Chicagoist: NIU Press Conference

fed up

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:51:19 -0600

Matilda, Twice in the last year riots have broke out in paris suburbs including police being shot (with guns) Denmark has had a week of riots this week. There are many areas of london paris and amsterdam that are just as dangerous as englewood. The notion of low crime Europe is the past not the present.

matilda

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:57:21 -0600

Fed Up: Likely not only immigration, but other economic matters as well. That said, it is nice to walk around European cities never having to worry about gun crime, especially the random sort, such as muggings. That doesn't mean the places are 100% safe, only that you do not have to worry about guns. It really leads to lower levels of tension, I think. I think this is something to think about when we talk about future gun control, or the lack of it. I am not necessarily a gun-control nut, but only trying to offer something to think about.

A2

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:42:56 -0600

Well, traditionally, the homicide rate in many European countries and Japan has been about an eighth of what it is here.

fed up

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:41:20 -0600

Actually police in Britian are starting to carry guns and if you check the internet Denmark has had 6 nights of violence and looting, crime is increasing in Europe. something about immigration.

A2

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:57:03 -0600

Because the idea of everyone walking around with a concealed weapon hoping to get the drop on the next person that robs them is asinine. Whatever the solution they have in Europe and Asia is, where the homicide rate is a mere fraction of what it is in America, I believe is a much more viable answer. I know it's not concealed weapons.

theallyling

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:21:05 -0600

.... If people being armed and capable of defending themselves prevents crime, how is that not a solution??

A2

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:24:25 -0600

I think it's ridiculous that the "solution" to our crime-ridden country is that we all carry handguns around! This is not a solution!

theallyling

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:44:57 -0600

Well, look at the states that allow concealed carry. Their crime rates are drastically lower than those without. And no, I was not trying to compare a city-wide gun ban to a nation-wide gun ban. I was simply responding to the comment about Chicago. (Which was apparently sarcastic...and I apologize for not picking up on that.) But, I can bet you that they're not going to take away the guns from the police. And, I guess you do have to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist to hold this belief, but I do fear our government and the fact that they love trying to get more power. And if they could take away all of our guns and still have guns for themselves, that just spells trouble. Not to mention that it's completely unconstitutional. Our founding fathers understood the need for the people to maintain some balance of power to keep government in check and they gave us that power. I'm not trying to downplay the horrible crimes that take place...but, I maintain that the criminals that have no regard for the law will always have their ways of wreaking havoc. Be it with guns obtained illegally (which, I know you're convinced they can regulate...but just look at drugs. They're illegal nationwide, yet the people that do them still manage to get them. It's the way it works. If someone will buy it, someone will sell it.) or some newly created method. We're better off to have a way of protecting ourselves than to trust that such a large legislation can be properly managed and enforced.

A2

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:44:34 -0600

Designating a city amid an entire country awash with guns is a well-intentioned but obviously futile gesture. Banning guns on a national level with strict enforcement policies--and I mean strict--would likely be a different story. We have to look at our country and ask ourselves why our crime rates are so disproportionately high. They are unacceptable.

mepps

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:29:38 -0600

theallything; That was a sarcastic sentence. I was saying that obviously since chicago has a gun ban, there hasn't been any gun related crimes. Kind of like how NIU is a 'gun free zone'- This dumbass killer must not have been able to read the signs that said 'gun free zone', or else he surely wouldn't have brought the guns on campus.... - IN other words, gun bans and gun free zones are the most ridiculous ideas you can come across

A2

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:53:26 -0600

You aren't seriously trying to equate the effectiveness of a city-wide gun ban with a potential national gun ban, are you? I don't want to waste the infintisimal amount of electricty needed to create the letters to address that one.

theallyling

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:04:05 -0600

And I just noticed someone made the claim that Chicago has had no gun crime since it's ban was passed in 1982....and that is a ridiculous and untrue statement. You can find all sorts of information about the INCREASE in violent crimes if you just look. The murder rate in Chicago before the ban was passed was 5.5 times as high as it's neighboring counties...during the 5 years following, it went up to 12 times as high. Sorry, but banning guns does NOTHING to curb murder and violent crime...except leave innocent people to be victims with no means of defense.

theallyling

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:57:02 -0600

It's not an issue of rednecks vs. "normal people". I live in a big city outside of Chicago. I'm a perfectly "normal" individual, have never lived in the sticks or anything like that....but, I believe people have the constitutional right to keep and BEAR arms. I believe the issue truly lies with the bearing part of that statement. In Illinois, you can keep arms, but you cannot legally carry them on your person. Now, for the perfectly law-abiding citizens...what good does that do? With the recent shooting in Tinley Park at Lane Bryant and now this (I'll be attending NIU myself come this fall)...how many lives might have been saved if someone else in that auditorium were legally carrying a gun of their own and could have reacted? I can tell you as a single female, I would most certainly be carrying a gun if it were legal. The problem is, people think that these gun laws are actually going to prevent incidents like this....but the individuals that do things like that will always have their ways of obtaining firearms or other destructive weapons. They don't really care about the law...they're either out of their mind or they're criminals. But, more gun laws leaves those of us that actually follow the laws defenseless. How does that help? It's been statistically evidenced that states that allow concealed carry have a much lower violent crime rate. Why do people ignore this? Also, we DO still need the ability to overthrow tyrannical governments...especially with how quickly we are once again approaching one. Handing over our guns and allowing the government to take that right away from us as well would only be moving us one step closer. Our Constitution is being thrown out the window...we need to have the right to defend ourselves.

matilda

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:59:20 -0600

Actually, Mepps, don't flatter yourself on this point. I wasn't really responding your idea about knives--I didn't even read it until now. I was merely talking in a general sense.

mepps

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:51:09 -0600

I did, but Matilda missed the point of it

fed up

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:34:48 -0600

matilda, who said anything about a knife?

matilda

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:16:23 -0600

Fed Up: one can blame the asshole shooter and still have a problem with guns. and don't tell me a knife is the same as a shotgun, either. We both know that's not true.

fed up

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:07:30 -0600

A2 Do you place any blame on the shooter or just the gun? Why are people afraid to blame the asshole shooter. I am all for responsible gun laws and no there is no need to buy assault weapons or a few guns at once. But taking the guns away wont stop pieces of shit like this guy from killing it will just make all of us marvel at the new ways destruction can be caused with a little knowledge and a desire to harm others.

mepps

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:53:42 -0600

"Further, the second amenment was designed, from my understanding of it, to help us overthrow a tyrannical government." Thats just the problem, like most controversial issues it is the opinion holders' opinion. 2nd ammendment can be contrived that it was meant only for organized militia- hence a gun ban in Chicago and DC (and why Chicago and DC havn't had any gun crime since the legislation passed). Most importantly, it is directly addressed in the Constitutions 2nd amendment, therefore I think you get a lot of politicians actually wanting to do things, but messing with the constitution gets hackles raised. Not many modern day controversial things are adressed so directly in it. - Kind of like adding amendments about gay marriage; nice to talk about for some people, but will never actually happen.

matilda

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:35:12 -0600

Devil's advocate, A2: I think Iraq (and Afghanistan) is showing what people with small weapons and no jets or many tanks can do against a big military. In fact, one of the reasons the AK-47 has been so popular for so long is its ability to serve small, insurgent forces with relatively little training or spare parts. This is an oversimplication, but I hope you get my point. I am not saying I disagree with your central idea, only this specific point. That said, if the second amendment is moot in regards to fighting tyranny, what are our modern tools for fighting, should it come to this, a turn toward tyranny?

A2

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:12:47 -0600

Matilda, with 15,000 murders in this country per year, I don't believe we are responsible enough to own guns. Further, the second amenment was designed, from my understanding of it, to help us overthrow a tyrannical government. WIth the advent of tanks, flamethrowers, jets, cruise missles, uzis, M-60s, etc., this would seem a moot point. Mepps, I think the "gun control legislation" that gets battered around congress is the biggest farce ever perpatrated on the American people. With more guns than citizens in this country, celebrating bills that up mandatory minimum sentences for felons caught using a handgun in their third violent crime on a Tuesday afternoon serve no purpose but to help politicians get elected and appear they are "tough on crime."

mepps

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:29:47 -0600

A2- The ability to track a gun is always there; its that we can't predict a murderer. Authorities can track a gun no problem; how are supposed to know who is going to kill with them? Like the knife killer in NYC; they know the knifes came from a place in PA, AFTER he used them to murder. WTF- are you supposed to ask people if they plan on using knifes and guns to kill people, then trace the knife 24/7? You can only make proactive gun laws, like the Brady bill, trying to keep guns out of the hands of wackjobs. How are you supposed to make a reactive gun law?- the person already has the gun?!

matilda

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:16:18 -0600

a2: No exemption even for target/sport shooters?

magilla gorilla

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:11:25 -0600

exactly a2. it's closing the barn door after the horse is gone

A2

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:01:59 -0600

I support a ban on all guns except hunting rifles. Does anyone else feel like our current gun control system's primary benefit seems to be identifying where and how the gun came from AFTER someone has been murdered? It is a very efficient system in that regard. We are always able to quickly find out where the murderer purchased his weapon--does this make anyone feel better? Who cares?

Doro

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:46:38 -0600

Check out an article about the media coverage of this tragedy on www.getfreshcut.com

Doro

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:44:34 -0600

Check out this article about the media coverage of this tragedy: http://getfreshcut.com/2008/02/15/covering-the-niu-shootings-sans-ugc/

Doro

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:43:32 -0600

Check out this article about the media coverage of this tragedy: http://getfreshcut.com/2008/02/15/covering-the-niu-shootings-sans-ugc/

magilla gorilla

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:42:28 -0600

it is a serious and tricky privacy issue but something should be done. are there any restrictions in regards to selling mentally disturbed people guns?

Shannon

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:34:08 -0600

thanks for the live blog.

spookhatespuppies

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:24:01 -0600

I don't say it often, but Ward Up is right. I've been diagnosed with bipolar disorder for 16 years now, and I've been on meds for a long time. To point that its had serious physical side effects. But I do it, so that I can control my mood swings and not hurt the people around me that I love and care about. Sure it's a pain in the ass, but I'd much rather shoulder the weight than have my mom worry about me, and to reassure the person I'm dating I wouldn't ever be capable of irrational violence. That said, I'm more than just my brain chemistry. This person in NIU (who, admittedly I know nothing about) could just as easily decide his world view totally acceptable behavior and EVERY OTHER asshole is in the wrong. As a matter of fact, I promise you that's what he thought. And that isn't the sort of thinking that eventually leads to treatment or even medication. So a giant database of the mentally ill, besides being a HUGE privacy issue, wouldn't really save anyone because the people on the verge of buying a giant weapons cache and get right on the brink of using them aren't the sort of responsible people who would divide their meds up into little segmented plastic med containers or talk to someone about their violent urges.

Ward Up

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:59:57 -0600

As a pro-reasonable-gun-control Republican, I agree with the above post. People should be allowed to own handguns. However, the checking process is not adequate, the allowed number of guns purchased per year (heck, isn't one enough?) is too high, and the wait period is too short. Far right Republicans have thwarted solutions to these problems. And you have to protect individual privacy rights. Should someone on Zoloft be prevented from purchasing a handgun? Absolutely not. Should persons be forced to divulge what medications they are taking to an agency doing a background check? No, in my opinion. There are a lot of unintended consequences of that kind of exposure, e.g., having people most in need of treatment actually avoiding treatment and then actually having an enhanced ability to purchase a gun. We need to have a better way to identify people who should be denied guns but we need to do it carefully. The persons

magilla gorilla

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:05:02 -0600

the wacko gun nuts will no doubt disagree, but there must be more restrictions in regards to buying guns. certainly, some kind of database can be created to prevent a mentally disturbed person taking medication from walking into a store and buying 3 guns at the same time. who needs to buy 3 guns in the same day? either he's planning to do something destructive, planning to sell them or giving them out as christmas gifts. congress should do something but most likely will not because there are more rednecks in this country than normal people