Women Loses Her Fourth Child to Gun Violence

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger

I just saw this article and I had to report on it here.  A Chicago woman is grieving the loss of her 4th child to gun violence.  Her child was one of Five people shot and killed overnight in Chicago.  “Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother Shirley’s youngest child, was shot in the head Saturday while sitting in a parked car on the city’s West Side. A 21-year-old man who was also in the car was wounded, police said.  Shirley Chambers, whose two other sons and daughter were shot in separate attacks more than a decade ago, was left grieving again on Saturday, WLS-TV reported.  “Right now, I’m totally lost because Ronnie was my only surviving son,” Chambers said.

Shirley Chambers’ first child, Carlos, was shot and killed by a high school classmate in 1995 after an argument. He was 18. Her daughter Latoya, then 15, and her other son Jerome were shot and killed within months of one another in 2000.  “What did I do wrong?” she asked Saturday. “I was there for them. We didn’t have everything we wanted but we had what we needed.”

Chambers said despite this latest tragic chapter in her life, she’s not bitter or angry.  “They took my only child. I have nobody right now. That’s my only baby,” she said. MSN.com

How can anyone see this continued gun violence and not be angered and want to do something to stop it?  Reasonable gun control won’t solve all of our gun violence problems, but it is a good start.  We have to deal with poverty, unemployment, drug abuse and the failed war on drugs also.  However, some of these 5 people might not have died if guns were not so easily obtainable.  What do you think?  How can we reduce gun violence?  We must start to act now or it will never get any better.

60 thoughts on “Women Loses Her Fourth Child to Gun Violence

  1. With the utmost sympathy to this woman, I am going to state right now that “reasonable gun controls” (whatever that means, which is usually more infringements on the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens) would not do a damn thing to stop this. This was in Chicago, after all, which has already got some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. This is an example of how well they have worked. (NOT)

  2. Check out the graphics:

    Gun Ownership Is One Way Americans Lead The World (INFOGRAPHIC)

    by Katy Hall and Chris Spurlock

    Posted: 01/24/2013



    With a current population around 315.2 million, the U.S. has about 86 guns for every 100 people — far more than any other nation. Yemen, the number two country, has 54.8 guns per 100 people. Israel, which is surrounded by neighbors bent on its destruction, has 7.3 and tight controls on assault weapons.

    The report crunched more numbers:

    With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 35-50 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison.

    The U.S. also leads wealthy nations in gun homicides, with a rate ten times that of other countries in NATO. This doesn’t say much for the NRA’s calls for more Americans to arm themselves and their schools in the wake of the Newtown tragedy.

  3. Edwin,chicago had some of the most stringent gun laws until they were stricken down. Have you read the Heller case? In it Justice Scalia even stated that common sense restrictions on guns are allowable and may be necessary. Get rid of gun show exceptions and make everyone who buys a gun, in any way, to have to go through a background check. We have to do it when we coach kids teams, but we shouldn’t when buying a gun?

  4. I personally do not agree that limiting access to guns in general is going to stop crime, why would a person who is willing to murder another person and thus committing a capital offense be deterred by a misdemeanor gun possession violation?

    I agree that reducing some of the blights caused by social issues would be helpful but it is not going to be sufficient. It involves breaking a culture of violence. But I don’t think our society would be willing to pursue the steps that would be required to quickly reduce the crime wave.

    In the area I worked, gang violence and property crimes was the dominant reason for felonies in the area. What finally brought these rates down was through a combined enforcement of the laws which decimated the leadership of some of those gangs. The next step was to target the mid level gang members through incarceration and if applicable deportation. Over a period of two years the crime rate for one particular town dropped by half and the felonies by a greater percentage. THis was done with no change in the rate of poverty in the town or any other social programs. It also required a very visible police presence which again is something that others might not want.

    The two prongs that I don’t think the public will accept is to route these criminal street gangs by actively targeting the crimes of the members of the gangs and incarcerating them for enough time that they age out of the street gang mentality. But our society is resistent to LE sweeps or long terms in prison. Putting people in jail for a month for a First Degree Assault only leads many hard criminals to repeat the offense over and over. I am not advocating putting someone away for ten years for stealing a case of beer, I am talking of the violent, hardened offender that is going to be a recidivist most of his young adult life if alllowed to be.

    The second prong is to revamp the juvenile justice system, which works well for otherwise decent kids that make a mistake, but it is counterproductive for budding criminal youths. The juvy system slaps them on the wrist and emboldens them to go on criminal rampages because they know nothing happens to them. I have know bangers who have admitted to me they actually looked forward to juvy because they got to play video games and it was considered a badge of honor in their sub-culture to get locked up there. In short the juvenile system should be more like a boot camp type of rehabilitation clinic where the youth are made to rehabilitate or spend longer time in treatment. But I don’t think our society would agree to the cost of this.

    Some could have a good argument to legalize drugs. I am in favor of this for Marihuana and the likes but not hard drugs such as methamphetamine. If meth was freely available the cost to society in terms of health care and other social costs would far outweigh the benefit of legalization due to the destructive nature of the drug. I do wonder if legalizing mj would cause a number of people to abandon other drugs as the mj would be a good enough substitute. That would take a lot of money out of the gangs.

  5. A top to bottom reform of mental health services in this country is needed, starting with making it easier for mental health professionals to get paid enough to live on. Many managed care operations limit a patient to six visits a year with a psychologist or psychiatrist. What the hell is that about? It is about saving the Benjamins so the CEO can have his mansion(s) and private jet. F**k the patient. If they kill themselves, it saves the insurance company money.

    Then there is the matter of the private prison-industrial complex. Does any rational person believe the people who own the private prisons have any motive to decrease crime by eliminating stupid and draconian drug laws? Who owns these operations? The wealthy class, who get wealthier by keeping a vast number of people locked up as long as possible.

  6. Darren,
    I respect your professional background, but taking any guns off the street or making them harder to obtain, can only help.
    You are right on both counts. The fix, if you can call it that, is not just gun restrictions, but dealing with mental health, and taking corporations out of the prison system and ending the wasteful war on drugs like marijuana.

  7. As a former appellate defender in Chicago, and a former resident of Chicago, that’s what happens in “K-Town”. William Julius Wilson did his groundbreaking research in “K-Town” and created the term the “underclass” to describe the denizens of “K-Town”. In his book “When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor”, Wilson described the deprivation of Chicago’s West Side. Unfortunately, when this vital tome was published in 1996, Wilson left the University of Chicago for Harvard. I am certain that the Nobelists (Milton Friedman, Gary Becker, and Barack Obama) in Hyde Park did not notice his absence. Over and out.

  8. I don’t think the Chicago gun laws were stricken down like you think. Prior to the recent Supreme Court decision, it was not possible to legally buy a handgun in Chicago, because the Chicago city gubmit would not give anybody a permit, or something like that. The only ones who could legally have them were people who had them (grandfathered) before the law went into effect, and they had to have a permit that had to be renewed every year, and the city would not give any prospective new owners a permit. That is what was changed, as I understand it, as a result of that court decision. I think they still have to get permits, and the city has to give people one if they pass the background check (but I could be mistaken about this), and who knows what other kinds of red tape, including getting an Illinois Firearm Owner ID Card, which most gang-bangers and other hoodlums are not going to pay any attention to.

  9. Rafflaw,

    You are misinformed about the state of the law in Illinois. McDonald v. Chicago (and the Heller decision in DC) addressed only the possession of handguns within one’s home. It is still illegal in Illinois to carry or possess a loaded firearm outside one’s home (the only state with such an absolute prohibition on both concealed and open carry). In order to even purchase a firearm legally, one must obtain a state firearms owner’s identification card. We may disagree on whether the FOID should be required or constitutionally can be required, but, at present, it is.

    Given that the shooting took place while the victim was in a parked car, it seems clear that the shooter was already in violation of Illinois’ gun control laws, by carrying a loaded weapon in public. Perhaps I am only speculating here, but the kind of people who go around shooting people in parked cars generally already have criminal records and could not obtain an Illinois FOID anyway. Illinois and Chicago “gun control” laws have been a massive failure.

    I sympathize with the woman who has lost so many children, but place the blame where it belongs — on the person or persons who did the shooting.

    It is simply not obvious that “taking any guns off the street or making them harder to obtain, can only help.” This seems to be an article of faith among gun control proponents. Many disagree with that, and the evidence (John Lott, et al.) seems to point the other way. More concealed carry seems to lead to less crime.

  10. Porkchop,
    I am aware that Illinois does not allow conceal and carry and I am glad of that. You are forgetting the gun show exceptions to purchasing a firearm. You are also misinformed about gun control laws being a massive failure. Once again, take a look at Scalia’s comments in the Heller case. He admits that even the Second Amendment can be subject to reasonable restrictions.

  11. Rafflaw,

    Okay, so explain to me how Illinois’ and Chicago’s gun control laws have been a success, or at least, not a failure. I have a personal interest, as I have a daughter who insists on living there, and she would really like to have a handgun for self defense, but she couldn’t carry it legally, and even purchasing one would be a bureaucratic nightmare, so that’s kind of a problem for her.

    Meanwhile, back home in Virginia, one of my other daughters just applied for her concealed carry permit — at the insistence of her police officer husband. As he explained to her, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Open carry is legal here without a permit, and Virginia is a “shall issue” state for CCW permits. Our crime rate, particularly for murder, is quite low by comparison to Chicago (or to Washington, DC, right across the Potomac from my inside-the-Beltway home).

    For your information, there is no “gun show exception.” Anyone in the business of buying and selling firearms has to have a federal firearms license and must conduct a background check prior to selling a nonexempt firearm (that is, generally speaking, any firearm made after 1899 that is not a muzzleloader), no matter where the transaction takes place. I was at a gun show three weeks ago; the line for background checks was quite long. The reality is that only people in the business of selling firearms can justify paying the booth fees.

    If your concern is with face-to-face, in-state firearms sales by non-dealers, a very small number of which take place at gun shows, that would be a different matter. Those are legal without a background check. Basically, you have a few guys wandering around silently with printed 8-1/2 x 11 signs stating that they have something for sale; they aren’t allowed to solicit, so only those with an interest talk to them. But those sales, when they do take place, could take place anywhere.

    I have read the Heller opinion a number of times, quite closely. Scalia’s comments in Heller on “reasonable restrictions” refer to such historically well-established things as prohibitions on possession by convicted felons and persons who have been adjudicated mentally ill, as well as possession in sensitive places such as courthouses. The catch-phrase “reasonable restrictions” as thrown around by gun control proponents seems to cover a lot more ground than that.

  12. BUT! BUT! BUT! The national suicide pact insists that no law can be passed to restrict the private ownership of guns! In fact we really must over turn the ban on automatic weapons.

  13. Edwin, you do understand that the illegally owned guns in Chicago often come from places that don’t have strict gun laws? That said, the horse is long out of the barn in the United States. It’s not as if we’re going to disarm Americans. The question would be is there anything that we could do that might attenuate the flow of guns straight into the hands of violent criminals.

    I’m not going to debate that question, but what I would say is that I’d like to see us do something about the insane war on drugs. From what I read, the victim of this homicide had 29 arrests on his record, including felonies and he did prison time. At least some of those arrests were drug related.

    He was released from prison recently and he claimed he was turning his life around, helping a young rapper give up his gangbanging ways. Who knows what happened, but the drug war contributes in no small measure to the violent crime problem in the Chicago communities that are plagued by gun violence.

  14. is this Chicago’s Newtown???
    Is this what has to happen to make Chicago TAKE action? This can’t continue at this rate. Gun laws are necessary but are only one piece of it. These kids are being raised in a gang culture and have no regard for life at all. Prison time is a badge of honor. If they try to leave a gang, they get killed just like Ronnie did.

    Nobody cares about these kids and they know it!!!! These neighborhoods are crying out for us to help them. For us to give a shit about them.

    Someone who shoots a gun has an awful lot of hurt inside them.
    We must work on the root of the problem – that pain, suffering and hurt.

  15. While regrettable, the kid was sitting in a parked car in gangtown and got popped in the head. The gangbangers aren’t going to turn their guns in and they don’t buy them at gun shows. While this woman’s life is a tragedy, cherrypicking one single heartbreaking example and holding it up to illustrate the need for sweeping legislation is a tactic that you would be against with respect to other social issues.

    Toward the end of your piece, you point out correctly that we will also need to work on other social problems such as poverty and education, but the sad fact is that we’ll see knee jerk gun control legislation or perhaps executive orders enacted but there won’t be an iota of attention focused on this nation’s other deplorable social conditions that place us squarely in the category of third world nations.

    I’d just as soon keep my right and ability to protect myself and my family in the free for all that the United States has become.

  16. Dr. X:

    Gunrunning is a class 1 felony in Illinois, with a penalty of 6 to 30 years in prison, so I guess that hasn’t been much of a success, either.

  17. By the way, I eliminated a felony in Illinois three decades ago: People v. Alejos, 97 Ill. 2d 502 (1983). Anita Alvarez was one of my opponents in the 1980s. She remains one of the worst prosecutors in the USA. Anita Alvarez echoes the word of “Scarface” hinself, Al Capone: “Capitalism is the racket of the ruling class.” Read a book, my brother. . .Over and out.

  18. The military take soldiers out of the combat zone after 2 have been KIA. Maybe the Teeny Tiny Mayor should have moved this family to Iowa, Wi., Mn, after the first 2 losses. But, he can still admit failure of his strict handgun laws and move this poor family out of his depraved and failed innercity. The white neighborhoods and Mag Mile are doing just fine but they wouldn’t allow “THIS TYPE” to move onto their enclaves. This is Chicago, and anyone who denies it is either stupid or a liar.

  19. I am totally against banning guns at all. There are too many out there and banning them for those who buy them legally would do nothing to stop the tens of thousands and possibly more that are illegally owned.

    That being said, I have no problem regulating the sale of ammunition. Photo ID, registration, tracking of purchases, the whole lot.

    As far as the mental health issue, for me that is a no brainer. Mental health needs to become a priority in this nation. I mean no offense to all you ACLU supporters out there, but if a violent, mentally ill person who will not take their medication needs to be confined…permenantly if necessary. There need to be more laws to protect the general public from violent, unpredictable individuals whose families can no longer or will no longer handle the situation.

  20. About regulating ammunition, let me point this out: when the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed, it required everybody buying ammunition to show a photo ID, and the store selling it had to keep a record of the person’s name, address, amount & type of ammunition, etc. In 1986 this was repealed. I believe I remember hearing that some official of the BATF was asked in a congressional hearing or something whether that ammo record-keeping requirement had ever played a part in solving any crimes, and he responded by saying that as far as he could tell, not one single time had that ever happened. So I think we could expect similar results if somebody tried to regulate ammo again. And then of course you have thousands of shooters who load their own ammo.

  21. I’m finished talking about this issue and I am now actively working to bring strict accountability to gun ownership. Strict and expensive.

  22. 1. Politicians take note when white kids in Newtown are gunned down, but ignore black carnage in Chicago and elsewhere.
    2. Criminals do not obey laws and don’t care what gun laws are on the books.
    3. Current laws are not enforced so why do we need more of them?
    4. When there is no consequence for a behavior, the system becomes the enabler.
    5. Prison doors are referred to as ‘revolving.’ There is no fear of incarceration. It’s a coffee break.

    system failure

  23. Yes, due to the strenuous efforts of the NRA, there is an enormous oversupply of guns in this country. Criminals, or any “law-abiding citizen,” who becomes angry or fearful, have no problem getting one. More guns equals more firearm deaths. A very large percentage of our population is delusional and paranoid. Giving them guns to act on their fantasies is beyond foolish.

    We need to start somewhere. The first step is to stop the insane increase in distributed guns. Forty-percent of gun sales are private, without background checks. Ending unrestricted sales will slow the distribution of guns to criminals and the insane.
    Then restrict the sale of ammo. Don’t just register it.

    There is no one answer to this problem. If we are to get out of this hole we’ve created by providing too many guns, we need to at least stop digging the hole deeper.

    My right not to be shot trumps your right to indulge your fantasies with a firearm.

  24. Porkchop,
    I erect fully disagree with your reading of the Helller case.
    Bob Kauten,
    I agree that we have to start somewhere. The assault weapons ban with a ban on large magazines would help that start. Stopping the private sales without background checks is essential.

  25. There are common sense solutions that can help prevent the wrong kind of people from buying weapons as well as other measures that can make gun crime less attractive. Some of the ideas below are already being floated, others I have not seen.

    1) Better background checks for both mental health issues (can be done blindly to avoid HIPPA concerns) and previous violent criminal offenses involving weapons.
    2) Require gun dealers to not only keep inventory but make reporting that inventory mandatory. There should not be much leeway for discrepancies (if they are not corrected) before a dealer gets their license suspended. Multiple or chronic offenders should loose both their license and their inventory.
    3) Micro-stamping lot numbers on to not just ammo but all brass and shells and make recording that number with the sale mandatory. Combine this with a program to eliminate unstamped brass and shells, something alone the lines of a buy back or discount toward stamped brass and shells.
    4) Make manufacturers start a ballistics database that records the signature of every rifled weapon they sell (this won’t work for shotguns, but micro-stamping shells would go some way to tracking them).
    5) Make registering private sales or other private transfers mandatory.
    6) Stop gun shows. Make dealers operate out of a shop or their home.
    7) Limit bulk ammo purchases including bulk purchases of reloading supplies.
    8) Put proper focus on handguns and their regulation as they are the largest number of weapon by type used in gun violence statistically speaking.
    9) Encourage manufactures to go to “smart fire/smart safety” technologies that make sure a handgun is usable only to registered users. With today’s computer technology getting smaller and faster every day, I should be able to buy a pistol I can program to fire for only me and my spouse or other immediate family. It’s not rocket science.
    10) Make sure guns seized as evidence or bought back to be destroyed really do get destroyed instead of back into the market.

    Keep in mind that even these restrictions will result in the rise of a certain level of black market activity, but not as severe as what you’d see with bans. Prohibition, be it drugs or guns or booze, does nothing but create black markets. Any approach to gun control is going to have to be about market controls, tracking who buys and sells what, and making sure that the first line of defense in keeping crazy people and criminals from buying guns – the gun dealer – bears the brunt of the duty to make sure their products don’t get into the wrong hands. Being a gun dealer should be a highly regulated and monitored profession.

    That being said, none, I repeat – none, of these measures will stop either a professional criminal or a determined crazy person from getting access to firearms. Between the option of theft and the black market, they will always be able to become armed if they have the desire and the cash. Unlink most here, I’ve actually known black market arms dealers. They are amoral and generally evil people with no concern for what is done with what they sell. The harder you come down on legal gun sales, the more opportunity profits you create for them. If you want to hurt them, you are simply going to have 11) to go with laws designed to keep them off the streets as if they were themselves pulling the triggers of their products combined with efforts to make the guns themselves harder to move without leaving a trail. The paper trail is the black marketeer’s enemy. Use it against them.

  26. Gene H.: Just in case you were not aware, being a gun dealer is already a highly regulated and monitored profession. Every gun they sell has to be recorded, and the buyer must get instant-background-check approval, which the gun dealer has to get from the FBI. The BATF comes in and regularly inspects their records, and they can get in trouble if they are not maintained correctly. Is that not enough for you?

  27. So we don’t have a problem with guns in the US. Glad to hear it because you could have fooled me. Lets say that what we really have is a failure of the mental health system to:help mentally ill mass murders? or to Create a list of prospective mass murders. If this is the case why aren’t all that “its mental health” crowd fighting improving the health care system to take care of the mentally ill. I’ll tell you why because the metal illness claim is just a smoke screen to protect guns, gun manufactures and the NRA.

    If its the list, from past conduct we know that even if such a list could be put together, and that is a big IF, the same people who are clambering for it would put every procedural road block in front of actually using it to prevent gun purchases or they would defund the agency in charge. We have a list of prospective “terrorists” called the no fly list but the NRA does not believe that people on the no fly list should be stopped from buying a gun, 10 guns, 20 guns or more. The NRA has fought for quick and lax procedures to return guns to felons, often those involved in domestic violence ( of course those fellons might only kill their wives or girl friends so no problem) and the GOP has supported these laws.

    These claims are distractions. When it comes to guns, it is all about distraction. We need gun control now.

  28. Porkchop – It is still illegal in Illinois to carry or possess a loaded firearm outside one’s home (the only state with such an absolute prohibition on both concealed and open carry).

    Not entirely true… Technically Maryland and NJ fall into that, too. In MD, there is a permit system where they require a “good and substantial reason” to get a permit to carry, and almost nobody qualifies. Basically, if you’re a cop or some sorta security personnel, you might qualify. That’s about it.

    New Jersey has similar ridiculous laws and hurdles.

  29. Raff,


    I [respectfully] disagree with your reading of the Heller case.”

    1. From Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller (slip opinion at 545-55):

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
    Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
    the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
    explained that the right was not a right to keep and
    carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
    and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
    346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
    the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
    question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
    weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
    state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
    at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
    Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
    11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
    exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
    Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.”

    Is there another part that I should be reading?

    2. Do you intend to respond to the rest of the post?

    I would still like to understand why/how Illinois gun control laws have been a success, or, at least, not a failure. It is illegal in Illinois for ordinary citizens to possess a loaded firearm outside the home (perhaps that is going to change with the recent 7th Circuit decision, but for now it is true), and very difficult to have one in the home. Yet Chicago continues to be a national leader in gun homicides. Illinois has one of the most, if not the most, restrictive statutory schemes in the country, but it doesn’t seem to be doing much to slow that down. Could it be that people who are willing to break the law to commit murder are not deterred by laws against possessing firearms? Could it be that the people who are deterred by laws against possessing firearms, are most likely also deterred by laws against murder?

    With respect, I think that Chicago needs to do something about its own thugs, not blame and penalize every gun owner in the country for its problems.

  30. brerrabbit771, January 27, 2013 at 9:35 pm sais
    “…I believe I remember hearing that some official of the BATF was asked in a congressional hearing or something whether that ammo record-keeping requirement had ever played a part in solving any crimes, and he responded by saying that as far as he could tell, not one single time had that ever happened. ”

    Ah yes and no one has ever lied before a congression hearing panel, nope, didnt know cigarettes were carcinogenic, nope, no gas price rigging. Nope, no one lies, Ollie North in Iran Contra. I could go and on, sadly but using that as your “proof” is, to me, nonsensical.

  31. leejcarroll

    BATF is generally not viewed as gun-friendly or gun-owner-friendly, and, like most government agencies, tends to favor positions that would increase its authority,not diminish it. The testimony you apparently disbelieve was uncharacteristically favorable to gun owners and indicated that BATF saw no reason to increase its regulatory authority.

    The testimony you allude to to support your cynicism was from private parties (or in North’s case) a former or soon-to-be-former government official misleading congressional investigators at a time when they were subject to civil suits and/or potential criminal actions.

    Do you see the difference? No one was going to sue or prosecute the BATF witness if he had testified the opposite.

  32. Porkchop, thanks for replying to that last post. I would also add that if somebody at BATF was going to lie about it, they probably would have stated the opposite, i.e. tried to claim that the ammo-record-keeping HAD helped solve crimes when in fact it had not.

  33. Porkchop,
    the answer to the first part of your question is found in the statement you quoted from Scalia. , “nothing in our opinion should 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.”’ The reasonable gun controls that have been discussed easily fit in the terms listed by Scalia.
    As to your demand for evidence, you are forgetting that the weapons used in the gang wars are usually not obtained legally, but as stated above, any gun can be purchased at the guns shows without a background check from a private party. Are you suggesting that there is proof that none of the illegal guns were purchased in this way? Without closing that loophole, we still have a way for people to get guns “legally” without a background check.
    I submit that unless Chicago goes the way of NYC and stops and frisks thousands of people a year, the illegal guns will still be available. I did not say that the Illinois law was perfect, you are the one that suggested it was doing little or nothing to prevent murders by gun. According to longer term records, Chicago gun murders were down until the last couple of years. The record amount was close to a thousand in the early 1990’s. If you look at the murder rate in 2011 according to the FBI, Georgia has the same murder rate as Illinois at 5.6 for every 100,000 residents. Louisiana had 11.2 for every 100,000. The data did not break it down by weapon. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5 Does Georgia and Louisiana have a problem even with their much more lax gun laws? Maryland was higher as was Michigan, Missouri and Mississippi, New Mexico. I could go on.

  34. No I see, and know the difference.
    I don;t believe ir disbelieve it, I was replying to your comeent in general.
    People lie in front of panels, for whatever their reasons might be so I do not believe them just because they have taken an oath to tell the truth.

  35. Regarding the various sales methods of guns and how easy it is or isn’t for gang-bangers to get them, I will point out a couple of things: #1, there are so many guns in the world today that someone would have to be completely dissociated from reality to even THINK that some law would get them all registered (as if that would stop anybody from actually using one to commit a crime anyway), #2, criminals will always find ways to get them illegally (such as stealing them), and #3, there are devices that are coming out called “3-D printers” which make it possible to make small objects by means of blueprints or similar data fed into a computer which controls it, and once the use and availability of them becomes widespread, do these anti-gunners really think they’re going to stop anybody who wants a gun from getting one?

  36. “The reasonable gun controls that have been discussed easily fit in the terms listed by Scalia.”

    Yes, you can always win an argument when you assume your conclusion.


    “As to your demand for evidence, you are forgetting that the weapons used in the gang wars are usually not obtained legally, . . .”

    Well, if obtaining those weapons is already, then how would more laws help? Gunrunning (illegal sale of three or more guns) is already a class 1 felony in Illinois with a penalty of 6 to 30 years in prison.


    “but as stated above, any gun can be purchased at the guns shows without a background check from a private party. Are you suggesting that there is proof that none of the illegal guns were purchased in this way? Without closing that loophole, we still have a way for people to get guns “legally” without a background check.”

    I think that you have the question of “proof” backwards. If you are espousing new laws, you should provide evidence that there is an actual problem and that the laws you espouse actually address that they are problem. By the way, Illinois strictly regulates the intrastate sale and delivery of firearms (720 ILCS 5/24-3), but provides an exception for gun show sales *to nonresidents.* (720 ILCS 5/24-3(g)(3). So, Illinois has no problem exporting firearms to other states


    I originally stated that Illinois and Chicago gun control laws have been a massive failure. You replied that gun control laws were not a massive failure. I asked you to explain to me how or why Illinois and Chicago gun control laws were a success, or, at least, not a failure. You have not done so.

    For comparison to the statistics you cite, there was an interesting story here in Virginia today courtesy of NBC News:

    “Firearm-Related Homicides, Injuries Decline in Va. ”


    It refers to a longer story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which notes:

    “Gun-related homicides and serious injuries from gun assaults in Virginia have been trending downward for at least six years, and a new survey suggests the state’s booming gun sales have not triggered an increase in the proportion of people slain by a gun or who use a firearm to commit suicide.”

    “When state population increases are factored in, gun-related homicides fell 37 percent, from 4.72 deaths per 100,000 in 2005 to 2.99 in 2011.” [You stated in your post that “If you look at the murder rate in 2011 according to the FBI, Georgia has the same murder rate as Illinois at 5.6 for every 100,000 residents.” So Virginia started with a lower homicide rate than Illinois and went to an even lower rate.]

    Gun-related homicides and suicides are down by 37% since 2005, and gun sales are estimated to be up by 73%. The total number of violent crimes is down 24%. [As I noted above, Virginia is an open-carry state and a shall-issue concealed carry state.]


    By the way, according to the NBC News story, the state medical examiner’s report noted that there was only one homicide from a so-called “assault” weapon.

  37. Should say: “If you are espousing new laws, you should provide evidence that there is an actual problem and that the laws you espouse actually address that problem.”

  38. Swarthmore mom,

    That heckling was inexcusably rude.

    That being said, the gentleman was simply factually wrong in the quoted statements from the hearing.

    People can and do hunt with AR-15 platform rifles — usually chambered in a larger caliber than .223 (or 5.56mm), such as .308 Winchester or .30-06.

    Second, the AR-15 in .223 caliber is a safer and more effective home defense weapon than many others in common use. The ballistic characteristics of the .223 round in a hollow-point round (the military uses full metal jacket ammunition as required by the Geneva convention) are such that it has a lower penetration (that is, a stray round is less likely to wound someone in another room or outside the house) than most common handgun rounds and shotgun ammunition. The .223 caliber rifle round is low-powered; that is why it was adopted for close quarter battle, especially within buildings. (By comparison, the World War II main battle rifle, the M1 Garand was longer, heavier, and more unwieldy, and was chambered for the .30-06 round which has a much greater effective range and much greater penetration.) The .223 round is actually less likely to harm bystanders (that is someone who happens to be outside the house or in another room) than a round from say, a .38 Special caliber revolver, a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol, or a 12 gauge shotgun.

    In addition, the AR-15 can be fitted with tactical flashlights and laser sights. I understand that some people find all that scary, but both of those add-ons mean that if someone invades your home at night, you will be able to see them and aim accurately, minimizing harm to others, if you have to shoot. You are less likely to miss your target with this added equipment. The commonly-found collapsible stock means that the weapon is shorter and more easily maneuvered in close quarters. The pistol grip and foregrip assist in accuracy and maneuverability, as well.

  39. Hadiya Pendleton Dead: Chicago Teen Who Performed At Inaugural Events Fatally Shot

    01/30/13 08:59 AM ET EST AP

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/hadiya-pendleton-dead-chi_n_2581309.html (with video)

    CHICAGO — A 15-year-old majorette who performed at some of President Barack Obama’s recent inauguration festivities has been shot to death in Chicago.

    Police say Hadiya Pendleton was shot in the back Tuesday in a South Side park and died at a city hospital.

    Authorities say Hadiya was one of about 12 teenagers sheltering from heavy rain under a canopy when a man jumped a fence, ran toward the group and opened fire. The man fled the scene in a vehicle. No arrests have been made.

    Police do not believe Hadiya was the intended target of the shooting. A teenage boy was shot in the leg. Police did not release his name.

    Hadiya belonged to the King College Prep High School band, which performed at several inaugural events in Washington, D.C.

Comments are closed.