Pro-gun group growing

Pro-gun group growing

RANTOUL — One by one they stood up, gave their names and place of residence.

Cissna Park, Champaign, Rantoul, Gibson City, Georgetown ... to name a few.

They were first-time attendees at a meeting in Rantoul of, an Illinois nonprofit group of more than 1,000 members and growing.

About 30 newbies in all, they were among more than 300 people who attended the meeting at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 1001 N. Ohio Avenue.

Don't get the wrong impression. This is not a group of sidewinders who enter with guns on their hips, checking their weapons at the door.

Enter the hall, and the atmosphere is like any other group gathering there — the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary or church organization — with a meal followed by a business meeting.

It isn't just area residents who are curious about the group. The press is as well. In addition to a newspaper reporter, a crew from the British Broadcasting Corp. was on hand. Other national media have also covered the group. advocates the right to own and carry guns. It also promotes gun training.

The only difference at this meeting from other groups meeting there was a few handguns on display at a table in the front and a drawing or two with the prize being - what else? - a gun.

And the meeting topic.

Guns, guns, guns. There might not be a hotter topic in the United States these days.

Much of the business meeting included updates from organization president John Boch about efforts to ban guns and Americans' right to bear arms.

Jane Sprandel of Thomasboro was one of those attending for the first time.

Sprandel came with her father, Phil Hamlow of Cissna Park, also a first-time attendee, and said she was on hand because she wanted to educate herself about guns and protecting U.S. citizens' Second Amendment rights.

"The idea behind the movement," Sprandel said, "is most of the gun violence we hear about today is not occurring due to the legal gun owner."

Boch and other members of the organization, which is an arm of the Champaign County Rifle Association, believe those who want to ban the right to own and carry a gun have their focus wrongly fixed. They believe making gun ownership illegal will mean that only the outlaws will carry them.

Exhibit A in their argument is the city of Chicago, which has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country but has one of the highest homicide rates because of gun violence.

Members recently traveled to Chicago, where they handed in about 60 mostly unusable guns as part of the city's trade-in program and received more than $6,200 in gift cards — an action that angered many in the Windy City.

But members said the money will be put to good use. They will use the cards to buy ammunition and firearms for a youth program designed to teach safety and marksmanship.

Sprandel said of her decision to attend the Rantoul meeting, "I guess it concerns me about people who (might not be) able to own their own guns, people who are residents and trained."

Sprandel, who said she became a member of the group that night and expects her husband, Tony, will also become involved, is president of the Thomasboro school board.

"As school board president I do have concerns and what can be done to protect students," Sprandel said. "I think we need to look at all avenues of how to protect our students."

She said she has a firearm owner's identification card and plans to attend a National Rifle Association-sponsored personal defense class.

Dean Burdette of Rantoul, another first-time attendee, said he's always been interested in guns and said he attended because he was invited.

He said he is concerned about the possibility that gun ownership will be outlawed and said the problem lies with the outlaws, not the general population.

The group has drawn attention from unlikely sources, including overseas.

BBC producer Vara Szajkowski said she decided to attend the meeting to film a news segment on Americans' fascination with guns — a topic rather foreign to the British.

The segment aired on the BBC's "News Night."

The Atlantic magazine also did a story on the group.

Guns, their availability and their use in a number of mass killings have sparked outrage nationally. But the sides are drawn on how to handle it.

Boch is passionate about Americans' rights to bear arms.

"What (gun ban activists) are looking to ban are guns that Americans use almost exclusively to protect their homes," Boch said. "(They include the AR-15, America's favorite rifle and the largest-selling rifle in the nation's history, a whole history of products and accessories that go with rifle competition.

"As if that's going to make some sort of impact where in reality hammers are used to kill more people than America's favorite rifle."

According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, 496 murders were committed in 2011 with "blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)." That same year, the FBI reports, 323 murders were linked to rifles. Of the 12,664 murders in 2011, firearms were used in 8,583 of them; 4,081 murders involved other means.

Congress will take up the issue as President Barack Obama has presented proposals that include requirements of background checks for all gun sales and a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

The organization is also closely watching the concealed-carry issue in Illinois. A federal appellate court in December threw out a state ban on concealed weapons and gave the Illinois Legislature six months to come up with a plan to allow people to legally carry guns, which would make the state the last one in the nation allowing weapons for self-defense to be legally carried outside the home. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has asked the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling. is known in Illinois for its Burma Shave-style signs.

The group unveiled at the meeting a new slogan that will be displayed along highways:

"Intruders who come

"For what I own

"May find my home

"Is no gun-free zone."

Boch also recognized a woman at the meeting who is pregnant and called the husband and wife to the front, where he presented maternity tops to the wife. The tops bear the group's logo.

The organization has three chapters in Illinois — in Rantoul, Effingham and Pontiac. Boch said the group will probably expand to Springfield in a couple of months and is considering chapters in Joliet and Beardstown.

"We've grown in the last couple years," Boch said. "We've done a lot of good things as far as protecting our civil rights. Gun control in Illinois is pretty much not going to happen anytime soon."

The group meets the second Tuesday of every month with a meal at 6 p.m. and the business meeting at 7 p.m.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
rsp wrote on January 27, 2013 at 10:01 am


Was that an ad or a story? I was confused by the tone...I've noticed that there was no mention of suicide. One of my closest friends shot himself with a gun that someone loaned to him. Theyy were just trying to be helpful. Within a couple hours he was dead. A relative of mine needed medical care and decided he didn't want to do it so he shot himself. It wasn't within him to just disregard what they told him and live until he died. He shot himself. Neither man talked to a single person about what their plans were. So there wasn't a chance to slow things down. Save a father's life. An uncle, a brother, a son..


"In 2010, the last year for which complete numbers are available, the number of gun deaths by suicide in the United States outnumbered homicides 19,392 to 11,078. If you add up all American gun deaths that year, including accidents, 3 out of 5 people who died from gunshot wounds took their own lives."

Rock586 wrote on January 27, 2013 at 2:01 pm

If someone gives up they will find a way to get out of life.  Maybe a gun in your mind makes it easier?  Sounds like your friend needed mental help and not a gun. If there were no firearms people would Overdose or find some other way.  Don't blame the gun?  Alcohol kills more adults and children than firearms. 

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm

The gun isn't the only thing at fault but it sure as hell is part of it. To claim otherwise shows a complete divorce from rationality.

Rock586 wrote on January 28, 2013 at 10:01 am

Divorce from rationality?  The simple mind of some of the brainwashed is amazing.  Go to the FBI web site and you will see more people are killed by hammers than rifles.   So your logic says ban hammers?  Now who is divorced from rationality?

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 28, 2013 at 5:01 pm

It would be helpful for your argument if you wouldn't say things that simply aren't true.

If you weren't divorced from rationality, you hopefully wouldn't be posting lies.

illini_trucker wrote on January 31, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Actually, using your site u referenced, Rock is correct. Rock did say specifically RIFLES versus HAMMERS. You referenced a snopes site which had a link to the FBI site.

Hammers, clubs, etc took over rifles by at least 100 or more, with the year 2009 being almost double the incidents. Hand guns were actually the big cahoonas causing several thousands of deaths. But then again, the issue at hand is assault RIFLE ban.. Not handguns (yet...)

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 31, 2013 at 4:01 pm

So he was wrong - comparing Rifles vs. HAMMERS AND CLUBS.

Not hammers. So yeah.

(For the record, I'm against an "assault rifle" ban for several reasons). Handgun bans have been determined unconstitutional, so it's really people trying to do what they can. Overall, I think they're going about things the wrong way, but they're not the irrational demons that the NRA makes them out to be. This would be as opposed to the NRA leadership, which ARE irrational demons.

illini_trucker wrote on January 31, 2013 at 6:01 pm

Unfortunately I don't think we will know the breakdown between hammers and other "bludgeonous" (is that even a word lol!!) objects.. I was just trying to state what may have been overlooked! ;)

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 31, 2013 at 7:01 pm

No, I saw it. It's just part of the dishonest argument tactics. I would assume that far more of the killings are by non-hammers. I posted the Snopes article because it speaks to the overall erroneous nature of the argument.

rsp wrote on January 28, 2013 at 5:01 am

Two people. And if they didn't have access to guns they may have tried to do it another way. BUT it would have taken longer and would have given people a chance to save them. It would have given them a chance to reconsider what they were doing. Most suicides are impulsive. If there is a gun in the home it is much more likely to be used on the people in the home than on any intruder. 

bmwest wrote on January 27, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Profile Picture

As present as guns are in American lives, from gangs in urban cities to hunters in rural areas and everyone in between, I'm surprised more discussion hasn't been had around gun safety training as part of school.  That could go a long ways towards preventing accidental deaths and would be in line with the sex ed programs.  It's not meant to encourage use of guns (or sex) but to minimize the negative consequences for those that do.  It's also similar to the archery I remember from high school as part of P.E. class which teaches respect and safety for a potentially deadly weapon.

trent_il wrote on January 30, 2013 at 12:01 pm

I've wondered about that, too. In my high school I was able to learn how to drive a car--a very serious responsibility with potentially deadly consequences if not taken seriously. I was also taught how to balance a check book and learned about credit cards because of all the damage I could do to my own life if I was completely unaware of such things (though, honestly, that training was woefully inadequate!). Knowing how to handle a gun doesn't seem like a terrible idea, even if I never plan on owning one. Of course, I also think everyone should know how to swim even if you don't ever plan to do it recreationally because you just never know when knowledge like that could save your life.

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm

The gun training could be part of summer camps.  Young people could enjoy the outdoors with physical activities, camping, singing, marching, and weapons training while wearing uniforms.  It was successful in the past in other countries.  It builds comradery, leadership, and nationalistic pride.  Of course, it leads to disaster.

The majority of the population do not want guns.  They do not want gun obsessives pushing the need to have guns on their children, and grandchildren.  Only in America has this obsession with guns evolved during the past 60 years.  Even 60 years ago, America was not this obsessed with guns.  At that time; there were hunters, plinkers, and some home defense owners.  Now, it is like a burgeoning revolution.  Today; we have the conspiracy theorists, the preppers, and the mentally ill armed to the teeth.

bluegrass wrote on January 29, 2013 at 4:01 pm

HA!  References to Fascism are always fun.

I also enjoy references to the good ole days gone by, some 60 years.  Yes, nothing but grandpappys, shotguns, dog's named Bow, plinkers, and a very few reasonable people enjoying their home defense.  Ah yes, back in the late 50's and 60's, when there was never any civil unrest, and anyone could freely enjoy the fruits of the land of the free, as long as he was a straight, white man.  Oh, if only the Fox News conpirators and mentally ill preppers wouldn't have ruined it for everyone, and we could go back to that simpler time.  Yes, wouldn't we all love to revel in post war America.  Interesting that you picked a Nazi/fascism reference to start, but then picked 1953 as a date to look back on as the golden age of non-obessive gun culture, considering that in the previous 15 year or so some 60 million people were slaughtered in a world war.  But yeah, good year though.

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 30, 2013 at 8:01 pm

The War was over.  Korea was happening. Young men with combat experience were back home starting their lives. They did not have their M-1's in their closets.  The murder rate was much less than now.  Mass murders in theatres, shopping places, and elementary schools were non-existent.  Americans had ended Fascism instead of re-creating it.  Yes, there was civil unrest.  It suceeded due to non-violent means.  The authors of the day included Gore Vidal, Tennesse Williams, and James Baldwin.  There were not gun stores on the scale of today.  The NRA was made up of sportsman, and hunters; not right wing conspiracy nuts, and lobby representatives.  

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 31, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Americans had ended fascism?  An analysis of McCarthyism would beg to differ.

illini_trucker wrote on January 31, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Not sure about other summer camps, but I know it is for a fact an option for Boy Scouts attending summer camp. Rifle shooting, shotgun shooting, as well as of course general awareness and safety before even a first shot is fired. They actually have a pretty impressive range!!

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 28, 2013 at 12:01 am

"The idea behind the movement," Sprandel said, "is most of the gun violence we hear about today is not occurring due to the legal gun owner.

Sure and then there is this good guy with a gun...

What could go wrong?

rsp wrote on January 28, 2013 at 6:01 am

Just make sure you're safe and have all the protection you need.

Even the D.A. thinks everybody should get guns, even after looking at photos of a  dead child. 

jdmac44 wrote on January 28, 2013 at 8:01 am

Actually I learned to shoot rifle in the Cub Scouts.  If you were really evenly spaced with your fears, you probably wouldn't dare drive a car, on the highway or in town, being that four times as many people die from automobile accidents as do from gunshot wounds.  The only problem I have with the statistics presented above is that those numbers are taken from the CDC for general homicide, they do not distinguish between justifiable homicide and murder, some of those killings were in self-defense or in enforcement of the law.

rsp wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 am

Do you lock your car? Take a test before you got that license to drive? Had to practice and show you could parallel park. Vision test. Need to be able to see straight. Do you need to be able to see straight to print off a paper from a web site and mail it in with a check? In theory someone who is blind could have help and do it. No need to see what they are shooting at. Let's quibble about numbers. 

STM wrote on January 29, 2013 at 9:01 am

If guns supposedly make us safer, and we already have more guns per capita than any other nation on Earth, then why do we also have the highest gun homicide rate of any developed nation. Our rate is 32 times that of Great Britain's, for example.

Really, why?

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 29, 2013 at 12:01 pm

John Wayne westerns, and other assorted myths about American history.  More people died on the Oregon Trail from accidental gun wounds than by Native Americans.  People grew up believing that gun violence was common place in history based on what they saw at the movies, and on TV.  It became an inaccurate culture.  Throw in Rambo, and other macho movies; and the line between reality, and fantasy became blurred.  Look at all of the Preppers, and conspiracy fanatics.  Americans have never experienced a Red Dawn; but they are ready for it now.  The insecure, the gullible, and the John Wayne wantabees believe that the Second Amendment allows them to protect themselves from a tyrantical government.  There are many gun owners that are reasonable, and responsible in supporting gun regulations; but the crazy fringe whipped up by the NRA howls them down.  The Congress receives donations from the NRA; and they worry about alienating the crazy fringe.  We have dumbed down as a country.

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 29, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Ah the ol' cars kill people too when misused argument. What about hammers maaaaaaaan.

Once again we have to define the distinction between cars and are designed to transport people and things. Guns are designed to kill people and animals. Cars are redesigned to make them safer. Guns are redesigned to make them more and more lethal.

A headline you will never see. "Deranged repairman kills 20 children with hammer in locked school"

You save lives how you can by keeping insane people away from weapons of mass destruction. Just like you keep people who have DUI's away from a license to drive. We should put at least that much effort into keeping them separate. Let's start in Illinois by cutting the FOID renewal in half from 10 to 5 years. Requiring as part of that renewal to be able to present the actual guns you have registered in your name for verification of ownership. Mandatory confiscation of weapons when a FOID card is revoked.

Oh and btw how is body armor so easily available to the public? There needs to be serious federal prosecution of anyone supplying body armor or making their own including collaboration with interpol to stop it from coming in from other Countries. There is nothing in the second amendment about body armor, although the doomsday prepper types seem to think it is a birthright.

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm

The guy they arrested in Villa Grove for threatening to kill children in the local school had 50 guns.  Hopefully if he is found guilty, or not guilty; his 50 guns will be confiscated.  If not, I like your idea of registering the guns to the FOID cardholder.  The guy in Villa Grove would need a pickup truck to haul them to the registration site.

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 pm

That is always a mystery to me, some low rent hick has enough money for 50 guns and related ammo and supplies. Brilliant 

bluegrass wrote on January 29, 2013 at 4:01 pm

So now are we going to have a body armor discussion?  Tell me, what constitutes body armor?  Can you define what it is?  Is it a bulletproof vest?  Does it include a helmet?  And what about Under Armour?  Is that okay, or should we check the Bulldogmojo list to see if that would be okay for the average person to have?  What about Amor All?  Should we really be letting people get away with making their plastic shiny and slipperly like that?

What difference does it make that there is no reference to body armor in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the Second Amendment?  Judging my most of the anti-gun comments on this site, there is waning support for the document in any case.  That being said, there is also nothing in the Constitution relating to the iPod, but I can still purchase one.  Unless.... say I bought 500 iPods and made body armor out of them.  Should I be worried about Interpol coming to arrest me in my iPod body armor.  


SaintClarence27 wrote on January 29, 2013 at 4:01 pm

The government can constitutionally outlaw body armor if they choose to do so, is why the constitution is important here. Also, I really haven't seen a whole lot of anti-gun comments on this site, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. A few people, myself included, have merely supported common-sense regulation, along with beefed up background checks and perhaps registration of firearms. None of which are unconstitutional, by the way.

bluegrass wrote on January 30, 2013 at 11:01 am

If you don't see anti-gun comments on the board we have no way to come together there.  

I do not disagree that body armor can be outlawed.  However, the reason I brought up the Constitution was in response to Bulldogmojo's comment about armor (not) being mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.  Just because body armor is not mentioned in any of the Amendments or the original Constitution has no bearing on whether it should be legal to own.  Furthermore, if a doomsday prepper wants to stock up on body armor, or toilet paper, or ammunition, or water purification tablets, it is not beholden upon that individual to establish a "need" with the government.  The whole point of the Constitution was to establish a government upon which the basic premise is that the individual is responsible for determining his or her own needs, and The Bill of Rights is there to limit the government's ability to engage in the formulation of that definition.  

I also am not saying that a national registration of firearms, or universal background checks, or making certain firearms illegal is unConstitutional.  I am saying that any of those peices of legislation weaken the power of the Consitution by taking away power from the individual.  It is also, in my opinion, my duty to oppose legislation that I feel takes power away from me, and puts it in the hands of those who are only in the business of collecting power for the sake of collecting power.  Pelosi, Feinstein, Obama, Durbin, Schumer, Biden, they don't care about you and your safety, and they definitely don't care how many people are killed in gun crimes.  If they really do believe that banning certain guns would curb crimes, why are we having a discussion about banning a type of firearm that is used in a relatively small number of crimes each year?  Can we all at least agree that handguns are used in the overwhelming majority of shootings and crimes in this nation?  Where is the outrage?  Where is the call to ban the handgun?  There is none, because it doesn't fit into the narrative.  They know politically they can't do it, so they make a grab for whatever power they can, which is the big, scary "assault weapon," because it gets their faces on the television.  

There is an endless amount of "common sense" legislation that has been and could be passed Constitutionally.  That doesn't make it right.   


SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 12:01 pm

I've got several points to make, so I'll number them so it makes it easier for me to maintain some level of coherence.

1) I would like to know what you mean by "anti-gun." Unless you're including comments calling for universal background checks, waiting periods, and outlawing large magazines, there really aren't a lot of anti gun comments here. Most people are calling for common sense reasonable regulation, including me (and I'm gun owner and FOID holder).

2) If your argument is that body armor should not be illegal, that's fine. I was just pointing out why body armor is different than "arms," which applies a different level of scrutiny to the laws that are passed. If the question is whether it can be outlawed constitutionally, then you seem to agree that it can.

3) I agree that outlawing body armor is a little extreme, and shouldn't be done.

4) We can agree that handguns are responsible for the vast majority of firearm deaths; however, the reason that politicians that you seem to demonize above aren't calling for the ban of handguns is that it HAS been determined to be unconstitutional. So your claim that it "doesn't fit into the narrative" is at the very least unfair.

5) So you don't agree with ANY common sense legislation should be passed, even though you agree that it constitutionally CAN?

bluegrass wrote on January 30, 2013 at 2:01 pm

1) Not to sound too flippant, but because someone is a gun owner and FOID card holder does not mean much to me with regard to the gun control argument.  "Outlawing" large magazines is anti-gun.  I'm sorry, but to go through the list of anti-gun statements is pointless for someone who does not see it.

2)  & 3)  I understand the difference in armor and arms in the context of the 2nd Amendment.  In the gun control debate people who disagree legislation that would effectively make the sale, transfer, and eventual ownership of "assault" weapons illegal are asked by proponents to establish a "need."  My point is that with arms and armor, it is not the duty nor right of the government to require citizens to establish need.

4)  We will simply disagree here.  When you say "at the very least," unfair, what is my argument at the very most?

5)  When you ask, "So you don't agree with ANY common sense legislation," I can't answer that because we have a definitive problem.  We likely have different definitions of "common sense," and so this question is akin to "Do you still beat your wife?"  In effect, you're saying, unless you agree with me, you have no common sense, which makes you stupid.  Right now there are some reading this who are nodding their heads and saying, YES!!!  Yes he IS stupid.  That's okay.  I've been called much worse.  We already have background checks in the State of Illinois.  Incidently, the State Police are by their own admission months behind in processing FOID applications and background checks.  I always find it comical that I can go online with a name, address, SSN, and driver's license and pretty much get one's life's history in about 5 minutes for $19.95, but the State does a poor job of it even over a period of months.  There already are waiting periods for all guns.  The ATF already has a list of serial numbers and weapons when they change hands.  I don't necessarily have a problem with creating a better database of people with mental health issues, although it does make me nervous.  If you want to beef up the money the state spends on mental health care, I don't really have a problem with that either, although the State of Illinois and the Federal Government are both dead broke.  If you want to tell me that you agree that handguns are the cause of most firearm crimes in this nation, but you want to ban certain other weapons and magazine sizes and call it common sense, I simply do not accept that as a valid argument.

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 3:01 pm

I appreciate you continuing this discussion is a reasonable manner, and I hope I am doing the same.

1) If you think that outlawing large magazines is anti-gun, I disagree, and we may not come to an agreement here. I simply see it as anti-large magazines. One is still capable of a normal magazine. I don't see any legitimate purpose for a person to have a large magazine. Does that mean that it's constitutional to outlaw them? No, not necessarily. But rationally, since there's no legitimate purpose, and they can certainly be used illegitimately, why have them at all? I realize that's only my personal opinion.

2) & 3) I get your point, and it's fair. I think that's going to fall under more of a majority rule in congress issue (or individual state legislatures), rather than constitutionality. Congress should be the limiting factor, as representative democracy is supposed to work to protect our freedoms. Of course, this is the real world...

4) Intentionally defamatory. You're claiming that if they wanted to save people they would be trying to outlaw handguns, so they obviously don't care about those people. They CAN'T outlaw handguns constitutionally, so no they wouldn't.

5) I used common sense there only because you specifically used it - I wasn't intending it as a perjoritave. Since that's a real problem, I will focus instead on specific proposals and ask if you agree or not:

a) Mandatory background checks for ALL firearm purchases nationally

b) Mandatory registration of all firearms (like we do for cars, with appropriate transfer for sales)

c) Mandatory reporting of stolen firearms

d) Mandatory safety classes as prerequisite to getting a FOID.

e) I already get that you don't favor magazine restrictions and outlawing of certain rifles - as a side note, I should say that I don't favor outlawing "assault weapons" either, as it's a nebulous term. A semiauto 30.06 could be called an assault weapon or not, and I don't favor outlawing the 30.06. Worrying about barrel length and pistol grips, etc., is just window dressing and doesn't address the problem.

f) Stronger monitoring of gun dealerships - mandatory recording of sales, etc.

g) Stronger penalties for illegal sale of firearms

bluegrass wrote on January 31, 2013 at 11:01 am

I appreciate the honest, thoughtful discussion without the name calling.  Thanks.

With regard to magazines, this is another slippery slope argument.  I don't see a legitimate use for someone who has a Ford Pinto collection.  

With regard to #4, intentional is probably right, defamatory is incorrect according to my definition not of the word, but of the politician.  To "defame" means that person has a "good name" in the first place. In my view these politicians have built a false reputation, and it is my intention to shed light on their true intentions. 

Every line item in a-g is already in place at some level, or could not be enforced with current resources, or would not lead to any significant reduction in violent crimes committed with firearms.  

If we want to really cut down on the crime that occurs in this nation in a real and significant way, creating a false sense of security to keep better tabs on law abiding, tax paying, contributors to society is a complete waste of resources.  Let's work on our prison systems.  Let's work on our parole system.  Let's do a better job with ciminal rehabilitation, something more than sending people to criminal school by locking them up, then dumping them back on the street.  Let's look at and change the way we view and treat drug addictions.  Let's figure out a better way to deal with mental illnesses.  Let's work on our public school systems in inner cities across the nation that are a complete failure, and figure out a way to improve upon them.  Recidivism, drug addiction, gangs, and education are all problems that can be worked on in a way that I believe would have a significant impact on crime rates, especially relating to firearm use.  But I don't hear Obama saying that even though these problems are difficult, that can't be an excuse not to start fixing them.  I do see him standing in front of a bunch of children, accusing me of being a bad person for not wanting to ban assault weapons because I've been "ginned up" by the NRA.

Is anyone on this message board prepared to tell me, that if you had $500 billion to spend to spend on a program to curb gun violence, the money would be better spent hiring ATF officers to go check up on gun dealers and serial numbers and enforcing a magazine ban, than a comprehensive ex-con rehabilitation program, or seed money for inner city private charter schools, or gang intervention programs?

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 31, 2013 at 7:01 pm

I disagree that everything in a-g is in place. I would certainly argue for most of them (but no assault rifle ban). Registration would allow many more murders to be traced, along with a disincentive to illegally sell firearms. Stricter regulation of dealers should be supported as well.

Basically, I'm in agreement that criminals having firearms is bad, but I disagree in that I think there are things we can do to at least reduce it.

That said, I agree with everything you said in the last two paragraphs.

highspeed wrote on January 30, 2013 at 8:01 am

So Bulldogmojo, You`re telling me that people with DUI`s and who have lost their license, don`t drive???  Hah that`s funny!!!!  No you won`t see a headline with hammers, but i saw a headline with knives!! Granted it happened in another country who btw has very limited gun ownership and strict laws. 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

I know, right?????22? I agree with you: we need to get rid of DUI laws since people still drive drunk. And we need to return all revoked licenses since some people still drive after having their license revoked.

People still will kill each other with knives and hammers and sewing needles and pieces of chalk and --- VERY OCCASIONALLY -- a gun. So, we need to end all our laws against killing people. They obviously don't work so get rid of them.

If it's' conceivable that someone might not follow a law, then, obviously, we CAN'T pass that law.

Like the NRA says, IT JUST MAKES SENSE!!!!1!

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 30, 2013 at 11:01 am

Mark Taylor's ghost rules! LMFAO

syzlack wrote on January 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm

Typical lib response.  Take away the guys guns even if found not guilty.  Tyrants are always trying to water down our God-given 2nd amendment rights.  For instance, a few days ago in Inkster Michigan, a guy who was being bullied took a gun to school to practice the manly man art of standing his ground.  Good for him!  But what do you think the tyrannical gun grabbers did?  That's right, they grabbed his gun, and more water leaks into the holy Constitution.  The libs will probably say that just because he was only eight years old the rules are somehow different.  But I know a lot of eight year olds who have more stability than some of the paunchy guys around here.  And as we all know, an armed third grade classroom is a polite third grade classroom.

JoRee wrote on January 29, 2013 at 5:01 pm

I would just like to ask everyone who is "pro-gun" to read the recently found poem by Robert Frost, entitled Revolver.  As I read it, I became aware that your Second Amendment right is taking away my First Amendment right, i.e, use of the revolver is jury, judge, executioner and there are no appeals.

mankind wrote on January 30, 2013 at 3:01 pm

That rumbling you just heard was the ghost of Carl Sandburg.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on January 29, 2013 at 5:01 pm

And now today we have another gun rights enthusiast -- with hundreds of guns and thousands of rounds -- threatening to kill little kids, this time in Villa Grove.

How long before the next one actually follows through and massacres more of our kids?

But we can't blame guns. We can blame teenagers, or video games or movies.

But we can't blame wannabe slaughterers and their ungodly arsenals of guns.

No. We need more guns. All we'd need is a 'good guy with a gun' to take out these two bad guys with guns and everything would be hunky dory.

Ya. No. Really. Totally totally hunky dory.

highspeed wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

Evil people do evil things. There is no outcry when people kill people by other means, only when it is gun related. Why is that? Do you think that if every gun was eliminated from this country that there would be no more killings? Why is it all about the body count?? So it`s ok to stab 2 or 3 people and kill them, but not ok to kill 5 or more with a gun?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

Yep, all those gungrabber stoopid libs are, obviously, pro knife murder.

"Evil people do evil things." It's all out of our hands -- THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO!!!!!

That's why I agreed with your earlier position that, since people disobey laws, we can't have any laws at all. Perfect reasoning.

With logic like that, we can't lose!!!!!1!

mankind wrote on January 30, 2013 at 3:01 pm

The gunsmoke plays games

With thoughts in our head

That's why common sense

Has been pumped full of lead.

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 30, 2013 at 5:01 pm

How simple.   Simple statements for simple minds.

Watch the news tonight, or read the paper tomorrow.  Another man with a gun near a school. The gun madness continues.

serf wrote on January 30, 2013 at 7:01 pm
Sid Saltfork wrote on January 30, 2013 at 8:01 pm

He sure is going to have a problem with any Stand Your Ground law since the victim was driving away from him.

We see the murders nationally, regionally, and locally every day; but people remain enraged over any reasonable gun regulation.  I used to think that some event would change their minds.  I do not have that opinion anymore.  I believe they only regard themselves.  They have no feelings toward others.  It would be asking too much to have them replace the Beware of Dog sign with a Beware of Gun sign.  That would identify them, and infringe on their secret Second Amendment right.  Some unarmed citizen might show up.

Local Yocal wrote on February 02, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Profile Picture

"If we want to really cut down on the crime that occurs in this nation in a real and significant way, creating a false sense of security to keep better tabs on law abiding, tax paying, contributors to society is a complete waste of resources.  Let's work on our prison systems.  Let's work on our parole system.  Let's do a better job with ciminal rehabilitation, something more than sending people to criminal school by locking them up, then dumping them back on the street.  Let's look at and change the way we view and treat drug addictions.  Let's figure out a better way to deal with mental illnesses.  Let's work on our public school systems in inner cities across the nation that are a complete failure, and figure out a way to improve upon them.  Recidivism, drug addiction, gangs, and education are all problems that can be worked on in a way that I believe would have a significant impact on crime rates, especially relating to firearm use."

The tool, the gun, has proven to be too easy, too fast and too permanent for our current state of evolution. We kill ourselves a lot, we kill each other a lot, and it has been going on for a long time. Bluegrass' proposal to study why that is, what are the predominant trends, address this at the front end, may be a way to achieve some decline in all this hyper-media-ed selective outrage. Watching the gun victims, Congressmember Giffords and her husband, I sympathize with their intentions and perhaps it would be good for there to be training, background checks, regulating the type of weapons the sporting goods store has to sell from now on- about 50 years ago. The problem is the gun manufacturers have been so far ahead of these debates today, the guns have already been distributed  everywhere. Everywhere. Like drugs, there isn't much stopping anyone from getting what they want evenutally. Those that own guns now should know what they need to do to prevent their gun from becoming the next tool of tragedy.

It would take a real study to determine what is going on in-between the ears of people who are making angry, desperate decisions so fast. The spectacular mass-shootings, suicide bombings are like a new wave of unleashed demons, and become distractions from the real issue. We have, like our marriages, drug addictions, and our resolution to conflict, a deep spiritual problem. I doubt Washington D.C. is the place to resolve this with strokes of the pen. I think Bluegrass, like Cease Fire in Chicago (subject of a documentary The Interrupters) offers about the only way to "do something" truly effective in reducing the killing, one person at a time, (but never eliminating) if that's what you want to do. This is done without a gun to force any compliance. The appeal is to the brain, not matching the firepower. Some, however would never risk or chance such an "unsafe," outrageous technique.

In addition, little attention is paid nor culpability assigned to the gun manufacturers when their product leaves the assembly line. How does the gun market work?

How does a national registry of mental health work? With one hand, we say we want privacy; now with the other we are willing to let every prescription and every last counseling session be documented in some national computer bank where a gun retailer can access the information with the swipe of a credit card. I don't. know. It seems awfully ambitious and unlikely.

I'm surprised conceal and carry hasn't been mentioned. Who has the guts to carry a pistol and who will answer the call when a gunshot rings out, and how will you know who to shoot in the ensuing chaos? Is that a child or the shooter? Is that a rescuer on top of a victim or is that the shooter? And will your aim even be that effective? The claim is that states that have conceal and carry has reduced the killing there. Is this the way we want to live? I think Obama's legislative theatre is clouding the issues without a comprehensive understanding of the entire process that leads to a gun killing. Like guns, our politics go too fast too.