Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session coverage
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “Not anti-union, pro-taxpayer”
Posted in:
* The acute fearful paranoia of some concealed carry enthusiasts has always troubled me…
Gun proponents convened for their annual Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day and cited personal protection as a reason for expanding concealed carry.
“Predators look for places people are unarmed,” said Dawn Waters, a Lombard resident.
If there are signs outlawing concealed weapons in certain areas, residents without guns become open targets for predators, said Waters, who said she is a firearms instructor.
“Everyone there using public transportation, going to forest preserves, they’re in trouble. They are sitting ducks,” Waters said.
I’ve reported in Iraq and Kosovo and occasionally felt like a sitting duck. But never in Lombard.
* And the over the top “Sky is falling!” rhetoric by the anti-gun crowd is almost as silly…
“They’re not going to stop until they have virtually everyone carrying guns virtually everywhere in the United States,” said Brian Malte, National Policy Director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Oh, for crying out loud. What a goofy thing to say.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 9:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session coverage
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “Not anti-union, pro-taxpayer”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
FYI - “For those criminals who are thinking of leaving Illinois because of the Concealed Carry Law, you should probably cross Tennessee off your list of places to go. Tennessee has 1 in 16 people with concealed carry permits. The number of permits rose from 191,000 to 489,000 (number rounded) in 2015. Despite the cries from anti-gunners that there would be rivers of blood, firearm assaults have gone down. The anti-gunners were wrong again, as usual.” ISRA Bulletin.
Comment by Weltschmerz Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 9:46 am
The archaic wording of the Second Amendment continues to wreak havoc.
Comment by illinoised Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 9:49 am
Can’t stand either side of this issue, pathetic fear mongering all around.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 9:51 am
I still believe that OPEN carry should be the law. Wouldn’t that be more of a deterrent than conceal carry?
Comment by Namaste Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 9:53 am
I’m not a fan of guns and think it is bizarre that some people feel the desire to have them with them all of the time, like: church, drinking, eating etc.
But, plenty of people wear outfits that I couldn’t imagine wearing so to each his own.
Please don’t shoot anyone around me?
Comment by Belle Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 9:53 am
=Please don’t shoot anyone around me? =
Don’t stand near politicians and you should be ok.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 9:57 am
@ Namaste - When the gun is concealed, criminals have to assume that everyone is carrying. Such an assumption does not exist under open carry.
Comment by Slick Willy Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:01 am
Stunned @JS’s comment.
Comment by Namaste Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:02 am
@ JS Mill - Hilarious. You should probably add property tax assessors to the list…
Comment by Slick Willy Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:05 am
There’s definitely a middle ground here and both sides are equally distant from it. I’ve been to Lombard a number of times. I always felt pretty darn safe there.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:10 am
Sorry, I just don’t see the rhetorical equivalence here.
Sure there’s alarmist rhetoric on both sides you can find. But the day-to-day, average rhetoric by the ISRA and NRA is -way- goofier and over-the-top.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:14 am
We are surrounded by predators looking for any place where folks aren’t secretly carrying weapons?
What is this, the SciFi Channel?
Should we be carrying harpoons for Sharknado 3?
Comment by walker Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:16 am
Both sides use over the top rhetoric to press their points. It’s a contest of who can create the most fear as it pays if in donations.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:17 am
- criminals have to assume that everyone is carrying -
And, as pointed out many times, criminals are known for their keen logical deduction skills.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:21 am
I sometimes wonder if a person is safe anywhere. Yesterday a section of I-44 was shut down in St Louis because two carloads of thugs were shooting it out going down the interstate.
Comment by Anon 1020 Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:21 am
@ Anonymous - Yawn…
Comment by Slick Willy Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:23 am
Having lived in different places, with varying degrees of gun control, different rules for concealed carry, and even spending a great deal of time in a country with a handgun ban, I’ve yet to see a difference in the level of safety that wasn’t attributable to some other factor. Poverty, education, community involvement all make a far greater difference in one’s level of safety than gun control. I support concealed carry, but only because I think people should have the freedom to do so. I’m under no delusion that such public policy will have a significant impact either way. I too am tired of the over the top rhetoric that seems to be believed by folks on both sides.
Comment by AC Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:23 am
People who are outspoken in the gun debate are rarely rational human beings. These guys are exhibits A and B of that fact.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:25 am
- Yesterday a section of I-44 was shut down in St Louis -
Impossible. The well heeled citizenry of Missouri would scare off any would be criminals.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:25 am
I think conceal carry should be allowed in Forest Preserves. I live in the western suburbs not so far from Lomabrd. I used to love to take walks on the Prairie Path. But, then a man who is disturbed started coming out of the grass and bushes and scarring women. He was saying sexually inappropriate things and acting aggressively. The police couldn’t do much about it because he wasn’t physically grabbing anyone- yet. I stopped going on walks there. I’m afraid of guns and wouldn’t carry one, but a female walking or running alone in the woods or Prairie Path is very much at risk. Even in the suburbs. A gun probably wouldn’t be helpful if you get grabbed off the trail but might make you feel safer if you stop to use a bathroom. Not knowing if a person is armed might also deter a would be attacker.
Comment by RealChicagoHousewife Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:32 am
I agree that both sides use over the top rhetoric.
In light of absence of credible evidence to the contrary, I believe in the least restriction on rights necessary. I believe individuals should have the right to carry weapons for defense of self and others. I view it as being responsible just like I believe responsible people have fire extinguishers, purchase liability insurance, learn first aid / CPR and etc.
The Hollywood hype / movies regarding suppressors actually being silent is far from reality. Rather than as a tool for hitman, suppressors should be viewed as a hearing preservation tool for everyone.
I think the fact that all those horrible predictions made by the anti-gun groups didn’t come true in Illinois nor all the other states is compelling evidence that Illinois isn’t really that different. Allowing open carry wouldn’t make much difference (either increasing or decreasing crime). Allowing suppressors wouldn’t make much difference either (it would have no effect on crime, but should help prevent some hearing loss).
Comment by logic not emotion Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:37 am
The rhetoric on both sides has long since gone around the bend and isn’t likely to ever return to normal dialogue. For the anti-gun side, it’s about raising money from people who are afraid of gun violence. For the pro-gun side, it’s about selling firearms. Neither side has any reason to engage in rational discourse, thus we’ll never hear it from the professionally outraged class.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:40 am
@ RealChicagoHousewife
It’s only banned in Cook County forest preserves by state law, I believe.
I’m a member of the ISRA. Sometimes I wish I weren’t. I don’t think the scare tactics from either side. But, I guess they get results.
Comment by elginkevin Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:47 am
Bah.
Substitute “think the” with “like the” up there ^^^.
Comment by elginkevin Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:50 am
Arizona, a state known for its generous gun laws and numerous gun owners, experienced another shooting spree yesterday. I’d like to see the statistics that prove more people carrying guns leads to increased public safety.
Comment by Sir Reel Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 10:55 am
You can’t live your life in fear of what might happen.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 11:12 am
Some of you people just don’t understand the raw reality of life in war-torn Lombard! Grabbing a latte and going to your Zumba class is a Team 6 level mobilization!
BTW: check out this Onion video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-5V2ZbX4i4
Comment by anon Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 11:24 am
I agree w/ Namaste and have said many times, i oppose concealed carry. If you must carry it should be open carry so I know who to avoid!
Comment by D.P.Gumby Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 11:43 am
Many conveniently forget the second amendment states that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I really appreciate this truly American freedom, enjoyed in few other places in the world. The rhetoric is justifiably amplified because Illinois has some of the most stringent infringements on a constitutionally guaranteed means of personal safety and military readiness. Our neighboring states have much more personal liberty.
Comment by Muscular Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 12:03 pm
sorry, both sides are not equivalent. real deaths of people means plenty of regulations necessary.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 12:05 pm
You really need to read the entire second amendment and not just your favorite phrase (which is what the NRA does).
Comment by Ace Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 12:19 pm
There is one extreme position here, and one reasonable. The NRA and more extreme open carry activists do actually want to be able to carry guns everywhere, and do actually advocate for a fully armed citizenry. Gun control activitsts want to see reasonable legislation passed, like nationwide background check for gun purchases and a limit on large capacity magazines. It’s irresponsible to portray both sides as being equally nutty.
Comment by False Equivalence Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 12:47 pm
>>>>> We are surrounded by predators looking for any place where folks aren’t secretly carrying weapons?
Well, no. However when mass shootings occur in the USA, they occur (almost 100% of the time) in places where CCW is banned.
Comment by yellow shirt black letters Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 12:52 pm
>>>>>> Gun control activitsts want to see reasonable legislation passed
Gun control activists think that total bans on the possession of firearms is reasonable. They are unable to achieve that at the time, so they promote whatever restrictions that they can get away with.
Comment by yellow shirt black letters Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 12:55 pm
It seems to be nearly impossible to have an honest conversation on this topic. We had a gun culture seminar at EIU a little over a year ago, and it got ugly. I’m not sure if those from Chicago and Charleston could ever agree on what a reasonable restriction would be.
Comment by Ste_with a v_en Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 1:48 pm
I own several guns, usually vote a conservative GOP ticket (but not always), served in the Marines, and yet I will also have to admit that there should be stricter gun regulations for gun owners in Illinois. Many seek out concealed carry because it seems like every day we read about at least several people being shot, stabbed, or beaten to death in Chicago. That helps stimulate the fear factor for Illinois gun owners than probably anything. Chicago has more murders each year than both Los Angles and New York combined. I have had African-American friends that live in Chicago tell me that when guns were taken away from the African-Americans in the Chicago projects that they immediately became the defenseless prey for the Gangs that were now the unchallenged predators. The gangs now knew where to seek out defenseless prey. Hence, the high numbers of black on black crime victims. Rahm just doesn’t seem to be able to get the job done. It has been open season on poor black people in the poorer sections of Chicago. Rahm wouldn’t be seen down there in the day time much less at night if he was by himself and without his security detail. Chicago cops can’t or won’t be there to protect these poor folks. Even Chicago cops take 15-20 minutes to get to these high crime areas when a crime is being committed. The cops aren’t too anxious to be thrust into the role of being the next prey, either.
Comment by Ethan Hawk Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 1:52 pm
Muscular, thanks for chiming in with that clause from the 2nd Amendment. I can’t believe no one’s ever made that argument before.
Obviously, there’s no response. Game over.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 2:17 pm
“You really need to read the entire second amendment and not just your favorite phrase (which is what the NRA does).”
The Supreme Court did read the entire amendment and guess what? They decided we could, with some reasonable restrictions carry a weapon. Get over it.
Comment by Leave a Light on George Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 2:34 pm
Lets say that CCL holders were able to carry virtually anywhere. BTW, Not saying that it will happen or even that its a good policy. What would happen? IMO, nothing. Just like the introduction of CC didnt usher in mass chaos. CCL holders have gone through training, 3 background checks (FOID, CCL, firearm transfer), paid hundreds of dollars and have sought out a license. This group of people are likely far more law abiding than the average citizen
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 2:43 pm
=Many conveniently forget the second amendment states that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”=
Many conveniently forget that the right stated in the context of a “well-regulated militia.” Nothing in the constitution prevents regulation of firearms and attempts to control domestic armed conflict.
Comment by Qui Tam Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 2:46 pm
Nothing wrong with carrying a gun these days, but the fear mongering has to stop. Sorry you cant carry a gun everywhere, get over it. Reasonable restrictions are in fact reasonable. If you want to carry a gun everywhere you go, thats your prerogative, but be prepared to face loosing the privilege if you are busted with a gun at your kids next high school basketball game.
Comment by BlameBruceRauner Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 2:52 pm
Ethan Hawk I am a member of the Illinois State Rifle Association and I supported the concealed carry law Illinois passed. I do not have a permit myself, but I support the right of those who want to be armed to do so. I am a legal gun owner with a FOID card. I didn’t agree with the mass transit ban on concealed carry nor do I agree with the ban on concealed carry in parks and forest preserves. But that was the deal made to get the concealed carry law passed and all of us on this blog know about the horse trading that goes on in Springfield. (My position on concealed carry on mass transit is that it should require more specialized training than the standard permit and the use of hollow-point hand gun bullets when on mass transit.)
The National Park Service now allows concealed carry permit holders to carry if they so choose to do so based on the local laws in the state the park is located in. In most national parks, only authorized law enforcement officials were allowed to carry firearms, but a 2009 federal law made national parks – and national wildlife refuges – generally subject to applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws. So concealed carry is allowed now in many National Parks.
But as to your comments about my home town Chicago and murders they are somewhat off base. When adjusted by population, murder rates are far higher in many smaller cities than in larger ones, such as Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. In terms of raw number of murders, Chicago has long been at or near the top of U.S. cities, according to FBI crime statistics. In 2012, it had 500 murders, the most of any city in the country; Chicago has been among the top three cities with the most murders since 1985.
But what’s striking is that from 1985 through 2012 only six cities have held the questionable honor of having the nation’s highest murder rate: New Orleans (12 times, most recently in 2011); Washington, D.C. (eight times, most recently in 1999); Detroit (four times, most recently 2006), Flint, Mich. (twice, also in 2010); Richmond, Va. (once, in 1997) and Birmingham, Ala. (once, in 2005). The raw data for Chicago in 2014 can be seen at http://heyjackass.com/category/2014-chicago-crime-murder-stats/
The murder rate per 100,000 residents is the critical factor here not raw numbers of murdered. The worse data for Chicago I have seen since the year 2000 is in 2003 where 22.6 of every 100,000 residents were murdered. In 2012 Detroit had 54.6 murders per 100,000 residents, New Orleans had 53.2 per murdered per 100,000 and Jackson, Miss., had 35.8 murders per 100,000. There are specific communities inside of Chicago with very high murder rates and others with very low rates.
So in summary Rich’s point of the tendency of some supporters of gun rights to overstate their fear of violent crime is a valid point. The actual evidence, or risk factor is often less than has been argued. It does not however invalidate many of the issues raised by the ISRA and legislation the ISRA has supported in the General Assembly.
Comment by Rod Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 2:57 pm
NRA/ISRA/Others - “They” are coming for your guns.
CSGV/Brady/Other’s - “They” want your children to die.
Whoever “they” is, we need to find them. “They” don’t seem like good neighbors.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 3:02 pm
==Many conveniently forget the second amendment states that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”==
Which I’m assuming to you means you can own whatever the hell you want and nobody can place any restrictions on it.
==The rhetoric is justifiably amplified because Illinois has some of the most stringent infringements on a constitutionally guaranteed means of personal safety and military readiness.==
Lol. Military readiness? Did you stray off of your anti-government compound?
In case you aren’t well versed in case law, the courts have held that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to limit those rights (as they have with other Constitutional rights). The 2nd Amendment absolutist kooks, though, don’t seem to understand that.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 3:30 pm
What happened to personal responsibility? Firearms are inanimate objects just like cars, computers, hammers, and a thousand other things we encounter in everyday life. They are only as good or as bad as the person using them.
Comment by Anon 1020 Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 3:49 pm
=== Ginhouse Tommy - Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 11:12 am: You can’t live your life in fear of what might happen ===
I don’t live my life in fear of what might happen to the tires on my car. I have a triple “A” card in my wallet and a can of fix-a-flat in my trunk.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 4:38 pm
False Equivalence: Contrary to what you opine, I think many would agree that the NRA position is by far the more reasonable.
Comment by logic not emotion Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 5:14 pm
– Firearms are inanimate objects–
Does that work at the gun shows when they tell you can’t have any load in your personal weapon?
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 5:47 pm
Leave a Light on George -
Get over what???
Comment by Ace Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 7:00 pm
I think there’s a place for a moderate discussion: Most people agree that too many people die from guns (including suicide), and too many dangerous people can easily access guns. I think most can also agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions on the “guns offer protection” vs. “guns are dangerous”, and certainly there are occurences of both…but how about we collect data to help inform policy?
And today the following preview was posted on a research paper evaluating effectiveness of gun policy:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/strong-regulations-on-gun-sales-prevent-high-risk-individuals-from-accessing-firearms-and-can-reduce-violent-crime-study-finds#.VQr7EdkU3YE.email
#1: stronger federal laws (e.g., background checks):
“The researchers found evidence to support a number of policies, including those that restrict firearm access for perpetrators of domestic violence and policies which deny felons and people who have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence from purchasing guns”.
And regarding state laws:
“Researchers also examined studies of state laws designed to prevent the transfer of guns to criminals. A number of policies appear to prevent diversion of guns to criminals, including permit-to-purchase laws, laws that extend background check requirements to transfers made by private gun owners, requiring gun owners to promptly report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement, and stronger regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers. The authors note, however, that widespread gun trafficking from states with weak gun laws to states with stronger laws underscores the need for stronger federal laws to prevent the diversion of guns to criminals”.
Comment by data, logic, emotion...? Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 7:46 pm
According to http://www.crimadvisor.com/?state=IL, we’re the 10th least friendly state for criminals to purchase guns. I guess we are doing something right.
Comment by Ste_with a v_en Thursday, Mar 19, 15 @ 11:50 pm