Services
Commentary
There's still plenty of room for sensible gun laws
by Scott M. KnightChaska, Minn. — A ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last week threatens Chicago's 28-year-old ban on handguns. But the court's finding that residents have a Second Amendment right to keep a handgun in their home for protection could also provide a new opportunity for Chicago -- and other cities and towns across the country -- to enact strict firearms policies.
As a police chief, I know first hand the threat that handguns pose to law enforcement officers and other first responders like firefighters and paramedics. In order to do our jobs effectively, we need comprehensive public policies that keep handguns out of the wrong hands. I am talking about the need to preserve and enhance laws that keep handguns away from criminals, gang members, the mentally ill and others who would visit harm upon our citizens. I am talking about laws that make sure that firearms are stored safely, especially around children.
My professional interest in responsible firearms policies is also a personal interest. A few years ago, one of my officers was shot in the line of duty -- fortunately, he lived and continues to serve our community. And just last May, Sgt. Joe Bergeron -- an uncle to one of my sergeants -- was ambushed, shot and killed in Maplewood.
Nationally, in 2009, officer line-of-duty deaths decreased except for firearms-related deaths, which rose by 22 percent over 2008. At this point in 2010, officer firearm-related deaths are 35 percent above 2009. Between 1999 and 2009, more than 20,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted with firearms in the United States. Of the 530 officers killed in the line of duty during the same time period, 486 -- more than 90 percent -- were killed by a firearm. If not for advances in body armor, paramedic practices in the field and emergency room medicine, we would have lost more officers.
Firearms in the wrong hands are also a threat to community safety -- guns are used to kill about 30,000 Americans a year, and they injure some 70,000 more. According to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, during the past several decades firearms have been involved in approximately 65 percent of homicides, 55 percent of suicides (the Minnesota Department of Health tells us that, in our state, 76 percent of deaths related to firearms are suicides), 40 percent of robberies, and 20 percent of aggravated assaults in our country. The numbers I cite do not include accidental shootings, which especially take a toll on our children.
The obvious solution to this senseless loss of life is reasonable law on who can buy guns (close the "gun show -- no background check needed" loophole); on the kinds of guns and ammunition that can be purchased (e.g., military assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets do not belong on our streets); on the reporting of lost or stolen firearms, and on how guns are kept and stored.
Gun violence is a destructive force and threat to our communities and society. We need sensible gun policies to reduce this threat. Last week's Supreme Court decision has provided all of us with an opportunity to make that happen.
Solid first steps would be to close the gun show loophole that allows the sale of guns on a cash and carry basis, with no identification required. Add those who commit crime(s) with a gun to the Predatory Offender Registry, and require them to register where they live and when they move, as we now do with sex offenders and other predators. And we should enact an assault weapons ban.
---
Scott M. Knight, chief of police in Chaska, Minn., is chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Firearms Committee.
Comments (24)
The anti groups are never reasonable. At Iowa roadside rests they have a sign that says"No Smoking on rest area grounds except in enclosed personal vehicles." Do you really think the anti-gun people would stop at reasonable? That's what this is all about on both sides.
I am talking about the need to preserve and enhance laws that keep handguns away from criminals, gang members, the mentally ill and others
I am sure you did not examine this language before you passed it along. "The" mentally ill, each and every one of us? I do not think so. Like 'the' Jews, it is offensive.
Harold A. Maio, retired Mental Health Editor
8955 Forest St
Ft Myers FL 33907
239-275-5798
khmaio@earthlink.net
New Guns Laws should include taking guns away from Women if on PMS just like when Domestic Disputes happen.
PMS often causes the Domestic Disputes and Women that carry should be on medication or turn in their guns..
Not a comment about the right to defend yourself. This guy appears dedicated to disarming the citizen population and making the citizens bear a great burden to defend themselves. Why would we want this attitude in our public officials?
When is the last time that these reasonable laws prevented crime? Looks like a minefield in which if you slip, the citizen becomes the criminal.
Can mr Knight also show us what percentage of mentioned gun incidents involved legal gun possession? Probably none - they were are criminals not suppose to have a gun anyway.
Another display of ignorance by a public official. There is no "gun show loophole". It's a typical anti-gunners term. Interstate private sales are federally regulated, and intrastate private sales can happen anywhere; it doesn't have to be at a gun show. Even NY state allows private sales of handguns without background check.
Knight lost me when he started mentioning safe storage laws. Sure, you can have a gun, but you won't be able to use it in an emergency!
Having lived in Chicago, I was shocked at the amount of individuals shot and killed by police officers. It is very unfortunate that any one die from violence on our streets, but at last count it seemed that many more individuals died at the hands of overzealous police officers than police officers dying at the hands of criminals. So perhaps "keeping the citizens safe" requires a more comprehensive examination of the system---where the accidental death, of say, a young girl in Detroit, is treated the same in our justice system as the accidental death of a cop in an alley skirmish.
All of us are citizens. This supreme court decision will be good for American Citizens everywhere.
I don't get real excited about gun laws, but I do think another point should be made that Chief Knight would probably agree with. If you are going to get a gun for self-defense sell your golf clubs: you've just acquired a new hobby. Handguns in particular require lots of practice to use safely and effectively.
I have to agree 100% with Chief Knight. I have close ties with the law enforcement community and fully support what he stated in this article. As he said, reasonable gun control is desperately needed in this country. He was not saying people don't have the right to own guns, all he is saying is that owning a gun needs to be better regulated and monitored! And to Alissa in Chicago, check your stats before you go spouting off about police killing people. Cops are there to protect us and save our lives, end of discussion.
Wake up, and smell a coffee Amy: Police are not obligated to protect individuals, only abstract society as a whole. Ask any police veteran how many times he managed to stop a crime in progress over his career? - probably one or two at the most. When seconds counts, police are only minutes away.
Being blind to bad cops weakens your position Amy. I just checked some other stats. Chicago has had the strictest gun laws for some time now. According to the FBI, last year Chicago's deadly crime rate was 3 times more than New York City and double that of Los Angeles. It looks like the citizens who are least able to defend themselves are more likely to become victims.
US vs Haynes 1968, the supreme court ruled 8-1 for Haynes that no person was required to follow a law that would violate that persons fifth amendment right to no self incrimination. This means if you actually reviewed that 85% of gun control laws don't apply to felons.
Review of the USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer annual report (2008) and then compare against the USDOJ survey Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001, you will find that this law only prevented 14% of felons in 1997 from buying from a licensed source. Of that 14%, 2% was from gun shows.
But hey since less than 1% of those 1.67 million rejected by the background check were not prosecuted, you can guarantee they didn't go buy form an unlicensed source?
Since 1994, there has been a 68% reduction in felons (58% of 1.67 mill felons, remainder all other undesirables) attempting to buy from a licensed source (14% x .32 remainder = 4.48% of felons).
That 2% x remainder .32 = .64% attempt to buy form a gun show. Wow, such a large INSIGNIFICANT part of the issue.
Since less than 1% of 4.48% (.048%) of felons were prosecuted, that means 99.952% of felons were not affected by this BS useless law.
The US Supreme court has ruled 10 separate times the government is not legally liable to protect the individual. So unless you improve upon a best 4 minute response time, avg. 15-20 minutes, please don't lie and state you are there to protect us.
Laws are adhered to by the law abiding.
Knight sez: ...military assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets do not belong on our streets
jack responds: Chief Knight is either willfully lying to the public or he is woefully ignorant of guns and firearms. If you want to know more in five minutes than Knight has apparently learned in a lifetime go here: http://hubpages.com/t/36206
Just another clueless government functionary parroting the police state line.
Of the 30,000 firearms deaths, 2/3 are sucicides
How many of the cops killed by firearms are shot with their own guns, and how would laws affecting the People change those numbers?
In case you missed it, the People have a right to keep and bear arms.
Finally, what prevents a criminal from stealing a firearm, or buying one illegally? Possession of firearms by convicted felons is already illegal... but unsurprisingly, the "magic law" that says they can't have a gun doesn't work very well. What makes you think that a law that primarily affects law-abiding citizens would be any more "magical"?
Chief Knight is absolutely right. Don't let the rantings of the people who have posted here distract readers from the real problem. If only one life is saved, a law that will stop felons, dangerously ( adjudicated) mentally ill people, terrorists ( yes, terrorists can buy guns even with background checks- under current federal law, we know they buy the guns but their names on not on the prohibited purchasers list) and known domestic abusers ( mostly men who do not, by the way, suffer from PMS) will be well worth the effort. If you believe that criminals, and others on the list above should be able to get guns, then you can agree that we do have a gunshow loophole. The poster who wrote that we don't is just plain wrong and not familiar with Minnesota gun laws. Every "sensible, reasonable " law that is suggested is opposed by the NRA. Why? Law abiding citizens will not be affected. What is the problem? Follow the money that gun manufacturers and gun dealers donate to the NRA and you have an answer. The fear and misinformation spewed by the gun rights folks is insane. Don't believe it. Chief Knight and people like myself working on preventing shootings don't want a ban on guns; we want a ban on gun violence. There is nothing sinister about that. We have seatbelt laws to protect public safety. We have "banned" smoking in public places. Why? It just makes sense. The majority of Minnesotans agree with common sense regarding guns, including gun owners. Let's listen to the majority.
What Chief Knight fails to acknowledge and what others fails to understand is that we in the USA have a well established and effective process for ensuring that various "undesireables" don't obtain a firearm. It's called confinement. Put very simply, if you are deemed by due process of law unworthy to be free then you are confined and your rights are abridged. However, anyone who is free to walk the streets including those who have PAID their debt to society and deemed safe by due process of law to be released from confinement are entitled to ALL of their natural rights guaranteed under our constitution and system of laws. This my friends is the price of living in a free country. Laws that establish classes of "undesirables" and secret government lists that profess to keep guns out of the "wrong hands" are nothing but an illusion of safety and are detrimental to principles of true freedom. More Americans need to learn to be responsible for themselves and their safety and quit be dependent on a Nanny State to protect them.
Sigh Joan, you are obviously on drugs or insane. Didn't say anything about letting criminals, kooks (you included) etc have a firearm. The data is a demonstration of the real facts that what is being done is absolutely useless unless you address the legal failings in our court system. Yet you nuts insist more laws and regulations will do what? Based on government reports, not one darn thing.
Yet when felons don't have to obey 85% of the gun control laws, who then do these laws affect, yep the law abiding. Of course you can do more than just claim I am wrong, oh wait, antis never have real proof.
More government data, USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment annual report 2009, 80% of violent crime in US committed by career criminals/gangs.
Chicago & NYC police studies, 76-80% of all shootings were where both shooter and victim were both involved in a criminal act at the time of the shooting, or had a long felony history. Keep reviewing multiple government studies, try and prove the government wrong.
Yeah, that gun show loophole, less than 1% of felons attempt to buy from a gun show, prove my previous data wrong or you are in fact the ranting looney!
Wow, guns create violence? FBI UCR 2008, 1.38 million violent crimes reported, 381k involve a firearm, USDOJ National Victimization annual report 2008 4.8 million unreported violent crimes not involving a firearm. So if guns create violence, why doesn't every single violent crime reported not have a firearm involved?
If one life is saved it is worth it. So to if one life is saved by self defense with a gun it is worth it.
Go to the following web sites and count how many successful defensive gun uses occurred (over 80 per month) and you will find over 550 people saved.
Keep & Bear Arms
Armed Citizen
American Rifleman
KC3
Of course that 80 yr old army vet in Chicago didn't save himself and his wife two weeks ago, the college student in Georgia in 2009 didn't save himself and 9 others oh the list is endless.
Of course the VPC claimed in their 2009 report how people licensed to carry concealed killed 137 people in 3 yrs (no details). So based on your logic, their is indeed sufficient reason for people to carry guns for protection after all, at least one life was saved!
Lets see you backpedal outa that one!
Why is it that so many murders and assaults occur without a firearm,FBI UCR!
Why is it that the FBI report "Violent Encounters", An analysis of felonious attacks on officers 8/2006 and the Firearms Violence: A critical analysis (sponsored by the anti gun faction)both agreed that gun control, especially the Semi Auto rifle ban 1994-2004 had no impact on violent crime.
Why is it that every country (city too) that implements strict gun control, their violent crimes with firearms does not reduce or in fact increases from before implementation to today? England (Home Office), Australia (AIC dot gov), Canada (statcan) yet the US (FBI UCR) has been reduced?
cont
Why is it those countries had lower deaths by firearm, a trend that is obviously cultural compared to the US in a fools folly like the anti's love to do?
England went from 445k closed violent crimes in 1997 to 1.4 million closed in 2008, murders didn't go down, violent crimes with firearms didn't reduce.
20,000 gun control laws in the US and you have what evidence to prove a piece of paper alone stops a crime, ROTFLMFAO, yeah, you REALLY GOT TO BE HIGH to believe that is true!
Of course we can compare law abiding gun owners licensed to carry concealed against a surefire safe person a doctor.
ATF Max 8 million CPL's US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.
Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report last year, 137 or 45 per year equals .0000046 per concealed license holder. You can also review Florida's data on CCW it says the same thing for Texas if you look at the data.
JAMA Journal of American Medical Association report 2001 where 700k doctors in US kill 44k to 98k by medical malpractice every year or .14 per physician.
Physician is .064 or .14 /.0000046 = 14,000 to 31,818 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.
So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren't you anti nuts crying to ban doctors?
Problem for people like Joan, is they can only RANT that we lie, yet I challenge anyone to go through the data I referenced and prove it wrong.
cont
Of course we don't expect to ever see a certified member of an anti gun organization admit to discuss any real facts as to do so means they acknowledge the facts actually exist and therefore must be considered in any solution. (classic activist tactics)
So the challenge stands, review the data referenced and come back, or choose to blindly follow or believe a person who uses only emotions and has proven nothing other than she is a good drone.
There are so many more facts to provide, such as number of defensive gun uses and the reports defining them, and the reports failing to debunk them, and the presidential administration that admitted that the act of self defense with a gun occurs on average 1.5 million times a year. Care to take the challenge anyone?
Listen buster, you need to abide by your oath to our Constitution and I ask you to highlight & pay special attention to the words- "shall NOT BE INFRINGED".
Any man free to walk around has a God Given Right and such is enumerated as Amendment 2.
The officer just murdered in Chicago...Officer Sotoberg was killed with the gun he was carrying. (perfect example of how gun laws are not only unConstitutional but also without merit.
Look at laws against drugs and how our military supports the cultivation in Afghanistan.
You need to retire old buzzard. You obviously can't apply logic or respect your oath. YOU R A CLASSIC FAIL!
First off, the good chief here is a committee chair for an international gun grabbing organization - so don't expect anything "reasonable" from him.
Although it's unfortunate that police officers are killed in the line of duty, it is an occupational hazard. We just don't suspend our Constitution so as to protect civil servants from occupational hazards.
According to the Chicago Police Department, 88% of murderers and 75% of murder victims have previous criminal records. Over half of murders arise from gang activity and most of the murders in this nation take place in a scant few police precincts.
Of course, the gun grabbers believe that the best way to control criminals is to sanction the law abiding.
The true aim of gun control is not to control crime. Rather, gun control is just a means of neutralizing a socially conservative constituency.
Gun control is a disease - you're the cure.
Do you wonder why the US has such a high rate of gun violence? Here's a hint: for the same reason Russia, Mexico, and Afghanistan have even higher rates. We're the country trying to enforce a prohibition on various drugs for which there is stubbornly persistent demand. As one might expect, this prohibition drives a huge black market. Since we consumers are, collectively, the richest country on the planet, and the drugs in question are produced cheaply in poor countries, the profits are enormous--worth fighting over. When was our gun violence worst? When crack cocaine, a compact, easily transported, highly addictive commodity was introduced. Importers fought for market territories, and had the cash to arm their street-level distributors with automatic weapons. Automatic weapons, of course, have been virtually outlawed since 1934, when the National Firearms Act, a ban masquerading as a tax, was passed. Do you remember why the NFA was passed? It was in response to the gun violence that erupted in black market competition during that other Prohibition, of such iconic historical stature that we capitalize it, but from which we evidently learned so little. Enough. This has been a very brief tour, but the principles are clear if you pay attention. Something else to think about: Afghanistan is the source of most illicit opiates. The Taliban controls the trade, and Al Qaeda invests and traffics. What do you suppose they do with their profits?
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Most Shared
- AeroShot: Caffeine inhaler, touted as safe, may get FDA review
- Scientists concerned about antibiotic resistance in wastewater
- Minnesota among 10 states to get No Child waiver
- Analysis finds $55M shortfall in Minneapolis stadium plan
- Dining with Dara: Duluth becoming state's premiere destination for beer tourism
Latest News & Features
News Cut
with Bob CollinsIn The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock
