We don't want to restrict legitimate gun ownership. We would like there to be better control over how one gets firearms and fewer military type weapons in the general population. If you truly want your gun for protection from "criminals from South Chicago", do you really need an assault weapon that can kill someone a thousand times over? Shouldn't a few bullets be enough if you are well trained in the use of fire arms? Do you plan on using all forty of your assault weapons to shoot at an intruder in your home? Or are you under the delusion that the government will be coming to take not just your guns, but all of your rights as well, and will throw you into an internment camp?

"We don't want to restrict legitimate gun ownership."

Who is "Sully" to determine what is "legitimate"?

"...fewer military type weapons..."

How do you define that term?

"an assault weapon that can kill someone a thousand times over? "

Current civilian firearms do not have that capability. Perhaps you should read the recent Patch article about gun terminology and capability...

Carl, are you saying you don't know the definition of legitimate? Are you really so obtuse as to not know the difference between literal from figurative? I can help you with the definition: legitimate- (adjective), according to law; lawful, in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards. Who decides what is legitimate? The people of a society (not the NRA and not unilaterally). The people of THIS society are tired of the lack of gun control that allows anyone and everyone to own a gun without background checks and/or waiting periods. They are against the killing machines of war being brought onto our streets. As for the difference between literal and figurative, if you don't know by now, I'm afraid you'll never know.

Sully... Media Created the term "Assault weapon" Military style weapons look scarry, but function similar to any semi automatic pistol that your local police carry. They are one shot per pull of the trigger, and not FULL AUTOMATIC OR BURST FIRE like "MILITARY" weaponry.

Did you know that in ILLINOIS in 2011 there was only 1 single homicide committed with a rifle. And it was not a "military style" weapon. The 2012 list compiled by the fbi is not out yet, but it's going to show the same result. We do not have a gun problem, we have a people problem. Most gun crime is involving illegally obtained weapons. It's sad, but it is not the fault of legal gun owners whenever someone goes crazy. It is the fault of the individual. We need to make tougher laws and take action against illegal firearm posession and abuse. We don't need to put more restriction on law abiding citizens. We have taken enough crap from the liberals. The bill of rights Says that our "RIGHT" to keep and bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON"
Lets define the word
INFRINGED: past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
Verb

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

The freedom and rights of MILLIONS shall not be taken away based on the actions of the few.

Sully - do YOU obviously believe that these "assault weapons" are being used for large portion of the murders. Hint, they are not. Most murders happen with hand guns, and if the democrats were REALLY interested in stopping crime, they would target THE CRIMINALS. They do not. In fact, it seems like the liberals / democrats want to blame the tool and excuse the perpetrator. This would be like blaming the car and excusing the drunk driver.

Sully, I just need to address the ignorance of one of your questions, "Shouldn't a few bullets be enough if you are well trained in the use of fire arms?" Why do you think its ok to restrict the amount of rounds I'm capable of defending myself with? Why is my life less important than the person trying to harm me? After 6 years in the Marine Corps as an infantry rifleman I became a DoD contracted firearms instructor, then a police officer, then a law enforcement firearms instructor. I shoot about 5,000 rounds a year (not nearly enough) and attend 40-80hrs of firearms training a year (not nearly enough). When I was forced to defend myself a few years ago, I used 14 rounds of my 30 round magazine (which we don't fill to capacity) to stop the attack. The fact is that the 5.56/.223 is not a very "lethal" round and it typically takes multiple hits to stop a threat. So i'm "well trained in the use of firearms" and 14 bullets was the minimum to stop the last person who tried to kill me. 60% of violent attacks involve more than one attacker. So if I was using a 10 round magazine, I don't think I would have survived. You've never had to defend yourself with a firearm so DO NOT COMMENT on it. Restricting the ownership of AR15's or other rifles you ignorant people consider "assault weapons" is RESTRICTING LEGITIMATE GUN OWNERSHIP. and regardless, the 2nd amendment (try reading it) is about protection from our government, of which has much more lethal capabilities.

We got into this 'mess' (never mind that violent crime is on the decline) because we went soft on crime, criminals, and mental illness, not on guns.

Robovoter - Unfortunately, the flawed argument that the fewer guns LAW ABIDING citizens have the safer we will be, is how we got into this sorry mess in the first. Criminals have proven that hey will not obey the laws.

An unarmed victim vs an armed victim...which do you think a rapist, mugger, murderer, burglar, serial killer would choose?

You are factually incorrect, Jeff. The Chicago stats were absolutely included and rolled into the statewide statistics, just not broken out separately. There were no distortions, and if you want to take the graphs one by one, we urge you to be in touch to do so. All the stats used in the presentation were cited and from the CDC, the FBI, or the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Do the research yourself. You obviously did not like what the facts tell us - that more guns do not make us safer -they make us less safe. You may not be as nuetral as you pretend to be. Good to hear you support background checks.

What I have found is that most people who are “anti-gun” advocates know nothing about guns but are willing to lecture anyone who will listen why guns need to be abolished from our society. Basically their ignorance has transformed to fear and they communicate that fear by supporting laws that restrict or limit things that they know nothing about.

WE CHICAGO GANGSTERS,GANG BANG GANG BANGERS WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR PATHETIC LAWS !!!! YES ! I LOVE TO GANGBANG ON HELPLESS CIVILIANS AND HIGHSCHOOL KIDS!

If anyone is tempted to say these stats are old (not from 2012), I would say you're missing the point.

Robovoter,

Violent crime is rising in the UK and Mexico and Brazil in spite of tough gun restrictions (Brazil and Mexico are "developed"). Guns are readiliy available in Switzerland and Israel, yet gun geaths are much smaller.

It's obviously the culture, and not the gun laws...

Here is additional reading for everyone's edification:

William Bratton (former police chief): The Real Cures for Gun Violence

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323968304578246721614388346.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

John Lott: The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578245803845796068.html?KEYWORDS=Lott

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro (Washington DC Prosecutor): A Gun Ban That Misfired

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?KEYWORDS=DC+Prosecutor

Carl, the regulations on gun ownership are tighter in those two places.

Robovoter, you are obsuring the facts. When you look at England and Australia stats for ALL violent crime, those countries have many more incidents per capita than the USA, and the problem continues to worsen. 15 years since Brits had to surrender their weapons and they are now helpless victims of crime waves. Does it matter if you are killed with a banned firearm, a shovel, bats, or tire irons? You are still dead...unless you defend your Constitutional right to not be disarmed.

"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"
PATRICK HENRY AUTHOR OF COMMON SENSE

One thing that is driving me crazy is that gun control advocates are using emotional rhetoric saying things like - how many bullets do you need to kill a deer (NY legislator) or how many bullets do you need to defend yourself.
The reality is that we live in an unsafe volatile world. There will always be bad people causing harm and engaging in criminal activity.

>> You have to realize that if you had 3 guys kick your door in to burglarize your house and potentially cause your family harm and you had a firearm to defend yourself . . in a Fight or Flight response your fine motor control would be diminished and it is likely that 10-20% of your shots would hit. Also, criminals may not stop attacking if hit once. This isn't the movies where people just fall over after being hit.

One other thing to consider - is not just the short term threats that are always a possibility - like break in or mugging etc. Longer term threats always exist. Gun control advocates are not paying any consideration to this. If social unrest occurs - like riots or other environmental disaster occurs where resources were scarce and looting / stealing / other criminal activity breaks out - IT IS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to be able to defend against such things. Again - what people forget is that gun owners: hunters, and doctors, lawyers, financial professionals are being prepared for the uncertain future no diff than someone storing emergency water and food

YES I REQUIRE A DECLARATION OF WAR WHEN I BLOW UP ARABS IN LITTLE HUTS WITH FLYING DRONES ARMED WITH HELLFIRE MISSILES!!! YES KING OBAMA DOES NOT CARE FOR COLLATERAL DAMAGE MUCH LESS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ! YES PRESENT OR LISTEN TO IDEAS YES! YES YES YOUR RIGHT YES

sully you talk more than a woman.

They did NOT show a slide of 1000's of people who repelled attackers and are alive today because they are armed. The gun-grabbers fail to see the reality from states where concealed carry laws are working beautifully - as a deterrent - without ever firing a shot. Illinois and Chicago gun bans simply INVITE criminals to prey on an endless supply of easy victims. Bureaucrats, in their own minds, hate surrendering control.

Jennifer,

Thank you so much for sharing those videos! We're working to get another one up today as well. It was definitely an intense environment yesterday...

Best,
Paula

Nice to hear you did manage to find some articulate gentlemen. There would have been more of those present if the meeting was not held on a Sunday afternoon when many of us are en route to O'Hare, visiting aging parents, and the like. The 'raucous' element was motivated to attend because it was obvious the organizers only left room in their agenda for one side of the anti-gun argument. Without interrupting, the opposing viewpoint was not going to be heard. Why not urge this panel to invite someone who represents Constitutional right to carry instead of conducting a propaganda fest? Anti-gun folks say they want a "reasonable discussion" about "gun control" as long as they are the only ones allowed to speak. God Bless those gentlemen who interrupted the speakers.

recarry, your excuse is somewhat absurd. "on a Sunday afternoon when many us are en route to O'Hare, visiting aging parents, and the like"? Could that not apply to anyone, regardless of his or opinions on gun control? The raucous element was motivated because the presentation was going to be one-sided? This wasn't scheduled to be a debate. So interrupting and heckling is the way to be heard? It's even a better way to show ignorance and intolerance. And by the way, I'm certain NRA and ISRA meetings always include the viewpoints of those who disagree with them, correct? Because of course, all of you are so open-minded.

Crooks will still have guns. "lunatics" should be in hospitals receiving help. The problem is, many "lunatics" could be helped by medication, but they have the constitutional right not to be forced to take it.

Robovoter: So which of the proposed "solutions" for gun control would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy?

So there are more people in this country that believe in no gun regulations than there are who do? Really?

Sully, We have plenty of regulations that criminals and crazies already ignore. We need to make it harder for them to ignore. No 2A supporter wants criminals and crazies to have guns. But, going after law abiding citizen GUARANTEED RIGHTS is not the answer.

Limiting magazine capacity will not help, banning semi auto rifles, will not help.

We do not have a gun problem. We have a criminal problem and a people problem.

Liberals have good intentions, but horrible Ideas.

Sully, befriend a gun owner, go to a gun shop and a range, take some time and get to know your opposition.

Don't go into a debate so "ONE SIDED"

I met gun owners at the forum. They were for more regulation, such as background checks and waiting periods. They were quite rational and realistic and open to discussion. They were not ones who think they are anymore patriotic than other Americans or any better. They did not yell "Constitution!" without offering any other words and wave a flag. You can yell as loud as you want, but that does not add substance to the debate. And if the woman who kept screaming she is a tax payer outside of the police station is reading this by any chance, I pay taxes too. What's your point?

I am fine with hollow points and ball ammo. I personally don't see a need for civilians to have AP ammo. But police and military should have it.

Yes, police should have them. But not every citizen who wants them just for the hell of it should.

Sully,

How many crimes have been committed using so-called armor-piercing ammunition?

That's the point Carl. Why have these bullets in circulation in the first place?

Sully, no, the point is, how many crimes have been committed by otherwise law abiding citizens, with the type of ammunition you are proposing to ban? Are you proposing, or rather supporting a proposal, of a law that really does "nothing" to stop criminals, but is just a feel good measure?

Rational, you have to start somewhere. Of course things aren't going to change over night. Why can Australia be successful but we can't?

"That's the point Carl. Why have these bullets in circulation in the first place?"

Since zero crimes have been committed with them, then why ban them? That's the point...

"Why can Australia be successful but we can't?"

Because it wasn't the gun bans that did it. Let's try enforcing existing laws before we pile additional ones on, eh?

Uh, okay Carl. That certainly made a lot of sense. Why not have bullets capable of piercing armor? No crimes have been committed with these bullets, so we need to have them in circulation for ... um, why do we need to have them in circulation? What's their purpose?

LONG LIVE KING GEORGE OF BRITANNIA!

"No crimes have been committed with these bullets, so we need to have them in circulation for ... um, why do we need to have them in circulation? "

Sully,

How does logic escape you so easily? That type of ammo has been in civilian circulation for decades, and yet it hasn't been used in a crime. Banning something that is NOT used in crime is going to do WHAT with regard to crime?!

Nothing!! What part of that do you not get?!

i.e.: AP ammo has only been used for civilian target practice... If it's NOT used for crime, and only used for target practice, then why are you jones-ing for it?

I'd LOVE to see where you're getting Armor Piercing bullets. You know those are restricted to Mil/LE/Gov't only, correct? Do you know the statistics of police officers killed with AP ammunition? Find me more than one example in the past decade and I'll mail you a check for the contents of my savings account.

The point of my comment was that the 4.25 million members are just 4% of all gun owners. Gun owners are PRO 2A. And the children and spouses of those people are PRO 2A as well.

Gun ownership is a right. Stocking up on all sorts of weapons that have no other purpose than to kill, is not.

Sully. Your statement contradicts itself. Gun ownership is a right but you don't have a right to own guns is basically what you said.

Your opinion does not change the fact that we have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon.

Some people collect stamps, some collect baseball cards and some people collect guns. Which one of those three are specifically protected in the bill of rights?

Then how about Scalia (our wonderful supreme court partisan)? Have you heard of DC versus Heller? While it gave people the right to own guns in Washington DC, this was also said, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." So you see, I do not contradict myself, and it is not just my opinion.

Sully, what weapons do you know of that have no other purpose than to kill? I guarantee they're restricted to gov't/LE/Mil use.

Jeff--But he didn't use explosives or arson or a car. He used a battlefield assault weapon. I think quite a lot is said about the misuse of pharma drugs and steps thatb are being taken to prevent that misuse. It just isn't headline news. Those dying of drug, alcohol or tobacco addiction tend to be self inflicted wounds that don't kill other people simultaneously. The danger is those crazed individuals, high on drugs or alcohol, getting their hands on weapons of mass murder. Of course you can't prevent every single scenario with regulation, but let's be realistic and put some tighter regulations in place. And enforce them. If legit gun owners have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

Denise- agreed. And how many suicides could have bee averted if guns were not available?

Sully, men tend to commit suicide with guns, women use other methods. Are you saying that the men who wanted to commit suicide would not have if they did not have a gun? Don't you think they would have found another method? Some crash their car into innocent bystanders on the expressway - would you prefer that?

If one shoots himself impulsively, it's pretty much over. If one cannot do something on impulse, but has to get into a car, or rig some sort of contraption, one has a chance to think about their actions and the results of their actions. Teenagers are notoriously impulsive. If they have an easy way to do something, they'll do it. If they have to consider or think about it first, their desire to hurt themselves may abate.

BAN BASEBALL BATS NOW! BAN BAN BAN! YOU MIGHT AS WELL BAN MY DICK FOR PLUGGING GIRLS

No one wants to take that away from you, Jeff.

No one wants to take away your guns? How bought can I keep my doctor? Or maybe pay a little less for health insurance? Or not fund abortions with our taxpayer money? Are any of these questions true?

McCloud, as ignorant as you are, they actually might want to take away YOUR guns.

If we attacked your rights and passions, lets see how you come off.

What really creeps me out are people like "Abba Dabba" who project themselves with such a broad brush and resort to childish ad-hominem.

By the way, I'm "man" enough to post under my real name; what's your excuse?

"When I hear conceal carry, I remember Travon Martin" Chicago Police MCCARTHY
"When I hear gun control, I remember Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin" COMMUNISTCHUNGO From Chicago

Just check the research, Jeff.

Shooting is an olympic sport.

The unwillingness of the gun banners to listen to, or engage in a meaningful discussion or debate because they fear freedom and self-reliance doesn't help their cause. In fact, it probably helps prove the argument for greater control of such statist brown-shirts...

We fear freedom and self reliance? That excuse is so old now. Really, can't you come up with something better than that? That just makes no sense whatsoever. On the other hand, you fear black helicopters that are not coming and government that really will not take your rights away. Get over the paranoia you hear from right wing pundits. In other words, get real - act like an adult.

Dear ABBA DABBA YOU MOTHERLESS DOG
“A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands”

Seneca quotes (Roman philosopher, mid-1st century AD)

Gun control should be just that. Prevent criminals from having guns. Not what the liberal agenda would want, total confiscation and control. I am not a criminal. I served for this country, I have been the victim of crime (I have the scars to prove it) but most importantly I know the value of human life and am only willing to take it as an extreme last resort to defend my own life or the life of an innocent.

Steve, listen (or read) very carefully- No one is going to take away your guns (unless you obtained them under false pretense). NO ONE IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS. It's very nice that you would only use a gun as a last resort. Does that mean all gun owners (not deemed criminals) would only use as a last choice? I have to think the kids that were killed under the Stand Your Ground law were not shot as a last resort.

The unwillingness of the gun banners to listen to, or engage in a meaningful discussion or debate because they fear freedom and self-reliance doesn't help their cause. In fact, it probably helps prove the argument for greater control of such statist brown-shirts...

It's really quite frightening to read the escalating and angry tone of many of these comments and how people think they are safe because they own a gun. Fact is that most police officers don't even know how to use a gun properly (a la the sidewalks of Times Sq NYC, when many passers by were hit by police bullets), so how can you expect a member of the public to skilfully react under a highly stressful situation?

It's really quite frightening to read the escalating and angry tone of many of these comments by the gun banners and how such people think they would be safe if they banned every dangerous inanimate object...

"THIS YEAR WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY!!. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

Jeff -
Yes, calling shooting a "competition" would make more sense to me than a sport. I agree with you.
BTW, I do consider myself in the middle.
Grammar check:
you're = you are
your = possessive

Jeff
3:40 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
Abba your the middle lol

I was equally unimpressed with the "pro-gun" crowd outside of the building waving their flags and muttering under their breaths (but just loud enough so anyone nearby could hear). You are a patriot because you carry a sign and find gun extremists good company? I loved the camouflage your kid was wearing. Really identified him as a true American. Guess what? I'm an American too.

Having an 8 year old boy carry a sign saying "support concealed carry", defies common sense in such a venue that was probably known going to be pretty charged. Where's your common sense Dan Cox??

So is that your son in the video that was posted? He looks uncomfortable and scared. And according to many people that were outside, you were the one initially carrying the sign and put it in his hands when the photographers arrived.
Seeking that much attention that you'd pimp your boy?

Also, what's up with your weird use of capital letters. Son...Great...Event...Loved? Not proper nouns.

My first thought would be this: I have very, very, very rarely heard of anyone successfully defending themselves in the middle of the night with a firearm. It happens so un-often that is statistically insignificant. I get that you might have "I wanna be a cop!" fantasies about saving yourself or someone else, but you should focus elsewhere.

re: your English lesson
"I have trying..." ??
& it would be easier to read/understand your posts if you used some commas, dude!

Jeff, You are talking to those who are blind, they have no eyes to see, only negative words to strike out with, no sense in trying to make sense of what they think, it is a waste of time. Thanks, See You At The Next Meeting... Ha Ha

Steve, that I can agree with. More training and being able to prove you are competent with a fire arm is just common sense.

That should help reduce the murder rate in Chicago, it only makes sense.

Steve, that all sounds great, except we allowed the IDNR to institute a Hunter Safety Program and now we can not even take our kids hunting until they have passed a class, that they are not allowed to take until 12 years old! I was Hunting at the age of 7, and loved every day of it. Now I have to take my kids across State lines to hunt, like in Wisconsin, where they can hunt after getting a Hunter Safety Class... at any age, in which they can pass the written test. Illinois, wants to eliminate young hunters and thereby eliminate guns! If you think I am incorrect, please check out the Bill that Il.Senate President John Cullerton tried to Pass on 1/6/13, a Sunday. SB2899 Gun Confiscation Bill.

Oh Dan, that's tragic. How dare they try to protect children from their overzealous parents!

Eliminate child hunters to eliminate guns? Quite an imagination you got there (mixed in with a little paranoia as well).

If there were no NRA, you would not be allowed to own your gun.

Jeff, stop buying into the rightwing scare tactics regarding liberals. We really really really really don't want to take your guns away. We want common sense regulation to make getting guns harder than going to a show, picking out a gun, and buying said gun with the seller having no knowledge of the person doing the buying. Keep your gun. I don't care as long as you got it after a background check and maybe a waiting period. If you are responsible and competent with your gun, more power to you. But don't expect anyone who is rational to think that background checks and waiting periods are not at all necessary. REGULATIONS are what we want, not confiscation.

It's pointless to argue with the stupid, Sully. They know full well that we don't want to repeal the 2nd amendment or take away their guns. The NRA has hammered the slippery slope concept so far into their tiny brains that they think any attempt to increase gun safety is a full out assault on the 2nd and G-men will be storming their houses to take away their guns. Pure fantasy but it makes for a good narrative to weak minded individuals.

Thanks, yes, it is a program my Dad opposed, he knew it was going to control how we teach our children to hunt, from an early age and develope a understanding and love of the sport. I was lucky, it took effect after I was already hunting Deer in Shawnee. Good Times!

Why do you ignore common sense?

Scalia made a lot of sense with that comment. I'm assuming that what he said isn't too hard for you to understand. Maybe I shouldn't assume.

Why has the corrupt special interest Politicians ignore the United States Constitution ? What ?creates too much power for the executive branch?

Did someone forget to take his meds, Eddie? Based on your comment about Mr. Conservative, himself (Scalia), I'm going to guess you don't know a whole lot. Just the buzzwords, folks! Don't worry about understanding anything- we'll take care of that. Troop on soldier!

Go cry in you oatmeal Sully. The simple fact is that the great majority will be armed to the teeth and you will learn to like it.

Eddie Felson, well said, Thank You.

Paranoid? When some one says that they wish to take away, your means of self defense, even though there is a Constitutional Right, that has been re-affirmed by SCOTUS and Federal Appeals Courts... When the Illinois Legislature tried to Pass a Gun Confication Bill on 1/6/13 that was sponsored by Senate President John Cullerton. Really?

Dan, wtf do you not understand about "we don't want to take your guns away"? Keep your go--amn guns and play toy soldier with your son. You mention the SCOTUS, yet you ignore Scalia's statement in DC versus Heller. Here ya go in case you're absolutely clueless-
The Supreme Court held:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

Yes, but I wont tell you.

Haha, Richie, if you reconsider, will you please contact me at paula.skaggs@patch.com? Thank you!