Mitt Romney has addressed the prestigious NRA and pledged his belief in the right of Americans to own guns. Over the years, he has voiced a variety of opinions on the matter, but he has now vowed support for the NRA and for the American Constitution.
Sure, we all support some gun ownership. As a boy and a young man I hunted pheasants, ducks, and geese; for the last two, crouching in a chilly and cold duck blind on Wonder Lake. I kept my 12 gauge shotgun clean and well oiled, and the decoys lived in the garage.
But living now in Chicago is another matter.
In one week last year, 52 people were shot, at least eight fatally, in gang-related incidents. A one year old girl was grazed on the ear on West Hastings Street, four men were shot in that incident. That same evening, a drive-by shooting over drug turf near South Kolin Avenue resulted in five people being hospitalized in serious to critical condition. Then, 10 minutes later, police were called to Humboldt Park, a short distance from where a Puerto Rican Day Festival was in full swing: two men were shot there, on West Division Street. Later, shortly after 9 PM, a fifteen year old girl was shot in the hand on West Evergreen Street.
We live in a much different world than the world our founding fathers knew. The old west was still new, and police were far sparser than today's law enforcers. It made sense to allow Americans to carry firearms, but it doesn't make sense today.
Some may consider the thinking of the drafters of the Constitution, and of the members of the Supreme Court, as it applies to gun ownership for a standing militia, and to oppose a potential tyrannical government. This is a compelling argument, but it may also be outdated and unrealistic.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Harry Dale
So, you're saying if guns are outlawed, the gangs would disappear. Wake up John and smell the drugs.
2 - Lou Windsor
You've got to be kidding me. The murder rate is highest in every city of this nation that has the most strict gun laws. Guns aren't the problem, political hacks and corrupt Democrat politicians are the problem.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Looks like the gun nuts are starting to show up.
So...Hey, Gun Nuts! Got a couple questions for you! Why is it that gun violence is so bad in America's inner cities, but is NOT NEARLY so bad in inner cities in other First World nations that have gun laws FAR stricter than here in America?
And while you're trying to figure that one out, you can also answer why it is that in America, while gun violence is worst in our inner cities, on a STATE level, our worst gun violence is MUCH higher in the Republican Deep South than anywhere else in the nation?
I mean, according to YOUR logic, it's those eeeeeeevil Democrats that is the problem - so why is it that the actual murder rate is highest in the Deep South? And why is it that the murder rate in the rest of the oh-so-SOCIALIZED First World is much lower than it is here in America? Hm?
4 - Clavos Juarez Santana Zapata
Since we can't control drugs, even with a myriad of laws addressing the issue, what makes you think we can control guns?
There are currently more than 300 million of them in the hands of americans; if the government, using a newly passed law were to begin to demand they be turned in, what percentage actually would be?
Hint: NONE of those currently in the hands of criminals.
5 - betabox
1. Even if you took out all homicides by guns, the US homicide rate would still be higher than England's. Guns are not the issue.
2. The homicide rate in the US is the lowest it has been in 50 years. Things are not getting worse. They are significantly better.
3. That study you quote is BS and has been thouroghly debunked. You are assuming causation. Ever think that that people who are at a higher risk of being murdered might naturally want to own a gun?
6 - Glenn Contrarian
betabox -
1. Even if you took out all homicides by guns, the US homicide rate would still be higher than England's. Guns are not the issue.
If guns were not the issue, then what is? WHY is gun violence much worse in our inner cities than in the inner cities of the rest of the First World? WHY is gun violence in our strongly-conservative rural southern states much worse than in the rest of the nation? Answer the questions, guy.
2. The homicide rate in the US is the lowest it has been in 50 years. Things are not getting worse. They are significantly better.
Yet they're still much worse than anywhere else in ANY of the other oh-so-socialist First World nations. WHY? Answer the questions, guy.
3. That study you quote is BS and has been thouroghly debunked. You are assuming causation.
Who quoted a study? If you want, I can show you stats all day long. What's tragic is the assumption among gun nuts that a society would somehow become less violent if everybody had guns without regulation and restriction...never mind that there's zero evidence to support such a supposition.
Ever think that that people who are at a higher risk of being murdered might naturally want to own a gun?
So does that mean you think we should arm our children? It's not just adults who are getting killed, guy. It's our kids, too. My own son told me how he knew about ten kids who brought guns to school on a regular basis...which is one reason I took him out of country to finish high school overseas, and I don't regret it for a moment. For your education:
-- The rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is far higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. "We have many more handguns and much weaker gun laws than any other country," says Harvard Professor David Hemenway, who has worked to develop strategies to combat illegal firearms.
-- In 2003, 56 preschoolers were killed by firearms, compared to 52 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.
-- More 10- to 19-year-olds die from gunshot wounds than from any other cause except motor vehicle accidents.
-- Almost 90 percent of the children and teens killed by firearms in 2003 were boys.
-- Boys ages 15 to 19 are nearly nine times as likely as girls of the same age to be killed by a firearm.
-- In 2003, there were more than nine times as many suicides by guns among white children and teens as among black children and teens.
-- The firearm death rate for black males ages 15 to 19 is more than four times that of white males the same age.
-- The seven states that recorded the most deaths among children and teens by firearms in 2003 were California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. The state with the fewest child gun deaths was Hawaii with one.
================================
betabox, do you really know what most Democrats and liberals such as myself want? Hint: despite what Fox News will tell you, most of us do NOT want guns banned (because Pandora's out of the box and she ain't getting back in). MOST of us want gun registration for all firearm purchases, background checks for all firearm purchases to try to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazies, and mandatory reporting when firearms are stolen. And in my own opinion, I'd support mandatory firearms safety training prior to the first purchase of any particular class of firearm - even if it's given by the NRA.
I suspect that if you'd check, what I described above are STILL less restrictive than anywhere else among the First World nations. Problem is, y'all have been so...indoctrinated by the NRA and the gun industry who are getting rich off the paranoia they've fostered in you, that you probably cannot see the sense in what I've just told you.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
That's a classic case of throwing one's hands up and saying "the problem's too big, so it wouldn't do any good for us to try anyway!" What's more, you're adding the strawman of "the guv'mint's a-gonna take all our guns" into it for good measure.
Very, very few big problems ever got solved overnight by flipping a switch or passing a law. For one of this magnitude, it would take decades...but does that mean we shouldn't even try? Take the Civil Rights Act - it took generations for America to get to the point to where the CRA was even politically possible, and even now we've still got a lot of racism in America. Does that mean, then that we should never have even tried to pass the CRA?
Look at the big picture in the long view of history, friend. We're NEVER going to make America safer by pumping ever more guns into the streets, and it will only get worse when those guns are unregulated and untracked and the buyers not held accountable for their guns.
If we had gun regulations like those in most of the rest of the First World, our level of violence would NOT drop overnight or even in the first five years...but it would drop greatly in the generations to come.
It sure would be nice to walk down the street feeling safe in any big city in America like it is right now in Vancouver, B.C., with a metropolitan population exceeding 2M people. Think about that, Clavos - a truly big city just across the border...and it's a heck of a lot safer there than in any big city in America. They've got lots of minorities there, and lots of drugs too. So why is it safer in Vancouver B.C. than in, say, Seattle, or Dallas, or even the safest city in America - New York City?
8 - Clavos Juarez Santana Zapata
you're adding the strawman of "the guv'mint's a-gonna take all our guns" into it for good measure.
I didn't add squat; I postulated a hypothetical. However, I DO believe that any further steps taken towards gun control WILL ultimately (but not immediately) result in confiscation. I also doubt that even currently law abiding gun owners will give up ALL their guns; I won't.
If we had gun regulations like those in most of the rest of the First World, our level of violence would NOT drop overnight or even in the first five years...but it would drop greatly in the generations to come.
Have drug laws even slowed the importation of drugs??? No. Much more drugs are on our streets than ever before.
Vancouver, B.C...a truly big city just across the border...and it's a heck of a lot safer there than in any big city in America.
Did they start with 300 million weapons already on the streets? Again, no. Are there other factors that bear on that? Such concepts as fewer illegal aliens? A greater respect for the law and authority on the part of the Canadian populace vis-a-vis the american populace?
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
I didn't add squat; I postulated a hypothetical. However, I DO believe that any further steps taken towards gun control WILL ultimately (but not immediately) result in confiscation. I also doubt that even currently law abiding gun owners will give up ALL their guns; I won't.
You've been paying way too much attention to the right wing blogs. YES, there are some liberals who want to take away your guns, but must of us do NOT. Confiscation hasn't happened in the rest of the First-World democracies, and it wouldn't happen here. Confiscation is a meme that the NRA and the gun manufacturers (and the far right) use to make money, and that's all it is.
Have drug laws even slowed the importation of drugs??? No. Much more drugs are on our streets than ever before.
Apples and oranges, Clavos. One can't get ticked off at the wife and go kill her and the kids with a joint or a hit of meth.
Did they start with 300 million weapons already on the streets? Again, no. Are there other factors that bear on that? Such concepts as fewer illegal aliens? A greater respect for the law and authority on the part of the Canadian populace vis-a-vis the american populace?
"300 million weapons already on the streets" - there you go throwing your hands up again, giving up before you even start trying. Fewer illegal aliens - FYI, they've got quite a few, but illegal aliens do NOT factor into the gun violence debate.
And as for "a greater respect for the law and authority"...gee, which party is it that says they want government to be small enough to drown it in the bathtub? And then passes laws regulating what a woman can and can't do with her uterus?
You're on the wrong side, friend. Your side has gone looney tunes.
10 - Clavos Juarez Santana Zapata
Apples and oranges, Clavos. One can't get ticked off at the wife and go kill her and the kids with a joint or a hit of meth
Totally irrelevant non sequitur which doesn't even BEGIN to address the point I made...
You're on the wrong side, friend.
Who are you to say which side is "wrong" and which is "right" in what is an opinion issue?
I agree that, in your opinion, I'm on the "wrong" side, and deliberately so; I would not be able to live with myself if I were on your side in just about all the issues we discuss.
11 - Igor
In Florida, it seems to me, that if two drug dealers confront and each draws his weapon in fear of the other, bullets fly and both survive, but a nearby child is killed, nobody can be prosecuted. Each dealer is exculpated by the Stand Your Ground law.
12 - Montana Libertarian
Igor - #11
You are seriously wrong. Try to read the law.
As to guns, I believe people like Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer along with others of their ilk, who are candid about wanting to take all guns out of the hands of citizens.
If you want to address inner city violence, address gangs.
One of my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. My family has born arms ever since. We have no intention of giving up that right, regardless of who wants us to do so.
When you come for my guns, you'd better bring yours. You'll be needing them.
13 - Duncan
Mr. Contrarian:
You said "Why is it that gun violence is so bad in America's inner cities, but is NOT NEARLY so bad in inner cities in other First World nations that have gun laws FAR stricter than here in America?
I cannot comment on the reason why America has gun violence, because I have never seen a firearm discharge itself without the intervention of some other entity.
Consider this: There is a minimum number of gross actions that must be taken to fire a weapon.
1: The weapon must be obtained
2: The ammunition must be obtained
3: The weapon must be loaded
4: The weapon must be brought to bear
5: The trigger must be pulled.
If we know that a firearm is an inanimate object, and an inanimate object cannot cause damage without the interference of an outside actor, and it takes at minimum five steps to fire one bullet (presuming a non-automatic weapon,) how can one conclude logically that it was the fault of the inanimate object?
I will agree that not everyone is responsible enough to own a weapon and there are some, due to legal and or mental status that should never be allowed to own firearms, but where is the fault for a criminal act? Does it lie with the person that committed the criminal act or with the inanimate object?
If someone kills a family while driving under the influence, do we blame the alcohol, the car or the person?
But back to firearms.
We have high degrees of criminal activity, to include homicide and rape because of socio-economic factors, and inadequate parenting skills by those who think that having babies is more important than having the means to raise them.
The rate of violence lies squarely on the shoulders of those committing the violence.
14 - Nanjing03
Igor, the Stand Your Ground law would not protect two drug dealers who threw down on each other simply because that law clearly states that the shooter in question has to be in a lawful place and performing a lawful act. That is the question now with the Zimmerman/Martin case. Was Zimmerman lawfully where he was supposed to be and was he performing a lawful act. Those questions and other details have to be investigated and determined.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Duncan -
The problem with that approach is that it means that there's no reason for people not to have, say, claymore mines or hand grenades or .50-cal machine guns...because it's not the claymore that arms itself - it's the person. So if we follow your 'logic' out to its conclusion, there's no reason for any American citizen to not have just about any weapon designed by the mind of man.
Guns don't fire themselves, true - but guns just make it a heck of a lot easier to kill people, as we can see almost every time a guy kills a cop, or kills his wife and kids, or kills innocent teenagers in a drive-by.
If gun regulation is so terrible, Duncan, then I ask you the SAME questions I've been asking all the other conservatives (which has as yet gone unanswered): Why is it that, if guns are not what's resulting in so much gun violence in America, the rest of the First-World nations are SO much safer than America? Why is it that the part of America where guns are least regulated - the South - is also the part of America that has the highest murder rate?
WHY, Duncan? Or is your (false) interpretation of the Second Amendment more important than the 2000-3000 kids - kids! - who get killed every single year by guns?
16 - R.A. Bullseye
Owning a gun and the 2nd amendment isn't about protection it's about liberty. Protecting liberty. So let the nay sayers say what they want to say and let the ivy league lawyers do what they want to do but the truth is the truth and it will live longer than any lie.
17 - Willbill
Firearms rights have been expanded over last several years, and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, gun ban groups and zealot predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in murders. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows Murder is down by 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%
Murder victims by weapon 2006-2010
Crime per 100,000 inhabitants 1991-2010
Crime, % change over time
By contrast, the United Kingdom enacted extreme firearms bans years ago, and gun crime in the U.K. has doubled in a decade.
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws.
18 - Willbill
Glenn, The Brady Campaign views Vermont as the worst case scenario, and they give Vermont a score of 6 out of 100 for its firearms laws. Even though citizens in Vermont are free to carry firearms both openly or concealed without a permit, and despite the fact that they are free to carry their firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol and even while consuming alcohol, the homicide rate in Vermont was 1.3 per 100,000 in 2009 and 1.1 per 100,000 in 2010. Of the eight homicides that were committed in Vermont in 2009 none of them were committed using firearms, and of the seven homicides committed in 2010, only two were committed with firearms.
US crime by region 2008-09
Murder by weapon type 2008-09
US crime by region 2010
Murder by weapon type 2010
It has also been found that there is no correlation between firearms ownership and homicide and suicide rates, and many of the countries with the strictest firearms prohibitions have higher homicide and suicide rates than nations without such restrictions.
19 - littlemike
This blog is ridiculous. Chicago? it is completely illegal to even carry a handgun there (along with the rest of Illinois), and Chicago has some of the most repressive of gun laws in the country, one of which was so harsh it had to be stricken down by the US Supreme Court! Which of course means, according to the logic of the gun control crowd, that violent crime does not exist in Chicago. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the country, the "outdated and unrealistic" laws laws that our founding fathers would agree with are keeping people alive.
Face the facts! Gun control is NOT about guns, it is about control.
20 - Kyle Scott
Mr. Lake makes a good point, but until McDonald v City of Chicago (2010) in which SCOTUS struck down Chicago's effective ban on handguns (sorry littlemike but it is now legal to have a handgun in Chicago according to SCOTUS), Chicago had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Good argument, just need a better case study for empirical support.
Mr. Lake makes a reasonable argument. Unfortunately statistics won't resolve the debate. I think (hope) both sides can agree that guns are at least part of the problem and sensible gun laws can be beneficial. The real difficulty is in deciding what is a sensible law.
21 - John Lake
When Daley was mayor he fought hard to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The Supreme Court passed some allowances; Daley was able to interpret/modify the law so that the weapons had to remain in the house. Not the street, not the porch.. in the house.
22 - Montana Libertarian
John Lake:
Citing ANY Chicago pol, much less Richard Daley the Second, in a discussion on human rights is simply absurd.
Chicago is possible the most corrupt place in American, depending on how you rate New Orleans.
23 - Kyle Scott
Mr. Lake, thank you for the clarification. But I still think that Chicago, because it has strict gun laws, isn't the best example to cite to argue that gun laws are the answer.
24 - Gina Collins
Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership for every citizen - you must own an automatic weapon if you own a place of residence. Their violent crime? Near zero... Kennesaw Georgia has mandatory gun ownership...violent crime is miles below the national average. Directly after disarming the German people, the Holocaust began... Crime in Australia jumped 400 percent right after the citizenry was disarmed... Bad guys don't use registered guns...they don't disarm. Decent people will be at the mercy of thugs with no way to defend themselves.
Without the right to bear arms, there is no way to ensure that any other rights are protected. I don't trust our corrupt govt to protect me...do you?
'
25 - Glenn Contrarian
R. A. Bullseye -
Owning a gun and the 2nd amendment isn't about protection it's about liberty. Protecting liberty. So let the nay sayers say what they want to say and let the ivy league lawyers do what they want to do but the truth is the truth and it will live longer than any lie.
Problem is, one can't enjoy liberty if one isn't ALIVE to enjoy it. We have 2000-3000 KIDS die from gun violence every year just so YOU can 'enjoy' your "liberty". One wonders what your view on "pro-life" is....