I was listening to WGN radio this afternoon and the two women who host the show were discussing gun control. I never listen to them at that time, but found myself drawn into their discussion, their logic, their comments. I found myself wanting to call in and present my own thoughts. Of course I didn't do so. But here I am, blogging about it.

They were suggesting that so much of this gun debate is just reactionary - placating to those who want to do SOMETHING in the aftermath of yet another mass shooting. And I think they're right. They also pointed out that there are numerous laws on the books which just plain old aren't enforced, and that perhaps we need to focus on enforcing the laws that are in place instead of making more laws that won't get enforced. I think there's a lot of truth to that as well.

Then they started discussing banning weapons. They were saying stuff like, do we really believe that if we ban weapons that criminals will not be able to find guns? I also think there is some truth to that as well.

They pointed out that most of the gun homicides are by criminals - people who are already known to police as "bad guys". When you take these mass shootings out of the equation, there are still thousands of gun-related deaths in this country, mostly perpetrated by "bad guys". I think they're absolutely correct on that point also. Most of these bad guys come by their guns in an illegal manner.

Where I wanted to call was when they mentioned the assault weapon ban. I think for a state to ban assault weapons, it's ineffective. Chicago has a gun ban. There are more gun homicides in Chicago than most anywhere else. What good does it do for Chicago to ban weapons when anyone who wants one can go to the counties nearby and buy as many as they want?

But if there is a national ban on these military-style assault weapons, I think it could be effective. If the weapons are illegal, at worst people might make an effort to keep them hidden. And then a crazy adolescent or young adult with anger issues might not just be able to walk in and grab them and go mow down his local school full of kids. At best, perhaps the weapons start disappearing from the public and we see far less of this sort of crime.

Because in the end, if the crazy kid wants to kill someone, he'll probably find a way. He might grab a handgun or find a way to get one, steal one, whatever, and go shoot up that same school. The difference is, perhaps he only kills 3 kids instead of 20. It sounds sort of cynical, until you look at it from the perspective of the 17 sets of parents whose kids didn't get killed.

Not having a weapon available which can shoot multiple people down in a matter of seconds might save lives. A ban on it isn't going to stop the Chicago gang bangers from killing themselves and innocent bystanders in their community, any more than the ban on guns in Chicago does today. But it might, just might, make it harder for these mass shooters to kill quite as many human beings when they go berserk. Especially when said weapon has no other use but to kill human beings in as efficient a manner as possible.

Their other comments were pretty much correct. We do need to focus on keeping criminals off the streets. But that costs money - money we don't have as a society, or at least money that we put to other uses at this point. Beefing up mental health assessments? Money. Enforcing laws on the books? Money. It was pointed out that in our state, if you have been convicted of a felony, you can't buy a gun, and lying on the form where they ask you about it when you are trying to by a gun is itself a felony. One guy called in and mentioned that when his friend owned a gun shop, he had exactly that situation occur, and when he called the cops to report it, they said they were too busy to check on it, this with evidence of a felony committed laying in the gun shop owner's hands. That's true. But more police to enforce these laws will cost money also.

So if they're not going to be enforced anyway, we have a problem.

*****