Dan, i agree

Gun violence kills more innocent people in Chicago than are killed in Afghanistan. The ubiquity of guns is at fault. Taxing guns is a great idea - anything that will limit the ability of people to buy them. It will not limit the ability of hunters or legitimate gun owners to own guns. It will limit the death rate in this city.

All great comments and true in my opinion. I am a gun owner as well. Criminals do not pay taxes, criminals steal things and obtain guns illegally. What will the tax do but offer governments more opportunity to waste my money.

Criminals buy guns easily because of lax enforcement of straw purchaser laws due to NRA corruption of D.C. ATF was embarrassed a few years ago when NYC showed how easily people bought guns for felons. And when it was revealed the NRA went to bat for criminal gun sellers.

Guns didn't kill anyone in Afganistan. Soldiers and marines, used firearms (among other tools and weapons systems) to kill enemy personell and destroy enemy equipment. Taliban and other insurgents used firearms and explosives to kill U.S. soldiers and marines.

No guns put on a pair of boots, marched up to someone and fired themselves.

No guns killed anyone in Chicago. Criminals have murdered people in Chicago with knives, machettes, pipes, firearms and their bare fists. The firearm is a tool - tools used by law enforcement officers, miltary, and unfortunately, used by drug dealers and gang members as an indespensible tool of their trade. Ubiquity of guns is at fault ? What about the ubiquity of cocaine and heroin? Do you really think it's possible for Cook County or Illinois to stop criminals from getting guns? Neither Chicago, Cook County or the State of Illinois has been able to stop criminals from getting cocaine, heroin, marijuanna, meth lab equipment and supplies - but we're to believe that taxing guns will limit criminals' ability to get guns and ammo? An outright ban on firearms in Chicago for years was not able to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals but a tax on ammo will?

No logic there...

Carol: reread what you wrote. Does it make ANY sense? Of course not.

@ Carol.

I'm considering my first gun purchase. I'm not quite as pumped as Mr. Cox, but how would a tax mitigate gun deaths? It sounds like most knee-jerk answers. If you think about it, if someone arrives at the point of shooting someone, its not the taxman who going to stop him from shooting.

Dan,

I see your point. Initially, I thought this would be a good idea. However, the majority of the costs are associated with individuals who use the guns in terrible and unjust ways. I would vote for a tax to be levied against individuals found guilty for improper use of a firearm. Perhaps a large tax and fine and a lifetime penalty to be levied against the individual. Not sure what the solution is in this matter.

BATF refuses to Enforce existing Laws

USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008 Brady Check report that of the 154 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, 1 mil felons were stopped from purchasing a firearm from a licensed source since 1994 less than 1% .were prosecuted. Nor the 830,000 others rejected (which includes the crazies), or the 95% of felons who dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with. Much less the fact that the BATF refuses to allow civilians access to the NICS check system, all while failing to prevent those who use a fake identification to pass the background check 100% OF THE TIME.

How about them politicians who refuse to fund the NICS mental health system reporting function. The NICS only shows 1.7 mil records of people who by due process have lost their 2A right. Yet mental health experts admit to 50% of current 2.7 mil prixoners are mentally ill, as well as 7% of adults (21.8 mil).

All these government failures to enforce, but idiots want to punish the innocents, how unevolved you ignorant ones are.

Hey you can also prove that the US govt doesnt recognize that 92% of deaths by illegal use of a firearm are committed by career criminals, gang members, and suiciders (suicide is a felony ya know?).

Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968, 85% of the existing gun control laws, including a tax on felons and criminals, doesnt apply as it violates their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, get a clue

Not surprisingly alcohol is involved in putting quite a few people in trauma centers, but not a penny of the GIGANTIC percentage of taxes on alcohol goes to trauma centers.

It is estimated that alcohol is a factor in 41 percent of all fatal automobile accidents and nine percent of all crashes in 2006. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that in 2006, 42,642 people were killed on our nation's highways; 17,602 of these fatalities were alcohol-related. Alcohol-related injuries continue to be a serious threat to both drivers and passengers on the road. In 2006, over 254,000 people in the United States suffered injuries in alcohol-related crashes.

About 3 in every 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives. An alcohol-related motor vehicle crash kills someone every 30 minutes and injures someone every 2 minutes. Traffic crashes are the greatest single cause of death for every age between the ages of 2 and 34.

Beyond the tragedy of lost lives and painful recovery from injuries, alcohol-related accidents exact a huge economic cost. In 2006, the financial costs associated with alcohol-related crashes in the U.S. were estimated at $51 billion annually.

Chicago emergency rooms, like the rest of the nation, bear the tremendous cost of alcohol related injuries and fatalities, but not a peep from Toni Preckwinkle on using the millions that Chicago makes on liquor licenses and alcohol sales to help our hospitals.

We're to believe a tax on guns and ammo is necessary?

@ C0untZer0.

Actually, I would wonder if alcohol is the spark in a lot of random gun violence, be it domestic or gang related.

@GuitarMan
ya, these shooters are almost always high on something, if it isn't booze or dope its PurpleDrank or "Lean".

LML--Bingo. Lets tax everyone to dead... Stop the over spending, That is Chicago---California problem....
But no one is talking about deporting the millions of illegals wasting $$$$millions of Illinois tax payers money in free hospital care---welfare--food stamps..No Democrats won't deport them because they want the Hispanic votes. Lets go after the tax payers and the workers pensions.

When my wife and I were having our first child, we came in for our scheduled delivery. While we were walking in, a pickup truck pullled up and a group of people literally unloaded a pregnant woman at the emergency room.

This woman ended up being in the same room with my wife.

I got to talk to the nurses about her. She didn't have a doctor at the hospital - didn't have a doctor at all. I asked if the woman had insurance and the nurse just rolled her eyes.

The cost for my daughter being born was $15,000, our insurance covered most of it. Whatever it cost that hospital to deliver that woman's baby - they got absolutely no reimbersment from her.

I'm guessing she got around $15,000 worth of free health care with an emergency delivery of her kid.

Ya...

I don't think Preckwinkle really is interested at all in funding trauma centers or she'd address the number one things that's causing them to lose money...

@ Dan.

No need to name call. Actually with around 10 trillion in lost housing values we are all probably insolvent at this point.

Right on Dan, conceal/carry has worked and quite well in states that recently allowed it. Their crimes involving guns went down. I don't know any cowardly criminal that will bully you once you have the right to carry and if he got so bold as to try, once you get yours he will run.

thats because all the dumb a_ _ voters in chicago and in cook county keep electing the same DEMOCRAP'S to govern. How about we do not pay any of our elected officals their salaries until they find a way to fix the spending problem.

ILLEGALS ARE COSTING TAX PAYERS IN THE U.S. OVER $$$$ 25 BILLIONS A YEAR IN JAIL COST---WELFARE COST---HOSPITAL COST---FOOD STAMPS COST--BORDER SECURITY COST.. IS ALL FREE FOR THEM AT TAX PAYERS EXPENSE. WHY DON'T THEY DEPORT THE ILLEGALS ??

I HAVE A SUGGESTION----LETS GO AFTER BUSINESSES WHO HIRE ILLEGALS AND CHARGE THEM $ 10,000 PER ILLEGAL.

Really, Cutting welfare for illegals will cost us more? It will create jobs for citizens but that will be after every stinking illegal is rounded up and shipped back to mexico. Then we will have less money wasted on their lives and guess what, safer streets.

The cost of area hospitals treating knife wounds is ASTRONOMICAL. Every day in Cook Country emergency rooms treat hundreds of patients with knife wounds - most of whom do not have insurance, give an alias when they show up anyway, and bottom line - most of them do not pay for their medical treatment.

People and businesses buy knives everyday - a lot of tax revenue to be made there, but no one talks about a knife tax.

100% tax on politicians earnings, that would save us Trillions!

Jose, you are right.

We need to raise the quotas for legal immigration so we can screen them all. The Dumbocrats & Retardicans will never agree to this for differing reasons.

Do the El Rukin's even exist? Are you that out of touch?

@ Jose.

What is your source for "most crimes per state"?

Chris, $250.00 to have the same Right that people in other States pay nothing for. Why should we be Taxed on a Right? The 2nd Amendment is not for Sale, anymore than Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion, etc.

that will never happen. As long as you have the DEMOCRAPS running everything, local to suburban to state goernments are all run by the DEMOCRAPS. I ahve been voting since 1982 for everyone other than these sticken DEMOCRAPS and if everyone voted like me, this mess would be cleaned up. There is a bumper sticker on the back of a pickup truck where I live, it says: RE-ELECT NO ONE!!!!!

@ james urban.

IF you think democrat and republican politicians are that different you are really being played. The biggest "differences" are on a few issues; abortion, maybe unions, & marriage are the most common. Beyond that there isn't a sliver of daylight when it comes down to passing legislation, or spending.

Your clue is for decades each side has a pitch, and each cycle post election the lobbyist move in and work congress. Wise up, its the old divide and conquer approach. Or as the Roman's stated "we must appease the mob". Getting nasty with each other plays right into the game, yelling and shouting with one another while the real deal making goes on, as in the past 30 years.

@ recarry.

I'm not aware of a position on guns for the current democratic ticket? As for how to pay for the medical bills, right now you are picking up part of that tab. I'm not saying this tax makes any sense, I'm saying you are just venting and not really making a good argument.

Frank Reiss, You have become a Victim of the Media's portrayal of Gun's. The term "Gun Violence" is a a Brady Group idea. The idea is to blame the "thing", not the person. The Victim of the violence is a victim of 50 years of Gun Control Propaganda driven Laws, that prevent a Law abidding citizen from having the same Right's that are enjoyed by people in 49 States. Illinois is the ONLY State to protect its criminals more than their victim's. A Woman has to choose to move, if she wants to be able to defend herself and her Family, that is wrong on so many levels.

LET ME SHARE WITH YOU HOW TO KEEP FROM BEING A VICTIM...........

@ Frank Reiss.

I've voted democratic for a while, but I don't believe we have to think of the victims. I have managed my life in a way that I am not a victim, and avoid becoming a victim. Society as a whole needs to grow up and act like adults. If persons are unable to control their impulse to kill, no tax in the world should be pushed onto me.

"These kinds of taxes are the future". Really? Actually the future of Illinois looks pretty bleak when even more freedom-loving taxpayers pick up and move to friendly states run by rational people. Have fun paying more for your idyllic liberal world when the tax base has dwindled (for reasons besides the dismal employment numbers that have been sinking for the last 12 years). Keep up your infringement of our rights and see how that works out in the long run.

U.S. Constitution is for every square inch of the U.S.A. Chicago has lost several of it's Court Challenges against their Unconstitutional Laws. See Otis McDonald v Chicago, for one of the greatest victorie's of a man taking on a City and winning in the Supreme Court. Ben Franklin stated: They who will sacrifice essential Freedom for temporary Security, deserve neither Freedom, nor Security. 1775 This is what Chicago has, nether Freedom, nor Security. You can have your 911, I would much rather have my 1911.

@ wbpprint.

Wow, you comment is speculation and inference at its best. Cigarette smoking is not criminal and not really a good analogy. On the other hand, you pay for the high cost of cigarette related health issues, and there are many. All medical insurance spreads the risk for smoking, not to mention other bad habits.

As far as the city sprawling outward, not sure what you mean in terms of a gun tax, of any other point Are you saying you have figures that show crimes in these areas are from Chicago residents? Important note, crime rates are based on violent and major property crimes; murder, rape, burglary, etc. The murder rate nation wide has been falling for a number of years.

A gun tax is about the Second Amendment.

@ LMJ

Off topic, and just a rhetorical question.

That's really not true across the board by any means. AZ has one of the loosest conceal carry laws. Did that stop Jared Loughner? No. Some "level headed" criminals may think twice about pulling his gun in a crowded area but people still use guns to kill regardless. You think intercity teens and gang members only shoot each other because they know the other is unarmed? All you are actually stating is that if you are armed the other guy will die first. You want to be the jury and the executioner all in one.

Arming more people won't stop people dying in DC or Chicago. It won't be so naive to say that conceal carry would hurt the murder rate, but at best it will stay status quo.

@ LMJ

Not sure of the source for "crime goes down once you have conceal and carry." But the crime rate, as measured by violent crime has been falling for a number of years. Most people the go through the criminal justice system are there usually for drugs, and not hard drugs like heroin, etc. Marijuana is the leading drug for arrest and conviction, at the cost of nearly $1.2 trillion tax dollars/20 years, and it flows unabated from within our border.

Brian,
what it means is the odds that the murdered victim wll not be you. Your statement "All you are actually stating is that if you are armed the other guy will die first. " I don't see anything wrong with your scenrio. You see the point is the BAD guys will still get the guns without paying the tax. They will still use them when they see fit unless they're not sure if you will have the capability to shoot back. Even if you don't, they just won't know and the intelligent ones will think about it. The unintelligent ones just haven't a clue and yes you too may live to see another day. Conceal and carry is taking the place of morality, respect, and values that have become abundantly lacking within our lives. OR.... have you ever tried to talk someone down that was on METH? What are you going to say to the punk that wants your nice new jacket or your wallet or your car with your child in the rear? Please don't? Wheere is your humanity? Well good luck with that one. I for one do not crave a leashing to the cross in the middle of a fire pyre. I'm not a sacrificial dog that is to suffer because of your loss of reality and misguided sense of humanity. It is not the world we want to live in but it is what you are dealt. The reatoric you spew "You want to be the jury and the executioner all in one" is just that reatoric.

How is my opinion rhetoric? When the meth head or criminal who comes up and accosts you what is the response of a person legally carrying a gun? He/she pulls it and if he/she feels threatened they pull the trigger. Lets say you just give the guy your wallet or coat and then he gets apprehended. Is he sentenced to death? If someone threatens you with a gun but never intends on pulling the trigger...death sentence? My point here is that adding more guns will never equal less deaths, just the other person dying. They definitely don't, nor should they have the right to kill you, but you shouldn't have the right to kill them either.

Where we differ here is that you use this argument to say owning and carrying a gun will curb violence against you and perhaps others in your vicinity. Which I will always concede that it can work. My point here is that guns are used on a base level to kill and my opinion is the best way to stop them from killing people is more restrictions or at the very least better regulation and teaching. Conceal carry will never stop shootings in the inner city.

"Conceal and carry is taking the place of morality, respect, and values that have become abundantly lacking within our lives" We shouldn't, as a modern society, be happy and accepting of that as the only answer.

You can call my answer rhetoric, but the playground argument of they have it, so why can't we shouldn't apply to a deadly weapon.

428 Win You are misinformed, the 2nd Amendment is absolutely about our Right to "pack heat". 49 States observe the Right, some with Open Carry, Concealed Carry or like in Wisconsin...both. The Patriot's carried their Gun's Openly, so did the Pioneers and Frontiersmen. Their is historical basis for this in the State Constitutions of several States. Please reference the SCOTUS Case Heller and listen to the audio from the Moore v Madigan Case that was heard 6/8/12 at the 7th District Federal Court of Appeals. Judge Posner ripped the AG Counsul for even saying that... "To Bear Arm's" could mean anything other than to have your Firearm for protection outside of your home, to bear arm's in your home is just silly!

The beauty of the 2nd Amendment (all Amendments in fact) is that it's not up to oppressors like you to decide how to interpret and restrict those amendments.

THE REAL SOLUTION IS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT ARE ALREAD ON THE BOOKS.

Then we shall bear arms openly and you liberals can wet your pants. Somehow, Wisconsin residents get along just fine with both open carry and concealed carry. Perhaps because they are not badgered (a pun, get it?) by Constitution-hating progressives.

Judge Posner addressing Illinois Assistant Attorney General Karl Triebel in arguments in Moore v Madigan (State of Illinois)

“What does it mean to bear arms if there’s no right to carry arms in a public place? You don’t bear arms in your house, you don’t march around with a gun over your shoulder right? It’s not just to keep arms, its to bear arms. It’s not just a right to keep it in your house, it’s a right to carry it. It can’t mean carry it in your house – that’s pointless."

@ 428Win & the rest.

The Second amendment is insurance against tyranny. Whether that means you strut around with guns hanging of you is debatable. In any event, a tax won't save the next gun victim, and most American don't wish to surrender the "insurance" against tyranny. This is a classic political red hearing, trot out a gun tax, put on a show how citizens may be safe, etc., knowing it would be impossible to round up the estimated 300 million guns here.

428Win is one of the brightest voices here. We don't need a tax, we need an amendment to our 2nd amendment! We're beyond the 'frontier' days and don't need to be armed. It's not just thugs who kill. Shall we revisit Columbine, a movie theater in Colorado, domestic violence, bar brawls, Brady taking the hit for Reagan, etc.? Really, if you want to go kill something, take up archery.

You are ignorant on that subject as well? Explain the effects of Clinton and Barney Frank forcing banks to make bad loans to high risk low-income people before you comment on "deregulation". Then tell us what industry you work in and we'll examine how government interference has created perversity there as well.

BINGO RECARRY

@ recarry and TIM

No bank made a loan it didn't want to, its about the money. If you believe any large monied interest is forced to make a deal, you need to understand what lobbying is. 428Win has got you dead to rights. In the 8 years under Bush leveraging went wild, and hence Hank Paulson stepped in with around a $1 trillion ot prevent at that time a banking collapse.

Deregulation specifically permitted commercial and investment banking to merge, and boy they poured all the money they could into one big fat happy derivative/default swap nightmare. Including your mortgage if you have one. 428Win has got you dead to rights on this one.

@GuitarMan - back in 2004/5 Bush and some republicans tried to bring additional oversight to Fannie / Freddie - worried about some "implosion" by loaning money to people would might not be able to afford to pay it back. At the time they were stonewalled by Democrats and the media who labeled what they were doing as racist and against "the poor". You can watch your favorite Democrats on CSpan videos uploaded to YouTube. They raved about how "well run" and how great Fannie and Freddie were and how Republicans fears were "unfounded" - well, it looks like they were wrong.

As for "forcing banks" to loan money to people, do some more research on the CRA and how it was used to coerce banks that wanted to merge or expand. The banks were just "lucky" in that they could sell the forced loans off to Fannie and Freddie instead of getting stuck with the garbage they were forced to offer.

@ Glenn.

That's what people need to consider more, they both drink at that same trough. The divide and conquer mentality where citizens are yelling at one another, just lets the lobbying continue.

And I've never heard anyone who was shot say "I wish that dude had had a knife or a pipe so at least I could have run or fought back." So quit trying to equate the far more destructive potential of a firearm (with which one can commit massacres like Columbine and countless others) to anything else.

@ C0untZer0

Dude, and that's gender neutral according to my daughter. Most rapes are done with the mere threat of harm. The most common weapon is pure terror, followed by a knife. If you don't know that I can introduce you to a program where you can speak directly with women who have experienced rape and other crimes from men.

What people often miss in this argument is that most criminals are very proficient fighters, they’ve fought most of their lives, they know how to take a beating and they know how to dish it out with their fists, with their feet, by grappling, throwing and using a knife, a bludgeon or anything readily handy. They don’t need guns to victimize law abiding citizens.
Most criminal are also psychologically vicious. They have no qualms about committing violence.
The average person, doesn’t fight on a regular basis, they’re not skilled at it and they are at a distinct disadvantage when confronted by the average rapist, mugger, burglar, robber etc…
It’s not illogical for the average victim to be terrified – they are severely outmatched. The criminals don’t need guns in this unfair match up but the law abiding citizen does – if they have any hope of protecting themselves.

Unfortunately under Illinois law being a law abiding citizen means being at a disadvantage to the criminal element - the muggers, flash mobbers, and rapists know it.

Taxing guns and ammo is going to help these victims how?

This vicious sociopath did not need a gun to brutally beat a woman, rape her daughter and stab their dog:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/09/police-man-beat-woman-with-hammer-raped-little-girl-stabbed-dog/

But if this woman had a gun and knew how to use it - she could have saved herself and her daughter.

The philosophy behind gun-control amounts to denying people the right to defend themselves.

It is morally bankrupt...

This particular incident occured in Carpenterville, but a county tax on guns and firearms would have helped how?

428Win Tax my Gun, then I'll Tax your Bible, You Tax my ability to Shoot, I'll Tax your ability to Pray, Tax my Right to Protect my Family, I'll Tax your Church... do you not see that you cannot Tax a Constitutional Right!

Hey David, this is about taxes. By the way, I've heard of several people who have killed their children lately, with guns they bought to protect themselves. I hope you're luckier in that regard.

@ David Holtz

Off topic big time. True big cities have more crime, check any large city world wide. Solution in our case is stay away from big cities if you believe you are less safe. And regarding prisons, most inmates nation wide are not in for violent crime. I know on the prison shows they interview people on death row and the like, but attempted murder and murder are a very rare crime. Check FBI stats at their site.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

Where did you get your statistics? "In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm."

PLEASE..... DON'T TAX MY BASEBALL BAT.

Okay, so make a reliable accurate firearm at home. I've yet to hear of someone who had. But I've had friends that brewed their own booze at home. And booze is what you compared firearms (bans) to. What's more, this isn't about bans it's about taxes.

And conservatives it's a tax cut. Those ones Bush said were going to revive the economy worked out well, eh?

Well enough that Obama kept them. Yes, he wanted to get rid of the potential $800B from the rich, but he was more than willing to keep the $3200B (more that 4x) that went to the non rich.

Law enforcement is universally against conceal and carry, lax enforcement of firearms laws (everything the NRA is for.)

Contrary to 428's comments, the Illinois Sheriff's Association supports RTC (one lone member voted no - Cook Co)......The Chicago Police Sergeants Association and Chicago Police Lieutenants Association support RTC........and while I am unsure of the groups official title, a group representing Illinois Police Chiefs are in support of RTC.........as for the average street cop....walk up and ask them.......

I was in law enforcement for a number of years ago. Many officers feel that citizens carrrying with a permit are not a problem. It's the criminals they worry about. The criminals don't take the time or effort and cost to legally own firearms. Anyone who thinks that law enforcement are against concealed carry are wrong. The rank and file officers have no problem with concealed carry. 428Win is incorrect. I doubt if he gets his information from a reliable source. The only LEO's against CCW are some of the "brass" (Chicago) who are not on the street, and a very small number of officers. The NRA is not the only gun organization. The Second Amendment Foundation, Armed Citizen Alliance, too name a few.

428Win I want to now Tax your Right to Free Speech, no more comments from you will be accepted until you pay Cook County. Do not go to your place of Worship until you pay the Tax on that too... it is a slippery slope, when you allow the Government to start Taxing your Constitutional Right's

Typical liberal machine politics. Rahm wanted it statewide just to tap into more money for their failed cronie politics. Are there any ammo or gun stores in the city ? Over 400 murders already. How's that strict gun control working for ya City of Chicago? When the bangers start shooting up the "nice" wards then these bleeding hearts on the north shore will start to wake up. MADIGAN and Daleys have robbed this state blind and fed their friends on our money. When will these fools that blindly vote them in
wake up ? This has nothing to do with helping to offset medical costs. We know this tax will pass because it is what the machine wants.We have no voice in the matter. It wont get better until fools stop voting these crooks in. Has anyone seen the CA 49 pamphlet in the mail ? Another attempt to lie to the people and pretend that their failed crooked thieving policies have broke the State. Now they want to pass an amendment to constitution and act like they had nothing to do with pension fraud. Rahm said he would have to raise the CITY taxes over 100% if the STATE doesnt bail out the city pensions while he passes out money to his and Madigans pals. BOO HOO. Why should everyone in this overtaxed state bail out these people ? VOTE NO on CA49. It's just a smokescreen.

Yet when health insurance bureaucrats reach in and take a huge chunk of your paycheck every other month, money that never even passes through your hands, that you never write a check for, the equivalent of a new car every few years and the price continues to skyrocket, you have no problem with it. Uncle Sam is the boogyman but if the private sector rips you off it's okay.

"Yet when health insurance bureaucrats reach in and take a huge chunk of your paycheck every other month..... Uncle Sam is the boogyman but if the private sector rips you off it's okay."

428, do you understand the difference between voluntarism and coercion?

I don't have health insurance, I have never owned a new car, I cannot afford it.
I live on a meager budget. I have no 401. little savings, Don't own a cell phone, almost 1/3 of what I earn goes to the government as it is,Yet I'm a victim of every ridiculous tax that the draconian politicos can think of.

J.C. - you should go get yourself one of those "free" Obamaphones the woman from Cleveland was talking about...

428Win, I am a smoker that lives in Illinois. I, like many smokers, now purchace my cigarettes in bulk in Indiana or on-line. SCREW Illinois!!! The same will be done with ammunition. I'm also considering moving my business and family to a much more free, less government intrusive / taxing state!!! Liberals be damned!!

For what it's worth, Tom, I'm not in favor of sin taxes. But smoking has declined since they've been passed.

What no one has answered here, however, is the fact that the status quo for gun injuries taxes every member of the state every time someone with a gunshot wound who is uninsured goes to the hospital. So quit pretending you're in a fantasy world where only this tax will tax citizens because of firearms injuries. We're all paying them now. It's more fair to shift that cost to buyers of firearms. If you don't want to pay the tax, get another hobby.

What about that huge settlement that Illinois got from tobacco companies? $9.1 billion dollars to be paid to Illinois?

The state gets between 300 and 386 million a year (it varies from year to year) from the huge tobacco settlement !!!

Illinois raised $856 million in tobacco revenue in 2012. Illinois also received $1.1 million from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – for tobacco control and prevention. Illinois also received $710,767 from the Food and Drug Administration for enforcement of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, including the provision regarding tobacco sales to minors.

Want to know how much Illinois actually spent on tobacco prevention and control?

A paltry 9.5 million.

Anyone who thinks that this guns & ammo tax is about getting more money to our hospitals is a fool. We can rail at the King and Queen of fools, who propose these ridiculous schemes, but it hides the fact that they were put on their thrones by a mass of fools – and that’s where the real problem lies.

Don't give them Ideas.

Obviously the Chicago Police need firearms to deal with individuals weilding tire irons, I'm just wondering how the rest of us are expected to do it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-cops-wound-person-in-south-austin-neighborhood-20120923,0,169078.story

Fine, so you have identified some areas you can lobby Illinois lawmakers to fix.

""there's nothing in the second amendment allowing conceal carry nor a firearm for so-called personal protection (by the way, how long have you been in the militia?)

Disallowing CC or carrying for personal protection sounds like an infringement to anyone that can speak English.

Guess what Sparky, you're in the militia assuming you're an adult. So is recarry and so am I.

428Win 49 States can do what we cannot, Why? Do you really think that everyone else is wrong? I go to Wisconsin and there are no issues with me carrying a Gun on my hip, there never have been, since Wisconsin was formed as a State. Before that it was a Territory and everyone carried a Gun. You have no basis for your position, but we have the history of the United States to back up our 2nd Amendment Right's!

100% Correct, the Cook County Crook's are Robbing us through Bogus Taxes now!

Sure, many sheriffs are for CC. It is not until you examine the flunkies in police forces that you get to the opposition against CC.

@ Dan Cox

what is the source for the "every sheriff" claim? You seem to be saying the @nd Amendment is absolute, that's not true of any legal right. So I'm thinking the every sheriff comment may be off.

Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart is the only sherrif in Illinois who opposes a carry law.

Every other sheriff in Illinois is on the record with various comments from neutral support to strong support of CCW.

http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/photos/galleries/6775405-417/local-lawmen-give-support-to-conceal-carry.html

428, you're in the milita.

Bullcrap and you aren't either. Nor was your father, or his grandfather in the militia.

428Win You never reply to my fact's, you have no rebuttal to fact's do you? What role does the acceptance of Illegal Immigrants into Chicago have on all of the Social Services there. The Mayor and County President want us to pay for their choice to violate the Immigration Law. Why should we accept that as okay? I say we Prosecute the elected Officials that have publicly stated that they will not do their job and enforce these Immigration Laws!

428, I suppose you can decline membership in the milita. You cannot decide my membership status, however.

And yes, as originally understood by the constitution, my ancestors were also in the milita.

Its turning into the typical political, off topic, non-productive rants.

How is a tax "sacrificing" your freedom? Like any other sales tax, you'd be free to make the purchase, or not. So quit grandstanding.

Does Second Amendment say you have to sell Ammo for guns and can't tax it

"How is a tax "sacrificing" your freedom?"

Really? Economic freedom is an essential component of freedom, whether or not you find it icky or unfair.

Glenn, that's "you're", not "your," seeing as we're talking about education. I'm not worried about gun control. You should worry about the cost of firearms injuries shifting from the public to the private sector. That's not a matter of if but when and it might happen soon. When it does, private insurers are suddenly going to find gun control suits their bottom line. They have far more money and clout than the NRA and will spread it in D.C. They will also run ads that will remind suburbia of the gun carnage that can happen in any 'burb, any time. Times are changing. Your old road is rapidly aging.

428Win - you're obviously not familiar with the Protect of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Sarah Brady couldn't get reasonable people to buy into her mindless hatred of guns so she enlisted the aid of greedy lawyers to try to sue gun manufacturers out of business. it worked on one manufacturer, but then the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed.

No more trying to sue companies to death because you don't like them.

@ Glenn Farkas

Glenn you loose the argument when attempt to define a right solely on the black letter of the law. That's why we have case law, which clarifies the limits of our rights.

Using your interpretation, which is not used in case law, you would need to be in a militia.
Second Amendment - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Therefore taking your literal analysis you accept the "well regulated militia" element of the 2nd amendment leads to you probably shouldn't complain about the power for it to be "regulated" in a traditional manner for government, i.e. taxing it.

Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause, a complete sentence capable of conveying a clear meaning, and must first exist for a dependent clause to have meaning, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)

Yet some now infer the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, incapable of conveying a clear meaning (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.

http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/sntstrct.html

Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.

http://www.rain.org/%7Ekarpeles/

Until you rewrite the rules of english composition, any idiotic inferrence that the BOR and Constitution are meant as a control on the people, rather than a control on the powers of the government, no one cares what you believe as you cant disprove the existing fact, well regulated means WELL TRAINED DUMB DUMB!

Sooner or later it's a given.

@ Michael Oellrich

Taxing something does not make it illegal. When you buy a gun/ammo you pay a tax, not the same as the proposed tax discussed here, but your speech analogy is not workable. Again, I vote democratic and plan to make my first gun purchase soon, and don't see any political party doing much more than talking about gun controls. Its a political trick to appease various voters, and get 2nd amendment people riled up. Politics is the science of Pavlov's dog, applied to humans. Don't fall for it.

@Guitarman, how about we tax everyone who supports taxing guns. They are in favor of more taxes after all. Nothing illegal about - nothing that goes against "free speech" for as you say, taxing something does not make it illegal.

Take a class sometime.
Guns are simpler mechanisms than chain saws or automobiles. Neither automobiles nor guns are dangerous in and of themselves. A table saw isn’t dangerous, although, like a car, if it’s misused it can cause serious injury or death.
There is a tremendous amount of misinformation about firearms from Hollywood and from biased people in the media who hate guns
There are classes that teach basic firearms safety and basic information on firearms. This is never live ammunition in the classroom. It demystifies guns, they’re just tools. Less complicated than a lot of tools that people use every day. The classes are not political – they’re not for or against gun control, they’re merely informative – with safety being the focus.

@ Tea

I think conceal and carry laws, and the impact on violence is complex. First, take a state like Montana, has around a million residents, spread over a lot of land. In short, you interact with people in small towns and all is cool. Take a large city like Chicago, 3 million people in a small area. Many contacts, many tensions, just what you need for people to blow their top. Taking into account falling violent crime stats from the FBI, the conceal and carry concerns in terms of shootings are not conclusive. FBI stats are current to 2010, in part because of data collection and defendants pending conviction, i.e. can't call it murder until convicted. From the link scroll down for trend graph, roam around the site its worth it, before anyone gets fired up about carrying around a gun.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

You're already paying the violence tax.

@ C0untZer0

Come on, that strong language and off topic. Yes government can be wasteful, so get out to your local school board or alike and make change, not noise. If you are so passionate about guns, go to your local city meeting and make the proposal. Anyone can accuse a city of xyz, but Ben Franklin would tell you to get out, and get on it.

Make it $2.

Illinois enjoys the Tax Revenue from several Ammo. Manufacturers, like Winchester. Force them to move out of State, cost Job's and Revenue to the State. Smart! Create a black market for Ammo, Smart! Try to monitor 1 million Bullets a year, who has them, shot them, traded them, lost them, etc. Smart! It is simply non sense!

The NRA refuses to allow a law to ID ammunition. They lobby Congress and pay so much money to the campaigns. In a sense the NRA is paying a tax to the Republicans so they won't track ammunition. It makes too much sense for the right wingnuts to be okay with it.

Really RB, a law to ID ammo?

Do you even know what that is?

It's pie in the sky BS, which forensic scientists have said will not work. The NRA would like nothing better than to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But they can’t support BS laws that do not work and only increase the cost of gun ownership for law abiding citizens.

Just because some moron says he has a plan to ID ammo doesn’t make it so.

Kinda like Eric Holder had an idea about giving guns to the Mexican Drug cartels to supposedly nab the drug kingpins?

If only things were so because we said they were so...

How can you believe that will work? Can I tie the $20.00 bill in your wallet to you? It has a Serial number on it! It is just silly.

@ C0untZer0

The NRA today will not support any law that regulates guns. Lets be honest. Traditionally, the NRA favored limited gun ownership. Some time around the 80's the NRA was turned into a political lobbying group, largely to rile people up that the government is coming. Lets be honest, political rhetoric is what the NRA is peddling, not gun rights, as can easily be seen by how the Supreme Court has consistently favored and overturned any law that prevents gun ownership. Lets be honest.

The NRA legislative wing exists because of the actions of the anti gun extremists continued pathological lying that gun control reduces violence. The antis created the child they birthed, the NRA, Yet now that the NRA has grown up, leanred how to play the game better than the antis, and GASP actually have facts on their side unlike the anti gun extremists, you are upset that they have learned to play the game better than you.

Aw poor widdle anti's, we HIGHLY suggest you punish those responsible for the NRA legislative wing existing and slap yourselves silly. If you video the 3 stooges comedy reenactment slap fest, you can raise funds for your cause as we know how desperate the Brady Campaign and other anti gun scam artists are for contributions as they are nearing bankruptcy as more and more people recognize the pathological lie that gun control reduces violence, when in fact it never does.

Is the check in the Mail?

@ McCloud

It sound like you have the answers. Now lets see you make a change.

In Illinois, I fell like I am being sexually abused by the Politicians and the Taxes!

@ tom Koz

Where did you get that from? I mean maybe you are frigid, but come on, get serious.

Its called no courtesy reach around, something brokenstring should be intimately familiar with.

I'm sure doctors factor that into their cost analysis.

That is a great idea - we can tax abortions to pay for free birth control!

I often wondered why Cabellas built in Cook County... Bad Decision!

Yep. Kind of makes all the talk that this is something new or an infringement of rights kind of silly.

@Mikein
Are you also saying that peope that NEVER had children shouldn't pa taxes to support schools. I'm for that

@lucas - sorry, but "schools for everyone", even illegal aliens, are mandated by the SC. We are stuck with that.

Lucas, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that most guns used in crimes are not legally owned and why should just gunowners pay the tax? As for non parents paying for education, a good education helps everyone even though it may take years. School dropouts take more government benefits than those with a high school diploma or college degree. So as far as education, we can pay now or pay later.

Good point!!

Among all nonfatal injuries occurring in the home, an estimated 22 to 30 percent involve alcohol, with 10 percent of those injured having a BAL at the legally intoxicated level at the time of the accident. Coroner data suggest that alcohol consumption immediately before a fatal accident occurs more often in deaths from falls and fires than in motor vehicle deaths.

This is like when you decide to drink AND climb a ladder to trim your tree while installing a satelite dish AND cleaning your gutters.

It's tragic

And because it's tragic we need to tax sales on guns and ammunition.

Just wait. If your men Ryan and Romney get in office and cut social programs and tax revenue, you'll have counties and States having to make up the holes in the safety net. I doubt overall taxes will go down. You'd love to ignore the less fortunate but you can't. To make necessary budgets, your local taxes and fees increases and cuts to tax deductions like mortgage interest will more than make up for any bogus tax cuts for the wealthy. Romney has it all wrong, especially in a recession . Taxes on guns and ammo? That's nothing. Try State taxes on anything from leaf pickup, garbage pickup, parking, road repair, services like car repair and private pensions and IRA withdrawals, even higher sales tax on groceries....just to try to stay even after so much Government cutting after reduction in revenue and probably more unfounded war under Romney. Property Taxes? You think they are high now. Romney is cutting Federal not state and local....gotta make it up somewhere. The middle class gets screwed under Ryan and Romney.

And this has to do with Emanuel and Preckwinkle wasting millions of tax payer dollars and concocting a new tax scheme...

HOW ?

People in California, Greece and certain parts of Illinois think that money grows on a magic money tree, and that there is always a big pot of money somewhere that will bail them out, no matter how foolishly they waste their money.

They believe that budget shortfalls happen because they didn’t collect enough magical money, so when they are over budget they think it’s time to raise taxes. If that doesn’t work – then it’s time to force someone to bail you out:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/30/demint-joins-national-effort-to-keep-feds-from-bailing-out-state-pension/

The Beetles wrote a song about it.

@RB - the thing is, then at least local people will be taxed for their decisions. We in Chicago / IL decided that WE want to be a sanctuary state / city, welcoming in all illegals. If that is our choice, then WE need to pay for that. Likewise, we have decided how we want to incent people to work / not work & live, so we can pay for those choices as well. Much more fair than passing the buck on to the federal government.

Good point, comig soon is the you either purchase health insurance or you get taxed and the IRS will see to it that you pay. Poor and middle class people watch out.

here here

@ Jim Teeters

Actually, you are not correct. typically sophisticated gangs recruit juveniles to use guns. How the get them is anyone's guess. I believe in a culture that hold money so high, at the cost of ethics, allows gangs to find, and pay someone who is hard up, the right price to gets guns, legally. You know someone on the edge of foreclosure? Think creatively and you will not assume its all a bunch of criminals.

Don't even tell me you have never had an ethical dilemma and made the wrong choice, ok, just in advance. You could find yourself in a place where the money talks to you and you rationalize it. Get it?

Actually, it could be solved by doing a 180 about Gun Laws in Illinois. Concealed Carry needs to be finally approved and let the good citizens have their 2nd Amendment Rights like 49 other States do!

"why would the government tax good citizens for the sins of the lawbreakers?"

Because they can; it's the path of least resistance. Since the State has a monopoly on force, they're going to use it.

Count, its funny how people who argue the points that you do (while at the same time ostensibly being fiscal conservatives) always say the solution to gun violence is the to lock people up, which is the most expensive solution there is (six million Americans are already in jail.)

Not to mention the fact that there are all the other built in costs to towing the NRA's line (hundreds of millions for security guards, billions per year to heal and rehab gun shot victims who're uninsured.) And you say nothing about the fact that these things are already taxing the tar out of everyone who's reading this despite the fact that more than half of the country own not one firearm.

The Gun Law's of Illinois are Draconian, no other State has thes kind of Law's, yet we have the highest Murder Rate in Chicago in years. The Women of Illinois are being victimized by our Gun Law's esspecially. If a Woman in any other State wants to carry a Handgun for self defense, she can! But NOT in Illinois. We need to take action and make sure our State Representatives know that we support CCW in Illinois.

That bad guys acquire guns is not an argument against the right to keep and bear arms.

Automobile violence continues unabated under Toni Preckwinkle:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/14/85-year-old-woman-dies-after-hit-and-run/

Where do these "BAD GUYS" get their cars?

When will the carnage end?

The auto industry lobbies the politicians in Washington and Chicago and keeps them from doing anything.

How many more must dies before Chicag politicians get serious about automobile violence and start taxing autos to curb this problem?

Knife violence continues unabated under Toni Preckwinkle:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/09/police-chuck-e-cheese-worker-stabbed-customer-over-salad-plate/

Where do these "BAD GUYS" get their knives?

When will the carnage end?

The knife industry lobbies the politicians in Washington and Chicago and keeps them from doing anything.

How many more must suffer before Chicag politicians get serious about knife violence and start taxing knives and sharpeners to curb this problem?

I wanted to wash my hands of this argument, because the pro gun side will never acknowledge that a meeting point in the middle is possible. Which is fine. You want the right to carry and kill, so be it. But these comparisons to cars are such a completely ridiculous argument. You may as well compare gun deaths to choking on a chicken bone.

What were cars made for? Their primary use is transport....secondary is probably competition....third...maybe to get girls...i don't know. They also happen to be dangerous in the wrong hands, although generally cause death by accident due to outside factors at play. Because of that, we have testing, drivers licenses, and an accepted suspension of the right to drive if you break the rules.

Guns were invented to fire a projectile at oncoming enemies. Their primary purpose has always been and still is the ability to cause harm or death...or to threaten those consequences. After that comes your sport, shows...whatever. But even in sport your goal is to become better at being able to hit something with the bullet. With all this known, it seems to me that asking people to be tested every few years in the knowledge of their weapon isn't asking too much. To have to carry a specific license for each firearm isn't too much to ask. Instead states and people fight up and down to make sure restrictions are kept to a minimum.

You want to keep comparing it cars...

It's illegal to drive without lights at night, you can't drive a stock car (nascar) on the roads, you need specific insurance to operate your car and you need to pass tests, written and practical, to own one legally.

If they are just as dangerous as guns and we accept those laws now, why can we own a .50 cal sniper rifle as a civilian? I know it's a broad term, but why can we own a "military style assault rifle" as a civilian? In AZ all you need to do is have an ID, fill out your 4473 form and have the money to buy it. Here you go...you have a "tool" that can kill someone for a couple hundred bucks...if not less. We don't care if you know how to use it...it's your right.

"You want the right to carry and kill..."

Keeping with the Sesame Street theme:

"One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others. By the time I finish my song?"

"If they are just as dangerous as guns and we accept those laws now, why can we own a .50 cal sniper rifle as a civilian?"

Who is this collective "we" that you speak of?

If you want to disavow your rights, no worries. You do not get to speak for the rights of others.

The collective we is our populace as a nation. We live under the same blanket of laws, if we like them or not. All we get to do is discuss options and ideas if one disagrees. And yes, I have mentioned banning guns, but that hasn't been my only option. How is better, required nationwide testing stopping your second amendment "right" to own? Yes, it may restrict it but that is if/when the test is failed showing you don't have the skills to possess a gun yet and should train a little more. That may not stop the hardened criminals from shooting each other, but we may better weed out the guys like Loughner and Holmes while still allowing everyone a chance to own a gun.

And what has the discussion here been? Other than the tax it is about being able to defend yourself, which means the threat of bodily harm or death by a CC member's gun. When I say carry and kill...yes it is extreme but why else does everyone want the gun as a defense mechanism? The gun looses all effectiveness if the threat to maim and kill isn't there.

So you're claim is that the national collective supports current gun laws? Do you realize how silly that sounds?

No, if you read it that way, that is not what it meant. It seems that much of society seems to be cool with everyone being free to own any type of gun with mild questions asked. But when it comes to cars, we need tests to be able to drive even a jalopy. If you want to tell me that cars are just as dangerous fine, but then don't say that testing the ability to drive is good but testing the ability to safely own and operate a gun is asinine.

Saying "we accept those laws now," is saying that the whole populace supports current gun laws. This is demonstrably false as evidenced by the infinitesimally small sample size on this comment thread.

Or are you trying to say that 50.1% of the collective "we" support current gun laws? The flaw in this is that rights cannot be preempted by a majority.

Funny how in order for the collective to exist, the individual with the pre-existing right must first exist.

But since over 92% of deaths by illegal use of a firearm is committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, explain agin how you are going to license, tax, train, and force these criminals to purchase liability insurance? Oh dont forget that by law, Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968, no person is legally liable to obey any law which requires them to violate their 5th amendemnt right of no self incrimination which such taxation or insurance demands does violate their 5th amendment right, get a clue.

Funny how when firearms are used (that means brandished as well as fired) that they are not used to kill 99.68% of the time.

So if they are not used to do the only thing Brian infers they are capable of (inferring sentient intelligent life in an inanimate object, a mental illness known as Fetishism, then there is no way that all those defensive gun uses occur as the govt. acknowledges only 15% of the time are shots fired in incidents where a firearm was involved, and at best 15% of the time is a target hit.

But Brian insists a shot is fired every time, and death occurs every time.

Or is Brian smart enough or ballsy enough to admit he is wrong?

See, anti gun extremists refuse to acknowledge obvious facts as a standard activist methodology. This refusal to acknowledge facts they cant refute, makes it impossible to have a real discussion as how does one negotiate with an insane person, much less one whose position is to support the pathological lie that gun control reduces violence, when it never does.

You nailed it on every point. Brian needs to read your post slowly and muster up some logic.

Thank you sweety. Maybe if I read it slow enough i can understand? I have a different view than you. Sorry. A tax may not be the best solution, but it is one that can raise money for a lot of things, one being the monetary damage caused by perpetrators (those who bought their guns legally or not) who shoot others.

Also, calling it a violence tax is silly, I agree. I get that. But taxing a dangerous weapon doesn't take away the right to own by any means. Seeing as the pro gun people refuse any type of legislation to try and curb gun violence, this is one way to try and counteract the cost of incarceration and hospital visits and what not...caused by a person with a gun.

You all mention the best solution is jail time and better enforcement. Fine on the enforcement, but jail time is obviously not a great deterrent either. When nothing we have tried is a great solution, why not discuss stricter laws nationwide?

Thank You, Gemma.

Of course there are other countries that have recently tried gun bans, what effect did that have on their violence?

1997 Australia, Canada, England

Australia 1997 629 VCR per 100k 2007 1,024 VCR per 100k, a 32 person reduction in murders by firearms, exactly replaced by murders with knives. Funny how that trend was mirrored in England (ref www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current20series/facts.aspx)

Canada 1997 980 VCR per 100k people 2010 1,282 VCR per 100k people, murder rose from 560 to 610 (Ref Statcan)

Canada $2 billion dollar plus registry, that hasn’t solved one crime, has traced 47 firearms to prove, yes they were stolen, and the long gun portion of the registry was defunded in 2012, such a common trend.

England 1997 820 VCR per 100k people 2010 1,994 VCR per 100k people, murders have reduced to 1997 levels after a 25% increase. (ref Home Office UK)

So much for less guns in law abiding civilians hands equals less violence, a trend found in every single gun ban country, prove otherwise. Oh, use government data to try if you want, the above references ARE their government databases.

Hey, dont forget Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968, you know, that US Supreme Court ruling that states... no person shall be legally liable to obey a law that requires them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, making 85% of the exisitng 20,000 gun control laws not applicable to felons to begin with.

Get a clue.

Let me guess, you also are upset that some companies send jobs overseas due to overtaxing here?

Made in America!? Now that's a phrase of the past.
Now America can colect a Gun violence tax and use the money to take care of all the Mexicans who are killed in Mexico. WOW!.

Oh, darn I forgot. Taxes. It's Guns, God, Gays and Taxes. I keep forgetting that new part of the right wing hot button issues. The world according to Grover Norquist.

Tax President Obama and AG Holder, they gave over1200 Machine Guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels in Opperation Fast and Furious.... Oop's!

So tell everyone where you went to the Saul Alinsky/Jospeh Goebbels school of propaganda and lies to believe that someone misusing a product should be held liable for the actions of the criminal?

You do know there is so much case law examples that a company being sued for misuse of their product is thrown out of court that it defeats this insane claim or wish of yours that it defies how stupid one like you is not to know such a thing. Not to mention the Lawful Commerce protection Act 2005 that prevents frivolous law suits to intentionally bleed a company financially dry while special interest groups use tax payer monies in conjunction with crooked politicians to press these frivolous law suits. Grow up.

Maggie, it is really a Violation of Women's Right's, that Illinois does not allow CCW, like 49 other State's. So how can we trust them to not rip us off every way they can think of. Chicago, was sold out by their Former Mayor Daley, check out the Parking Meter Scandle.

Illinois has a very good justifiable homocide law, and if someone breaks int your home and you use deadly force to protect yourself or your loved ones, Illinois law probits the family or the estate of the perpatrator from suing you.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K7-1

Yeah, sad how they cant point to our founding fathers making it illegal to protect oneself outside the home requiring duty to retreat back before 1791 eh?

Did you know that 84% of the hard core criminals that the US Marshall service goes after are illegals? Child rapists, murderers etc just the the worst 84% are illegals! Its mind blowing! and they want to tax guns? Huh?

I don't know where you got your numbers, but I can't find any that are anywhere near your numbers. "On August 6, 2008, an audit done by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that 122 of the 637 jail inmates in the Lake County, Illinois jail were of questionable immigration status."

And don't forget, one of the first things Hitler did was to Ban the private ownership of Gun's!

People need to stop using Hitler to try and win an argument based on guns. First off, it's misinformation. There were already strict gun restrictions and bans before Hitler came to power, enacted by the Treaty of Versailles and the Weimar Republic.

On top of that, you are a making a direct correlation to a govt banning or restricting guns is going to lead to genocide. It does happen, but it also works the other way as well. Australia is doing ok. Germany has had restrictions since WWII ended (enacted by the allied powers)...they are alright, along with countless other countries.

He did awful things and was one of the sickest individuals in our modern...or all of our history and perhaps a well armed populace may have stopped him, but most of the Germans ignored what was happening or just chose to not believe it...that is how they came to it being "too late."

Sad how the govt acknowkedges that over 92% of deaths by illegal use of a firearm are committed by career criminals, gang members, and suiciders (still a felony crime)!

Yeah, sad how there are other countries that have recently tried gun bans, what effect did that have on their violence?

1997 Australia, Canada, England

Australia 1997 629 VCR per 100k 2007 1,024 VCR per 100k, a 32 person reduction in murders by firearms, exactly replaced by murders with knives. Funny how that trend was mirrored in England (ref http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/facts.aspx)

Canada 1997 980 VCR per 100k people 2010 1,282 VCR per 100k people, murder rose from 560 to 610 (Ref Statcan) http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/subject-sujet/subtheme-soustheme.action;jsessionid=8D2AA1C6360138D81357F63393EC6C97?pid=2693&id=2102&lang=eng&more=0

Canada $2 billion dollar plus registry, that hasn’t solved one crime, has traced 47 firearms to prove, yes they were stolen, and the long gun portion of the registry was defunded in 2012, such a common trend.

England 1997 820 VCR per 100k people 2010 1,994 VCR per 100k people, murders have reduced to 1997 levels after a 25% increase. (ref Home Office UK) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/

So much for less guns in law abiding civilians hands equals less violence, a trend found in every single gun ban country, prove otherwise. Oh wait, you never can, but you can try and use government data to try if you want, the above references ARE their government databases.

As to you hating being compared to Hitler, geez, he used lies, the media, propaganda, etc, etc, etc, to desensitize the public to enable the actions of his henchmen later. Just like someone using the patholoigcal lie that gun control reduces violence you use, when it never does.

The anti gun extremists have nothing to offer in concessions or compromise, they only wish to take based on their unsubstantiated and illogical fears of their mythical boogeyman, the law abiding gun owner.



Unless of course they are willing to wear a symbol to identify their gun free status, uh like the STAR OF DAVID. Such an appropriate mark for disarmed victims.
Then they should be required to post on their front door, their lawn, their vehicle they are gun free. This way the police will know whom they must protect, even though by law they have no legal liability to do so.


Those who choose to rely on the police, should themselves alone pay any increases in costs for the police to do so and those signs on person, clothing and home will allow the police to maximize and be efficient in their efforts. 


Then any company, organization, govt. entity that wishes to disarm patrons etc, must then put in place protective measures to defend the innocents they disarm, making it illegal on the federal level to increase their costs to pass on to their customer or patrons, taking such costs directly from their own profits.



cont

A law will be made that the BATF must prosecute every felon or person rejected by the background check instead of the less than 1% today or face federal funding cutbacks.



This law will force the BATF to allow civilian access without extra licensing or control to use the NICS background check.


Next the state govt. will be held financially and criminally responsible for failure to fund and resource the reporting function to the mental health reporting function. Today the NICS database shows only 1.7 mil records of those who by due process have lost their rights. All while mental health experts identify that 50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners have severe mental health illness, and 7% of adults (21.8 mil) also have severe mental illness in the US.

Next, all laws that don’t apply to felons, will be judged unconstitutional and removed from the roles, simplifying gun control laws. See Haynes vs. US 390, 85, 1968 for the guidelines of what 85% of the existing gun control laws do not apply to felons due to the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination.

cont

Next, legalize illicit drugs and destroy the cartels and gangs influence fueled by massive drug revenues.

This will save $50 bil minimum in DEA budget, then taxes can be generated by using those agents to tax and control the former illicit drugs.

This will open prison space where 30-40% are incarcerated for drug offenses to put the 99% of felons the BATF formerly refused to prosecute for attempting to buy firearms.

Then of course, all anti gun extremists will have to admit that the govt data showing that 92% of all deaths by illegal use of a firearm are indeed committed by career criminals, gang members, and suiciders.

That will be a good start and it is indeed concessions the antis have available to offer.

Especially as it actually addresses the guilty, and not the innocent gun owners.

But people like Brian will not agree, and will stupidly and insanely insist only those laws that infringe upon the law abiding gun owner is the answer, when such actions have failed for decades.

They will do this and expose their true hate for an inanimate object, blindly repeating the same failed solution of gun control makes everyone safer.

Who was it that stated continual repeating of the same failed solution is a sign of insanity, they were right!

How can one like Brian, who refuses to meet in the middle with these rational solutions, be trusted, answer is, he cant.

Jeff, I'm sorry but you are mis-informed. First, you Uncle is better off being Sued, than Buried! Please check out...gunssavelife.net

If I read the statute correctly it was enacted in 2004. I'm not sure what law governed use of deadly force before then, but it seems your uncle's incident happend before current Illinois statute 720 ILCS 5/7-2 took effect.

I can't speak to what the law was in the past, here is the statute today:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K7-1

I don't know the specifics of your uncle's case but I don't agree with criminals being able to profit by suing.

I also don't agree with law abiding citizens being victimized by punative ordinances enacted by rabidly anti-gun municipalities. Neither does the State of Illinois, that's why they enacted the Hale DeMar Act:

http://reason.com/archives/2005/06/01/self-defense-vsmunicipal-gun-b

Well said, and the latest News about how Former Mayor Daley sold Chicago down the River, in the Parking Meter fiasco, is going to rip Chicago apart at the seam's! They are losing $9 Million dollars a year in the deal and this will be for 75 Year's!

And the one thousand one hundred and fifty MILLION dollars Chicago got from the deal?

ALREADY SPENT !!!

I'm with you Jeff - the scenario you describe is what anti-gun politicians in California, New York City and Chicago want to have happen.

Duty to Retreat

Protect the criminals at all costs

I was just looking for a source on your 84% since it is a very bold claim. I don't think anyone will argue with you from what you presented on your uncle. That's wrong no matter how you cut it.

Jeff, how did your Uncle end up being sued and did he lose? I have $250,000.00 worth of NRA Insurance for just this kind of situation.

With the Swiss, you also have a version of our "well regulated militia." These people are all trained with the skills to use their weapon since that is their army. We have an army to defend us. We also have civilians with no training whatsoever buying guns.

Also, Hitler didn't ban guns. He just kept alive and subsequently modified a law already on the books from the Weimar Republic...stemming from the Treaty of Versailles. Invoking his name will always bring fear because of the atrocities he and his followers committed, but he didn't ban guns to help his rise to power.

Oh darn, he just used and expanded the tools left to him, using propanagda to demonize and make those he targeted as less human, sub human, a practice continued by the Brady Bunch, SPLC, VPC, Joyce Foundation, and others.

They made laws against those they targeted owning firearms, wow, just like you want to impose on the law abdiing gun owners, all while ignoring the criminals, how prophetic.

Then as the people were brainwashed by his power, and rise of the Werchmant and German Nationalism and a booming economy, they overlooked these "violent tendencies". After all, it had proven that disagreeing with Hitler was a fatal choice by his violent use of the Brownshirts to kill opponents. At least until the German Army gave him a choice, remove the hooligan brownshirts, and we will go along for the ride.

Thereupon the SS, under the fanatical Himmler, became his personal arm of terror.

Hmmm, Homeland Security, TSA, multiple others formed under a country without a budget and fiscal controls on where money is being spent, under what auspices of control, so who knows which one of these is the next SS?

Once they had numbed the public to ignore these subhumans, then they acted.

Those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it.

The devil is the details, expecially those the antis refuse to admit exist.

Perhaps they just need to legislate a little harder. Then they can change reality and trump markets.

Well Jeff I think you illustrate a point. Cok Countey and the City of Chicago has made a deal with illegal immigrants. The deal goes like this "Chicago and Cook County politicians allow ilegal immigrants to live in Cook County undisturbed, they get medical care and their kids get an education - in return the illegal immigrants have to use the Motor Voter law to vote for the Chicago Democrats and keep people like Emanual and Preckwinkle in office. Toni Preckwinkle gets to keep collecting that big salary and she has the power to keep her family and friends employed.

There is the issue of who pays for all this stuff...

EVANSTON REVIEW ARTICLE HEADLINE:
Morgue raid: One worker asleep, two watching Bruce Lee movie

You can't just take guns away from law enforcement without first enacting some sort of laws and restrictions on the populace. They kind of go hand in hand.

Brian

We can use rubber bands and sling shots. We did back in the day? We also loved one another

Since police only solve less than 8.06% of all violent crimes committed each year and are 11 times more likely to shoot someone accidently, it may be a really good idea! But make sure when you do this, that you outlaw private security and government body guards for the elitists who make the laws and see what happens.

Violent crime rates (as reported on the FBI website) have Illinois at 435.2 incidents per 100,000 people, Texas at 450.3 incidents and Wyoming at 195.9. Other states with large metropolitan areas have high rates as well. There are 16 states with higher incidents of violent crime than IL in 2010. Since every state but us has some sort of CC, shouldn't we be the highest?

Of the 55,000 incidents of reported violent crime, 51,500 come from the metropolitan area. Yes, Chicago plays a role in our high number. Texas as well, with their big cities. They have a reported 113,000 incidents and just under 104,000 are from metropolitan areas. It's not based on population but having a large city in it's borders.

Funny how Illinois doesnt report all crimes, especially forcible rape properly, and uses cooked books.

Amazing how when one just uses Chicago's data they do report, their violent crime rate is 1,002 per 100k people in 2010, and would be higher if Chicago included their forcible rape totals. Guess you are going to promote forcible rape as legal now eh? Since the state average for forcible rape is 31.79 per 100k people, really doubt that Chicago is lower, so adding that in, Chicago's violent crime rate is 1,033.79 per 100k people while in the US the average violent crime rate is 403.6 per 100k people in 2010.

But since you have strict gun control in Chicago, why isnt your violent crime so much lower instead of being almost 3 times or 200% higher?

Sad how that less guns in law abiding civilians hands doesnt equal less violence, ever. You always fail to show that after implementation of concealed carry how the violent crime rate and murders have never gone up.

But hey, you are welcome to continue to prove what a fool does and use one data point comparisons, as noted in the anti gun idiots 101 guide to abuse of statistics and data.

Get a clue.

Ahh..our first instance of the go to Sheeple...Sorry Jeff. I apologize for not thinking everyone is out to trick me. So enlighten me as to where I should be getting all my information? NRA? I'm sure they don't have an agenda. Gunssavelives.net? Your friend's brother? You've thrown numbers around with no citation. That doesn't mean they are untrue, but it makes your stats hard to believe. I don't get all my info from one source...but on the flip, you shouldn't either.

And let me get it straight here. You are telling me "they" want me to believe that crime in Illinois is very bad (as per their stats) so that I don't realize that it is very bad? right. I'm delusional. So lay down some evidence that Illinois is the most crime ridden state in the U.S to prove me wrong....I sure can't find anything.

Nothing like trying to prove you are right by telling me to leave.

Lucas, say hello to someone... how did that work out for John Lennon?

Enjoy the day Dan

Your thinking is bend over and take it so whats your point?

Lucas, Lucas ,Lucas, You try to put word's in people's mouth's like a Politician. Where did I say anything of the sort? You have been well trained by the Anti-Gun estblishment to bait comment's and then jump on the response. Sorry, I do not fall for your ploy answers like Jeff. Have a nice day and good luck to you.

You're a pretty angry guy here. Relax. I'm just another guy who shares opinions with a lot of other people...funny thing in this country is that a lot of us are forced to agree to disagree. And I retract about it being the most crime ridden, I misread your point. You did however say that we are worse than Texas along with other CC states, which I can find no information to back that up. You tell me not to trust a govt institution when you are getting your information from guys paid by the government as well.

Sorry to offend you so much you want to kick me in the head. By no means do I want to "piss all over the constitution." Through reading all these comments, I have come to agree the tax itself is a silly idea. I also think that the framers of the constitution couldn't possibly comprehend what our country would like now and what we would have at our disposal. That is why the allowed for amendments to be made and processes for change.

I'm happy to know that instead of wanting to meet and continue our talk over a beer or two, you would rather just kick me in the head because I disagree with you. Cheers Jeff.

Brian, I'd have a beer with you.

McCloud

Having a beer with Brian is almost like my greeting a person walking by and saying hello. I prefer wine ;-)

100% Correct. Thank You.

Winnetka - the problem is, enforcing the laws against criminals is hard - taxing law abiding citizens is easy. Plus, the Democrat's would lose many of their votes if they actually prosecuted the criminals.

Mandatory recipient drug testing and limited lists of "approved" welfare staples would be good too (no cigs, alcohol etc) and generic staple food etc.

We should Tax your Bible too, and your Church and everytime you post a dumb remark on the Web. While were at it, let's Tax you every time you have Sex!

Sounds good if you belong to the El Rukns, more markets for them.

Yep, makes too much sense if thats all you could come back with. The traceable bullet would reduce crime. Taxing my bible? Do you find guns and bullets to be your religion, so you compare the two? Bible- Gun equal? Well, i guess there is a lot of hate being generated in America based upon the bible, especially toward the Democrat. I took a minute, but i get it now. Oh, that's right God, Guns and Gays! I forgot the right wing hot button issues that make you folks lose your minds.