Support NeoGAF

[KingGondo]

Get outta here with that common sense. You won't fit in.

That's not common sense, it's a classic NRA talking point.

The better the gun market is regulated, the easier it'll be to track down weapons used in crimes, including those that are stolen from law-abiding gun owners. Again, it's insane to me that people still argue that just because criminals will break laws, we might as well not have them.

Also, I love how in anti-gun control advocates always divide the world into two groups: 1) upstanding, law-abiding citizens who responsibly use their 2nd Amendment rights, and 2) gangsters, thugs, and criminals who can't be trusted with guns.

Such bullshit.

 

[Onemic]

In Chicago of all places? With their rampant crime rate? Fucking wow.

Never change NRA

 

[joelseph]

Rahm just needs to fine gun owners the same amount he fined me for forgetting to re-up my city sticker this year. First gun free city.

 

[neorej]

This is such a good move in the wrong direction.

More guns = more bullets = more innocent bystanders.

Yeah, keep up the good fight.

 

[Golgi_Apparati]

A good move. Keep in mind you are still required to register with the state of Illinois.

The Chicago registry was a rarely-used archaic system designed to annoy and discourage law abiding gun owners from bringing weapons in to the city.

Hardly anyone used it and im glad to see it gone.

 

[Ingueferroque]

This is so bizarre. How would an electronic registry be a bad thing?

...designed to annoy and discourage law abiding gun owners from bringing weapons in to the city.

Sounds terrible! Oh no!

 

[mephixto]

I'm not from the US but isn't Chicago kinda violent city?, I read that crime is high in there.

Sometimes America doen't make sense to me.

 

[Golgi_Apparati]

Sounds terrible! Oh no!

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I Dont think its a bad thing to allow responsible gun owners to store firearms in their homes within the city limits.

Clearly this system had no effect on the crime in this city, and I believe the only thing this law was inhibiting was the situation I described above.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm not from the US but isn't Chicago kinda violent city?, I read that crime is high in there.

Sometimes America doen't make sense to me.

Gun crime is exceptionally high there. Which has more to do w/ gang violence and the fundamental breakdown of the family unit which drives young Black males into the gang sub-culture than the availability of guns in and of itself. But that viewpoint is derided as a cop-out to some. As if to say "The problem is anything but guns!".

But my point remains that firearms are more easily available in many parts of the US than Chicago but those areas by and large don't have the rampant gun crime Chicago has. Of course guns are *a* factor but the way some people talk about the issue is that guns are *the* only factor for the crime in Chicago. It's a far more complex situation.

And the solutions are more complex than "Fuck the 2nd amendment! Repeal that shit now! KONY 2013!"

 

[TacticalFox88]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I Dont think its a bad thing to allow responsible gun owners to store firearms in their homes within the city limits.

Clearly this system had no effect on the crime in this city, and I believe the only thing this law was inhibiting was the situation I described above.

Chicago is a huge outlier, statistically. Doesn't add to weight to any argument against nationwide gun policies, but it's one nonetheless.

 

[LogicStep]

This doesn't make much sense. Isn't the registry there for organization and safety reasons?

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Step in the right direction.

 

[besada]

I was just thinking that the most pressing legislative issue in Chicago must be to make it easier to take guns into the city without law enforcement knowing about. Excellent job, Chicago!

 

[PuppetSlave]

Step in the right direction.

Whats the next step?

 

[Htown]

It's like no one reads or understands how laws work.

try reading the whole op next time

 

[CyclopsRock]

I was just thinking that the most pressing legislative issue in Chicago must be to make it easier to take guns into the city without law enforcement knowing about. Excellent job, Chicago!

How does this do that, again?

 

[Htown]

How does this do that, again?

it's crippling the Chicago border patrol so now they can't oh wait that doesn't exist

I feel like people need a crash course in how cities and states work

 

[besada]

How does this do that, again?

It removes the required registration of guns, removing information from the police regarding guns in the area. Consequently, it increases the number of unknown firearms in the city.

I'm not sure why you're having a hard time understanding that, since it's the intent of removing the registration -- allowing people to take guns into the city of Chicago without law enforcement knowing about it.

It not only removed the registration, but removed Chicago's requirement for a city firearm permit, which will -- again -- have the effect of increasing the number of guns in the city that the police don't know about.

Which part of this is confusing you?

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Whats the next step?

Remove local LEO sign off on NFA items.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It removes the required registration of guns, removing information from the police regarding guns in the area. Consequently, it increases the number of unknown firearms in the city.

I'm not sure why you're having a hard time understanding that, since it's the intent of removing the registration -- allowing people to take guns into the city of Chicago without law enforcement knowing about it.

It not only removed the registration, but removed Chicago's requirement for a city firearm permit, which will -- again -- have the effect of increasing the number of guns in the city that the police don't know about.

Which part of this is confusing you?

That there's already, to my knowledge, an Illinois gun register that presumably has an address on it. If I want to take a gun into Chicago, what did I have to do yesterday that I don't have to do tomorrow? This is a genuine question by the way, I've already said I don't know anything about the gun laws in Illinois.

 

[quickwhips]

Every time I read an article like this, the same thought crosses my mind: the second amendment should no longer exist. It may have been necessary in a time where North Amercia was still largely uncharted and people neede to defend themselves against wild animals or such, but it simply doesn't make any sense nowadays.

In fact, people should not have the right to bear arms. You should have to go through lengthy and thorough testing before anyone even remotely considers giving you a weapon. Fire arm distribution should be controlled by the government and every last weapon be accountable and traceable.

I simply cannot understand how you can claim to need fire arms to defend yourself when at the same time, your country has one of the world's highest armed crime rates and number of deaths by gunshot wound. The fact that the NRA (or lobbys in general, for that matter) have such a large amount of political pull in the US is beyond me.

I don't think you need to go as extreme as the NRA.

 

[outsida]

I was just thinking that the most pressing legislative issue in Chicago must be to make it easier to take guns into the city without law enforcement knowing about. Excellent job, Chicago!

Easier than buying a gun in the suburbs and crossing the street?

 

[LuchaShaq]

As a responsible gun owner the NRA is nothing more than a scumbag organization who protects insane fucks and gun sellers. They do not have my best interest in mind.

 

[besada]

That there's already, to my knowledge, an Illinois gun register that presumably has an address on it. If I want to take a gun into Chicago, what did I have to do yesterday that I don't have to do tomorrow? This is a genuine question by the way, I've already said I don't know anything about the gun laws in Illinois.

To do it legally? You needed to register your firearm with the city and get a Chicago city gun permit. Now you need to do neither.

Illegally, the only thing it changes is that now when the police grab someone with an illegal firearm, they have two less charges they can drop on them. Previously, they were violating state registration laws, Chicago's firearm permit law, and Chicago's firearm registration law. Now, when caught, they're only violating the state registration law.

 

[Vilix]

It removes the required registration of guns, removing information from the police regarding guns in the area. Consequently, it increases the number of unknown firearms in the city.

I'm not sure why you're having a hard time understanding that, since it's the intent of removing the registration -- allowing people to take guns into the city of Chicago without law enforcement knowing about it.

It not only removed the registration, but removed Chicago's requirement for a city firearm permit, which will -- again -- have the effect of increasing the number of guns in the city that the police don't know about.

Which part of this is confusing you?

And, after I go through all that, and my firearm gets stolen and used in a crime, how has it helped lessen a violent crime with a gun from taking place?

 

[Necromanti]

Since abolishing the registry is apparently the best solution to arm the people against criminals by making guns easier to obtain, could someone explain to me how the same logic doesn't apply to criminals, too? Has there been any historical evidence that would point to something like this working?

 

[dankir]

Doesn't Chicago have a gun / murder problem?? Is this really a good idea??

 

[CyclopsRock]

To do it legally? You needed to register your firearm with the city and get a Chicago city gun permit. Now you need to do neither.

Illegally, the only thing it changes is that now when the police grab someone with an illegal firearm, they have two less charges they can drop on them. Previously, they were violating state registration laws, Chicago's firearm permit law, and Chicago's firearm registration law. Now, when caught, they're only violating the state registration law.

I see. Thanks! It doesn't sound like it'll make much of a difference eitherway, then. I understand the arguments against "criminals break the law so who cares", but there's some degree of difference when it's so easy to break the law.

 

[besada]

And, after I go through all that, and my firearm gets stolen and used in a crime, how has it helped lessen a violent crime with a gun from taking place?

An inability to stop crime doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to reduce it. This is the typical all-or-nothing logic of the NRA. You can't stop all gun crimes, so let's abolish all gun ownership laws!

The original Chicago ownership laws literally reduced the number of legal firearms that might be stolen and used in the commission of a crime (by disallowing more than one firearm kept in the home), so now, when that burglar breaks in, he's likely to scoop up three or four firearms, to be sold and used in the commission of crimes.

They also required rapid reporting of stolen guns (another thing that was useful to the local PD gone), reporting of legal transfers of gun, and actual safety training with the firearm before you possessed it. So, in one fell swoop, we've increased the number of unknown guns on the street, reduced the police ability to see where guns are moving to via sales, and reduced the likelihood that "responsible" gun owners are sufficiently trained.

How does that sound like a win for anyone?

 

[diffusionx]

I see. Thanks! It doesn't sound like it'll make much of a difference eitherway, then. I understand the arguments against "criminals break the law so who cares", but there's some degree of difference when it's so easy to break the law.

The whole idea of "criminals break the law so what does it matter" is so friggin' dumb it almost defies belief. You don't declare yourself a "criminal" and get some sort of free pass to the Black Market Megastore that has every illegal thing you could ever want. No matter the intention you need a way to procure those firearms, drugs, whatever.

This is something anybody can figure out with 10 seconds of thought, but this country has gone utterly mad.

Besides, a lot of those guns that end up "in the hands of criminals" were bought legally from legit gun stores from people in compliance with the law. If it weren't so easy to do this, like say those people who buy those guns had to put their name in a database that could come up if those guns end up being used in crimes, it maybe wouldn't happen so much and force these sales more underground where they can be more closely monitored.

 

[besada]

The whole idea of "criminals break the law so what does it matter" is so friggin' dumb it almost defies belief. You don't declare yourself a "criminal" and get some sort of free pass to the Black Market Megastore that has every illegal thing you could ever want.

Not only that, but this division of people into "criminals" and "responsible" owners is borderline classist/racist and doesn't match, at all, what we know about the actual commission of gun crime. You're a "responsible" owner, right up until you shoot someone in the heat of anger, or accidentally shoot someone while cleaning your gun, or let your son shoot his playmate because you didn't secure your weapon.

This idea that anyone who isn't a felon is a "responsible" gun owner being punished because of those awful "criminals" ignores the number of accidental gun deaths and gun deaths in which the actors had no prior convictions for anything.

 

[diffusionx]

Not only that, but this division of people into "criminals" and "responsible" owners is borderline classist/racist and doesn't match, at all, what we know about the actual commission of gun crime. You're a "responsible" owner, right up until you shoot someone in the heat of anger, or accidentally shoot someone while cleaning your gun, or let your son shoot his playmate because you didn't secure your weapon.

This idea that anyone who isn't a felon is a "responsible" gun owner being punished because of those awful "criminals" ignores the number of accidental gun deaths and gun deaths in which the actors had no prior convictions for anything.

Excellent point.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The whole idea of "criminals break the law so what does it matter" is so friggin' dumb it almost defies belief. You don't declare yourself a "criminal" and get some sort of free pass to the Black Market Megastore that has every illegal thing you could ever want. No matter the intention you need a way to procure those firearms, drugs, whatever.

This is something anybody can figure out with 10 seconds of thought, but this country has gone utterly mad.

Indeedy, I said I understand the arguments against it. But that in this case it's still incredibly easy to do because of...

Besides, a lot of those guns that end up "in the hands of criminals" were bought legally from legit gun stores from people in compliance with the law. If it weren't so easy to do this, like say those people who buy those guns had to put their name in a database that could come up if those guns end up being used in crimes, it maybe wouldn't happen so much and force these sales more underground where they can be more closely monitored.

This. A lot of them are bought legally, which is why the idea of a registry is only of limited use if it's not national - the only level at which there are border controls. That bit you mention in your last sentence is true, but right now it seems they do still need to do that if they're bought in Illinois. State level, and even more so City level, controls seem to be of very little use when it comes to criminals and knowing who has guns.

 

[diffusionx]

This. A lot of them are bought legally, which is why the idea of a registry is only of limited use if it's not national - the only level at which there are border controls. That bit you mention in your last sentence is true, but right now it seems they do still need to do that if they're bought in Illinois. State level, and even more so City level, controls seem to be of very little use when it comes to criminals and knowing who has guns.

Well, that's part of the problem too, a patchwork of state laws can't be effective in a country with free border crossing any more than New Jersey environmental laws don't affect New York pollution.

This is not a problem that can be addressed at the state level.

 

[eznark]

About time they complied. Wonder how much money Chicago wasted trying to rewrite the Constitution?

 

[andycapps]

This is good news in that now they comply with CCP state laws. But it highlights the idea that there needs to be a nationwide registry, not something as easy to get around as a city registry.

 

[Vilix]

An inability to stop crime doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to reduce it. This is the typical all-or-nothing logic of the NRA. You can't stop all gun crimes, so let's abolish all gun ownership laws!

The original Chicago ownership laws literally reduced the number of legal firearms that might be stolen and used in the commission of a crime (by disallowing more than one firearm kept in the home), so now, when that burglar breaks in, he's likely to scoop up three or four firearms, to be sold and used in the commission of crimes.

They also required rapid reporting of stolen guns (another thing that was useful to the local PD gone), reporting of legal transfers of gun, and actual safety training with the firearm before you possessed it. So, in one fell swoop, we've increased the number of unknown guns on the street, reduced the police ability to see where guns are moving to via sales, and reduced the likelihood that "responsible" gun owners are sufficiently trained.

How does that sound like a win for anyone?

Because it still doesn't address the issue. I never said let's not have any gun controls. Gun control advocates like to blame gun owners for saying this. But we don't. What I'm saying is look at the bigger picture. What you just mentioned still doesn't tell me how a gun that has been legally registered prevents from being obtained illegally and used in a crime. The reduction of gun violence through registry is so marginal. Yet, let's at least do "something", what little that may be, so we can say we did something without looking at real the issue behind the violence.

By the way, I'm all for comprehensive background checks and closing the gun show loophole. I even support a further background checks to see a potential guns owner's mentally stability. But, that can be a slippery slope. I don't really support banning large magazine. However, I have no problem with being only able to obtain, and use, ammo for AWs at a gun range. Without the ammo all you have is a very expensive metal stick.

 

[besada]

Because it still doesn't address the issue. I never said let's not have any gun controls. Gun control advocates like to blame gun owners for saying this. But we don't. What I'm saying is look at the bigger picture. What you just mentioned still doesn't tell me how a gun that has been legally registered prevents from being obtained illegally and used in a crime. The reduction of gun violence through registry is so marginal. Yet, let's at least do "something", what little that may be, so we can say we did something without looking at real the issue behind the violence.

No one's stopping you, or anyone else, from looking at the "real" issues behind gun violence. This law certainly wasn't stopping anyone from doing it. I'm happy to discuss the "real" issues behind gun violence, so long as you're capable of acknowledging that one of those issues is the proliferation of firearms, because there is no single "real" issue behind gun violence, but a confluence of issues that includes incredibly easy access to guns as a single point in that confluence.

These laws addressed "an" issue of gun violence, which is the ease with which a major metropolitan community finds itself swamped with guns. It wasn't intended to stop gun crime, it was intended to create negative pressure against the continual increase of the number of firearms in the city, as well as making sure that legal owners were trained, and that the local police force had some visibility into the number of guns in the city.

Edit: And since we're discussing our general gun control policies, I don't actually have a problem with long guns, including assault weapons. They're a fraction of what's used to kill people. The problem is, and has been, sidearms. They're responsible for more deaths, are easier to conceal, and are more likely to be on your person or within reach when you get angry at someone.

 

[televator]

Gun freedom becomes more absolute... just what we needed. /sarcasm

It really speaks of the power of the NRA, in an age where everything we do is monitored, that our precious guns are the one thing that remains untouchable.

 

[Poindexter]

The fear tactics on both sides are ridiculous.

Pro Registry: Chicago is going to turn into no man's land in the next year!
Against Registry: Good! I need to arm myself to the teeth to fight all the gangs!

Hyperbole to the max on both sides makes any discussion or compromise impossible. With that said, I'm very interested in seeing what happens to the crime rate in Chicago in the next few years. Who will be eating crow? And will they admit it?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Gun control only puts barriers on normal citizen to get guns to defend themselves. That makes it easier for criminals, because they know that law abiding citizen are disarmed. Why was Chicago crime so high with the register?

Because gun laws are so lax in areas bordering and surrounding Chicago. Criminals are legally buying guns in these surrounding areas.

 

[Yoritomo]

Good stuff for Illinois gun owners.

 

[popeutlal]

So what's the down side of having this registry?

 

[Yoritomo]

So what's the down side of having this registry?

It's not really just the registry, they had a bunch of other ineffective dumb laws.

 

[B-Dubs]

So what's the down side of having this registry?

Something something black helicopters.

 

[Stet]

So what's the down side of having this registry?

*fingers rubbing together gesture*

 

[afternoon delight]

Chicago is exactly the type of place ready for such bold legislative manuevers. Over the July 4th weekend, only 72 people were shot!

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Someone explain to me the precise physical process of gun registration that makes it so fucking burdensome for the legal gun owner.

An inability to stop crime doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to reduce it. This is the typical all-or-nothing logic of the NRA. You can't stop all gun crimes, so let's abolish all gun ownership laws!

The original Chicago ownership laws literally reduced the number of legal firearms that might be stolen and used in the commission of a crime (by disallowing more than one firearm kept in the home), so now, when that burglar breaks in, he's likely to scoop up three or four firearms, to be sold and used in the commission of crimes.

They also required rapid reporting of stolen guns (another thing that was useful to the local PD gone), reporting of legal transfers of gun, and actual safety training with the firearm before you possessed it. So, in one fell swoop, we've increased the number of unknown guns on the street, reduced the police ability to see where guns are moving to via sales, and reduced the likelihood that "responsible" gun owners are sufficiently trained.

How does that sound like a win for anyone?

Not only that, but this division of people into "criminals" and "responsible" owners is borderline classist/racist and doesn't match, at all, what we know about the actual commission of gun crime. You're a "responsible" owner, right up until you shoot someone in the heat of anger, or accidentally shoot someone while cleaning your gun, or let your son shoot his playmate because you didn't secure your weapon.

This idea that anyone who isn't a felon is a "responsible" gun owner being punished because of those awful "criminals" ignores the number of accidental gun deaths and gun deaths in which the actors had no prior convictions for anything.

Rebuttal, anyone?

 

[Enron]

As someone already mentioned, there is already an Illinois State registry.

From reading the articles, the Chicago registry was poorly maintained, antiquated. Why not just use what is surely to be the more superior state registry?

The state legislature took control of all gun regulations already within the state.

Edit: Oooooooooh. OOOOOOOOOH. Here is the REAL reason for the Chicago gun registry.

Illinois approved a concealed carry law in July, giving control of gun regulations to the state and essentially nullifying Chicago's power to require that gun owners register their weapons and have a city firearms permit.

The measures approved by a voice vote on Wednesday complied with the new state law. In addition to eliminating the gun registry, the measures eliminated the requirement for gun owners to have a Chicago firearm permit.

It was 100 dollars for the license, and 15 dollars per firearm payable every 3 years.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Why are the NRA against even a registry? I can't see how that oppresses or restricts gun rights in any way.

It could, theoretically and hypotheticlaly, in some future government that may or may not come to exist, be used to confiscate all gunz from all White People Law Abiding Citizens.

Look at what happened to the Japanese-Americans during WW2! If it weren't for that lousy census the government never would have done that!


As usual, it comes down to fear, strawmen, and hypotheticals, rather than reality.