Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: A good Chicago gun ruling

Comments

Return To Article
  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 1:54 a.m.

    Chicago's gun crime rates were lower in 2013 than 2012 (over 500 homicides that year), but that detail would just be inconvenient when criticizing Chicago's strengthened gun laws.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Jan. 28, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    All you need to know about gun control laws is that cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you!

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 28, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    Don't sing too loudly --

    Utah and Chicago have almost equal populations,
    and Utah doesn't fair much better than "violent" Chicago.

    gun deaths
    ------------
    Chicago = 372
    Utah = 309

    The sad fact is, half of Utah is LDS.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    We have two choices in America. We can believe that most people are criminals and that they require restrictions to protect them from each other or we can believe that most people are good and noble and that they are fully capable of living honest upright lives.

    Who in Chicago is using firearms to commit murder? Is it the honest, law abiding citizens who purchased firearms from gun stores using their true identity? Or, is it criminals who have obtained those firearms illegally, who file off the serial numbers so that the firearms are hard to trace, who disobey any law that restricts them?

    Chicago is noted for more than just its high murder rate. It is the home of the "insurance" industry where shop owners either buy "protection" and "insurance" or have buildings burned and bones broken. It's justice system is known to be corrupt.

    The 2nd Amendment protects us from a corrupt government that would oppress us. Ask George Washington why he insisted that American Citizens be guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. It wasn't for duck hunting.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    I would prefer not to ever have to think about protecting my self. But the odds are, someone is in the fantasie world living in their own realm, thinking that they need my stuff more than me. Sounds like an elected person. Somebody that thinks I don't matter as much as them.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    Good article. Anyone who knows anything about real criminals knows that (a) they will get the means to destruction if that's their purpose, and (b) they couldn't care less about any laws passed by society. They will continue to do what they do, and more/stricter laws only leave would-be victims at their mercy.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    airnaut,

    According to Wikipedia... Chicago (one city) had 515 homicides in 2012, and 416 in 2013.

    Evidently not all homicides are committed with guns. So doing away with guns will not do away with homicides. But it does insure that Chicago residents will have the means to defend themselves from the other myriad of methods of committing robbery and homicide.

    ===

    I found the Utah Department of Health website that gave the 330 gun death statistic for 2012 in Utah. One thing you conveniently left out (right after that number), and this is a quote, "The majority of firearm-related deaths in Utah are the result of suicide".

    I suspect the number you got for Chicago was the number of homicides (not suicides). Which would make it an apples to oranges comparison.

    Gun control will not end suicide. A person wanting to commit suicide will use pills or some other method.

    Gun control won't eliminate violent crime, robberies, or homicides (based on the number of homicides currently committed without a gun each year). It just insures the law abiding will be completely unarmed.

    Gun control for city folks may be a good idea. But not for the whole nation.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    A major thing left out of the argument that "bad guys don't care about the laws, and the good guys aren't the ones cause crime" is the fact that most guns used by the "bad guys" are stolen from the "good guys." The vast majority of guns on the black market are lifted in auto or home thefts. The more "good guys" you allow to have guns, the more "bad guys" are able to get their hands on them. The ones in Chicago have been found largely to come from nearby Indiana where the gun laws are significantly weaker and gun theft is a major issue.

    Advocates have also been unable to demonstrate that having a gun in the home makes you safer. Quite the opposite has emerged time and time again, that having a gun in the home increases the likelihood you will die by a gun. That could be suicide. Suicide attempts with a gun are far more "successful" statistically. It could also be the fact that most people think they're Rambo, but in the heat of the moment, most freeze up (even soldiers at the end of basic training).

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    Congratulations to the editorial writer for finally getting it.

    Gun control simply does not work. Don't take my word for it, see what the Center for Disease Control study showed: Basically NO gun control laws have been proven to reduce violent crime.

    Then, compare the facts that the violent cesspools which have the strictest gun control laws blame their problem on just not having quite enough gun control. Meanwhile, they attack surrounding areas with relatively few gun control laws and very low crime rates. If their logic was valid, the "weak" gun control areas should have massive violent crime problems, but it simply is NOT the case at all.

    It's not the guns, it's the criminals!

    As John Lott's studies showed nearly 20 years ago "More guns [in the hands of law abiding citizens], less crime."

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    Struck by 2 Bits' comments, I did some research of my own and was amazed that western states were higher in suicides than eastern states but eastern states had higher murder rates. My comparative analysis of the ratio of murder to suicide per 100,000 population showed Illinois third highest and Utah was #47. It seems Westerners generally prefer harm to themselves rather than to others.
    @OHBU
    Advocates are unable to use vast statistics to convince the uninformed, but facts are never an impediment to a closed mind.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    Airnaut/ldsliberal

    Homicides and Suicides are totally different things. Comparing apples to oranges.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    If the residents of Chicago want more restrictive gun laws in Chicago... that's great. But no NATIONAL law should be passed to infringe nationwide.

    National law makers in Washington just can't know everything that's going on in every State. The issues in rural Utah may be very different from the issues in urban Chicago. So people in Washington (who may not know Utah exists, or what our problems are) passing "one-size fits all" type legislation for all cities in the nation... is not the correct approach (IMO).

    Gang-bangers and drug-dealers in Chicago may abuse weapons (along with other things). That doesn't mean EVERYBODY is going to abuse their 2nd amendment rights.

    Don't infringe on everybody, just because people in Chicago can't control their own crime problems!

    And a Washington beurocrat can't really legislate away the rash of school shootings we've had. We all need to make sure people in our family who are unstable... don't have access to guns (legal or not).

  • Docgmt louisa, VA
    Jan. 28, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    Schnee
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Chicago's gun crime rates were lower in 2013 than 2012 (over 500 homicides that year), but that detail would just be inconvenient when criticizing Chicago's strengthened gun laws.

    Did you happen to notice that SCOTUS ruled that the citizens of Chicago have a basic human right to own guns and keep them in their homes and since that time, you are right, the murder rate is dropping due to the large increase in gun ownership. Now the citizens fear the criminals more than their dictatorial government.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 28, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Anti Bush-Obama
    Chihuahua, 00
    Airnaut/ldsliberal

    Homicides and Suicides are totally different things. Comparing apples to oranges.

    11:38 a.m. Jan. 28, 2014

    ========

    Death by Fire-arms is Death by Fire-arms, period.
    It's YOU that is splitting hairs and rationalizing to suit your agenda.

    FYI - I own fire-arms.
    I was also a member of a bonfide Militia (per the COTUS).

    And most of the Chicago deaths were eye for an eye, Gang-member vs. Gang-member, retaliation, revenge killings.

    Not bad guy vs. good guy -- defend the Constitution Tea-Party heros.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    Chicago should go after criminals who misuse weapons of any kind including guns. Then stop interfering with law abiding people as they own and use guns. With this ruling the criminals will begin to be at risk and crime will go down.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    Gun control works. It's more than a convenient coincidence that the article totally ignored the fact that Chicago tried to go it alone, and no city is an island, certainly not Chicago. The gun control efforts in the city were a boon to the gun shops in surrounding communities, thereby dooming Chicago's efforts and making skewed articles like this possible. Guns are portable; a nation wide control effort would mitigate this problem.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    Hutterite,

    Re: "a nation wide control effort would mitigate this problem"...

    So would a nation-wide gestapo, concentration camps, and a national disarmament policy. All things leftist governments throughout history have almost immediately established for their people... to control them (for their own good of course).

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    Re Hutterite

    You seem to believe that if the order were put out nation wide to collect all guns the criminals would obey. All such an order would do is to make most law abiding people defenseless. Then the problem Chicago now has would be nation wide.

    You also seem to forget or purposely ignore history. Murder was a common occurance long before there were guns. Back then it was easy for the strong to have their way with weaker people. Now that guns exist, if a strong man were to break into a single mothers home the intruder is at risk and he knows it. The woman can feel at peace she has a legitimate means to protect herself and her family.

    Assuming the woman bothers to learn about and follow the rules of gun safety, her gun will make her and her family safer.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 28, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    Law abiding people need no laws. They know what is right and wrong. Criminals obey no laws. The only thing that they "respect" is punishment. When someone murders someone, why should the murderer ever be released from prison? How can that murderer restore a life? How can that murderer ever replace what he has destroyed? If murderers were kept behind bars for the rest of their lives, they would never murder anyone outside prison.

    On another note, one poster told us that all gun related deaths should be lumped into one column on his spreadsheet. I would hate to be his accountant. He would probably list all expenses in the same column. He would pretend that because he couldn't see the difference between homicide and suicide, that nobody else could see the difference. Because he works for the DOD, he would have to lump all military deaths in the same column. Would he put those deaths in the KIA column? Would he puts those deaths in the suicide column? How would he account for the 22 soldiers who commit suicide every day?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 4:46 p.m.

    2 bits...thanks for offering, but I think we're good with just a little gun control.
    cjb...I didn't say all the guns, did I? I'm a gun owner, too, and I want to keep them. I'm thinking a few easy steps, background checks, waiting periods, maybe get rid of assault weapons. Similar to those ideas successful in Australia or the UK or Canada. Your fear of a dystopic future is preventing us from dealing with a dystopic present.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    Let's have a waiting period before we can buy a car. Why not? There are over 50,000 automobile related deaths per year. Why not take away our "right" to own an automobile, after all there is no Constitutional guarantee that we have the "right" to own something as dangerous as an automobile. Why not sue the government for selling automobiles? Why not sue them for their cash for clunkers program, which was just an incentive to have us buy more cars. Why not blame the automobile for killing millions of Americans?

    Yet, those who want to ban guns use that logic to tell us that law abiding citizens who have a CONSTITUTIONAL guarantee to keep and bear arms should have to wait, or have a background check, or have some other GOVERNMENT required checkpoint before we can do exactly as the Constitution guaranteed us the right to do.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:29 p.m.

    @Docgmt
    There were 931 homicides in Chicago in 1994. It dropped over the decade down to 453 and 451 in 2004 and 2005. The lawsuit that struck down the gun ban was in 2008 (DC vs Heller). In full years after the ban was struck down it's been...
    2009: 459
    2010: 436
    2011: 435
    2012: 516
    2013: 415.

    So the vast majority of the improvement in the homicide rate was before the gun ban was struck down.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:58 p.m.

    I doubt that many people want to buy a car just to use it to run over someone. But people can buy guns for the purpose of using, perhaps in a violent way. Isn't that worth being a little...careful?

  • Idahoan138 Pocatello, ID
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:42 p.m.

    Hutterite said: "Gun control works."

    He is absolutely correct. Just take Kristallnacht for example (of which the 75th anniversary was just last November). Had Hitler not had the wisdom to require gun registration in 1932, followed by total confiscation in 1938, Krisallnacht would have been a bloodbath. Who knows how many innocent paramilitary and non-Jewish civilians would have been shot and killed by the Jews whose homes and shops were being vandalized and destroyed!?

    Due to Hitler's foresight, only 91 Jews were killed. So yes, Hutterite is correct that gun control works - - well, at least for one side of the argument, anyway....

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:24 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    On another note, one poster told us that all gun related deaths should be lumped into one column on his spreadsheet. I would hate to be his accountant. He would probably list all expenses in the same column. He would pretend that because he couldn't see the difference between homicide and suicide, that nobody else could see the difference. Because he works for the DOD, he would have to lump all military deaths in the same column. Would he put those deaths in the KIA column? Would he puts those deaths in the suicide column? How would he account for the 22 soldiers who commit suicide every day?

    4:21 p.m. Jan. 28, 2014

    ==========

    Mike -- read the article, I did not differentiate because the article did not differentiate.
    It said "deaths at the end of a gun", period.

    BTW -- Thanks to your buddy Bush [who you voted for, twice] and your wasted wars in the Middle east -- more U.S. service men die by fire-arms by their own demise, than by enemy fire-arms and IEDs combined.
    Giving Osama Bin Laden the last laugh I'm sure.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    I despise guns, but don't disagree with the rulings. Until regulation is uniform nationwide, local laws will continue to be undermined by the lack of them next door.

    But I was struck by this note: "Municipalities shouldn’t be allowed to block the sale of products that are both legal and explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution." It made me think of abortion. And Obamacare. Both legal. Both constitutional. And yet opponents have been relentless in their attempts to thwart, restrict, or otherwise undermine these laws.

    The thing is, this is within their rights to do. It's annoying and objectionable (when you don't agree with it), but it's our process and, when appropriate, the courts ultimately decide. So drop the holier-than-thou, "we would never do that" tone. We all do it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    Hutterite,
    I just disagree with the notion that it has to be a "nation wide control effort".

    The problems and concerns in Chicago are not shared by people in rural Utah. The laws needed to control Chicago's problems are not the laws needed to control the problems they have in Richfield Utah.

    One-size-fits-all nationwide legislation is overkill.

    It's this "centralized government must fix all problems"... that eventually leads to an urban problem driven police-state. Detroit may need a RoboCop. Small town Utah doesn't.

    I think the solution needs to be more local (not nation-wide).

    We need (and we already have) background checks and waiting periods. They aren't working.

    Doing away with assault weapons doesn't fix the problem. They just use a different type of weapon.

    We need to police ourselves to really solve the problem (not expect the central government to do it). The central government doesn't reliably know who's unstable... but the family usually does. Even if the person is only temporarily unstable (drunk, having a marital problem, etc).

    WE need to keep weapons from unstable people (not expect the central government to do it)

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    Just to broaden the conversation, laws to ban gun violence don't work in Chicago because of all the other sociological factors present. However laws to control drinking in Utah do reduce traffic deaths despite all of the sociological reason present that would give Utah the lowest drinking rate per capita anyway.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    @airnaut

    So where are the gun deaths in Chicago taking place verses the murders in Utah? And who is doing the shooting?

    Based on your last comment about how "half the state of Utah is LDS" you paint a very broad picture that a good number of gun murders in Utah are committed by LDS Church members. No doubt, in your view, this means concealed carry permit holders who vote Republican.

    One of the arguments made by gun control advocates is that those who own a firearm are out of control, blood thirsty lunatics. That was the argument made over and over again in Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine."

    If this stereotype was even partly true, then the number of gun related deaths in Utah would be off the charts. We should be number one in the country in all gun related death categories, but we're not.

    Why not?

  • CynicJim Taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 9, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    500+, this number sort of pushes the Travon Martin death into perspective. One such death is a cause célèbre while the other 499 (sic) don't mean a thing. Shame on the media for following one such story for profit and circulation and ignoring the lack of respect for the law in a society where the justice system is out of control.