“Our Guns”: Firearm Owners In Rural Ill. Make Case For Gun Rights, Some Controls

What to do about gun violence?

It’s a wrenching debate for this country, and the anguish over Sandy Hook and the relentless shootings in Chicago have reinvigorated the divisive issue.

A series we’re calling “Our Guns” – conversations with people who own and are committed to guns – starts this week with people in rural Illinois.

That’s because the debate over guns is often divided geographically, with people in cities pushing for gun control and people in more rural areas pushing back.

Robert Wildeboer recently traveled to Southern Illinois to hear what gun owners there would like Chicago-area residents to understand about guns, violence, freedom and their way of life:

[.mp3 – 7:05 ]

Bright, florescent orange discs, about 6 inches in diameter float like Frisbees 20 feet above the ground until Don Krietemeyer and his friends fire and the clay saucers crumble to the ground.

The shots they miss actually result in more celebration and friendly ribbing than the shots that they hit.

When they’re not skeet shooting, the Effingham County Sportsman Club has a little shed where Krietemeyer and his friends can sit on picnic tables and chat.

KRIETEMEYER: We got a wood stove in here. We can stay here and stay pretty warm.

Effingham is a town of 12 thousand people, about 3 hours south of Chicago and when it comes to gun violence and proposals to ban guns, you hear a common refrain here.

KRIETEMEYER: It wasn’t the gun it was the guy behind it.

That’s a variation of the “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people” cliché that can sound a little flippant when we’re talking about kids dying, but it’s a saying that’s rooted deeply in the experience of people here.

Fact one: it’s hard to find people in Effingham who don’t own guns.

KRIETEMEYER: If I was betting I would guess, out of every hundred houses I’d say probably 90 – 94 of em have a gun in the house.

Fact two: Despite the high level of gun ownership, there aren’t problems with gun violence in Effingham – it’s the reason people here are adamant that gun violence is about something besides guns.

But that doesn’t mean these gun owners don’t back some of the so-called “common sense” gun laws.

I talked to dozens and dozens of gun owners in Effingham.

I did run into a couple of rabidly pro-gun people who just wanted to go on a little tirade on my microphone and then walk away.

But among the gun owners who were willing to discuss the issue, without exception, every one supports thorough background checks.

And everyone I asked agreed with Chicago’s police superintendent that there should be a law requiring people to report lost or stolen guns.

FUNNEMAN: I don’t understand why anybody who has a gun that was stolen would not report it unless they themselves are part of the criminal element.

Clarence Funneman is one of the gun owners I met who makes me think the divide might not be so great between Chicagoans and gun owners in rural parts of the state when it comes to gun laws—at least some gun laws.

But when it comes to banning assault rifles?

Well, that gets tricky.

Many of the thoughtful gun owners I talked to oppose an assault weapons ban.

I asked Funneman to explain because he’s a bit of an expert.

He and his wife Lydia own a gun store, Funneman Frontier Arms.

FUNNEMAN: I have a 16 by 32 building. As you can see it’s packed full.

There are dozens of rifles leaning against the wall behind the counter, rifles leaning against the back of the counter, rifles on the counter, a few clusters leaning against the front of the counter.

His shop is a simple shed he and his wife built beside their house, several miles outside of town.

FUNNEMAN: I live down a, basically an eighth to a quarter mile lane. Basically we’re out in the middle of nowhere and people find us. We keep real busy.

Funneman says he and most of his customers oppose a ban on assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

He says people who think common sense requires a ban on assault weapons are simply ignorant about guns.

They don’t actually know what they’re talking about.

FUNNEMAN: They are saying assault style, what looks like an assault rifle is an assault rifle. That’s not true. It’s just, it’s not an assault rifle.

For Funneman, the important distinction is between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

A fully automatic firearm is one where you hold down the trigger and bullets keep coming out until you release the trigger and those guns are already banned by federal law.

Semi-automatic rifles on the other hand are very common.

They automatically reload another bullet into the chamber but they require you to pull the trigger for each bullet.

Funneman picks up a very average-looking rifle from behind him.

FUNNEMAN: This is a semi-automatic 22 that holds just as many as what a assault-style rifle would hold.

He picks up another rifle but it’s green and has a rectangular opening on top for a magazine.

FUNNEMAN: This is what they used in World War II. Load it from the top. They had bandoliers with 8-round magazines. These people that shot these were just as efficient as what people who have AR-15’s are now.

Funneman says the label ‘assault rifle’ sounds bad and they look intimidating but they aren’t that different from other rifles.

So he says you could ban them, but that wouldn’t be an effective way to tamp down gun violence because there are lots of other semi-automatic rifles that could be just as deadly as an assault rifle.

And for many gun rights advocates, banning any gun is a slippery slope.

It’s an argument I hear from a lot of people at Neimerg’s, a popular and moderately-priced restaurant slash coffee shop slash bakery slash bar where Ray Foster and his wife just had dinner.

FOSTER: I think it’s all garbage. They just wanting to take our guns away from us completely cause they’ll start with the AR-15’s, and then they’re going to go for the pistols that hold more than 7 rounds and then eventually they’ll have all our guns.

That can sound like an overly conspiratorial viewpoint unless you think, like many do, that the line dividing assault rifles from other rifles is not so clear.

But assault rifles are expensive so a number of gun owners are somewhat indifferent on an assault rifle ban because they wouldn’t be affected anyway.

Not so for Brandon Hutchens and Tyler Conner.

The two men in their early 20s sit chatting with their wives after dinner
They both have AR-15’s, assault rifles.

Conner got his as a Christmas present from his parents his sophomore year of high school.

CONNER: Shooting targets, coyotes, it’s reliable. It’s easy. You don’t have to clean it all the time and it’s just an easy gun to have. I’ve had mine for 6 years now and shot several thousand rounds of ammunition through it and it’s never hung up one time so…

Connoer’s friend Brandon Hutchens says in the wake of a tragedy like the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook elementary school in December people want solutions.

HUTCHENS: Everybody’s looking to find something easy to point finger at.

Hutchens says proposing gun laws is easy and it makes lawmakers look good and it makes some of the public feel good but he thinks those laws won’t be effective.

He says lawmakers aren’t proposing solutions that will seriously help because those solutions – like strengthening families and schools, or addressing a culture of violence – those issues are complicated compared to simply focusing on a few new gun laws.

A lot of other people I talk to mention these persistent social issues, people like Bill Hartrich (har-trick).

HARTRICH: I think anybody should have whatever they want. We’re looking at the wrong thing. We need to be talking about violence in movies, violence videos, and mental health.

A lot of gun owners and gun rights supporters down in Effingham think that rather than banning certain guns, the government should be banning violent video games.

But that of course would be an infringement of the constitutional right to free speech and American’s tend to be very protective of their constitutional rights.

I’m Robert Wildeboer.

This entry was posted in Government Performance, Statehouse and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to “Our Guns”: Firearm Owners In Rural Ill. Make Case For Gun Rights, Some Controls

  1. Mike Poole says:

    This is a great article and I look forward to more. I think a critical point in this whole argument (statistics and Constitution aside) is that the FBI UCR statistics show exactly ONE person murdered in Illinois in 2011 with a rifle (downstate) out of 452 murders. Chicago PD statistics show only ONE confirmed murder with a rifle in the last two years, out of more than 900 murders. (There are 26, I believe, that are ‘unknown’ guns).

    The focus has been on regulating (primarily) “assault rifles”. I believe this is because it’s a sexy topic for a politician.

    Personally I think the Constitutions of the US and Illinois clearly spell out the right to bear arms. All the ancillary arguments (30 round magazine, guns don’t kill people, pistol grip, cold dead hands..) are just noise that distracts from the real issues.

    Even the “mental health” argument is a non-starter. The US Supreme Court has ruled definitively that the 5th, 10th and 14th Amendments (due process before depriving rights or taking property) absolutely apply to citizens, even IF they are confined and adjudicated to be mentally ill.

    In other words, the argument has already been decided that the government cannot deprive, nor take, a right from a mentally ill patient without the FULL due process that’s required of any citizen.

    The fundamental thing, the ONE SIMPLE THING, that would absolutely have stopped Newtown is the parent making the guns inaccessible to the shooter. There are many other laws that were broken as well, and a good argument could be made for many of them. The police report will not be ready until June but the few facts that are known, namely that he used mom’s gun, violate even the most basic rules of safety and responsibility.

    There is always a chain of events in a crisis. However, there is always ONE link in the chain (sometimes several) that would have prevented it. Without speculation, though, the one thing that responsible gun owners know, is that if a kid can’t access the gun the kid can’t kill someone with that gun.

    • Dale Barnstable says:

      Your last paragraph echos the argument I have been proposing to “banners” since it happened. All gun owners need to take responsibility for our guns, that’s the common sense logic that needs to be acknowledged. All of our guns are already locked up at home, so who’s guns are “on the street”? I think we all know the answer to that.

      I may or may not have any “assault wepons”, who really needs to know that….

Comment on this Story

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s