Gun permits don't make gun violence

  • Article by: Steve Chapman , Chicago Tribune
  • Updated: July 12, 2013 - 8:00 PM

Those who oppose concealed-carry laws can be found busily fanning fictional fears.

  • 38
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
chavistaJul. 12, 13 9:05 PM

Today in the Milwaukee Journal: "Two Milwaukee men — each with a state permit to carry a concealed weapon — traded dozens of shots in a rolling shootout through two sides of town and down a freeway, the kind of Wild West scenario concealed-carry opponents warned would turn road rage incidents deadly." Nah, it couldn't have happened, the gun nuts tell us so!

nrabadJul. 12, 13 9:55 PM

Chavista; I'm sure the two were just protecting themselves and standing their ground.

pumiceJul. 12, 13 9:55 PM

From the article: "[Illinois'] new law sets up a system obliging the state to issue licenses to registered gun owners who pass a background check, undergo 16 hours of safety training and pay a fee." Safety training--that's reasonable. From its inception, the NRA has provided safety training for gun owners. But a background check? Congress saw through that non-solution--a background check wouldn't have stopped the Newtown massacre. And, like Steve Chapman says, "The people behind the epidemic of violent crime in Chicago don’t bother with permits and wouldn’t qualify for them."

But a fee??? That's almost as absurd as the governor's ideas ("a ban on carrying guns in establishments that serve alcohol and limiting each carrier to one gun with a magazine holding a maximum of 10 rounds"). The government forcibly confiscates enough of our hard-earned money!!!

Chapman's math, though, is unarguable: Currently, only 6 million people are authorized to carry a gun, and only 90 people a year are killed by permit holders. And a quarter of the people killed by permit holders are suicides. (According to Chapman, suicide presents no danger to public safety.) But I digress.... If, say, 60 million people held permits, think how low the crime rate might be.

IHATELOGINS0Jul. 12, 1310:20 PM

Finally, normal lawful folks will be able to defend themselves against the dirtbags instead of being a victim.

supervon2Jul. 12, 1310:27 PM

No guns in Japan? Their suicide rate is double ours. I guess we all have our problems.

jarlmnJul. 12, 1310:45 PM

The gun-phobes habitually spout nothing but fictional fears indeed! Compounding the problem, Chavista and others of similar ilk seem clearly unfamiliar with the concept of statistical relevance. Against the thousands of other responsible permit holders in that town, two nincompoops in Milwaukee do not in any fashion, constitute a 'bloodbath.' "Bloodbaths" as the gun-phobes, despite any relevant statistical evidence to back their purile claim, predicted in each and every state in which carry was legalized. What balderdash! Incidents like Chavista refers to are so few and far between as to be totally irrelevant to any rational, I say *rational* discussion. Likewise, the whole scarey "assault" weapon thing is beyond bogus; rifles, semi-auto or otherwise, are implicated in a minute fraction of all crimes involving a firearm. Statistically, carry permit holders are much, much, much less likely to get someone killed than are your average vehicle drivers, say. But these gun-phobes, who have clearly watch way too much TV, conjure up with juvenile imagination, scores of prurient scenarios that belong only in the comic books. And finally, and most relevantly, I'm certain that any statistics available would readily show that among these armed Chicago gang-bangers cited by Illinois pusillanimous governor, few if any, possess a firearm legally, much less carry legally. Therefore, the argument is emotional, irrational and pathetically invalid by any measurement.

RankenFyleJul. 13, 1312:01 AM

And that, my dear jarlmn, is exactly why we need a gun registry; I couldn't have said it better myself. "Incidents like Chavista refers to are so few and far between as to be totally irrelevant.... rifles, semi-auto or otherwise, are implicated in a minute fraction of all crimes involving a firearm. Statistically, carry permit holders are much, much, much less likely to get someone killed than are your average vehicle drivers". And since a gun owner is so unlikely to be involved in a gun related crime, they should have no qualms about having their gun registered, as a simple exercise of public safety, in the event it were someday stolen or misappropriated for criminal use.

freedumb86Jul. 13, 1312:34 AM

The same argument can be stated about drunk driving. Most drunk drivers don't kill people. In fact, for every 100 drivers only one is busted. We need more gun owners just like we need more drunk drivers.

DamianJul. 13, 13 1:00 AM

@RankenFyle: Actually, most gun owners have considerable qualms over gun registries because THEY LEAD TO CONFISCATION. It's happened in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and right here in the good ol' USA. Back in the late 1960's, the People's Republic of New York City began mandating registration of long guns. People protested, but were assured by the politicos that there was nothing to fear, and they were just being paranoid. Fast forward to the early 1990's and certain long guns were banned in NYC. Hey, look at that... authorities had all they needed to track down and go door-to-door collecting previously legal guns. Registration leads to confiscation. Period.

forfreedomJul. 13, 13 6:08 AM

Gunophobics. Carry-permit holders are expressly taught how to AVOID using their gun whenever possible. They are taught how to maintain a relaxed state of alertness that reduces the likelihood of needing to use a gun for self defense. And they are taught how to come to a reasoned choice when it is necessary to use the weapon for self defense and when it is not. Most of this training would be useful even for non-permit holders to reduce the level of people being victimized by irresponsible gun carriers. If schools are allowed to teach children how to "safely" use a condom, maybe schools should be used to teach children how to safely use a gun. The logic is consistent.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters