TIME FOR SENSIBLE BACKGROUND CHECKS

42

Making Sense by Michael Reagan

In the wake of the recent homicidal shooting rampage at an Oregon community college, I’m forced to come to the conclusion that it is high time for common sense national background checks for journalists.

It’s time we closed the political loophole and prevented biased, ignorant political operatives from getting their hands on a dangerously misleading national microphone.

RedState has a perfect example this week. Former Bill Clinton White House aide, and current Clinton Foundation donor George Stephanopoulos, is the host for ABC’s This Week. He uses his “bully pulpit” to bully conservatives and Republicans.

During an interview with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Stephanopoulos interrupted Christie to assert, “But there’s no question the pace of mass shootings is accelerating, happening more frequently than anywhere else. If it’s not the gun, then what is it?”

This is a perfect example of leftist thinking. As Dennis Prager points out, the left always blames the inanimate object and never the user.

During the Cold War the left wanted to ban atomic weapons rather than condemn and work to overthrow totalitarian regimes that could use The Bomb to further their ends. Leftist—in—Chief Obama continues to be fixated on nuclear weapons and behind the scenes is working to render our nuclear deterrent impotent.

Now the left is fixated on the gun. Blaming the user of the gun is out of the question, because that involves individual responsibility.

Once America starts thinking in terms of individual responsibility again, it has the potential to open up a line of questioning that is very uncomfortable for big government leftists.

For example: Why can’t you find a job? Where is the father of your children? How did your home enter foreclosure? What do you spend your money on? Why have we lost the War on Poverty?

After demonizing the gun, leftists like Stephanopoulos use false data from anti—gun pressure groups to contradict defenders of the 2nd Amendment.

First they change the definition of “mass shooting.” Before the numbers started to trend against them, the definition was at least four deaths NOT counting the shooter. Now gun grabbers use three deaths as a minimum or they include the wretched shooter in the total.

Naturally, as if by magic in a cloud of cordite, there are more mass shootings, but even doctored statistics can’t support the “accelerating” claim.

The RedState graph shows mass shootings peaked in 2004 and have not reached that peak since. Since 2008, mass shootings have been trending downward.

I’m certain rabid Democrat defenders of media bias will block my common sense background checks for journalists bill in the Senate. So in the meantime I can only advise you to beware leftists bearing statistics.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

42 COMMENTS

  1. Just adopt California’s gun laws. They have already survived a Supreme Court challenge and provide most of the barriers To legal gun ownership that the left is howling for including:

    Extensive background check
    10 day waiting period
    Mandatory gun safety and use education
    Certificate of completion
    Age 21 for owning a pistol
    7 more pages of rules

    In spite of that, there were 3 school shootings last year. Believing that laws will deter mass shootings when there are 300 million guns out there is just silly. Psychos do not let the law get in their way. Laws may keep gun crimes of passion down but it will not stop criminal activity. It may also reduce gun suicides, but has not been proven to reduce overall suicides. It just changes the method.

    • Then what’s the answer to the million dollar question? Why are we the only developed country where this is such a problem?

      • We are not the only problem with a murder problem. We are not the only country to have endured mass shootings. The biggest one ever happened in Norway which has a gun ban. Norway has only 5 million people. We have 65 times that. Statistically speaking it should take them 65 years at the same murder rate to see as many deaths as we have in one year. People act like this is a strictly American problem. It is really not. An issue that we have to deal with that other countries do not is the fact that there are 300 million legal guns out there. That probably means there are 400 million.

    • Joe: If the British had imposed those rules on the American Colonists we would still be a British Colony and there would be no USA today. Imagine the Continental Army/militia only being allowed to have pistols and given only one bullet and enough black power for only one shot each day.

      In 1776 the modern day sporting rifle was a smooth bore black power musket. It’s what the British troops had and it’s what the American colonist were armed with.

      Today our troops carry M16 fully automatic Rifles with 30 round magazines and carry several extra magazines on their utility. They have F35 Jets, Apache Helicopter, Air Craft Carriers, M1 Abram Tanks and nuclear powered Seawolf and Virginia Class attack Submarines. The citizens are armed with 12 gage shotguns and AR15 semi automatic rifles with many states and cities trying to restrict how many rounds they can carry with their AR15 Semi Automatic Rifles. The rules are against the citizens. This is NOT what the 2nd Amendment was all about.

      All you guys that want to ban guns are forgetting one thing. The 2nd Amendment gave the citizens the right to bear arms. They didn’t say you can’t have semi or fully automatic rifles. They said arms. I read that as saying we can have anything we want to carry as an arm.

      The supreme court has the chance today to take up this issue and rule on several laws that are being challenged in the courts. I hope that they rule in favor of gun owners across the USA and not with the city’s who are trying to restrict our God Given Right and US Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. I hope that the Justices take this case and rule against these unconstitutional gun bans and give us back our 2nd amendment rights that our founding fathers gave to us all. Arms are not just used to hunting game. They are used to protect us from an overzealous government. There should be no restrictions on our right to bear arms. If there were suppose to be restrictions the founding fathers would have written that into the Constitution. They did no such thing.

      Now if you all want to try to change the 2nd amendment the proper way and change the constitution properly then go for it. I doubt that would happen. Instead the cities and anti gun people are trying to do a run around the Constitution and passing illegal laws. The US Supreme Court has the opportunity right now to put this to rest and make sure that the 2nd Amendment is obeyed not abused anymore.

      • I have a lot of issues with 99.9% of your diatribe, but I’ll make it easy on you.

        “God Given Right..Right to Bear Arms”

        Show us that one in the Bible?

      • I do not advocate banning guns and CA does not have a gun ban. I do advocate for background checks and a waiting period. Anyone who can’t wait for 10 days to take possession of a firearm shouldn’t get one. A gun should never be an emotional “right now” purchase. I support the 2nd Amendment but think common sense should prevail. There is nothing unreasonable with the CA laws. I do point out that in spite of these barriers to entry we still have shootings and mass shootings. An outright ban would not stop criminals from being who they are.

  2. Here it is. Guns are the last issue that gives ANY satisfaction to the Tea Party crazies.
    TP’r: “I don’t know. There’s just something about holding my gun. I just like it.”

    So, more talk about guns. What else can the Tea Party talk about?
    The GOP is in tatters. The Republican Party stands for nothing. Controls Congress, but no wins on anything.
    The Tea Party? Tea Party people have been taken for a ride and wholly exploited by Tea Party fundraisers working on commission: “We’re gonna repeal Obamacare! We’re gonna ban gay marriage! We’re gonna put Hillary Clinton in jail! We’re gonna shut down the government and stop Planned Parenthood!”
    All lies. All failures. All losses.

    So…c’mon Tea Party boys. Let’s hear some talk about guns and liberals.

    • Don. Have you ever had an intelligent thought? What part of personal freedom, adherence to the Constitution, restoring fiscal sanity, personal responsibility, etc. do you so despise?
      Tea party boys? Sexist.

      • I’m for all of those things Commonsense. All of them.
        But what I can’t figure out is…if the GOP – in full control of Congress mind you – is for those things too, then why hasn’t it done ANYTHING on any of those issues? It has done this: Nothing.
        The Tea Party you claim has value? The Tea Party Caucus says IT is for those things. But the Tea Party has done nothing!
        (Except raise money by promising a bunch of lies. Look at the list above: Loss. Loss. Loss. Loss.)
        So CS, does that sound to YOU like they are really FOR those things?

        • Don. If you really are for the things I mentioned you are for the “tea party.”
          Your confusion is understandable. Those informed by the mindless drivel from dem propagandists do have difficulty understanding truth.
          The truth is Washington Republican politicians are under the full control of—- Democrat politicians. And Obama. And the MSM. Not the “Tea Party”. That’s what the current fight in the House Of Representatives is all about. I presume, since you agree with “tea party” principals you’ll be backing them.
          Voters gave Republicans a majority in congress. I’ll agree with you. nothing changed. Dems won all the fights. In fact, Republicans didn’t even fight. And until McConnell is replaced there will be no fight, or results.
          Glad to help.

          • No one is in full control of the government these days. That’s why we have three equal but separate branches of the government.

            I object to anyone that says that anyone is in FULL CONTROL of anything. Having a majority does not equate to being in FULL CONTROL. If they did have full control we would all be in real danger.

          • COMMONSENSE:
            It’ s a good note Commonsense. Your comments are all accurate, no dispute.
            This is headed to one of two conclusions: 1) The end of the Tea Party Caucus, or 2) The Tea Party has to break away and found their own political party, separate and distinct from either the Republicans or the Democrats. Three parties.
            WHY THIS IS OVER FOR THE TEA PARTY:
            The Tea Party people have been steadily losing ever since they peaked getting George W Bush elected. After that…the walls started falling, and what you see now, it’s just the hollering of a stuck pig:
            a. The oppressive southern white male lost political power…outdone by the SPLC. (Rebel Flag? History now. You can be arrested for flying it now. Look at Douglasville GA.)
            b. The Christian Right lost political power with all parties, Dems and Republicans. You know it’s bad when Adulteress Kim Davis is your role model.
            c. The “Anti-Immigrant…meaning Anyone Who is Not White” caucus lost control of immigration. Lost.
            d. The “We don’t like Corporations” caucus…astoundingly….reared it’s ugly head within the Tea Party – and American Business realized “these people are crazy and are anarchists.” These people who hate businesses and corporations? They WILL NEVER have political power. Never. They can say “NO” but they will NEVER get anything done or passed.

            That’s the Tea Party, all dressed up as “we’re the real Americans” ….well, in their own minds eye. They have LOST America. America does not respect them anymore. It’s over.

            And this “we’re gonna continue to say “no” Tea Party that’s left over? They are dwindling every day. They’re like Rush Limbaugh…gonna hang around making noise, but everyone knows – it’s a matter of time before the die out, and even the noise (and the “No’s”) they make will stop.

          • Don. I disagree with 99.9% of what you said @ 3:16. But thanks for saying it. There is another scenario.

        • They are not in full control of the congress. They have to fight against a filibuster and get a 2/3rd majority in the US senate in order to be in total full control of congress and then they need to override a Presidential Veto to get anything done. I see that as a good thing. To get something passed they must have a super majority and they don’t have that. Just as when the Dems were in the Majority in the past. Neither Party actually as full control of the US Congress. That’s why nothing ever gets done unless almost everyone is for it. Things that can’t command the support of at least a super majority won’t go anywhere. That is how this country was designed to work.

          It’s not a tea party or liberal issue. Its’ the way the founding fathers setup our Constitution from the very beginning. They made it hard to change things Intentionally

      • …you are struggling. I get it Balloonpilot. Times are so bad…anytime you are confronted with the truth and can’t respond, you are reduced to “You are an _______” (fill in the blank w/ some name-calling).
        It’s ok BP. It’s an acknowledgement on your part you’re lost.

  3. Journalist? —In today’s modern discourse, is one of the most miss-used/mutilated words tossed around by today’s “News Reporters”, as they try to assume the mantel of legitimacy, for themselves, tabloid style reporting, and their decisions of what is– “News”. True Journalists?— I believe them to be Extinct.
    I can not think of ANY of today’s supposed guardians of a “Nobel Endeavor” that I trust to report just the “News”, and without bias toward their agenda.

    • Empty talk Crash. Empty talk.
      To get your news: You follow Drudge Report, Fox News and TheBlaze with the best of them. Empty talk.

  4. Michael Reagan and his merry band of right-wing tea baggers:

    Birth control: BAN IT!
    Abortion: BAN IT!
    Gay Marriage: BAN IT!
    Guns: Look, banning things never work. People will find a way to get what they want…..

  5. CCO. Was your headline for this article intentionally misleading or accidentally misleading? Either way, it worked. Michael Reagan calling for tougher background checks?

  6. Finally, after 7 years, we find out that when Obama campaigned on “change” the change he had in mind was to ban pork in Federal prisons; and yesterday it was announced he had done just that. It’s about time! Banning pork in prisons is sure to take a bite out of crime, and prevent mass shootings.

  7. Why Reagan is wrong and approaching this from typical right-wing talking points provided by the NRA:

    1) The Second Amendment is a necessary bulwark against tyranny.

    Nonsense. It’s easily the biggest myth surrounding the Second. No gaggle of gun-toting rednecks or even a trained backwoods militia is any match for the American government and its military. If anyone is responsible for the exponential growth of the American government’s military might, it ought to be the far-right goons who wallow in These Colors Don’t Run! jingoism whenever the United States launches a war. I don’t care how badass you think you might be, if the government wants to take you by force, it will. Certainly this isn’t a comforting notion, but if you’re worried about the unprecedented strength of the military-industrial complex, blame a conservative, they’ve been foisting it upon us for decades.

    2) The Second Amendment protects our ability to defend ourselves against criminals.

    Statistically speaking, you’re less safe if you have a gun in your house. Numerous gun studies have concluded, “For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.” So basic math obliterates self-defense as a valid justification. But if self-defense is a matter for the Constitution, then what about burglar alarms? Should ADT get an amendment?

    3) The Second Amendment is necessary in the absence of law enforcement.

    This is the NRA’s popular post-apocalyptic scenario, suggesting that when society breaks down and complete anarchy sweeps the land, we’ll need guns or die. Okay sure. And we might need guns to help NRA President Bill Pullman fight off space aliens, too. This argument redirects back to the previous point, which is that an amendment to protect something that’s statistically more dangerous for the average homeowner in the event of a home invasion (before the cops arrive) is completely ridiculous. And, while we’re here, what kind of shoot-outs are occurring during home invasions that require extended magazines and no time to reload?

    4) The Second Amendment is liberty!

    Sorry, but protecting the availability of firearms does nothing to foster a healthier democracy or perpetuate the existence of the United States. Nothing. The freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights and the further amendments beyond it generally augment the sustainability of basic human rights and American democracy. Gun ownership, however, does not. Isn’t it ironic that the same political faction that’s the most hell-bent on protecting gun ownership and, in their words, “liberty,” are the same people who are making it more difficult to cast a vote, heaping new layers of government regulations and restrictions upon our most vital human right.

    5) The Second Amendment protects hunting.

    First of all, there’s nothing in the amendment about hunting, either for sport or for food or as a tradition. Secondly, why should a “sport” or tradition enjoy its own constitutional amendment? As for food, I actually agree that sustenance is a basic human right and so perhaps hunting for food within sustainable limits and regulations should be protected in some way. However, very few people would take seriously an amendment protecting the retail grocery store industry, yet the gun industry gets a constitutional line-item somehow.

    • Your first line is the problem. The US Government ATF makes it illegal to own a tank or a fully automatic machine gun for the vast majority of the people. If the British had done the same thing there would not be a USA today as we know it. ATF does not allow people to have explosives unless they have special permission.

      If we were going by the true intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment all the people would have the same access to the same weapons that our military has today. But we all know that’s not the case. We have been restricted from having access to the type of weapons that our founding fathers had when they fought the British and gave us our freedom. We are far from free these days. And a rebellion would be impossible unless the Military led it from within the Military. The Military holds all the cards and we all know it. Who gets to lead the US Military? Guess who’s kids get sent to West Point and the Navy’s Academy Military Command Schools?

      It’s not some bum that they take in off the street. No the Richest and most power people get to send their progeny to the Military Leadership Schools. The rich and powerful people want to maintain their control over the rest of us.

    • “1) The Second Amendment is a necessary bulwark against tyranny.

      Nonsense. It’s easily the biggest myth surrounding the Second. No gaggle of gun-toting rednecks or even a trained backwoods militia is any match for the American government and its military. ”

      To be fair, our military was fought to a standstill in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan by folks who were the equivalent of cavemen from a training and equipment standpoint. See also: USSR vs. Afghanistan, the Cuban Revolution, the Algerian War, the Peninsular War…

  8. This article is NRA to the core, drinking the NRA KoolAid in a major way since they are 100% pro-gun only.

    After all the tragic killings there has not been a single gun control mandate put into place. President Obama has enacted zero gun restrictions, yet gun fanatics who oppose things as simple as barring domestic abusers from owning firearms are still convinced that any day now, he’s going to confiscate guns. This is partly because they read unsupported articles like this. Americans live in a country that is taxed less and has fewer restrictions on gun ownership than it did under George W. Bush.

    Fighting gun crime aggressively does not have to be inconsistent with the individual right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Even the NRA has strongly supported increased mandatory sentencing for gun crimes. Licensed guns are rarely used by their owners to commit crimes. We can protect the right of legal gun owners while dramatically increasing prosecution and penalties for illegal gun trafficking, possession and any gun crimes. The common goal should be long-term crime control, not perpetuating paranoid gun lies.

    Americans should be allowed (even expected) to advocate for a safer America. This constant drum-beating by whack-jobs like Reagan who scream that the left will “lie” about guns or try and take them away is ignorant, yet the NRA continues to try and scare gun owners that government is “coming to take their guns” and that has NEVER been tried or started.

    A government that has the duty to do all that it can to protect the safety of ALL Americans is being vilified with no proof of evil intent by an organization that SHOULD be trying to find ways to work TOGETHER to help ensure safety for all citizens legally allowed to own a gun. The NRA is fanning flames of hate and prejudice based on innuendo and falsehoods.

    The Pew Research Center found bipartisan support that 85 percent of Americans believe people should have to pass a background check before purchasing guns in private sales or gun shows. A majority of Americans (79 percent) back laws to prevent those with mental illness from purchasing guns. 70 percent of Americans support the creation of a federal database to track gun sales (not gun owners), and a majority (57 percent) that would like to ban assault-style weapons.

    The myth (perpetrated by people like Reagan being NRA prostitutes) is that the goal is to create a national registry of gun owners. But the legislation that was written in Congress explicitly barred the creation of a federal database, but opponents insist it would infringe on liberties.

    When you look at the number of people who belong to the NRA compared to legal gun-owner age in America, the NRA only represents 1.4% of American citizens. Americans who live in a household where they or a relative is an NRA member overwhelmingly favored the idea of making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks. 74 percent backed expanded checks compared with 26% who opposed them.

    “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” NRA mouthpiece Wayne LaPierre infamously declared after the Newtown Sandy Hook grade school tragedy. But according to the non-profit and non-partisan Violence Policy Center, in their most recent data there were just 258 “justifiable homicides” involving civilians using guns, but 8,342 criminal homicides committed with a firearm. That means numerically for every justifiable homicide in America involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides. This data is compiled based on data from the FBI and Bureau of Justice. And those figures do not even include an estimated 22,000 suicides and accidental shootings annually with guns.

    In late 2014 the FBI released a report including analyses of “active shooter” incidents and annual totals of casualties since 2000, all of which point to one conclusion: The U.S. is experiencing more mass shootings than ever.

    The FBI identified 160 “active shooter” incidents and 1,043 casualties between 2000 and 2013, finding that an average of 6.4 incidents occurred in the first seven years, and 16.4 occurring in the following seven.

    Seventy percent of the incidents identified occurred either inside a business or an educational environment, like a public school or a college campus. Sixty percent were over by the time police arrived, all but two involved a single shooter, and in 40% of them, the shooters committed suicide.

    The FBI report analyzed “active shooter” incidents generally, a term defined by the federal government as an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill others in a confined and populated area. Also, the FBI excluded shootings related to gang or drug violence. Can you imagine what the numbers could be if those were included?

    And we need to be clear that an active shooter doesn’t necessarily have to kill anyone. The FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) was four or more people murdered in one event. The FBI has updated that so that now they refer to these events as a Mass Shooting, which is defined as four or more people shot in one event. The FBI recognized that they count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because “shooting” means “people shot” which updates to include events where multiple (many) people are shot but not necessarily killed.

    Reagan is clearly relying on old descriptions and definitions and to people whgo have been discredited as belonging to NRA funded projects. The NRA works very hard at pushing an agenda that is not in the best interests of citizens.

    You know what I think is very sad and distressing? It is where we in America have “top numbers” in world statistics. We lead the world in a number of categories, and none of them make me “proud”

    We have the highest numbers of prison population and incarceration rates, which shows we have the highest numbers on Earth of number of incarcerated citizens per capita. We lead all world nations in defense spending, spending more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies!

    We have the highest number of people with severe health issues in the world, leading civilized nations in diabetes, obesity, anxiety disorders, drug abuse, infant mortality, junk food addictions, STDs, and prescription drug sales. America has the shortest life expectancy for our citizens for all countries in the world. We appear to be so proud of being “the freest country on earth”, yet we refuse to even give new parents even a few short days of government-supported job leave to care for a new life.

    But most importantly in this discussion is that Reagan is whoring himself in favor of his NRA masters by ignoring the Number 1 place that America holds in the world for mass shootings and killings, especially of students and children. His attempt to try and paint this as a gun-grab by the left is pathetic and weak.

    If we should be number one at anything, it should be at eradicating the hateful, intolerable voices that ignore a safer America and ANY efforts at reducing gun violence. It is, very literally, the death of us.

    • Classy? Reading just the first sentence of your screed is more than enough. Does Chicago mean nothing to you? A flaming left wing dem mayor in a city with some of the most stringent gun control laws in this or any country and mass shootings EVERY WEEK. And the left wing dem mayor is now blaming the police! (as Obama has) Dems don’t have a clue.
      Not to worry though, Obama to the rescue. He’s issued another executive order sure to reduce crime and mass shootings. He’s ordered Federal prisons to stop serving pork! That’s right classy. Criminals not eating pork will surely take a bite out of crime.

      • Ah, the go to conservative argument, Chicago. Chicago is a short walk from Indiana where guns are handed out like Halloween candy.

      • You clearly think it pertinent to take another lick at one of the right wing’s favorite whipping boys, Chicago. Your approach is that if one thinks that gun control works, why does Chicago with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation have so many homicides

        This is a favorite theme on the right. Chicago is the murder capital of the nation, and also its gun control capital. I will disprove that first contention in a moment, but first let’s take the implied argument at face value: Gun control laws permit more murders to happen.

        Correlation does not imply causation, but for a moment let’s enter the wingnut world where it does. Back in 2012, there were 507 homicides in Chicago. Ten years earlier, the statistic was 656. Ten years before that, it was 943. Holy cow! Chicago’s anti-gun laws must be working!

        Not so fast. The murder rate has declined sharply across the country in the last 20 years. Chicago might still be near the top of the heap for murders. Indeed, 507 is a big number, the biggest of any city in the U.S. in 2012. But Chicago is a big place. The key is to take the number of murders, multiply by 100,000 and then divide by the population. That gives you the standard expression of the homicide rate: murders per 100,000.

        How does Chicago stack up? Turns out it’s a dangerous place, but not even in the top 20 most deadly cities. FBI data on homicides shows Chicago is safer than, among others places, Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Little Rock, Kansas City, Montgomery, Memphis and Richmond.

        So why do conservatives love to portray Chicago as a wasteland of bloodshed? Simple. Chicago is President Obama’s hometown, long a political stronghold for Democratic politics.

        Do you really want to solve the violent crime problem? Start by recognizing that guns travel. They go unimpeded from jurisdictions where they are easily gotten to places where they are not. Violence stays put.

        Easy access to guns is just the icing. It’s the explosive fuse atop a long stack of community woes. There’s a 20th-century problem we haven’t solved: the inequality between races, between city and suburb, between ghetto and the leafier urban districts that Americans are falling in love with again. Every shooting in Chicago should remind us that we have failed.

        FACTS and DATA: The anathema of the tea bagging crowd

    • Looks like Classy forgot to put the Lithium in his Kool-Aid this morning. His Dick Engbert/Steve Small rant is typical of a left-wing socialist.

      • Here we go. Why is it when presented with data, facts, statistics, and various hard proofs that the right wing tea naggers are never able to refute a single one?

        How small are your genitals that you cannot offer any substantial information to prove your side?

        I’m sad for you. What a miserable existence you must live.

  9. Your “facts” are just parroted talking points from FauxNews and the rest of your tea bagging buddies. Try and keep up

    Any time an article is written about the overlap of gun violence and politics, there is one response that is guaranteed to be offered: “What about Chicago?” Say that mass shootings have occurred hundreds of times in the last few years and you’re asked, “What about Chicago?” Talk about the politics of background check legislation and someone will respond, “What about Chicago?

    Even though gun shops can operate within Chicago’s city limits now, none have opened up yet. That means that every gun that is owned legally or illegally in Chicago came from somewhere else. Just how many is unclear, but Chicago’s police department seizes more illegal weapons than any other in the nation — nearly 20 a day for a total of 5,500 so far this year.

    According to the police in Chicago, nearly 60 percent of recovered guns that were used to commit crimes in Chicago from 2009 through 2013 were first sold in states with more lax gun laws. Neighboring Indiana was far and away the biggest source, with 19 percent of all recovered guns having been sold there first. But they came from far and wide, with Mississippi being the second biggest source, at 6.7 percent.

    The pipeline of guns from other states remains open, despite the lifting of many Chicago gun restrictions. Just days ago, a Chicago man who pleaded guilty to helping purchase 43 firearms from gun shows and individuals in Indiana to sell them on Chicago’s South Side was sentenced to nearly three years in prison.

    But, of course, Chicago is also bigger than most places. If you look at the number of people injured or killed in these incidents as a function of population, Chicago’s tally drops below the median. Chicago is below the norm when it comes to mass shootings (defined by the FBI as four or more people shot in a single incident)

    In short, it’s probably impossible to know how much of an outlier Chicago might be. There are certainly a lot of incidents of gun violence just like many cities, but we don’t know how many. Detroit appears to have had a worse year in 2014, but lacks the political significance and attention of Obama’s Chicago.

    Both the mainstream media and the right-wing echo chamber repeat persistent lies about Chicago’s gun crime. Whether intentionally or negligently, the media continues to perpetuate false statements about guns and homicides in Chicago and those falsehoods get repeated uncritically through blogs and social media on a daily basis. Regardless of one’s position on issues like gun control, it is important that when Chicago is used as an example, that all parties to the debate have the correct facts at their disposal. In the interest of truth we must reject these repeatedly false claims about gun murder in Chicago and replace them with accurate information:

    Chicago DOES NOT have the highest murder rate in the country. Multiple news outlets perpetuate the myth that Chicago has the highest murder rate in the United States. A recent article stated “It’s well-known that gun violence is an issue for many inner cities across the U.S. But Chicago, in particular, has the most alarming rates, almost double that of New York City.” But then the article compared Chicago to only one city, New York City. Based on that single comparison they concluded that Chicago has the highest murder rate in the nation.

    A simple fact check of FBI crime statistics that are publicly available would reveal over two dozen cities with higher homicide rate’s than Chicago’s rate of 15.9 murders per 100,000 residents. Chicago is not even close to having the highest rate for murders. Of cities over 100,000 population, Chicago does not even crack the top 25. It ends up in 26th place. If you include all of the cities above 40,000 that the FBI keeps homicide data for, Chicago winds up ranking 41st, a far cry from number one.

    Indeed, even if Chicago doubled its homicide total it still would have finished with a lower murder rate than nine US cities including Camden, New Orleans, Flint, Detroit, Gary (IN), York (PA), St. Louis, Newark and Wilmington (DE). The top four cities (Camden, New Orleans, Flint and Detroit) had homicide rates that were more than triple Chicago’s rate, and cities like Ft. Myers, Florida and Gulfport, Mississippi that receive very little media attention had homicide rates that were considerably higher than Chicago’s rate of 15.9 per 100,000. I guess saying Chicago is number 41 would not have the same ominous ring to it.

    As far as your ignorant myth that Chicago’s homicide rate proves gun control laws do not work, that myth relies on the above myth as a foundation and then argues that because Chicago is the murder capital of the United States and because last year was a record year for homicides, then the city’s strict gun laws must be a failure. Following this logic, they argue that gun control is actually the reason the murder rate of Chicago is at a record high and that gun control is the reason Chicago is the nation’s deadliest cities.

    Of course, because the entire argument is built upon piling one piece of misinformation on top of another, it crumbles upon further analysis. A number of right-wing sites including the National Review and Breitbart News advance a variation of this argument, citing the 1982 Chicago handgun ban as a failed policy. Of course, this argument is based on the myth above. Once you acknowledge that Chicago’s homicide rate is not among the top cities in the nation but that it sits at number 41 in the country and that the city’s homicide total has dropped from nearly 1000 a year before the ban was put into place to around 500 a year now, it is hard to argue that the city’s strict gun laws are a failure.

    With a homicide rate that may be on pace to be its lowest in fifty years, the dirty truth might be that the gun laws in Chicago are actually preventing the carnage from being a lot worse. To see what Chicago might be without its gun law in place one could visit New Orleans, Detroit or nearby Gary, Indiana for some field research, but there is no guarantee that the researcher would survive the experiment, because those cities are not nearly as safe as Chicago.

    So what about Chicago? We can say that there are a lot of people and a lot of shootings in Chicago. But there is not conclusive facts to prove the rate of gun violence is higher than in cities of similar size and population.

    So unless you have DATA and FACTS to PROVE your BS, then your points are just tripe.

    Try debating the FACTS and NUMBERS from actual DATA!

    • Classy. Against my better judgment I read your first 3 paragraphs. Glad I did. For the die- hard dems with limited powers of deduction (most) let me explain. You have shown why Joe Wallace, in the first post of the day, was right. And why those of us who know more gun laws will not deter gun crimes are right.
      Too bad you don’t understand your own argument.

    • CEP, you Sir are an idiot useful only to the leftist wishing to disarm responsible gun owners. Chicago bans guns and the criminals still get them? How is that possible? Maybe criminals don’t follow gun laws. That’s why they are criminals.

Comments are closed.