How do you propose to reduce gun violence?

Opinion: Letters To The Editor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

I want to thank John Erickson for his response (above right) to our statement "Gun Rights with Responsibilities." I was happy to see that he agrees that guns "should be kept away from criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, children and the suicidal." We had proposed universal background checks prior to obtaining ownership of a gun as a way of achieving this goal. Perhaps John can now explain to the readers of the Journal how he would propose that we achieve this end?

John Barrett

Member of the Gun Rights and Responsibilities Committee

Oak Park

Reader Comments

15 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

The dude  

Posted: December 12th, 2013 11:42 PM

Wello, then it's time to change the 2nd amendment, however it can be done. It's only dragging this country into the ground.

The dude  

Posted: December 12th, 2013 11:39 PM

ideology of organizations like the NRA... The definition of stupidity is continuing to do the same thing and hoping for a different result. If something is broken, it's ideologic continue with doctrine that doesn't work, just for the sake of doctrine.

The dude  

Posted: December 12th, 2013 11:33 PM

Uncommon sense, consider that we'd have a much more sever drug problem is this like Herion, Crack, Meth etc... were legalized. Britain put a ban on handguns, other types of guns, and has strict licensing laws where in most cases one has to register every 5 years for a new license. This has had a great effect on gun crime. When you ban guns, criminals have limited means to acquire them, and start to lose their stash with every seizure. The 2nd amendment is constantly distorted to fit the cont...

Wello from Oak Park  

Posted: December 12th, 2013 1:34 PM

@The dude Gun ownership in this country is a right, as defined by the 2nd Amendment and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. To ban all guns as you describe would require a Constitutional Amendment (or maybe just a couple more liberal Supreme Court justices.)

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: December 12th, 2013 1:21 PM

Dude, based on your logic, that means we shouldn't have a drug problem since drugs are illegal too. Banning guns doesn't solve anything. Just makes them more valuable and ensures only criminals and the government will be armed. If they can dump the 2nd amendment, then you can assume the 1st amendment will be next, followed by your right to vote.

The dude  

Posted: December 12th, 2013 12:39 PM

Increasing penalties for dealers selling to unlicensed buyers, strawbuyers, and criminals that own and use guns is a short term measure. Banning guns all together in the US is the only way to reduce gun violence in the long term. Of course there are too many people and organizations like the NRA who will never agree to this, so we will always have high levels of gun violence. This is the compromise a large portion of the country is willing to live with for their "right", so nothing will change.

Bill Doogan  

Posted: December 12th, 2013 12:04 PM

The gun lobby doesn't need criminals to have guns, but it does need criminals. The Otis McDonald lawsuit paid $300,000 to the gun groups. After the NRA used Otis as a plaintiff, they flushed him when NRA contract lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Rep. Phelps carry bill. This encourages police violence against black citizens in Chicago, and works with the New York style stop & frisk policy. DTI will create lots of lawsuits for the traitors at NRA.

OP Resident # 545 from Oak Park   

Posted: December 12th, 2013 11:05 AM

It's hard to get to consensus when one side is of the mind that the "gun lobby" is the problem in all this. No, @Background, it's not. The problem begins and ends with criminals, and criminal behavior. Judges need to put criminals behind bars. The "criminal lobby", who refuses to confront "gang violence" is the real problem in this debate.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 12th, 2013 9:07 AM

@ Background - If the majority of guns . used in crime, passed through under 2% of the FFL holders it seems to me that Justice Department could watch them closely. Could it be that all of their sales were legal and above board and the statistics happen because of the area where they do business. If the criminal was three or four transfers down stream, it is hard to fault the dealer. The process of getting a FFL is long, hard and expensive. It is hard to figure why any dealer would put that license in jeopardy to sell to thugs.

Background checks  

Posted: December 11th, 2013 4:02 PM

Also, a thought, would be happy to be proven wrong, but perhaps the NRA NEEDS criminals to have guns in order to legitimize its existence?

Background checks  

Posted: December 11th, 2013 4:01 PM

DId you see my comment elsewhere about how the gun lobby prevents the ATF from tracking guns--57% of illegally bought guns were traced back to 1.2% of Federally licesed dealers. Read about how the ATF can't do its job b/c of NRA and its kin. Also--no one ever answers the problem about no checks done at gun shows in OTHER states that do NOT have background checks required at their shows. What is the NRA's position on preventing criminals from getting guns?

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: December 11th, 2013 2:58 PM

Ray, how can we even have a discussion if the other side is coming from a position of total ignorance of facts? I'm still trying to figure out where all these people buy guns legally with no background checks of any kind. I also want to know where I can buy legal automatic assault rifles since last time I checked, assault rifles that "fire faster" have been banned since 1934.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: December 11th, 2013 2:54 PM

Cant speak for John Erickson, only for myself."we had proposed universal backround checks prior to obtaining ownership of a gun" Distinctly recall asking the honorable John Barret to yield the floor to have Matt Uddleson read off a list of agreed upon restrictions from the FOID card application which we all agreed we were positive. JB said " now we are getting somewhere" w/restrictions in place for 40 years. No one has defined what a universal back round check is or who implements the check.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 11th, 2013 2:24 PM

@ John - Those of us who have purchased guns legally go through more than just a background check. We get a FOID card that includes a state police background check before we purchase anything. Then at the time we decide to get a firearm we fill out the federal 4473 form which must accompany the purchase. After we pay the bill we must wait 72 hours before we can take delivery. The background check is usually done during that 3 day period. That is the way legal purchases are done. Illegally you go down to the parking lot behind the liquor store where a guy is selling guns out of the trunk of his car. The seller may be a straw purchaser - he is doing a criminal act and is never a Federal Firearms License holder. The purchaser probably could not pass any background check so he is also engaging in another criminal act. If either of these people are convicted felons they are committing another felony. Since the problem is the illegal sale of guns - how will a more universal background check make any difference?


Posted: December 11th, 2013 6:27 AM

Oak Park already has everything you are asking for. It's is already IL state law. (It hasn't help us or Chicago any, so making it a national law is a moot point.) What about the war on drugs or Judges that don't enforce laws? That will make a difference.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2017

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2017 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad