Commentary
My views on guns are idealistic—picture a fresh daisy sticking out of a rifle barrel. It’s hard to believe I come from the same town as Ted Nugent.
The way I see it, we live in a society that glorifies violence, encourages paranoia, and treats weapons like toys—not a great mix. So when I hear that tired old argument declaring “guns don’t kill people,” I’m far from convinced. If you ask me, the world would be better off without them.
While I’m no fan of firearms, I don’t believe licensed gun owners should be treated as criminals. My state’s Attorney General Lisa Madigan disagrees.
Last week, Madigan made a ruling granting public access to the identity of licensed state gun owners, backing a request made several months ago by the Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act. The action seeks a public window into the now private list of individuals who carry firearm owner identification (FOID) cards—a required document for anyone in Illinois possessing a gun.
As with all things gun-related, a counterattack has been waged. A bill in the Illinois Senate is working to stop Madigan’s request, and several thousand gun owners recently held a demonstration outside the state capitol. Meanwhile, Illinois state police, the body that oversees FOID records, is keeping its list confidential and waiting it out until the issue goes to court.
“The safety of real people is at stake here,” said Richard Pearson, director of the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) in a statement on Madigan’s ruling. “Once this information is released, it will be distributed to street gangs and gun-control groups who will use the data to target gun owners for crime and harassment.”
Gun issues barely make it on my radar, but this misguided ruling instantly grabbed my attention. Not only because of the safety concerns it creates—even on the surface, promoting a public map locating the state’s privately owned firearms sounds like a recipe for disaster—but also due to the unwarranted invasion of privacy it seeks.
I’m all for greater transparency, but not into the lives of 1.3 million law-abiding citizens. These FOID holders did everything the state and federal government required to legally possess a weapon. So I don’t understand why, in exchange for their compliance, they may now receive the same public exposure as registered sex offenders.
The Second Amendment is something I’ve never taken very seriously. To me, it always seemed like an outdated relic from colonial times; and the “well regulated militia” it describes always struck me as something to fear rather than support. I’ve never paid much mind to complaints from gun owners declaring that the government is infringing upon their rights, but news of this blatantly unfair ruling made me wonder if I had it wrong.
Since its invention, the gun has provided the common man with a tactical advantage he’d never had before. Guns kill. And they do it more effectively than any weapon of the ancient past. That’s why they’re so desirable. A gun grants its user an unmistakable power. Even if it’s never fired, its presence sends a clear message—unless you want trouble, stay away!
Guns kill, and that’s why there are laws restricting access to firearms. Criminal background checks, regulations, and the control of weapons help to ensure that guns don’t end up in the wrong hands.
Guns kill, but they won’t just disappear, and they’re not exclusively accessible through legal channels. Gun laws therefore should seek to keep firearms away from criminals and high-risk individuals, while working to support, and even promote, the comparatively healthy option of legal gun ownership. Any gun-control legislation that doesn’t move toward these aims is a deadly step in the wrong direction.
Madigan’s ruling—a clear abuse of the FOID program—runs counter to the aims of sane gun laws. It unnecessarily exploits the identities of responsible gun owners, gives criminals access to a helpful guide that locates guns, and puts lives at risk. The public would be better served by turning its attention away from the details of private citizens, and instead concentrate its scrutiny on the deeds of public officials—as these individuals are capable of far more damage.
[email protected]
The way I see it, we live in a society that glorifies violence, encourages paranoia, and treats weapons like toys—not a great mix. So when I hear that tired old argument declaring “guns don’t kill people,” I’m far from convinced. If you ask me, the world would be better off without them.
While I’m no fan of firearms, I don’t believe licensed gun owners should be treated as criminals. My state’s Attorney General Lisa Madigan disagrees.
Last week, Madigan made a ruling granting public access to the identity of licensed state gun owners, backing a request made several months ago by the Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act. The action seeks a public window into the now private list of individuals who carry firearm owner identification (FOID) cards—a required document for anyone in Illinois possessing a gun.
As with all things gun-related, a counterattack has been waged. A bill in the Illinois Senate is working to stop Madigan’s request, and several thousand gun owners recently held a demonstration outside the state capitol. Meanwhile, Illinois state police, the body that oversees FOID records, is keeping its list confidential and waiting it out until the issue goes to court.
“The safety of real people is at stake here,” said Richard Pearson, director of the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) in a statement on Madigan’s ruling. “Once this information is released, it will be distributed to street gangs and gun-control groups who will use the data to target gun owners for crime and harassment.”
Gun issues barely make it on my radar, but this misguided ruling instantly grabbed my attention. Not only because of the safety concerns it creates—even on the surface, promoting a public map locating the state’s privately owned firearms sounds like a recipe for disaster—but also due to the unwarranted invasion of privacy it seeks.
I’m all for greater transparency, but not into the lives of 1.3 million law-abiding citizens. These FOID holders did everything the state and federal government required to legally possess a weapon. So I don’t understand why, in exchange for their compliance, they may now receive the same public exposure as registered sex offenders.
The Second Amendment is something I’ve never taken very seriously. To me, it always seemed like an outdated relic from colonial times; and the “well regulated militia” it describes always struck me as something to fear rather than support. I’ve never paid much mind to complaints from gun owners declaring that the government is infringing upon their rights, but news of this blatantly unfair ruling made me wonder if I had it wrong.
Since its invention, the gun has provided the common man with a tactical advantage he’d never had before. Guns kill. And they do it more effectively than any weapon of the ancient past. That’s why they’re so desirable. A gun grants its user an unmistakable power. Even if it’s never fired, its presence sends a clear message—unless you want trouble, stay away!
Guns kill, and that’s why there are laws restricting access to firearms. Criminal background checks, regulations, and the control of weapons help to ensure that guns don’t end up in the wrong hands.
Guns kill, but they won’t just disappear, and they’re not exclusively accessible through legal channels. Gun laws therefore should seek to keep firearms away from criminals and high-risk individuals, while working to support, and even promote, the comparatively healthy option of legal gun ownership. Any gun-control legislation that doesn’t move toward these aims is a deadly step in the wrong direction.
Madigan’s ruling—a clear abuse of the FOID program—runs counter to the aims of sane gun laws. It unnecessarily exploits the identities of responsible gun owners, gives criminals access to a helpful guide that locates guns, and puts lives at risk. The public would be better served by turning its attention away from the details of private citizens, and instead concentrate its scrutiny on the deeds of public officials—as these individuals are capable of far more damage.
[email protected]
