graduated from many moons ago, a gunman came to the school to shoot up the place but was confronted by the school resource officer and held at bay until the sheriffs department arrived. The only person that died that day was the gunman. When he was initially stopped he was within 30 feet of 100's of high schoolers. If someone tells you about it and you then google Sullivan Central High School Shooting you can find out limited info on it, but you will never, ever hear about things like that on CNN/MSNBC etc. And anyone that thinks the SRO at Columbine didn't decrease the body count, needs to re-read the official reports on that one.

Also, those of you that want to throw AR's under the bus need to take a walk down the line at Camp Perry during the rifle phases. There are a few reasons that AR's are popular, one is ergonomics, anybody can shoot one, also there is the inherant accuracy of the design. Anybody can learn to be proficient with them much more easily than they can with the M1's and M1A's that dominated the sport previously.

Since handguns are used in homicides about 20 times as much as total rifles of any kind, consistently, year after year, I find it amusing that a handgun owner would be so hypocritical as to imply that "Assault Rifles" are murder machines with no place in society. Heck, rifles are not even used as often as fists are to kill people every year. Don't trust my word, the FBI and other places publish this data. Once again, you won't find this knowledge on CNN or the others.

Divide and conquer seems to be working pretty well.

I think I'll stop now.

Hmm, okay, I'll give you that "flippant" was a charged word and I should have looked for a better one. I also would have responded sooner had the title not been changed and my subscription dropped. I don't have an attitude though - just a different point of view.

Regardless my comment was more directed towards the NRA's comment that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". Rob's comments though do make sense - that's there job to sell guns and promote easy access to them. Still, I think that's flawed logic. Columbine had an armed security guard and yet we still talk about that tragedy and not about the tragedy that was averted.

The comment about the pilots was directed towards what in the end was a far more smart and thoughtful answer to the problem. Preventing access to the cockpit keeps the plane safe from hijacking. Arming pilots with the thought that an armed shootout in a pressurized cockpit is the better answer seems less than wise.

I will agree that banning AR's isn't the answer but as those same FBI statistics show guns in general are the weapon of choice for murder. We have almost 300 million guns in circulation and it would be quite impossible to "take them away" but trying to curb some of the tragedy with them isn't unreasonable.

The comment that murderers and victims are predominantly criminals is really hard to take seriously. It would be hard to tell that to the parents of the children from Sandy. The reason that tragedy is such a focal point of conversation is that the guns were legal, the shooter had no criminal record but did have a mental health history. The victims obviously didn't "deserve" their deaths and I don't think anyone who is murdered "deserves" their death even if they have a criminal record. We have (poor working) courts for that. If anything the Sandy tragedy speaks towards having a better mental health system.

I'm undecided about whether I think that teachers should have CCL. When I've shot a public ranges I'm sort of astonished at how badly the general public shoots. I don't know how much I'd trust a teacher to be accurate in that kind of situation but perhaps just the presence of a gun would speed the inevitable ending which is typically suicide. With proper training though it might be part of a solution.

I wouldn't say that banning 30 round magazines would be the answer either but I had to Google bump stocks since I've never heard of them and I have to say that they certain seem like an end run around full auto laws. I'd hate to imagine the carnage one of those could wreak in a crowded place. I think we're lucky most of these people lack the ability to really plan these sorts of things out.

One thing discussed that seems to make sense to me, but certainly wouldn't have changed the Sandy outcome, is the sale of guns at gun shows without background checks. It seems if we agree that felons and mentally unstable shouldn't have guns that it would make sense to eliminate this loophole. I think a lot of the resistance from gun owners when the subject of "gun control" comes up is that they realize there are some problems inherent to the system but are afraid to engage in any discussion for fear of giving up any ground. Is there a good argument against that I wonder?

I've found all my fellow bullseye shooters to be smart and reasonable people so I enjoy hearing there viewpoints.

G

perhaps just the presence of a gun would speed the inevitable ending which is typically suicide. With proper training though it might be part of a solution.

Amen, Brother!

Couple of reasons for resistance to more gun control=
1. the constitution says more gun control is not ok.
2. ALL the evidence of every other previous gun control shows it doesn't work, and increases crime.

"the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"



Here ya go, read the 3rd paragragh, the guy roamed for 8 hours before someone with a gun showed up to stop him. This in a country that has much stricker gun control that we do, heck the police don't even have guns there.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html



Seems that gun control is only a feel good law to be able to say "well we did something" but the truth is the laws don't work nor does the court system. Seemingly laws now a days are passed to get votes not to curb the problems that the law was created to stop.



IMHO I feel that those that think that somehow their firearms are sacred because they are target arms or fine shotguns are fools for thinking they at some point will not be ban the same as high capacity mags or AR style rifles.







Virgil

sakurama wrote:
The NRA's flippant response of adding armed security guards to every school is as useless a suggestion as banning assault rifles would be. We accept that there should be a limitation to what kind of weapons a private citizen can own (yes to handguns and no to rocket launchers). We also accept that there are people who should not own guns (felons, mentally unstable etc.) but the NRA and the gun community in general is not willing to engage in a discussion because of "the slippery slope". I can't think of a good reason why there shouldn't be a background check at gun shows but yet that is an untenable idea to the NRA.

I think the "slippery slope" is between ideologies that are unwilling to recognize that the slope is in fact a middle ground of gray where all rational thought should exist and meaningful change might happen.

Gregor

Have you ever been to a gun show? I ask because you have the same answer as many of the media who really dont know what they are talking about. Every gun sold at a gun show by a licensed dealer to a individual is required by Federal law to meet the same standards as if the person was in any gun store including full background checks done on site. The only guns sold at gun shows that are not held to these standards are those sold by individuals in a personal sale and only then if the state allows person to person sales, Id say they would not even rise to one percent of the guns sold at a show.These are the few you see walking around with a sign saying gun for sale or similar stuff.These people could sell anywhere, so in their case i have no issue with these people being stopped from peddling their guns in a show. But the big media lie that is constantly perpetuated is their are no gun checks at gun shows and thats just not true. As for the thought of protecting our schools, im 100% for it and it should have been done long ago. You cant stop CRAZY and you can neither predict its time or place they will strike, the only defense is a good offense.

David R makes a really good point. He's absolutely right that 99.9% of guns for sale at a gun show are at stands run by FFLs.

I think the key here is responsibility. It seems to me there are a couple of different groups of gun owners. Group one are the ones that use guns with an actual purpose in mind (hunters, protection and target). My feeling is that this group has no need or use for 30 round mags or bump stocks. Group two are the ones that see guns as a way to satisfy their oversized ego's. This group shows up at a gun range simply to see how much attention they can get by blowing through ammo with no other purpose. I understand the theory that if they take the high cap mags what is to say they won't take everything. I believe that by supporting the idea we may look like the responsible gun owners that use guns for a purpose instead of an ego boost.

DavidR wrote:
Have you ever been to a gun show? I ask because you have the same answer as many of the media who really dont know what they are talking about..... But the big media lie that is constantly perpetuated is their are no gun checks at gun shows and thats just not true. ....

Can we stop blaming the "media" for a lot of things? Ignorant people (or at least, ill informed) will be ill informed regardless of media, political persuasion, education, or affluence.

For every anchor or opinionated "expert" guest, or columnist that spouts incorrect information, there are actually journalists and reporters who report accurate information. The latter are easy to forget however.

Can we stop blaming the "media" for a lot of things? Ignorant people (or at least, ill informed) will be ill informed regardless of media, political persuasion, education, or affluence.

For every anchor or opinionated "expert" guest, or columnist that spouts incorrect information, there are actually journalists and reporters who report accurate information. The latter are easy to forget however.





Really?????



Seems to be some trolling going on with that statment.



Virgil

Telling someone that they do not need something because you do not feel it is necessary is like me telling you that if you own anything other than a Toyota Prius you should get rid of it. All you really need is a car that will do the speed limit and get you from point a to point b in the most environmentally friendly way possible.

And I am sure there are unbiased and fair journalist in the world. I have not seen any lately, and the media has the ability to change our world based on their agenda. So the media cannot be let off the hook many feel the NRA should be shut up as they are pushing an agenda. So should the agenda pushing media also be shut down?

Mass media needs to report the news not make it news.

Your opinion may differ and that is your right. No person, group or government has the right to tell or heavily persuade someone what their rights or opinion should be.

Perhaps I should have worded my earlier post differently. I apologize. My rhetorical question was not meant to be interpreted as "stop or die".

My opinion is that the "media" is blamed for agenda pushing and being "liberal" far too often. If anything, I believe that the consumer, is equally at fault for being susceptible to sensationalist fodder. "Dangerous everyday substance found in your homes....causes cancer! Tune in at 10pm" This makes me puke.

Most all actual NEWS (not opeds, columns, etc...) articles of all topcis I read from legitimate sources such as Reuters, AP, WSJ, NYT, SF Chronicle are neutral.

True journalists are a dying breed these days and are deserving of my respect.

sakurama wrote:
The comment that murderers and victims are predominantly criminals is really hard to take seriously.

G

What is hard to take about it? It is a fact reported by the Chicago Police department and referenced in a link provided in this thread. Perhaps you would like to share your understanding of the statistical data?

What do you think it means when 76+ percent of victims have a prior arrest and 87% of offenders have a prior arrest?

In my interpretation of that data, I see the majority of the murders are committed by criminals and I see the majority of victims as having a prior arrest record. Further within the data, you will also see that a very large percentage of the murders are committed by gang members and related to gang activity, especially drugs. I also see the majority of the murders committed with handguns, not assault rifles and certainly not assault rifles with "high capacity" magazines. Not shown in the data, is how many of those guns were legally owned.

I see a lot of criminal activity resulting in murders, not all murders, but the majority. I have a hard time taking serious any efforts to increase gun control as a measure to prevent more murders.

With the majority of murders being committed by people that have a demonstrated history of not abiding by the laws, how can anyone believe making guns, or certain types of guns illegal, will reduce the crime? Is it believed that all the criminals will suddenly become "good people" and walk into a police station to turn in their illegal guns? Oh sure, the next belief is that if guns are banned and cannot be sold that all the guns will disappear. Yeah, that works for drugs really good doesn't it? The vast majority of drugs are smuggled into the country - probably at the rate of tons/day. If drugs can flow into the US that easily, why is that anyone would think guns can't be smuggled in the same way?

Chris

Chris_D wrote:

sakurama wrote:
The comment that murderers and victims are predominantly criminals is really hard to take seriously.

G

What is hard to take about it? It is a fact reported by the Chicago Police department and referenced in a link provided in this thread. Perhaps you would like to share your understanding of the statistical data?

What do you think it means when 76+ percent of victims have a prior arrest and 87% of offenders have a prior arrest?

I think that you're cherry picking data. Your statistics site Chicago which has much higher crime, gang and poverty rates. The inference is that the statistics can then be extrapolated across the spectrum of violent crime with guns. They can't and there's never been a study to demonstrate that. Further, is the supposition that because the victim of murder has a criminal background their death is acceptable. I would be curious to see how many of those crimes are with legally obtained guns.

As for the gun shows - yes, all FFL's must perform background checks but private sales at shows in 33 of the states don't require background checks. Private sales are where the vast majority of "straw" sales come from. As responsible gun owners I think we would want to reduce the number of guns sold that don't go to responsible owners. Every one of us has had to have a background check to get our guns and we may not like it any more than we like standing in line at the DMV but we accept that. What is the reasoning for wanting sales with no background checks to persist?

G

G,

At least I am basing my beliefs and opinions on some factual data, true it is the city of Chicago and it is the only data I have looked at because that is the area I live. I also asked others to look at data from their areas. With a few of us digging up actual facts, perhaps we can all have a better idea of the problem. If we only listen to the media reports, large capacity magazines and assault rifles are what is killing people. I have a large capacity magazine assault type rifle and it hasn't killed anyone or anything so I know that "news' isn't true.

Apparently you think that guns sold through private transactions lead to murder and crime, do you have any statistics or facts to back that up? Or is this just an opinion? Furthermore, do you actually believe criminals are going to sell guns in a legal process? So, if we make background checks mandatory for private sales, what exactly would it fix?

Chris

Chris

Just because some states allow "straw" sales between 2 individuals is legal in some states doesn't mean that is primarily occuring in gun shows, and it doesn't mean that that firearm is now in the hands of an unlawful individual.

Again, most--almost all-- stands at a gun show are operated by FFLs. Non-FFL shoppers at gun shows usually sell their guns to one of the stands. Since almost all of those stands are operated by FFLs, the next time that gun is sold, it gets documented by the normal FFL sales paperwork.

The only thing banning sales between private individuals is going to do is make it a pain in the ass to sell my backup or old bullseye guns to a new shooter. --It wont be that big a pain because any time I go to a match there will be at least 3 FFLs that I know there that would do the paperwork for me.

Banning the sales between private individuals isn't going to stop a criminal. It's just going to be a pain in the ass for me and my friends.

Tell me again how a rule will stop a murder? They already intend to break the law to KILL SOMEBODY. Why would they care about the petty crime of buying an undocumented firearm?

Laws are about controlling the law abiding. period.

Perhaps all car sales should go thru DMV? How would you know you are not selling that car to a repeat DUI offender?

This is about as much of an apples to apples comparison as there is.

If the government can require all gun sales to go thru a background check they can just as easily require all motor vehicle sales go thru the DMV. This would mean paying actual sales tax on that sale!

I do not want guns in the hands of criminals any more than the next person. However taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens is not the answer.

As Chris has alluded to, drugs are illegal and look what a problem that is! I am willing to bet more people are killed directly or indirectly every year buy illegal use of drugs than by guns. I have no information to back that up, but I am sure it is out there.

No law ever prevented a crime, ever.

For 28 years it was illegal to own or keep a firearm in Chicago and during that time gun violence did not go away.

I read a quote "making it more difficult for LAW ABIDING citizens to buy a gun makes about as much sense as making it more difficult for a sober driver to buy a car." Guns are one of those things that some people love to hate and when something like this happens the haters jump on their soap box. For some reason when a gun is used all they want to talk about is the tool, the gun, not the person using it. However when a different tool is used you never hear about the tool, only the "crazy, disturbed, religious fanatic, etc." Two airplanes were flown into the World Trade Center but nobody blamed airplanes and about 150 times the amount of people died. Timothy McVeigh filled a rented truck with fertilizer and diesel fuel and blew it up killing 168 people and injuring over 800. Nobody wanted to ban rental trucks or fertilizer. Someone (OJ?) kills two people with a knife and it's not the knife's fault. Bob Costas gets a huge audience during a football game and tells everybody that if handguns didn't exist two people would still be alive and it's all the handguns fault. A week later another football player dies after getting into a car with a drunk driver and it's no big deal. No lecture about the evils of cars or alcohol.

These people make it out that a normal, sane, previous all around good guy puts a gun in his hands and all of a sudden he's a deranged psychopath that just wants to kill. I don't know about you guys but when a nice pistol gets in my hand I get all smiles and happy! These people don't know what to do to stop these things but they feel that they have to do something to make themselves feel better. So lets make some new laws! Criminals don't obey laws! That is the very definition of a criminal.

There are a lot of things going on in our society and no single one thing is going to change that. There is no possible way to keep everybody safe all the time. Are these school shootings horrible? Absolutely! But how can you truly stop them? The amount of money to make schools even slightly safer would be astronomical. Remember we are talking about every single school in the entire US. Here in Illinois we can't pay the teachers we have much less add armed guards to the payroll.

I'll stop rambling now, Scott

Well said Scott!

I would like to take some of the media folks out and let them run 30 rounds out of an AR-15 on a steel challenge course or better yet just set up 30 plates and let them stand there and plink them down and see if they do not smile during or afterwards. They only see or look for the bad side of things.

WVBE Shooter wrote:I am purely a target shooter and have a hard time understanding the need for assault type rifles for recreational use.

I drive a van to work and don't see the need for little red sports cars, but I wouldn't want someone's right to own one infringed upon.

sakurama wrote:

Chris_D wrote:

sakurama wrote:
The comment that murderers and victims are predominantly criminals is really hard to take seriously.

G

What is hard to take about it? It is a fact reported by the Chicago Police department and referenced in a link provided in this thread. Perhaps you would like to share your understanding of the statistical data?

What do you think it means when 76+ percent of victims have a prior arrest and 87% of offenders have a prior arrest?

I think that you're cherry picking data. Your statistics site Chicago which has much higher crime, gang and poverty rates. The inference is that the statistics can then be extrapolated across the spectrum of violent crime with guns. They can't and there's never been a study to demonstrate that. Further, is the supposition that because the victim of murder has a criminal background their death is acceptable. I would be curious to see how many of those crimes are with legally obtained guns.


G

Until a few years ago it was illegal to have ANY handguns in the city limits of Chicago unless the owner was a LEO (McDonald vs Chicago June 2010). So to answer your question I would say that ALL the handguns were illegal until a few years ago and would bet that 99.9% of those used in crimes the last few years were illegal also.

And I would have to ask is Chicago's poverty and crime, gang and poverty any higher that Detroit, New York, Los Angles?

Where did you come up with your statstics that Chicago has a higher crime, gang and poverty rate ? I would really be interested in reading that material.

The only difference between those cities and Chicago is that in Illinois there is NO CCW at all unless you are a retired LEO. You could not have a handgun of ANY TYPE and then it cost the retired LEO $75 a year to qualify and get a permit. Just ask former Bull's basketball player Scotty Pipen who got arested for UUW on Rush St. in Chicago for having a .380 in his car, not even on his person.



Virgil

WVBE Shooter wrote:I am purely a target shooter and have a hard time understanding the need for assault type rifles for recreational use.

WOW, I think you took the bait. The second amendment is not about recreational shooters.
It's intent is to allow a "Free People" to protect itself from a tyrannical government.


I use my AR for recreational purposes but I "OWN" it For a much different reason!