Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Sherman’s lawsuit isn’t what the media says it is
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The old saying that anecdotes aren’t data may apply to this Tribune story. Here’s the anecdote…
After his prison sentence came to an end in April 2007, child sex predator Ronald Dubbins was supposed to undergo one year of tightly controlled supervision as he transitioned back home — with electronic monitoring, mandatory therapy and frequent meetings with a parole officer.
But because he could not find a place to live that met Illinois’ ever-expanding sex offender housing restrictions, Dubbins served parole behind bars and then was released into Cook County without monitoring.
Dubbins returned to his old ways after his release.
But here’s the data…
Of the 1,292 sex offenders discharged in fiscal 2008 after serving parole behind bars, 28 percent were listed as missing, not having registered their address or not being up-to-date with their registrations, compared with 23 percent of the 1,868 sex offenders paroled into the community.
Another 21 percent of the discharged offenders returned to prison, a slightly higher rate than those who were paroled. But in most cases, offenders monitored in the community were sent back to prison for technical parole violations, in many cases housing-related problems, while the discharged offenders were convicted of new crimes.
That’s not a huge difference, but I do see the point. Releasing them from parole served behind bars straight into the community needs to be rethought, for sure. Also, this Dubbins character had his parole shortened due to good time credit. That needs to end or be rethought. Since Dubbins wasn’t required to undergo counseling, who’s to say he wasn’t a threat because he didn’t get into any trouble in prison?
Definitely time for some statute tweaks, but overreactions should be reined in.
* I’ve become more of an agnostic on concealed carry laws. I, for one, thought that Florida’s concealed carry law, which allows people to pack heat in taverns, would be a disaster. Florida has some pretty wild spots, so I figured we’d see some old-time gun battles. That didn’t happen, however, and now I’m far more open-minded about the idea. But this sort of rhetoric is a bit much…
[Valinda Rowe of IllinoisCarry.com] drew laughs in making her point about how women should be able to carry a gun for self-defense, describing advice given on the Illinois State Police Web site for handling an assault. It advises scratching an attacker with car keys or a rat-tail hair comb, or making yourself vomit to repel them (she handed out tongue depressors with the Illinoiscarry.com label, calling them a “tactical self-defense weapon.”)
“If these are so effective, why do we not see them in the Illinois State Police’ holsters?” she said, holding up a comb and keys.
I’ve noticed a strong sense among the most fervent concealed carry types that they could battle it out with the gun-toting bad guys. Some even appear to want the chance to do so. But the bad guys just don’t throw down from a distance and challenge you. An unspecting gun or club to your head or a knife to your back doesn’t give you much time to react.
That being said, I can definitely see the deterrent factor from criminals knowing that their victims might be armed. Still, Miami’s violent crime rate is significantly higher than Chicago’s. So, maybe that’s a fallacy as well.
* Meanwhile, Exelon appears to be fighting hard in Springfield to stop some wind power projects. Progress Illinois fills us in…
Last month, we noted how Chairman Mike Jacobs (D-Moline) shelved key “green” legislation on the eve of a critical legislative deadline while unexpectedly giving a pass to some legislation benefiting the energy industry. At the time, State Sen. Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) — whose wind-related bill remained stalled — attributed the incident to a “miscommunication.”
Now Crain’s is reporting (subscription required) that energy industry lobbyists were indeed engaged in a behind-the-scenes effort to thwart Harmon’s measure (SB 3686), objecting to one provision which would require that utilities fulfilling their obligations under the state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard procure renewable energy from Illinois sources before turning to neighboring states.
Wind advocates have launched a counter-campaign, arguing that the bill is key to launching some shovel-ready Illinois wind farms over the next year. “[I]f Exelon is successful,” Illinois Wind Energy Association’s Kevin Borgia wrote yesterday, “the Illinois projects remain in limbo, and the new jobs, tax revenue, and other economic development likely go to Texas, the Dakotas, and even Manitoba.”
The Operating Engineers union has 400 members working on wind projects in Illinois, with the prospect for many more, so they’re gearing up for a big fight against Exelon.
Crain’s explains that Exelon is battling the jobs, property taxes and economic development the wind farms bring over a fear for its profits…
But a continued influx of homegrown wind power could hit Exelon where it hurts the most, reducing wholesale power prices in Illinois. That’s because wind tends to blow hardest at night, when power demand is lowest. In recent years, real-time prices at night have turned negative at times, requiring generators to actually pay to unload their juice, because supply has outstripped demand. More local wind power likely would exacerbate that effect. Exelon’s nukes run around the clock, making them more vulnerable to these price swings, while natural gas- and coal-fired plants can shut down when demand is weak […]
Joseph Dominguez, Exelon’s senior vice-president for state governmental affairs, acknowledges more wind power in the market could hurt prices the nuclear plants could charge, but he said it could hurt higher-cost coal-fired plants more.
Change is tough, but it needs to happen. And Exelon’s pricing concerns are balderdash. The estimate is that these projects would cost households 40 cents a month. That ain’t much considering past ComEd rate hikes.
Part of the problem here is the way this bill is being lobbied. Sen. Jacobs’ father, former state Sen. Denny Jacobs, lobbies for ComEd. These two guys really need to be careful about this stuff, particularly with the feds nosing around the building.
* And a roundup…
* The union side of the McCormick Place work-rules story
* Schools to state: Don’t balance budget on our backs
* Superintendents Discuss Statewide School Problems
* Keep universities afloat for sake of state’s future
* Quinn to proclaim April as Earth Month
* Deserving of high praise for pension reform efforts
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 11:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Sherman’s lawsuit isn’t what the media says it is
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Illinois is long overdue for concealed carry laws. 48 other states allow for some form of concealed carry…only Illinois and Wisconsin have resisted. There hasn’t been any indication of a rise in gun crimes due to concealed carry being established. Hospitals aren’t filling up with gunshot victims from gun-toting concealed carry permit holders.
I really don’t see what the gun control crowd is afraid of with concealed carry permits? It requires a 25-40 hour training course, fully registering the gun, background check, fingerprinting, etc. These folks aren’t committing gun crimes!
With that said, I’d like to see IL, at the very least, pass some concealed carry legislation that includes every county outside of Cook, where the majority of the gun grabbers in this state reside.
Comment by Steve-O Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 12:52 pm
===.That being said, I can definitely see the deterrent factor from criminals knowing that their victims might be armed. Still, Miami’s violent crime rate is significantly higher than Chicago’s. So, maybe that’s a fallacy as well.
First, I already know what proponents are going to say about this, but believe it or not, I’m pretty agnostic on conceal carry–Missouri has it and it just isn’t a big deal.
There are several problems with the theory. First, it assumes a high enough rate of conceal carry which just isn’t the case. If you have 1-2 percent legally carrying and usually the profile of those carrying is easy enough to figure out on top of it, your chances of running into gun are about the same as before. You have to remember, criminals already understood that some people carried weapons and tried to avoid them. Now there are only a few more people carrying and it simply doesn’t change the risk much.
Second, it assumes a calculation that requires rationality and many of the threats you face in a city are drug/alcohol induced and rationality has gone out the window.
Third, kind of tied to the first, permit holders fit a pretty specific demographic and so reducing your risk when targeting someone isn’t that hard.
Fourth, is what Rich mentions, this isn’t the shootout at the OK Corral. Most violent criminals are looking for people to sneak up on and if successful, whether you have a gun or not isn’t terribly helpful because you won’t have time to pull it.
If people want to argue they should be able to carry with a permit because they want to individually I don’t care much. Frankly, most of their arguments are dumb other than–they want to carry. It’s a good political issues for Dems in the burbs, but as a practical policy matter it has very little effect on anything. So whatever.
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 1:09 pm
===I really don’t see what the gun control crowd is afraid of with concealed carry permits? It requires a 25-40 hour training course, fully registering the gun, background check, fingerprinting, etc. These folks aren’t committing gun crimes!
I don’t disagree with your general point, but many of the required courses are shorter, and registering ‘the’ gun isn’t required.
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 1:11 pm
Rich, I’m with on being agnostic on conceal and carry, but the people who really want it frighten me. Too many of them have vigilante fetishes that border on the bizarre. It’s like they watched the Mad Max movies and thought it was a vision into the future. Most of them are nice enough people, but not someone you want walking around with guns.
Why on earth would legislators ignore competitive markets, jobs and tax revenue for a single corporation’s bottom line? We’ve got 11% unemployment, that’s just ridiculous.
Comment by Ahoy Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 1:42 pm
With 48 other states allowing some for of conceal carry it should be easy for the anti-gun folk to serve up stories of horror regarding this. Shoot outs at busy interesections w/road rage warrior plugging away, that kind of thing. The fact that we aren’t awash in such stories leads to the conclusion that there are few, if any instances of law-abiding citizens legally carrying firearms engaging in such behavior. While there are more pressing issues facing the state it is possible that the GA can do more than one thing at a time, isn’t it?
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 2:04 pm
Rich, thank you for at least being open minded and giving this issue real pause. I appreciate it.
Years ago, women were escorted everywhere by men to protect them. Then women started working, going to college. Think about it, it wasn’t that long ago. Men think nothing of protecting themselves, and many know how to. On top of that, men have the upper body strength to fight one another. Having said that, if you put a woman into a position of physically defending herself from a male attacker, who do you think would win? The answer is the one with the most upper body strength will win. Thats why so many women are chosen ON PURPOSE as victims. Women must choose to refuse to allow themselves to become a victim.
I am all for conceal carry. God knows it is not because I have a fettish, and I resent those who would acccuse those of us who favor conceal carry as such. I want to be highly trained. I don’t want to be trained as a person who shoots at targets for fun. I think good training should be required. As American citizens we should be afforded the rights that have been guaranteed under the U.S Constitution.
I pray that I would never have to use a gun on a human being. God forbid. However, Perps are frequently armed. How is it right for a perp to be armed and not me? Perps don’t register their guns. Perps don’t follow rules. If common sense conceal carry were passed, we would at least stand a chance. It is very unfair as it stands.
Currently, we ARE told to use a rat tail comb. Think about it…. If attacked, what is my goal? If it is to make the perpetrator more angry, then poking him with a rat tail comb will do the trick nicely. If my goal is to make him stop what he is doing so I can get away, vomit, combs, none of that will be effective.
ahoy, you don’t want to see “nice enough people” carrying, but you don’t say anything about the rapists, robbers, gang members,etc. who already carry illegally. Help me understand your logic, please.
Comment by Say WHAT? Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 2:10 pm
Rich you are dead wrong about the crime statistics. The only thing that saves Chicago in a comparison with Miami is that…. Chicago has a tough winter, where Miami has decent weather year round. I have talked to a number of people who know something about epidemiology and they state that if Chicago did not have a winter, violent crime would be out of control. Nothing jails criminals here in Chicago like old man winter.
Comment by fredformeranon Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 2:38 pm
I’m wrong? The statistics are the statistics.
And the weather? We’re talking about concealed carry and violent crime here.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 2:41 pm
Rich,
As a fireams instructor (NRA Certifed, State of Utah CCW, Defense Training International Affiliate Instructor) specializing in the effective instruction of female students, I think there is a point that gets omitted from this discussion quite often. That is, what if the person seeking a permit ISN’T concerned about RANDOM violence? I have a number of students that have restraining orders against people who have made direct death threats against they and their children. Sure, I can train them for home defense with a handgun in Illinois (well, not in Chicago), but the second they leave their property, they are reduced to manditory helplessness.
Awareness can be taught and practiced by all - you can learn to see things coming. What you probably can’t do is see and stop a 220lb motivated attacker with a knife, using your bare hands, when you are a 120lb woman who has no gun (because the State of Illinois thinks it’s best.)
And when it comes to “random” violence, I’m personally not interested in reading about any more Lane Bryant’s. And if just one of those ladies had been armed, they may have stood a chance. We’ll never know. What we do know is that they weren’t, and one man was able to murder all of them. A man they saw, and a man they had time to draw on.
I also find it interesting that everytime I ask a police officer (one-on-one, away from cameras) what they would advise their wife, daughter or mother to do if they were being stalked, that the answer usually includes arming themselves.
Personal defense is not about being a vigilante - defense never is. Vigilantism is an offensive act, and those who whish to do such things will do so regardless of any carry permit status. Those who seek out a leagl means to defend themselves outside of the home with a pistol are statistically the most responsible of citizens. And that has been proven beyond a doubt in the 48 states with such permits.
Lastly, I wouldn’t dare try to predict how anyones next attack might go. Those who do are on very thin ice, and suggesting that a person with a CCW permit and carrying a pistol will never depoly it in time is absolutely ridiculous and complete misinformation.
If it is allowed here, and anyone is interested, I would be more than happy to post links to multiple recent news stories from other states where average people have defended themselves and others in public just fine.
Comment by Frank S Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 2:45 pm
To Say What,
I don’t want to see rapists, robbers, gang members,etc carry weapons either. I think thats pretty obvious but for some reason you needed clairty.
Your point about self defense is well taken and I agree with much of what you say. However most women I know (and this is just who I know) feel safer without conceal and carry laws.
I would also like to know how many “perps” are actually armed. I’m sure there is a crime statistic out there.
Comment by Ahoy Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 3:27 pm
My problem with concealed carry is still a property rights one. I should have the right as a business owner to know whether my employees or customers are armed and to require that they not be armed on my property.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 3:47 pm
Rich, you said And the weather? “We’re talking about concealed carry and violent crime here.”
You were suggesting concealed carry doesn’t make a difference by pointing out Miami, which has concealed carry, has a higher violent crime rate.” My comment is that statistics can be made to lie. If Chicago didn’t have bad weather half the year, the crime rate would significantly go up. Therefore, you would have a city without concealed carry with a higher crime rate than one with concealed carry. Also, you seemed to cherry pick. Since it is a well established statistic that cities with concealed carry have lower crime rates than cities with stringent gun control laws like Chicago. Statistics are statistics, and statistics show that states with less stringent gun control laws have lower violent crime rates.
Comment by fredformeranon Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 4:36 pm
Glad you are open minded enough to see that cc is not only something that has not increased the crime rate but in some states has lowered it. Now when do you want to attend a Florida cc class with me?
Comment by NIEVA Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 5:42 pm
cermak road, so you have metal detectors in your store, and you know NOW that every customer in your store is unarmed? Just not a logical statemnent or arguement. The bad guys will just ignore your sign, as they ignore the laws against concealed carry now…
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Friday, Apr 9, 10 @ 9:14 pm
How can Exelon be against wind power? Is NICOR against the sun warming the planet?
Sometimes, these utilities deserve a severe beatdown.
Comment by wordslinger63@gmail.com Saturday, Apr 10, 10 @ 10:27 am
Cermak_Rd, you would support open carry, then? Or a concealed-carry law that allows you to post your property as “No concealed weapons allowed”?
Frank has a good point. If you check into Valinda Rowe’s other speeches and writings on this topic, you’ll find she’s not just theorizing about a hypothetical random attack. She came to the right-to-carry issue because she lived under constant threat from a deranged individual for a long time, and she was advised to learn to use a firearm for protection–but not to carry it off her property, because that’s a felony in Illinois. She saw no reason why she should be allowed to defend her life at home but not abroad, and it’s hard to disagree with that.
Comment by Don Gwinn Saturday, Apr 10, 10 @ 12:06 pm
Rich, excuse the double comment, but I forgot one, and I also forgot to compliment you on your open-mindedness on this issue.
When you say that Mrs. Rowe’s rhetoric is a bit much, does that mean that you doubt whether the Illinois State Police really advised women to resist sexual assault by throwing up on attackers, or scratching them with combs, or pretending to have STDs? That’s easily taken care of; the page is still there:
http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/saconfronted.cfm
It seems to me that your criticism of right-to-carry (criminals won’t give you a fair fight, so the utility of carrying a gun is limited) doesn’t really refute Mrs. Rowe’s criticism of the ISP’s advice to women. If we’re assuming that your attacker will generally have the advantage of surprise and use overwhelming force right away, then you may not get the chance to use your gun. But in that case, you won’t get the chance to use your keys, comb, nail file, vomit or sob story about pregnancy or syphilis, either.
The bottom line is that the individual law-abiding citizen should have the right to weigh the arguments for and against carrying a weapon and decide for him-or-herself. If they decide that you’re right and a weapon isn’t useful for them, then they can skip it. But if the rest of us decide that we benefit from having a defensive tool, that decision should be respected under Illinois law.
Comment by Don Gwinn Saturday, Apr 10, 10 @ 12:16 pm
I am viscerally against concealed-carry laws but it has more to do with the samurai/gunfighter fantasies of those who advocate for such laws rather than data. If someone could direct us to studies which look not only at gun violence (which I would not suspect concealed carry laws would increase) but also gun injuries/deaths I’d be interested. But in general this issue is more related to social psychology than anything else; it’s an expression of how people feel about other humans and esp. cities…
Comment by Ron Mexico Saturday, Apr 10, 10 @ 12:35 pm
To Mr. Cermak Rd.
Your concern is addressed in the bills currently pending in the ILGA. Store owners are given the option of posting “No Firearms Allowed” on their businesses. Missouri and most other states have similar restrictions as well as restrictions on carrying in schools, courthouses airports etc.
Illinois is one of only 2 states that restrict the basic right of self defense. Most if not all of the concerns people have (road rage etc.) have been non-issues.
Comment by Lou Saturday, Apr 10, 10 @ 12:56 pm
Does Rich Miller think that the Illinois State Police did NOT tell women to gag themselves as defense?
Comment by borzoi Saturday, Apr 10, 10 @ 11:04 pm
[…] Rich Miller has some ideas: […]
Pingback by The Lobbyist And The Senator . . . « QC Examiner Sunday, Apr 11, 10 @ 3:59 pm
Whether right-to-carry reduces crime through deterrence or not is largely irrelevant.
What is important is, for those that do find themselves the victim of a violent crime, would they be better off having the option of being armed or not?
The second question should be who but the individual in question should have the decision what type of means should be available for self-defense?
Comment by Melancton Smith Sunday, Apr 11, 10 @ 10:51 pm
Ahoy, But criminals do carry. No clarity is needed there. If criminals did not carry, we would not have put laws on the books to stiffen sentences for felons caught with guns making it a felony and a federal offense for a felon to be found with a gun. There was a reason for passing that law.
Do you think that maybe women feel safer without conceal carry because they then assume that nobody will be armed? Please ask those women you know. If that is the case, I am certain you would not want them to base that decision on falsehoods.
Our attitude toward citizens being armed has changed drastically in the past twenty to thirty years. In my opinion it is a negative thing. People will always be afraid with things they are not familiar with, or things they have been taught to fear. Listen to the news. When there is a shooting in Chicago, listen to the reporter say things like “killed by a gun.” That really upsets me. It is not the gun that kills people, but rather a person with ill intent, using a gun in a manner which it was NOT intended to be used. Reporting things in this manner is indicitive of our current anti-gun culture.
I used to be anti-gun. I lived in a house where my parents kept loaded guns available in five locations. I preached peace and rolled my eyes up at my poor ignorant parents. I refused to learn and never shot one. Now I have looked at the world around me for a number of years. I have seen the results of women not defending themselves and I have made the decision that I AM WORTH defending, even if the government says I am not. I have a family that I love that is depending on me to come home SAFE each night. I want the right to arm myself, and I want to learn how to safely and effectively use a firearm.
This weekend a 62 year old woman in my neighborhood was murdered when someone entered her home. She died of blunt force tauma to her head. Her daughter found her mother, dead in her own blood, the house ransacked. The person who did that lost all of his rights the moment he decided to do what he did. He should have been stopped. She should not have died. It angers me.
I used to roll my eyes at my mother for packing heat and knowing how to use it (as a responsible gun owner, she stays in practice and in fact has won many matches against other skilled shooters). If any joker tried to turn Mom into a statistic, I could almost guarantee 98% that my Mom would be the one that survives. I used to be able to guarantee 100%, but she has slowed down some. I’m allowing 2% due to the element of surprize that a perp might have.
Most women are worried about hurting a perp. Honestly! I have talked with many women about this. What they fail to realize is that the perp doesn’t care about whether or not he hurts the woman. In fact, if she can be a witness in his trial, he wants her gone. Frank S mentioned Lane Byrant. Excellent example - No witnesses - no one captured - no justice for the families. He was armed, they were not.
Please don’t ask me to be at a high school in a rough neighborhood until late night as part of my job then expect me to walk the mostly empty, dark parking lot to my car, while telling me that I can cannot be trusted to use a gun or protect myself.
The police can respond in minutes. The problem with that is it takes only seconds for a crime to be committed and a law-abiding, gunless citizen to lose their life. The police cannot be everywhere - at all times.
My goal is to get us to look at this issue realistically. It is too important not to.
Comment by Say WHAT? Monday, Apr 12, 10 @ 10:10 am
I work in the public health field. I haven’t checked it yet; but it would be interesting to compare the violent crime rate in Chicago and Miami during the warmer weather months only. That might be more relevant than comparing the entire year.
Several years ago, I was on a leadership team that explored any link between firearm ownership and suicide. In doing my research, I purchased a number of books and reviewed quite a bit of information. In short, firearms are an effective means of suicide; BUT people who want to commit suicide do so irrespective of the means. If guns aren’t available, they overdose, jump off buildings, etc. Japan was a good example where there is very strong gun control and very high suicide rates.
I have traveled in many other states where people can carry. There weren’t shootouts in the street and wild antics. In fact, you couldn’t tell any difference; but their citizens had the right and an effective means to defend themselves.
Firearms are probably the most effective, portable means of self defense. The attackers (muggers, rapists, etc.) target their victims so you have to assume that the victims will be smaller, weaker, outnumbered. In that situation, a firearm may be the victim’s only realistic chance of self defense. Whether that victim would have a firearm or be able to effectively utilize it to defend him or herself isn’t the issue. The issue is that they should have the right. I believe that denying others the right of an effective means to defend themselves against attack is indefensible and morally repugnant. Each time a murder, battery, or rape occurs that could have been prevented if the victim had been armed with a firearm; each Illinoisan will bear part of guilt until the carry of firearms by law abiding individuals becomes legal in Illinois. Those are strong words; but it isn’t just theory. It is a matter of life and death.
On a personal basis, my wife weighs about 120 pounds and likes to plant flowers, mow, and do outdoor activities. One of our neighbors is a 200 pound, violent, sex offender who got two years probation after raping his son’s girlfriend. He knows how to work the system. He asked for jury trial. He got it postponed for two years. Two of his sons beat up the girl’s father so bad he was hospitalized for some time because he would not tell them where she was hiding. His sons got probation too (for the assault on the girl’s father). His victim was too scared and traumatized to show up at his sentencing so judge inferred that she didn’t care and agreed to lenient plea agreement. Neighbor is not supposed to have weapons; but does a lot of shooting. He has made threats and vandalized our property. Nothing law enforcement can do until after the fact. We have pepper spray; but I’ve heard enough stories to know that isn’t fail proof…
Shouldn’t responsible, law abiding individuals have their rights honored as much as those of violent criminals?
Comment by Public Health Monday, Apr 12, 10 @ 12:13 pm
Cermak- that is pretty much the case in all the states that allow ccw already. The business owner gets to choose who or if weapons are carried in thier establishment… Except when people choose to break the law, which puts us in ecaxtly the same place we are now.
The only abridgement of your rights that I have seen is the parking lot carry bill. However all that does is allow your employees to store tier weapons in their cars in the parking lot so that they can protect themselves during their commute.
Comment by Chiburbian Monday, Apr 12, 10 @ 1:31 pm
Rich- the point he was making about the weather in Chicago was that if the weather in Chicago wasn’t so cold, the crime rate in Chicago would be worse than Florida. Until this latest warm spell I believe we were on track for less shootings than last year, but all it takes is one 15 shooting night to catch us back up. Even criminals and gangbangers have less of a tendancy to act out when it means standing out in the cold.
Comment by Chiburbian Monday, Apr 12, 10 @ 1:38 pm