Opinion: Did Overturning The Handgun Law Lead to More Shootings?(Barf Alert)

nbcchicago.com ^ | 13 April, 2012 | Edward McClelland

[marktwain]

Editor's Note: Edward McClelland is an opinion writer, and this column explains his opinion on second amendment rights. Please keep the discussion about this opinion piece in the below commenting section, and on social media, clean and respectful. Racially charged or threatening comments will be moderated.

For anyone looking for a reason as to why Chicagoans are shooting each other more often, how about this one: it’s now legal to own a handgun here.

The Supreme Court issued its McDonald v. Chicago decision, which held that local governments do not have the right to write their own gun control laws, in 2010. The decision overturned the city’s handgun ban, and the police department began issuing permits later that year.

Since the beginning of this year, 120 people have been murdered in Chicago. That’s a 60 percent increase over 2010 and 2011. It’s affecting every neighborhood. During one weekend in January, there were three murders within a mile of my apartment in Rogers Park: one young man’s body was found in a park. His killer committed suicide a few hours later. Two others were shot to death as they drove down Sheridan Road. Their SUV crashed into a pole and knocked it down.

Two weekends ago, on Morse Avenue, several gunmen jumped out of an SUV and sprayed a van with bullets. They didn’t hit anyone, but the van crashed into several cars as the driver frantically tried to escape death. The attack was reportedly part of a gang turf war. In response, the alderman and the police commissioner held a “positive loitering” patrol last Saturday night. I’ve lived around Howard Street for 15 years, but last weekend was the first time I’ve been reluctant to walk it after dark.

I am relating this for the benefit of Second Amendment Absolutists in places like Effingham and Sandoval, because I live in the real world of uncontrolled guns. They don’t. These rural Constitutional scholars believe in the principle that anyone should be allowed to own any gun, without any restrictions. It’s easy for them to say, because they don’t suffer the consequences of their fanatical ideology.

Neither does the Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution without considering the real-world consequences of its decisions. The gun lobby’s solution to the misuse of guns -- laws prohibiting criminals from owning firearms -- does not work. First of all, it only takes effect after someone commits a crime with a gun. Second of all, most “illegal guns” are guns that were legally issued, then stolen.

In February, Chicago wrote a $399,950 check to the Second Amendment Foundation, to reimburse the gun rights group for legal fees in McDonald v. Chicago. The Second Amendment Foundation should reimburse Chicago ten times that amount, for all the mayhem that decision is causing.

[marktwain]

At least Edward allows comments. They are better than the column.

[KeyLargo]

A photo of President Obama with a water gun, from Vice President Joe Biden’s Twitter feed

[Carriage Hill]

He needs a bra.

[MasterGunner01]

So let's see if I've got this right: invalidating a bad and worthless law that disarms victims has caused a flood of bad guns to pour into the community where they are marauding the city day and night shooting people? Or, is it there are a bunch of Obama's and Holder's people killing each other over “turf” and other stupid stuff?

Which is it? Marauding guns or marauding thugs? Is there anyone in Chicago or Cook County law enforcement or government that's not on the take of some dope dealer or other street hustler or the Mafia?

[cripplecreek]

Well the police union in Detroit did complain about the rise of defensive shootings in Detroit.

[Dan Nunn]

Allowing freedom of speech causes hate speech. We must abolish the 1st amendment.

[Travis McGee]

Perfect liberal thinking.

[dirtboy]

I am relating this for the benefit of Second Amendment Absolutists in places like Effingham and Sandoval, because I live in the real world of uncontrolled guns. They don’t. These rural Constitutional scholars believe in the principle that anyone should be allowed to own any gun, without any restrictions. It’s easy for them to say, because they don’t suffer the consequences of their fanatical ideology.

Where does one begin to address the concentrated idiocy in such a paragraph?

1) Effingham and Sandoval are law-abiding communities. Yours largely is not.

2) Since your community is largely not law-abiding, please tell us how gun restrictions prevent gang-bangers from getting guns - while disarming those among you who are law-abiding.

3) There is NOT being an argument made for unrestricted gun ownership - felonious gang-bangers such as the ones doing the killing in your community should NOT legally be allowed to possess weapons.

4) With that in mind, please indicate how the MacDonald ruling made it legal for any of the thugs committing the murders in your community to possess a gun.

5) Liberal attitudes such as yours are what allows the gang-banger mentality to fester in the first place, and

6) I imagine you are just as 'fanatical' in defending First Amendment rights as the gun-rights folks you decry are in defending Second Amendment rights. Left-wing tyrannical attitudes have shown themselves to be far more lethal over the last 100 years than private gun ownership - to that point, left-wing tyrants seek to control guns.

And I'm sure I could mine a few more line items out of his screed.

[SECURE AMERICA]

explains his opinion on second amendment rights.

His opinion?.
Who cares?
The Second Amendment is. It exists. It is in English. It is a fact not an opinion.

[Venturer]

The author is entitled to his opinion, but I wonder if he bothered to check on how many of those doing the shootings had a legally purchased handgun.

[41Thunder]

The Supreme Court issued its McDonald v. Chicago decision, which held that local governments do not have the right to write their own gun control laws, in 2010. The decision overturned the city’s handgun ban, and the police department began issuing permits later that year.

I see the writer of this dribble failed to mention how many of those license holders have committed unspeakable acts of mayhem upon the city streets of Chicago. His words ring hollow. Without substance to back his statements, his words are just conjecture. Maybe he fears for his life because he lives in Chicago. A good suggestion would be to just move to a quiter location.

[rickyc]

Maybe some of the rise is legal owners now can shoot back. But I really think it s gangsters killing each other off - who cares? No law is going to stop that - never did before. At least innocents can now defend themselves IF they can get a permit. Aren’t they still prohibited from taking it outside their home? Get a concealed carry law to protect the innocent.

[rickyc]

Maybe some of the rise is legal owners now can shoot back. But I really think it s gangsters killing each other off - who cares? No law is going to stop that - never did before. At least innocents can now defend themselves IF they can get a permit. Aren’t they still prohibited from taking it outside their home? Get a concealed carry law to protect the innocent.