68 Comments - Common sense - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:27 am: What the NRA is proposing makes basic common sense. People should have the ability to protect themselves at anytime…home, work, etc. With legislative enactments in Nebraska and Kansas, Illinois and Wisconsin and are the only two states in the entire United States that do not have some type of concealed carry provision and it is about time that we in Illinois have the right to protect ourselves. I read that the man who did this was also armed with a hammer….I wonder if the Mayor is going to push for a ban on hardware stores now??? - Leroy - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:31 am: Wait a minute…hand guns are ILLEGAL in Chicago. How was this guy able to shoot these people? Are we really this unsafe in Chicago? How about passing some laws so this kind of stuff doesn’t happen again? - Angie - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:31 am: Yes, I would support it. Why? Never had problems, never want to, but in the event that some whack-job stalker or crazed gunman descends upon some public place with the intent to do harm, someone ought to be well-trained and able to conceal-and-carry in order to stop it. As we can all see, we HAVE gun control, and it ain’t working. The criminals always get the guns and the innocent always get shot at. Was it appropriate? Depends on how rabidly pro or anti you are on the gun issue. - anon - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:32 am: Timing may have been bad, however it is not much different in principle than gun-control groups using a such a tragedy to advocate their position. I can recall that at least twice Gov. Blagojevich has joined in calling for gun-control measures after such an incident in Chicago. I do support conceal carry. Why is that voters or General Assemblies in 48 out of 50 states approved conceal-carry and what makes Illinois so different not to allow such a provision. Its suprising that visitors in Illinois have not challenged on the grounds of repriocity in federal courts. Many police officers would also agree with the idea that the average law-abiding citizen has the right to defend themselves outside their home as well. - C$ - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:34 am: There must not have been an alderman on that floor, because they can carry a concealed weapon. But then again, they are the ruling class, and there’ much more at stake if they die, than say, a patent attorney, or message courier. An alderman’s life is worth much more than yours or mine. - agree with common sense - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:36 am: It is time for a shift in ideology, especially in Chicago. Guns will always be available and the honest people that abide by the gun laws are left defenseless. Anti gun people (i.e. Daley) have indirect blame in senseless deaths like this. If an attorney in that office had a gun in his desk tragedy might have been minimized. - m - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:39 am: I support concealed carry for law-abiding citizens. This sort of thing happening on Friday is a good illustration of why. It appears to be possible for the ‘bad guys’ to get guns (or other weapons), no matter how many regulations we pass to restrict them. Having been in a position where some nuts were stalking me and my colleagues, I truly hated being in the position of my family and myself being sitting ducks every time we left the house. Concealed carry would at least give those being stalked an opportunity to protect ourselves without becoming total prisoners in our homes. It would also leave the ‘bad guys’, who may now safely assume their intended victims will be unprotected, in the position of always wondering whether they will be meeting up equal or superior firepower. - BBpolNut - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:47 am: I absolutely support a concealed carry law. We in Illinois are one of the few who don’t have at least some sort of concealed carry and we are no safer than anyone else. It’s time we get with the times and allow our citizens to protect themselves from criminals. The whole idea of handguns being illegal in Chicago is a farse. It’s one of the most dangerous cities in the country and all the punks and gangbangers eem to be able to find plenty of handguns. - Slash - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:50 am: Obama will fix problems like this by drawing us all closer together! - annoyed all the time - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:52 am: timing is essential - for me personal i think they have poor timing as those that lost their lives, their families are still so recently hurting, however from their persepective its perfect timing to take advantge of the scare factor or everyone else who is afraid of this happening at their offices - - Ravenswood Right Winger - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 9:55 am: I am all for concealed carry. Gun control rests on the premise that there are less criminals with guns than police officers with guns. To quote Scooby Doo: “Ruh roh!” - Levois - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 10:01 am: Gun control needs to be revamped. Honest law abiding citizens shouldn’t be punished because of some criminals who aren’t going to follow the law or some irresponsible person who don’t know what to do with a weapon. - swede - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 10:09 am: Slash, I can not see how Obama is going to solve this problem by “drawing us all closer together.” Surely, there is a need for some kind of concealed carry. The police obviously are not always going to be there. The NRA is totally right on this one. It’s easy for politicians like Mayor Daley to be against concealed carry when they have 24/7 armed bodyguards. - VanillaMan - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 10:16 am: History is full of civilizations collapsing before the uncivilized. It seems that people reach a point where they no longer wish to admit they have enemies, or hope their enemies can be appeased and civilized. In this case, we are all hoping that guns are unnecessary and everyone can reach happy accords. Until there is a civilized way of protecting ourselves from lunatics and barbarians, we need to recognize the reality before us and adapt. We need to either enforce our level of civility onto others, or succumb to their level. Enforcement and defense is a necessity in even the most posh and intelligent societies. We must stop looking down our noses as those who we depend upon to keep up safe. We must stop second guessing our defenders when they take action against threats. If you will not take responsibility for your own safety, you are in a weak position to understand threats against you, the reality before us, and actions taken to keep you safe. If we must have carry-conceal laws at this time, then we must. However, this is not THE solution. We need to be vigilant, if we want to not return to the Middle Ages. Civilization is like landscaping. If it is not kept up, you will suddenly discover that you are threatened by wild things; be they animal, vegetable or human. - Left Leaner - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 10:25 am: No support for concealed carry here. Why? It just doesn’t do any real good. I ask you supporters of concealed carry to give good reasons why concealed carry would do any good. One other thing I find interesting. A “law-abiding” citizin is not necessarily a responsible gun owner or user. Concealed carry laws could allow a lot of unstable people who have never gotten more than a parking ticket to walk around with guns. Ya’ll ready for that! - Angie - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 10:27 am: Re: “The police obviously are not always going to be there.” There simply aren’t enough police officers. No one on the gun control side seems to be able to do the dangblasted math, which is really quite simple. There are only SO many cops, people. Officer A cannot be stopping the robber who is breaking into Betty Winnetka’s home while also being in five other places at once. Only in an absolutely idiotic society would anyone think calling the cops and waiting it out was a smart survival strategy in the case of a dire emergency. Do the math! - Jaded - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 10:29 am: I don’t support concealed carry because there are a lot of “law abiding citizens” who I don’t want carrying a weapon everywhere they go. That said, if it ever passes in Illinois, I will be standing in line to get my permit! - Animous - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 10:31 am: Mixed feelings on concealed carry. It should be allowed, but only in limited circumstances and with extensive background checks, registration & training requirements. The press release seems incredibly opportunistic (& lacking in tact): 1.) if its illegal to have handguns in Chicago it would have been a moot point as nobody could have legally had a handgun to defend themselves anyway, 2.) if it was legal, the only difference could have been that the perpetrator (who I don’t believe had a criminal record) could have legally walked in with his weapon instead of having to “muscle” his way in. The PR also seems to ignor the issue that all the killing was done with a seemingly “legal” handgun by a previously “ordinary” citizen… - George Ryan's Cellmate - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 10:33 am: When Michael J. Fox promoted legislation and endorsed a candidate, many folks said he was using victims to make a political point and was wrong. When the Illinois State Rifle Association issues a press release “to extend condolences and sympathies to the families of those killed and injured during Friday’s armed assault” and then in the same release promoted legislation, the ISRA is using victims to make a political point and is similarly wrong. Bad idea, even worse legislation and immoral press release. - mark - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 11:07 am: Leeches. - Bob o Link - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 11:32 am: Let’s have a wild west shootout in every workplace! Based on what I read this weekend, the perp was a former “good citizen” who may have been allowed to carry a concealed weapon under concealed carry proposals. You cannot predict future behavior and it’s too dangerous to find out. Just keep getting rid of guns and you’ll continue to see murder rates go down. Oh, and you stay classy, NRA. - respectful - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 11:39 am: I’m for freedom of choice on the issue. Too bad the party of “choice” isn’t. - North by Northwest - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 11:58 am: Makes sense on one level. But how do you ensure the people with concealed weapons on the premises don’t end up “going postal” somewhere down the line, after real or imagined greivances? Then the gunman wouldn’t even have to worry about getting past security! - So-Called "Austin Mayor" - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 12:04 pm: Sure I support concealed carry, but it simply doesn’t go far enough. If we are safer with more firepower on the streets, why stop with semi-automatic weapons? Why not follow the more bullets = more safety to it’s logical conclusion and join Alan Keyes in supporting machine-guns for law abiding citizens? Just thinking about it makes me feel safer. - SpfldPolitico - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 12:06 pm: i do think the NRA is taking advantage of a tradegy and timing looks bad, but i wholeheartedly agree with allowing law abiding trained citizens to carry weapons. I feel alot of these crazies will think twice about walking into a shool, a workplace, etc if they think someone else might shoot back!it wont stop these attacks but it willreduce them and it will reduce the number of casualties….my question now is, what does the laws say about helpng in this situation if you have a concealed carry permit - if you are there and dont help, are you liable? - Justice - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 12:24 pm: I support concealed carry. It certainly will level the playing field and has been shown to reduce crime. Reducing idiots shooting themselves in the foot is another thing. To help reduce gun accidents citizens could be required to take gun handling training. Hey….another fee for Blogo…just on that alone it’s sure to pass!! As to the letter…it makes a strong point and was written for that purpose. No one wanted this to happen and it touches everyone, but the truth is, had the law abiding citizen been able to carry a weapon, the gunman would most likely not have succeeded. Our condolences to the families touched by this tragedy. - Shallow Pharnyx - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 12:45 pm: Think this through people. My father received a concealed weapon card in Texas. He shook so bad (from Parkinson) he wasn’t allowed to drive but it was ok if he carried a concealed weapon!! I know it was Texas, but it might happen elsewhere. There are plenty of people that should never even own a gun, much less carry one. - whatever - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 12:52 pm: All of the logic is on the NRA’s side on this one. And there is plenty of empirical evidence out there to support the claim that crime drops where there is concealed carry. But that said, it’s a political loser in Illinois. Maybe there is something in the water here, I don’t know. But emotion will always trump logic on this one. Are there more than 5 or 6 politicians in the entire state who are willing to stick their neck out on concealed carry? It’s going nowhere here. - Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 12:55 pm: “Whatever,” I think if the shooter was formerly a “law abiding citizen,” I’m not sure that buttresses ISRA’s case. - Central Illinois checking in - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 1:28 pm: A criminal would be out of his f’in mind to commit a similar act like that on a business or house near me. Why do you think we hardly have home invasions where I live? It’s because the perp would be looking down the barrel of a 12 gauge and get a real fast instantaneous message. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 1:30 pm: Bob-o-link has this one right. Folks who think that “everybody having a gun” will make us safer really don’t recall what the Wild, Wild West was like. If security guards and metal detectors weren’t a deterrent, a conceal-carry law isn’t either. The guy might have shot more bystanders on the way in that looked like the kind of people that would be licensed to carry guns — you know, white guys in suits, but that would be the only benefit. Government does a lousy job of deciding who should be a licensed foster parent — do we really trust those same institutions to decide who gets a concealed pistol? - Skeeter - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 1:30 pm: I’m with So Called Austin Mayor. Screw handguns. If the office receptionist had a machine gun none of this would have happened. I think all downtown offices reception areas should look like the entrance to the Green Zone. That would take care of all the crime. It works in Iraq. Guns are cheap and plentiful there, and the crime problem has been solved! - Joannie - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 1:30 pm: I am for concealed carry or as someone above said I am for the choice to carry. I’ve no problem with the NRA using every opportunity to bring forward this subject. In the meantime I’m considering buying the biggest, easiest to handle nail gun that I can find. - Lovie's Leather - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 1:42 pm: This is a tough issue. But the fact is, if you are a criminal, you will break the law to carry a gun. Getting rid of guns is not a viable answer because not everyone would give up their guns (i.e. criminals). If you want to prevent a criminal from killing your coworkers, you have to shoot him or disarm him by tackling him and taking the gun away. I think that the condolence letter was honorable while also providing a potential solution that doesn’t require the government to spend $10 billion. If many average, law-abiding people carried guns, people would fear stepping into the law office with intentions to kill as many people as possible. You can’t get rid of guns. It is impossible. We have to adapt to the situation instead of acting like banning guns is a viable solution. Here is part of an article from newsmax after Australia banned most guns: “Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.” - Skeeter - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 2:01 pm: Come on, LL. Do some research. The “law” was not a ban. Guns were never allowed there. It was a buy-back, and it did not impact all weapons. If you take a look at the rest of the figures (try some research, LL), you will find other problems with those numbers. - NumbersGuy - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 2:54 pm: Tacky press release. What troubles me about this incident, and I hear the sound of lawyering as I type, is the breakdown of the Citigroup Center security system. The shooter should not have been allowed to “muscle his way” to the law offices, even if it meant an exchange of gunfire on the lower levels. This is not at all unusual, but more common in public properties. The investment is made in high-tech physical security systems, but the security guard force is improperly trained, undermanned, or both. Given these situations, I’ll take concealed carry until we can be adequately protected from the nutcases and criminals, thanks. - Slick Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 3:04 pm: YDD- Exactly how old are you? I sure do not know what the “wild west” was like, but apparently you do. As noted above, 46 states have concealed carry laws and they have not reverted back to the dreaded “wild wild west”. That said, it has been a while since I have crossed the border into Indiana. Is Yosemite Sam setting up camp at the state line? That is such a red herring. I wish people would stop saying that. “Why not get a machine gun”? No one that supports concealed carry is calling for the right to strap on an AK-47, ala So Called Austin Mayor. The sad thing is, if you were in that office building as he started pulling the trigger, I bet you would wish someone would pull a pistol and do something. At least have the decency to admit it. - Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 3:15 pm: If memory serves, Missouri’s anti-carry law was enacted as a response to the James Gang. No, not that James Gang, this one. - HappyToaster - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 3:33 pm: Right. Let’s encourage Walter Middy to play Dirty Harry. They won’t shoot themselves, bystanders or get plugged by the perp. It’ll be all heroic an stuff. The cops won’t drop an armed unknown on account of the hero glow. If I was fleeing that building the last thing I would want is some jackass banging away with a 38. - cermak_rd - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 3:56 pm: Every employer I’ve worked for in IL has had me sign a standard boiler plate that has the T&Cs for employement. Every one of them has stated that bringing a firearm onto premises is against policy. So even if they changed the law, would it really help in a situation like this? Citigroup would likely have had a no firearm policy. Further, how many people are going to carry a handgun and take proper care with it every day, day after day? Taking it to their jobs, to their grocers, to their kids’ schools and everywhere else they go? I fear it would only be the most paranoid–the last group I want with guns. - Squideshi - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 3:56 pm: There’s an important case working its way though the federal courts that promises to settle the scope of the Second Amendment. - Bluefish - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 4:10 pm: Someone who goes off the deep end and walks into a public place with the intention of shooting people is not going to be discouraged by a concealed carry law. Simply put, this person is not making a logical decision. Nor do I think that a person with a concealed gun will generally make a difference in a situation where someone starts randomly shooting. That gunman can squeeze off a lot of shots before a person with a concealed gun gets over their initial panic, pulls their weapon and returns fire. And let’s be honest, unless that person has military or law enforcement training, they probably will be shaking far too much to be an accurate shot and will likely end up making the situation worse, not better. Concealed carry = bad idea ISRA press release = shameless pandering - Beowulf - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 4:49 pm: Perhaps the answer lies in “what controls and restrictions will be implemented with concealed carries?” I have mixed emotions about it all like so many people do. I believe all people have the right to bear arms to protect themselves on their own property. I would think that almost all others would also agree to this basic right. I am not so sure about the right for “everybody” being able to carry concealed weapons off of their premises without there being some stringent rules in place. Perhaps something in the way of thorough background checks and training much like air marshalls are required to undergo? If those statements by the gun coalitions that crime actually has gone down in those states that went to concealed carry are actually true, then I feel that we should try it on a controlled basis for 1-2 years to see if it works. If it doesn’t, then we can always go back to the way it was before concealed carry was allowed in Illinois. - whatever - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 4:54 pm: Rich, the reality is the shooter from last week already had a gun - despite the ban. He was willing to murder 3 people, so obviously he wasn’t bothered by the idea of breaking another law banning gun possession. Also, last week’s shooter did have an arrest record. Old charges, yes. But they were serious ones. I’m not sure what you are trying to say. - respectful - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 5:17 pm: Anyone who argues Illinois would become the wild west if we got concealed carry has to explain why the other 48 states that already have cc haven’t become the wild west. And why Chicago was for many years the murder capital of the country, not a city in a cc state. - Concerned Voter - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 5:27 pm: I’d support concealed carry with the provisions of good background checks (criminal history and mental health especially) & proper training. Hey, the state can make some money, charge for the background checks, the training, the licenses/permits, even make you have to go qualify at a local police range, all for a fee of course. - anon - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 5:32 pm: shameless pr stunt. They are out of touch with reality. - huh? - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 5:51 pm: I lost count, but it seems that the majority of the writers have written statements SUPPORTING some type of concealed carry laws. For the sake of full disclosure, if someone wrote more than 1 post, they got counted more than once. Except for skeeter, he didn’t count at all. He spun off the road of reality when he mentioned the machine guns. I personally am ambivilent about concealed carry laws. Properly licensed/permitted with training and background chedcks are ok. I would like to see something like an on going training , x # hours per year to retain or renew the license. People with professional licenses have to have so many professional development hours per renewal period - PE’s have to have 30 PDH every 2 years in order to renew thier license. ISRA is pandering but they have a point. - NIEVA - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 5:57 pm: I live in Southern Il and we just think different down here. IF I can be trusted to drive a car at 65 mph and not cross the centerline and kill a bunch of people why would you not trust me to conceal carry? With proper training I would much rather be hiding under a desk with a legal concealed firearm than my phone trying to contact 911. Did you know that several states issue conceal carry permits to Il residents. I have one that allows me to carry in all of the states that border IL. Wake up people it is a violent world and it’s not going to get any better. IF you were in the place of the people that died in this attack or your loved one should you not be able to defend yourself? - Pro-Gunner - Monday, Dec 11, 06 @ 6:58 pm: I would like the “gun prohibitionist crowd” to explain “gun control” to the victims of violent crime who have lost their lives because they were forbidden to protect themselves with handguns. What these victims hear, I will hear. - The Conservative - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 3:32 am: To make it easy, YES. Those States that have it crime has dropped.Not saying everyone should be able to carry, there needs to be background checks but we should have a choice. - Anon - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 6:18 am: Rich Miller, Jackson had three criminal offenses on his record. In 1968 he was arrested for unlawful possession of a weapon and in 1977 he was arrested for a stolen motor vehicle and disorderly conduct. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 6:39 am: Pro-Gunner: Good deal. I will explain that, when you deliver the news to the parents of child killed because their friend found the parents gun, thought it was a toy, and killed their child. Or the parents of the women killed by their husbands when a routine domestic dispute gets out of hand because there was a gun in the house. That happens far more often then people “protecting themselves.” - Skeeter - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 6:45 am: In response to “Huh”: People here think we should walk around like we are in Iraq, with every person hiding their gun, and I’m the one off the deep end? If you are going to go the “weapons for everyone” route, I just want to make sure that my office has better weapons than everybody else. If we are going to provide protection, let’s provide real protection. It will be tough to find find a receptionist who can control a switchboard while unloading the AK on bad guys, but it can be done. In the context of the argument, that’s extremely reasonable. - Angie (to Skeeter) - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 7:34 am: Re: “Good deal. I will explain that, when you deliver the news to the parents of child killed because their friend found the parents gun, thought it was a toy, and killed their child. Or the parents of the women killed by their husbands when a routine domestic dispute gets out of hand because there was a gun in the house.” If a parent is too stupid to figure out how to keep a gun locked up away from the kids (how about in a room with a lock on the door, especially at night, because that’s where the ‘rents will be if they hear a break-in downstairs at 3AM anyways), then they shouldn’t be breeding anyways. As for domectic disputes? What wife-beater has ever been seriously deterred by gun control laws? Same as with any other criminal in that that person will still end up with a gun. What about a single female being stalked by someone she dumped, and the creep hides out in the bushes, just waiting for an opportunity? You need for the rest of us to demand that 911 tapes of screaming women be played for you as crimes play out? Don’t like guns? Don’t own one then. Leave everyone else alone. - Angie (again) - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 7:38 am: P.S. I found my grandfather’s gun in the grandparent’s house when I was a kid (he had passed away, and we were cleaning stuff out, but my grandmother hadn’t recalled that he had it there, apparently). I don’t recall being stupid enough to not know not to touch it. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 9:05 am: Thanks for those strong pro-life views, Angie. Blame the kids for the actions of their parents. Blame the victims of domestic abuse. What a view of the world. - Siyotanka - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 10:54 am: Simply: Yes, I support concealed carry… - Angie - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 11:16 am: Skeeter, this question was about conceal-and-carry, but you went and placed the issue IN the home, where kids might get access to guns (if their parents are stupid enough to leave them out where the kids can get their paws on them). Here’s the quote from the original topic intro that Rich posted, “One has to wonder how the outcome may have differed had any of the law office staff been trained and licensed to carry a defensive firearm. Unfortunately, the answer to that question will remain unknown as Illinois is one of only 2 states in the nation that prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying firearms as a means of self defense.” You diverted this a bit by bringing up domestic (within home) issues involving kids and spousal abuse. But I’m OK with running social experiments if you liberals could kindly let the rest of us OPT OUT of it voluntarily (because I’m libertarian, here). You stake out a bit of territory where you all vote on the issue, allow NO guns at all, and then even place signs on your lawns screaming out to criminals that “Hey! We are unarmed!” and see what happens. I kinda like that idea, actually. Millions of disarmed liberals facing the rest of us…who have all the firepower! Mwahaha. No, I’m just teasing, really (we don’t wish harm on you folks at all, just want you away from the ability to keep passing more restrictive laws, that’s all). Gun control. Try using both hands? (I think that comes from George Carlin, but don’t quote me on it) - Skeeter - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 11:29 am: Angie (or is this just another name for John Lott?): You think three innocent people shot in the head is a joke? You think that when a child is killed by a friend who obtained a parent’s gun, the child is at fault? You libertarians sure do have weird senses of humor. By the way — I never said “no guns at all.” You should read the posts. No wonder you oppose reasonable gun control. You don’t have a clue as to any facts. - johnsville - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 12:15 pm: I cannot imagine working in an office where one or more of the nitwits in a jungle of cubicles actually are allowed to have concealed weapons. This is supposed to make us feel safe? Look around! How many people do you work with that you might trust with a gun? - Pro-Gunner - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 1:12 pm: It serves no purpose to argue “gun rights” with “Gun Prohibitionists” as their arguments are more emotional than factual. The best they can do is “demonize” guns and gun-owners. They are desperate people who are genuinely fearful that Illinois will join the rest of America and become a “concealed carry” state. Gun owners must focus upon reducing this fear of guns and gun-owners. The ISRA must make this a primary goal. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 1:13 pm: Thanks for that fact-intensive post, Pro-Gunner. - Pro-Gunner - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 1:42 pm: Thanks for proving my point, Skeeter. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 1:56 pm: If the flame battle continues, I’m shutting off comments on this post. - Frosty Da Snowman - Tuesday, Dec 12, 06 @ 6:39 pm: I believe firmly that people have the right to defend themselves and that they should be able to exercise that right with handguns, which is the best tool for that purpose. I do not believe that the ISRA’s response was inappropriate. The shooting was a news event. Therefore, the ISRA has every right to respond to the news while it is still news. For those of you that felt that the ISRA’s response was inappropriate, get a grip. If you want to see “inappropriate,” then take a look at some of the circus sideshows staged by the Brady Campaign’s Illinois representative – Jennifer Bishop. Who can forget the gruesome birthday party, complete with cake and ice cream, that she held at the capitol for a little dead girl? Who can forget the spectacle of Bishop dragging teary-eyed parents of gang violence around the Capitol to lobby for gun bans? If that is not political pandering, I do not know what is. Demanding the right to defend oneself is a wholly appropriate response to Friday’s events. Self defense is an innate right that the state must not abridge. The state should not force good citizens into the role of sitting duck. But, then again, it’s important to keep in mind that the gun controllers hate guns and the people that own them. Supporters of the gun control movement would prefer to see victims laying dead in the street rather than to see them alive and well with guns in their hands. Those who claim that passage of a concealed carry law would result in Illinois becoming the “wild west” must have been asleep for the past decade. 48 states now have concealed carry without even the slightest hint of Dodge City in their streets. Why would Illinois be any different? And what’s with all this blather about Friday’s shooter being a “law abiding citizen” who could acquire a concealed carry permit if they were available? Cripes, the guy had two prior convictions that would have precluded him from buying guns, never mind acquiring a permit. But even if he was able to get a permit, what difference would it have made? Would a permit have made him kill more people? Hecky no. Bravo to the ISRA! It’s time for Illinois to join the rest of the nation in passing this important, lifesaving legislation. - Pro-Gunner - Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 6:50 am: Excellent post, Frosty! - Former Chicago resident - Tuesday, Dec 19, 06 @ 12:16 am: Skeeter. It’s already illegal in Illinois to allow children under 14 any access to a gun. They did allow one sensible exception. “if the minor under 14 years of age gains access to a firearm and uses it in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another” ——————— From the Illinois State FOID (Firearm Owners ID card) Faq ——————— Will I be held responsible for my child who has access to a firearm? Yes. Illinois law (720 ILCS 5/24-9) states “(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), it is unlawful for any person to store or leave, within premises under his or her control, a firearm if the person knows or has reason to believe that a minor under the age of 14 years who does not have a Firearm Owners Identification Card is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent, guardian, or person having charge of the minor, and the minor causes death or great bodily harm with the firearm, unless the firearm is: (1) secured by a device or mechanism, other than the firearm safety, designed to render a firearm temporarily inoperable; or (2) placed in a securely locked box or container; or (3) placed in some other location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor under the age of 14 years. (b) Sentence. A person who violates this Section is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $1,000. A second or subsequent violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor. (c) Subsection (a) does not apply: (1) if the minor under 14 years of age gains access to a firearm and uses it in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another; or (2) to any firearm obtained by a minor under the age of 14 because of an unlawful entry of the premises by the minor or another person.” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.