Liberal newspapers love sensationalizing things, this was their headline:
Wisconsin has had 9 gun-related homicides this year
41-year-old man from Milwaukee is latest death
This is an entry in a year-long series tracking all gun-related homicides in Wisconsin.
So far this year there have been nine gun-related deaths in Wisconsin.
John Chelig, 41, was shot and killed during an argument with a friend at his home in south Milwaukee on Tuesday; Benjamin Lee-Masch, 38, has been charged with first-degree reckless homicide. That brings the number of gun homicides in the city to six for the year.
The statewide total of nine includes homicides in Wausau, Waukesha and Hayward. The majority of the gun deaths this year involved people with criminal records.
Source: http://www.haywardwi.com/news/regional/article_f4b0f8be-9d61-11e3-b114-001a4bcf887a.html
The last sentence is the truth. Yes, people with criminal records will get guns, the question is, shall we be afforded the same opportunity? Or deprived while the criminals shoot us and each other?
CORRECTION: I’ve been informed that John Chelig was not a real criminal, just someone who had a minor incident with the law. So my point about criminals shooting criminals is moot in that particular case. Read the comments if you’d like to know moer about John Chelig. May he rest in peace.
Google+
Gregory Smith
I am also a pro-gun advocate and strongly think that the 2nd Amendment should be protected. However, the victim John Chelig was NOT a criminal. He was a well loved good person. This implies that he was a criminal and as such was not as important as the “normal innocent victim”. I knew John Chelig, I know his family. He was not doing anything wrong. We cannot take the words of the accussed and determine it to be true. You are talking about a man who shot his friend point blank in the head and then called a girlfriend while John died. Then called 911 and said it was suicide. Let’s not imply that John was somehow to blame for his own death just because he was trusting and believed all people were essentially good willed.
The reality is that he had one scrape with the law (disorderly conduct) which he paid the fine and moved on with life. Did you know he was an amazing artist? Did you know John had his own business? Did you know that he was an avid fisherman? Did you know that he loved nature? Did you know that he was funny and loved by children although he had none of his own yet? Did you know he loved the Lord? Did you know that he adored his older brother George? And his older sisters Sharon (his best friend) and his sisters Linda and Louise? All wonderful people.
Do not imply that John Chelig was a criminal. He certianly was no more a criminal than I am or 10 million other people. Sometimes even good people die at the hands of someone who did something very horrible with a gun. Most of the time, gun owners are responsible with the weapons they have. and because some people are not good intentioned does not mean that those of us who are should have our rights stepped on. You are right about that. But do not turn an event where a wonderful person was murdered into something it wasn’t to further that cause. Do not turn John’s death into something political. It is not necessary. Our rights in the constitution should speak for themselves and we should never have new laws created out of hysteria or emotion. That is the crux of the issue.
If we use perfection as a milestone as to whether someone is a true victim or not, there would never be any victims. Only people who you would deam worthy of death. John’s murderer robbed a family. Robbed a man his life. John is with the Lord, no doubt about it. But his family and friends will have a hole in their life and pain in their hearts until they see him again. Do not tarnish his memory. You did not know the man. I know your intent was to prove a point. A point I too agree with, but the statement about criminals killing criminals neither justifies your cause or applies in this case.
Sincerely,
Gail Wilford
I didn’t mean to insult your friend, and I’m glad you left us know who he was.
However, most people don’t have disorderly conduct on their records. Most people don’t even have a record. He was a wonderful person, true, but he also had a criminal record which is why the article said what it said at the end.
It’s not about perfection, I’m hardly perfect, but I don’t have a criminal record.
Gregory,
Many people have something. I am about as clean cut as can be. A grandmother, wife, mother with a very successful career. Well travelled, well read, have my Masters, give to charity both time and money. I try to be a good Christian. My priorities are correct, God, Family, Country and then career.. But even I have a disorderly ticket on my record too. A member of a gang tried to hurt my disabled sister once and at 35 years old, I took that 18 year old girl down like a rock. We all got tickets. Even my disabled sister! We have to be careful what we deem criminal and what we deem a result of “no tolerance” lawmaking.. Thank God for defered adjudication. You did not mention that in your article.
See, the very thing you are trying to avoid happening with gun law making has already happened in so many areas of life that everyone can be a criminal. Today you can be a criminal if you give someone a wedgie, are a 19 year old boy in love with a 17 year old girl, get in a fight (verbal or physical), eat your pop tart so it looks like a gun, or make a bad joke.. You name it they got a law against it.
I don’t think your intent was to insult anyone at all. I think your intent is to protect an admendment that many of us hold dear. I get it, I own a gun too. And infact, in my single days my gun saved my life when my house was broken into. I just think you get further with it by acknowleging the fact that bad things happen to good, innocent people. But laws are not to be written for the individual circumstances. They are to be written for the masses. They are not to be written out of emotion but out of logical application. And the current laws against murder for example are sufficient if applied correctly. Does not matter the method or the weapon used.
In this case, John did nothing to contribute to his own death. Everything this guy said was a lie. I honestly believe that in the trial that all will come out. Will you see in the news, unlikely. John Chelig was not famous. He was just a son, a brother, an uncle, a friend to many. You see, it does not matter who he was as a person as it relates to your point. It’s the circumstances that matter. In this case, a person with bad intent did something bad to a good person. Then that bad person told a story that was completely fiction. Each version of it was fiction. But in the end, is there a law that could change that would have stopped that from happening? No, there isn’t. The law already exists and now it has to be applied in order to give the family of the victim the justice they deserve and to keep society safe from a person who had bad willed intentions.
I agree that the gun did not make that man shoot John point blank in the head. It was the nature of his heart that did. I’m not offended by what you put here because the reporters who reported it really did make it sound like that. They did no follow up with further facts of the case. They took the accussed words for truth to some degree.. Take that with a grain of salt and consider the source is all I am saying. Things are not as that guy said they are..
Sincerely
Gail Wilford
You’ve made a great point, I will offer a correction in the blog. Thanks.
Thank you so much Gregory. By the way, the irony is not lost on me how the liberal news in some of the articles said the accussed had a “concealed handgun”. He was not a concealed permit holder and the gun was in his house. As you know, people who have concealed carry permits have to pass certian criteria and one of those gun safety. So, I do appreciate your willingness to offer a correction. Something I don’t suspect that liberal newspapers will do.
Sincerely,
Gail Wilford
The media often gets it wrong when it comes to firearms and gun rights. Sometimes on purpose, other times due to simple ignorance. I’m gad you’re on the side of freedom. To be fair, newspapers sometimes offer corrections, but never on the front page. I’m reading a book about the Zimmerman trial and it was a case of report first, think later.