Dave Schweig's gun-study proposal

Opinion: Ken Trainor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Ken Trainor

Staff writer

I owe Dave Schweig a response. After the Aurora, Colo. movie house massacre in late July, I challenged the NRA, and all Second Amendment champions, to acknowledge the responsibility that goes with their freedom to own — and in more and more states to carry — guns. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, I wrote, but gun advocates don't seem to feel any responsibility to do anything that might make it harder for madmen to acquire small arsenals and shoot up public places [Maximum freedom, minimal responsibility, Viewpoints, Aug. 1].

Since that column ran, I have heard nothing to change my tune. The NRA and its bought-off elected officials have gone through their usual shuffling act, deflecting all responsibility. In the meantime, there was the Sikh temple massacre in Wisconsin, and another shooting near the Empire State building in New York City. Two police officers got into a shootout with that madman, and several innocent bystanders were hit. Imagine if a number of vigilantes had added their wayward bullets to such a chaotic scene.

Dave Schweig, to his considerable credit, is the first gun advocate I've ever heard from who wasn't haughty, hyper-tense, hysterical and/or hateful in defending his position. He's actually polite and civil. There may be others, but I haven't encountered them. Dave seems like a decent man.

That doesn't, however, mean he's acknowledging any of the responsibilities that go with his freedom to keep and (potentially) bear arms. In his first response to my column [Safety from madmen with guns, Viewpoints, Aug. 15], he advanced the opinion that more guns among the citizenry is the only thing that will lead to less crime.

He threw in several questionable statistics from questionable sources to make his case. To reiterate my oft-stated position, statistics are rarely persuasive because the credibility of the people who rely on them to support their arguments, I've found, is extremely low. I've been burned by misinformation far too often to engage in a stat-slinging contest. If you can't present your argument using reason, you're not going to get very far with me.

Dave makes the case that crime has gone down steadily nationwide in "the last 25 years" (actually it's been 18, starting in 1994) while the number of armed citizens has gone up during the same period. Therefore, one must have caused the other.

In logic, this is known as the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy. There is not necessarily a direct correlation between two factors just because of their chronological proximity.

In this particular situation, the increased number of police officers put on American city streets during the Clinton administration, the resurrection of community policing, plus increased citizen participation in crime prevention are widely considered to have had the biggest impact on crime. Also receiving its share of credit is the "broken window" philosophy of upgrading high-crime, urban neighborhoods by getting rid of graffiti and paying attention to appearances (such as fixing broken windows), which sends an important message about raised community expectations.

The factors that resulted in the remarkable crime turnaround of the last 18 years have been well documented — in the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, for instance. It's possible, I suppose, that vigilantism might have had some infinitesimal impact on crime, but the plus side of the ledger is likely negated by the number of entirely avoidable deaths resulting from gun accidents at home and elsewhere. However, that's just my guess.

In Dave's second response [We need a citizens committee on the OP gun issue, Viewpoints, Aug. 22], he calls for a Citizen Advisory Committee of Inquiry, consisting of an equal number of people from each side, to study the gun issue and send a recommendation to the Oak Park village board. He asked me to join him in supporting this.

I never turn down an invitation to dialogue, but I'm not so keen on "dueling monologues." Dialogue requires an openness to hearing the other's point of view, a willingness to learn something from the opposition. Even a more reasonable gun advocate like Dave Steig has never given me any clear indication of this willingness.

Here's how it works: I have, on several occasions, freely acknowledged that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns. I need Dave to publicly acknowledge that with that right come certain responsibilities — including the recognition that something needs to be done to keep madmen from having such easy access to firearms.

As soon as I hear that, I'll support the inquiry commission on responsible gun ownership.

Until then, I really have no reason to expect to hear anything but more of the same.

Is that fair, Dave? I look forward to your response.

This article has been corrected from a previous version that mispelled "Schweig" in Dave Schweig's name. Wednesday Journal regrets this error.

Email: ktrainor@wjinc.com

Reader Comments

57 Comments - Add Your Comment

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

Comment Policy

People First  

Posted: October 6th, 2012 10:07 PM

The racist attempts at humor posted on this comment page are extremely offensive. The forum moderator should delete all and block this individual.

Dan in Oak Park  

Posted: October 6th, 2012 9:33 PM

Great, Ken acknowledges the 2nd amendment and all we have to do is acknowledge the Ken amendment-that something needs to be done. Nice starting point for a dialogue.

RLEmery from San Diego  

Posted: September 28th, 2012 6:00 AM

Hold the antis responsible for the slander of all the law abiding gun owners and force them to admit that career criminals, gang members, and suiciders are responsible for over 92% of the deaths by illegal use of a firearm each year. Hold the anti's responsible to admit that an inanimate object is not the root cause of violence. Hold the anti's responsible to admitting the 2A has always been an individual right separate of miltia service. Any other responsibility the antis should admit?

RLEmery from Sand Diego  

Posted: September 28th, 2012 5:53 AM

Hold the antis responsible for the BATF refusing civilians access to the NICS system, for failing to stop the 95% of felons who dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source. Hold them responsible for failing to fund and resource the mental health reporting function in each state as NICS data shows only 1.7 mil records of people who by due process lost there right, while mental health experts identify 50% of the 2.7 mil prisoners and 7% (21.8 mil) of adults have severe mental illness....

RLEmery from San Diego  

Posted: September 28th, 2012 5:50 AM

On second thought, we need to have Ken admit the antis portion of responsibility for all this. The antis need to be held financially and criminally responsible for when they disarm people in gun free victim disarmament zones. They also need to held responsible for.. BATF failure to enforce the background check less than 1% of the time on 1 mil felons since 1994, the 830,000 others rejected and not prosecuted, the 100% who use a fake id passing the background check...cont

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 10:08 AM

Q, what ever makes you think that I live in the People's Republic of Illinois?


Posted: September 27th, 2012 8:57 AM

Ok Ken, I'll bite. Since I lobby in Springfield to protect the RKBA, I recognize that with my God Given and 2A protected right gun owners do have certain responsibilities. And I have written bills/laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I will continue to work on and look for creative and reasonable ways to accomplish this all the while respecting and protecting the RKBA. Since you want a dialoguwhy don't we meet for a beer and talk about it? I'll

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 8:02 AM

Q: Complced or effective. I have heard some domestic violence court cases required a judges order to remove firearms from the home. All for it. I have also posted I would like to see hearings for the mentally ill to remove their firearms.

Ray Simpson from Oak park  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 7:56 AM

@RLE - You have identified Ken and his minions approach. Ken says he has heard only one sane person in Oak Park who supports the second amendment. Week after week he offers his limp wrist solution to a problem and every week dozens of us offer opinions and offers of help solving gun related violence and felony, yet Ken says we are all mentally defective or unwilling to give in to his world view. Like Washington Democrats Ken believes that bipartisan compromise means 'do what I want and don't demand anything in return'

RLEmerey from San Diego  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 6:53 AM

Real sad how you lamely infer statistics you can never refute that dont meet your warped opinion dont matter. Children act that way, stomping their feet, throwing a temper tantrum, wailing, I wana, I wanna, I wanna when they do not get their way as evolved adults tell them no. Where should we send your daily supply of Gerbers & Depends? I need to make sure my stock value continues to increase as you anti's wail and stomp your feet, more and more every single day.

RLEmerey from San Diego  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 6:48 AM

41 more states since 1987 reinstated concealed carry, 35 states reinstated concealed carry in eateries serving alcohol, 4 states w 200 universities reinstating concealed carry. Not to mention 25 staes with SYG and 24 states with Castle Doctrine (5 pending chage to SYG). From FBI UCR since 1997 alone, 38% reduction in violent crime, 26% reduction in murders, 4.5 mil more firearms a year in law abiding civilians hand per your uber gods, the pathological liars Brady Bunch. cont....

RLEmerey from San Diego  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 6:43 AM

Wow, like the continuous adhoc claim of the anti's more guns in law abiding civilian hands equals more violence (a pathological lie). Or even worse adhoc, less guns in civilian hands equals less violence (another version of the pathological lie gun control reduces violence)! All while government data which you never can refute shows crime going down, NICS checks doubling since 2000 (8 mil in 2000) etc, etc, etc. All those rights re-instated, millions of firearms in civilian hands, ...cont

Loc Tran from Peoples Demokwatic Chicago  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 6:34 AM

Hey Jack, Bhirsch, etc, etc, etc, fwom now on, we shwould onwy wespond to Q rants, with "Where photos at Chawey "Q" Chwan". As we now Aww antwi's havent the convwiction to bwack up their bewiefs pwubicwy mwuch wess compwomise, mwuch wess show govermwent fwacts to ever, ever, ever, ever, ever pwove their pwosition.

Loc Tran from Peoples Demokwatic Chicago  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 6:26 AM

Where phwoto Charley "Q" Chan? Untwil phwoto of yu wearing Staw of Dwavid, and swign pwosted on fwont door & fwont wawn of "GUN FREE" pwoving yu wiwwing to compwomise, yu nowtyhing bwut Oak Park viwwage idiot. Not to mwention, we gwun onwers outwnubwer yu few antwi gun extwemists by many, many, many many pweople, so we, vewwwy apwopiate twerm.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 1:10 AM

BHirsh from Miami, you are saying shut up and you are being annoyed. What is your next move if the people who annoy you don't shut up? Is it possible that you have a gun to express your desires.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 1:08 AM

Loc Tran from Peoples Demokwatic Chicago, you demonstrate just what Jack Burton does and that is to use the "we" when you refer to guns. If you always have "we" around you why would you need a gun? You obviously have a lot of "we's" to help you defend "we" against any bad guy.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 1:06 AM

Jack Burton, I would think by the way you favor gun ownership and don't want your rights taken away from you that you would have at least one gun. Knowing that gun owners are law abiding citizens that you would have a law abiding FOID card.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 27th, 2012 1:04 AM

Brian Slowiak, there are many bases overseas that are not in combat zones and the Military are not allowed to carry weapons. Weapons are only for combat zones. The 4 year old that I was referring to wasn't applied for by his parents. A reporter impersonated a 4 year old and filled out the application and he was able to receive a FOID card. It was to demonstrate that the procedure is not complicated as gun owners like to think it is.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 11:46 PM

@BHirsh - You are correct, but, what those of us who support the second are willing to do is assist the community in gun safety training, Input to the community about enforcing weapons felony prosecution and any other advisory functions where we have a vested interest. Our town will never be seen on national TV with crazies shooting AK's in the air or toting RPG's down Lake Street.

Loc Tran from Peoples Demokwatic Chicago  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 10:09 PM

Ah so, we see Q also wares star of Dwavid, and has siwgn on fwont dwoor & fwont wawn pwocwaiming he Gun Fwee! So be good wittle atwi gun extwemist and post phwoto pwooving this, then maybwe we wisten to idwiot wike you!

BHirsh from Miami  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 9:05 PM

Of course you realize that all this "debate" nonsense is just that - nonsense. We have the right, and soon the right will be expanded to its original form, and there is nothing you can do about it. So just shut up. You annoy me.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 7:45 PM

Q... what makes you think I have a FOID card?

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 7:16 PM

Q: Yes, I know solders dont carry weapons on bases unless they are in a combat zone,I used the term over seas. All combat zones are outside of the US. I thought thats what I posted.I think we mean the same thing, differently. The FOID card for the 4 year old was obtained by his parents to secure the 4 year olds access to a firearm

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 6:19 PM

Dave Steig proposed a reasonable discussion to find common ground about guns in our community. As expected Ken isn't buying it unless we all give him his way and that is a total ban. Ken knows that we are opposed to that so here we are arguing about turning in guns when you leave the service, as if that is justification for us turning in our guns to the village so Ken can bask in the glow of lefty victory.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 6:07 PM

Jack Burton, who showed you which boxes to check on the application form for a FOID card?

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 6:01 PM

Q has lost the argument. He's lost it in the courts... he's lost it in the Congress... he's lost it in the vast majority of the states... and he's lost it in the court of public opinion. He is no different than a flat eather desperatly hanging on to his mistaken beliefs in the face of all reason, logic and reality. I'd almost feel sorry for him but it is so entertaining to watch him recite the same false issues post after post, month after month. He is going to die a very unhappy man some year, knowing that all the time he put into the anti-gun concept was wasted from the first moment. :-)

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 5:59 PM

Cont... to carry fire arms but I would be confident that you do not carry fire arms every time you leave your home. Your confidence comes from within, and not by the size of your weapon. Jack Burton wants the confidence by carry his fire arms at all times. He feels the only way he can feel safe outside is with a fire arm. He is not a very confident person. There a many people who are authorized to carry fire arms who do not carry them all of the time.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 5:57 PM

there ya go, Dear Readers. As noted about Q.. merely disagree with him and he wants to take away your ability to own a gun. And this is what the gun-bigots mean when they post about "reasonable gun laws." And Q... the miiitary take the guns away when you get out, yes, because the guns belong to the military. No other reason. They also take away the vehicle you drive, the ship you served on and the tank you rode around in.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 5:56 PM

Cont... It has already be shown when someone sent the form along with a check and two pictures of a four year old that the system is not that easy to get a FOID card. The 4 year old received his with his picture on it. I am also aware that people like Jack Burton who can't stand on his own as a gun advocate is not going to stand on his own if something do go wrong with him owning a gun. He will blame everyone and include everyone for his lack of ability. You have the legal right to Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 5:53 PM

Cont... can go to a fire arms dealer, fill out a form, attach two pictures and pay a few bucks and you are now almost ready to purchase fire arms and take on the responsibility of owning one because you go to the range and fire at a paper target. There will always be people who lack mental ability who are allowed to buy guns. People who think they can sell others on the idea that a form that you can check off whatever question you want is something tough to do to get a FOID card. Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 5:50 PM

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park, the Military takes back the weapons because they know you don't need them any longer. They are used supposedly to protect America so when you return back to America, you don't need them. Law Enforcement as you know do have them, and I'm sure with your years as a Law Enforcement professional you must have met a few Officer's who shouldn't have been allowed to carry a gun. I am not against people carrying weapons. What I am against is people who think you Cont..

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 5:46 PM

frank, what is the most common weapon of choice for killing? A rolled up comic book or a gun? You can kill with either one. You can kill with a pencil, a pen, a nail, your thumb and middle figure, but the choice weapon for killing is a gun.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 5:44 PM

Jack Burton, I take back what I said about you carrying weapons. You can't write without including we, so you are not responsible for yourself so you shouldn't be allowed any type of weapons. People like yourself beat your chest until you actually are engaged in combat and you are the first to duck. I knew a few guys like you and you are all the same. You just don't have enough smarts to own or carry a weapon because it means to much to you.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 5:41 PM

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park, Soldiers do not carry weapons on base unless you are in a combat zone. The reason is for safety.


Posted: September 26th, 2012 5:02 PM

Look up the words kill,an murder see if it says only a gun can be used.


Posted: September 26th, 2012 4:54 PM

Ken Until you recognize that there are no amount of laws or restrictions you can put out there, that will prevent a nut job from doing harm the better understanding you will have, as to why law abiding people should be able to carry.All of you anti gun people refuse to acknowledge that it is unstable people not guns that kill. Was fertilizer and diesal fuel banned when McVeigh blew up the federal building? I think not!!! What difference does it make if one or ten are killed. Dead is Dead!!!

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 11:28 AM

q states: go ahead because I know you will eventually grow tired of carrying them... Jack replies: As noted previously, a person with no experience with guns or carrying them is exactly the person we should turn to for advice and knowledge about carrying them. :-)

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 11:25 AM

Q, we know more than enough about you and your experience with weapons. If you want to claim that you have some then you are no different than the guy who claims he was the high school star quarterback yet states the reason why the Chicago Bears didn't win the Stanley Cup is because their second baseman didn't get enough free throws. In other words, you don't have a clue about firearms and it shows every time you approach a keyboard.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 11:20 AM

To Q: "Why did the military take away your weapons when you were all done with them?"The military owned the weapon,not the solider."Why do military bases not allow the general population to carry weapons?"General population? Civilian employees? On US bases no soldier carries a weapon except MP when contact is made w/a US citizen? Over seas bases, a different set of rules.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 11:19 AM

Q- you turn in your military weapons when you leave service because they don't belong to you. I left and turned in my m-2 carbine yet took my 22 cal, 38 cal and 45 cal pistols because they belonged to me. I paid for them and paid for the accurizing to make them precision target guns.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 10:17 AM

Cont... Why do Military bases not allow the general population to carry weapons? When it comes to weapons, the Military knows a lot more about them then you, and they make sure they keep you safe from everyone carrying them. This requires thinking on your part, so don't make another ass out of yourself. If you want to carry your weapons now that you are done using them to defend yourself in combat, go ahead because I know you will eventually grow tired of carrying them.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 10:14 AM

Jack Burton, don't gather the sheep by saying we, stand on your own as a person who wants his guns. You lack insight to my experience with weapons so you shouldn't base your assumption that I have no knowledge of weapons or lack experience firing them. That simply makes you out to be an ass. You mention your Military experience as your experience with weapons. Why did the Military take away your weapons when you were all done with them? Cont...

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 9:16 AM

Q sez: If you want to carry it to protect yourself against bad people it's more likely they will get the drop on you first Jack replies: And isn't it amazing, folks, that people like Q who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on how well guns work for self defense? While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with years and decades of military and other experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to effectively make guns work, and without the anointed ones guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society? Like they say: When you're sick you go to a car mechanic; when you're in court you need a good butcher; and when you want to know something about how to defend yourself, you go to Mr. Factless.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 9:12 AM

For a much more mature understanding of the question, "Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?" you can read http://hub.me/adOMK

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 9:06 AM

To all: Ken is tone deaf to all submissions that are contrary to his preconception. He is known for questioning your statistical proof while accepting opinions as fact. He seems to know that pro second amendment good citizens are the problem and refuses to admit that we are just as concerned about gun violence as he is. BTW the dozen bystanders in New York were all wounded by gunshots fired by the police. No gunslinging cowboys in this crowd just one mentally sick guy with a grudge. Had any armed citizens come to the defense of these victims they would have fired on the police.


Posted: September 26th, 2012 6:10 AM

Just one question for the author, "When has denying access to everyday citizens the right to arms led to anyone being safer?" I believe that he is asking for a massive intrusion into people's lives by pre determining their mental fitness to own a firearm. The current form 4473 contains many questions, when answered in the affirmative, disqualify the potential wielder of a gun the right to purchase that gun.

Loc Tran from Peoples Demokwatic Chicago  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 4:04 AM

Aw so sowwy Kwen We see yo not opwen to chwange. So wee pwopose this compwomise. You wear sign, wike Star of Dwavid, showwing yu suppwort for Gun Contwol. Thwen you pwost sign on fwont door, and fwont lawn, pwoudly pwocwaiming THIS HOME GUN FWEE! When all you antwi gun extwemists do this compwomise, then we consider giving up mowe rights to your unsubstantiated fears.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 1:46 AM

Cont.. safely locked up and unloaded until you get the urge to pack them on yourself again. I don't want any bad people getting any of your guns and you wouldn't want to be a complete idiot to have the bad guy you are defending yourself against end up taking your gun away. If that happened, you deserve to be laughed out of Dodge City.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 1:44 AM

Cont... and decides the candy wasn't worth the bother. That will happen to people carrying guns too. Of course that is where responsibility comes in. You will have a lot of people placing guns in under their car seats and other areas because they are tired of packing guns and besides everyone else can do it so it's not anything special. So if you are going to start laying your guns all over the place like a child with toys, you better take up the responsibility of putting them away Cont..

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 1:42 AM

Cont.. because if it did, and there are already 48 States that allow people to carry guns, then there would be lots and lots of reports of shooting which there are not. Also, States that allow people to carry guns don't have lots and lots of people carrying them. That may have to do with the child theory. If you tell a child they can't have the candy, then they will stomp their feet thinking they will get their way. Once you give the candy to the child, the child eats a little Cont....

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 1:39 AM

Cont... if there is an incident on the CTA, the media will take that incident and make it as if it is happening all of the time. Facts in life are things are dangerous but you really need to go with the percentages to based your chances of having something happen to you. That goes with riding the CTA, or even needing a gun to defend yourself from media frenzy of the dangers out there. As for gun ownership and even carrying a gun it's not going to increase shooting incidents that much Cont..

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 1:36 AM

Cont... around shooting people, there would be lots and lots of reported shooting. Ken likes where he gets his facts from so Ken can do the work on this. He can take the number of guns there are and the number of shootings there are in a year and figure out what that percentage is. The problem with news, it is to build up something as if it's happening all over the country. Lets take the CTA. 750 thousand people use it each day and lots of people think it's very dangerous to ride because Cont..

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 1:34 AM

Cont... then you are going to need to keep it with you at all times, even when sleeping and that has been known to be dangerous. Using Ken's logic of thinking, lets take the amount of guns there are in America. I don't know how many there really is, but it seems that people who are against guns say there are lots and lots, and gun owners say there isn't enough. I'm going to go with there are lots and lots of guns. Now if people who own lots and lots of those guns went Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 1:31 AM

Cont... People have all types of reasons why they want to have guns and even some people say to make sure the government doesn't take over which is ridiculous because if the government wanted to your gun would be nothing against the weapons the government has. If you want to carry it to protect yourself against bad people it's more likely they will get the drop on you first if you don't use common sense which means being aware of your surroundings. If you want to use it to defend your home Cont.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2012 1:28 AM

joe from south oak park, I agree that Ken already has his mind made up from places he considers to be reliable places to get facts from and since he knows that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns, then why doesn't he figure out what the responsibilities were when they made the 2nd Amendment. I disagree with the 2nd Amendment because it was to make sure Americans were allowed to have weapons to gather together if America was going to be invaded during that period of time. Cont

joe from south oak park  

Posted: September 25th, 2012 11:24 PM

As is to own a firearm you need to apply to the state for an FOID. The state police perform a background checks to make sure that you are not a criminal or mentally ill. 30 to 40 days later with current timing you get your card. At that point a gun dealer in Illinois will actually let you hold a firearm and you can buy ammunition. If you want to buy a gun, then you need to fill out some federal forms for another background check. Three days after you pay for the gun you can pick it up.

joe from south oak park  

Posted: September 25th, 2012 11:15 PM

Poor Ken.. When will you realize that dialogue is a two way street. Although you talk of an openness to hearing another point of view, at the same time you belittle those holding that view. The number of gun owners that say that the mentally ill should be allowed to own firearms are very few. Similar to the few that believe that all guns should be banned. Madmen should not have guns. But at what point do we decide that extra steps beyond the rat race that is already required will do anything?

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

Classified Ad