Do you support giving Illinoisans the right to carry concealed firearms, as long as there was training and criminal background checks involved? Explain.
Yes, just because I have the right does not mean I would exercise it. One potenital problem is that thug types and convicts would have thier girlfriends carry for them. Which is not that big of difference than now as they break the law currently and would continue to do so.
We don’t need to add more guns to our daily lives. Those packing illegally will continue to do so and having upstanding citizens packing will not balance the situation.
Given the success in almost every other state in the union, and the fact that violent crime has been falling while many other states has been liberalizing their gun laws, gives me no reason to think it couldn’t work in Illinois. You’d be crazy to think that many normal law abiding people in this state don’t throw a gun under their seat when they go to a bad neighborhood… not that I’d ever break the law to protect my family or anything.
I support the right to a concealed carry law. Sure would cut down on crime. Most of the “bad guys” are already carrying. Sure, there will be some nut jobs who shouldn’t be allowed to carry as much as a spoon, but for the greatest part, law abiding citizens will continue to be just that. I think it would reduce robberies and assaults. Might cull the gene pool a bit.
Absolutely!!!! I believe in restriction particularly for those who are felons and yes there should be mandatory training in the use and handling of a firearm. If you’ve been proven to be “irresponsible” then your gun should be taken away from you.
I have very conflicting views on this and don’t have a real position on the issue (due largely to an article written on the subject by Richard Clarke).
That being said, I am curious as to the required training.
In New York, detectives who went through the NYPD’s training program and, assuming their program is similiar to Chicago, had to continue to re-cert over time, still fired 50 shots at an unarmed man.
In Chicago, I am aware of a situation where two POs came across what they believed to be an attempted car jacking in progress. The bad guy and the owner were struggling for control and the car was inching forward. The POs thought they saw a gun, so they fired about 20 times (hitting nothing — a new standard: “Those two couldn’t hit the side of a car moving at 5 mph from 20 feet away”) with apparently equal odds of hitting bad guy, victim or some innocent third person. Nice decision to fire there.
What sort of training could be provided that would prevent those incidents, and what reason do we have to believe that any training will prevent that sort of random gunfire?
If you are going to justify conceal carry (and there are some very good reasons), don’t try and and do so with the “training required” explanation because that is just ridiculous.
How many fatal car accidents do you read about in the news? Now how many innocent casualties do you read about where the shooter was a concealed carry license holder? Which one do you honestly think would benefit more from stricter licensing standards?
And having more guns on our streets will help how…?
That said, Levois makes a good point. There should be mandatory training with routine ‘upkeep’ of that training (”continuing education” if you will), not just for the FOID carrier but also for every member of the home. True child-proof locks also ought to be mandatory.
Yes, because I believe I have a right to defend myself and should not be required to rely on the state (ie, the police) as my sole means of protection. (and I say this as the son of a cop, and an avid supporter/defender of law enforcement officers)
As a side note, a federal court just struck down DC’s handgun ban. If the Supreme Court doesn’t take it up and reverse it, gun rights advocates could have solid footing to fight Chicago’s.
Absoulutely. Only 2 states out of 50 (IL and WI) have zero concealed carry allowances. Granted about 15 or so make it very difficult but the trend is to allow for concealed carry. The nay-sayers that claim it will be the wild west are not accurate. It just doesn’t happen. The instances of properly licensed citizens using their weapons in an illegal manner is almost nill. We need the right to protect ourselves from punks and drug addicts. Who else is going to do it? The police? They can’t be everywhere.
I would like to see this but with a big caveat. Counties could opt out. So Cook County could decide no, whereas Coles County could decide yes. This makes more sense as smaller communities tend to have more gun nuts and they are small enough to also know who the village idiot is to which they shouldn’t sell guns or ammo. I suspect that mostly rural counties would choose to allow concealed carry and mostly urban counties would choose not to allow it. This would be practical and pragmatic.
Yes, it appears conceal carry laws reduce violent crimes. However, the training should have to be approved by the ISP; and should include accuracy qualification cirteria that match what parol officers and DOC employees must meet. There should be annual shooting qualification testing required. Additional criteria, the permit should identify which weapon or weapons are covered by it. No carrying anything not in the permit. A permitted weapon would require providing the gun to ISP for them to obtain a sample fired bullet. Any changes to the barrel would require providing a new sample. In exchange for the privilege permit holderswould be required to submit dna and fingerprint information.
- Little Egypt - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:22 am:
Absolutely, I support a concealed carry law. The crooks already abide by a law of their own. Why shouldn’t the rest of us be able to pack if we choose. I’m NOT in favor of letting counties opt out unless they don’t throw my butt in jail when I come to Cook county packing my piece. But we’re living in la-la land if we think Illinois will join the other 48 states and let their citizens protect themselves. This is Illinois folks. We don’t do anything right here.
This talk about people coming to Cook County with guns sure makes me more anti-gun.
Here’s a tip from somebody who lives here: If you think you need a gun when you come here, STAY HOME. You are a danger to everyone around you. No reason to come here. Nothing to be seen. Stay south.
Police officers do the exact same thing, after background checks and training. So why not the general populace?
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:36 am:
Emphatically yes. Pat Hickey makes a very good point - if provision is made for legal carry, violations should be a major crime.
The fact that Illinois is one of only two states that make no allowance for citizens to carry a defensive firearm is inexcusable. Right to carry laws have been enacted in numerous (more than twenty IIRC) states in the last decade or two, and guess what - no blood running in the streets, film at eleven.
The sad fact is that criminals will carry regardless of the rule of law; law abiding citizens such as myself can’t and don’t.
By the way, many Illinois citizens such as myself already hold a CCW issued by another state. Mine is from Florida, and is valid in something like thirty states (not Illinois, of course). I use it when I travel to Indiana on business. And guess what - I haven’t shot up a carload of nuns yet!
This isn’t a simple yes-or-no question. If gun enforcement was better than not as many “bad guys” would be carrying. Then there would be no need for a concealed carry law. I oppose this provision…more guns on the street is exactly the opposite of what we need.
- Way Northsider - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:53 am:
NO.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:56 am:
Amy, care to support that statement with objective facts? It’s contrary to the published data I’ve seen.
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:12 pm:
I’m glad to live in a state where civilians are not allowed to carry concealed firearms.
Concealed carry does nothing to affect the crime rate — it doesn’t reduce crime, it doesn’t increase crime. (Lott is the only guy who claims a connection between reduced crime and concealed carry, but his work has been pretty thoroughly discredited.) The only thing concealed carry will do is increase gun sales.
However, more guns does have serious health consequences, particularly in the cases of accidental shootings and suicides.
Moreover, there’s a law enforcement aspect of concealed carry that hasn’t been fully examined. Right now, a law enforcement officer who saw a person carrying a gun that was concealed (or is imperfectly concealed) has probable cause to stop that person and search them.
If we have a concealed carry law in Illinois, I imagine that law enforcement officers would no longer have probable cause to stop someone just because they have a concealed weapon. (How does the officer know that the person doesn’t have the correct permit?)
Remember, we’re not talking about hunters or about people who have a handgun in the home. We’re talking about people in the streets — some of whom are most definitely criminals, or about to commit criminal acts. And we’re not talking about police going out of their way to harass “law-abiding” gun owners.
It seems to me that taking away probable cause for a police officer to stop someone carrying a handgun before a crime is committed is too steep a price to pay.
No reason for it. First of all anyone making the reduction of crime argument must not have seen any of the number of reports recently that nationally we have seen an increase in violent crime over the last year. So if 48 of 50 states have CCW, it obviously isn’t doing the job. Furthermore the crime issue is just a smokescreen. Most CCW permit holders in other states are white men who live in low crime areas in the suburbs and rural areas. It’s not that they are threatened on a regular basis they just want to be able to carry a gun. The Minneapolis Star Tribune just published a report from the State Department of Public Safety that reported there were no lawful and justifiable uses of firearms in 2006 among the 42,000 conceal carry permit holders.
If people want to carry guns in public why don’t we just let them carry around in plain view then at least I would know who to stay away from. Why should the legislature do something on CCW just because a small number of white guys in safe areas of the state feel they should be able to carry.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:19 pm:
I would want to know by whom, when, and where. In a tavern at 3 AM–I think not. Riding around in a car in the middle of the night–I think not.
Lots of questions to be answered before I could say yes or no.
NO - we have far too many guns in our society now. The days of the wild west should be behind us rather than in our midst.
As we become more and more technologically adept we invent better and better items, including guns. WHile we need to be protected from criminals we do not need to arm more for that protection. The move should be to disarm.
Guns are big business for the proponents. Those who want to hunt should have that right. Guns should be locked up in cabinets and when a person wants to hunt, they are given their gun or one they can rent, provided they have safety training - then returned after hunting.
The Second Amendment does not guarantee the tight to carry a concealed weap0on amidst society and put others in danger. Its too bad groups like the NRA have taken over the issue and force the idea that if you are not a liberal regarding guns you are opposed.
“Do you support giving Illinoisans the right to carry concealed firearms, as long as there was training and criminal background checks involved?”
No.
If you want to carry a gun, man up and carry a shotgun like I do.
– SCAM
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:36 pm:
Yes, lawful concealed carry is a good answer. The criminals are lazy they want an easy mark, not someone who can defend themselves.
As for the comment that this removes probable cause for the police to question and search a person with an inadequately concealed firearm I say phooey…It is CONCEALED carry not almost concealed carry. If the Office can tell you are carrying then he has the right to question you and ask for your “papers”.
More anti-second amendment laws only mean that criminals will have firearms.
A person with a CONCEALED weapon is probably considered the same mark as anyone else, since the weapon is CONCEALED.
If you can provide instancs where somebody was a victim of street crime and managed to pull out the concealed weapon and actually use it, I would be amazed.
Want to ward off criminals? You are better off walking around with a Rottweiler than a concealed weapon.
As a follow-up…
As I see there are No’s and Yes’ to this arguement. Rich…how about just an open carry law…no concealment…full law enforcement training, etc…??
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:46 pm:
Skeeter,
It is instilling a level of fear into the criminals that their targets may ‘bite’ back. and here is your example!
Without a doubt. I would absolutely support concealed carry in Illinois. Draconian anti guns laws are ineffectual and the violent crime rates in Chicago and Washington DC have conclusively proved this. Allow the people of Illinois to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to protect themselves and everyone (accept of course for the criminals) will be safer and better off.
As you pointed out, the weapon did nothing to deter the crime at all. Even with the concealed weapon, he was still a victim.
- He Makes Ryan look like a saint - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:54 pm:
I agree with Conceal carry, I would take the training, but would only carry as necessary.
I think it deters crime.
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:56 pm:
Kevin,
Of course if a gun is hidden, the officer will not know that you are carrying it. However, consider the situation of an imperfectly concealed weapon — i.e., there’s a telltale bulge; or, you can see a gun peeking out under a shirt. Moreover, think of the situation where a gangbanger will flash a gun.
The CCW law does not require that a gun be concealed from everyone, and never drawn.
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:02 pm:
Skeeter,
The victim chose to give up worldly possesions, but when he had surrended those items and then felt he was in fear of his live he had the option to defend himself with equal or greater force.
Other Anonymous,
If the Officer notices the weapon he can question the presence of it. That is all I’m saying.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:02 pm:
If you “print”, it’s probable cause for a stop in most (or all?) states. What’s the issue here?
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:11 pm:
Kevin and Ken,
Maybe you guys are right — that an officer always has probable cause to question someone with a weapon, even in CCW states. But a state supreme court, or even the US Supreme Court, could rationally decide that in a CCW state, simply carrying a gun does not provide probable cause because the officer has no indication that the gun is carried illegally. In a state like Illinois, without concealed carry, a police officer can always find probable cause when someone is carrying a weapon on his person.
That’s the issue — how many convictions and how much evidence gets suppressed in a state where carrying a weapon is not considered probable cause?
Btw, Ken, I assume “print” means flashing a gun? If so, it still doesn’t address the question of a gun bulge, or a gun peeking out of clothing.
If you want to look at statistics for states with conceal carry, I suggest looking at violent versus property crime statistics.
the problem with statistical analysis is every state is different in its criminal laws. For example, do states with 3 strike laws have an increase in violent crims after the passing of such legisaltion? such laws increase the punishment on non-violent crimes to the level that there is no reason to refrain from use of lethal force if you are on your 3rd strike.
Also quality of local law enfrocement agencies, state spending on law enforcement, penalties etc can create cause and effect as well.
Yes, we should have the right to do it, if we so choose to. It should be a personal choice if you want to or not.
I think it would lower random crime a bit. Criminals will think twice before they attempt to rob or rape someone if there is a chance they can get killed doing it.
Frankly, even though I am an NRA member and an active shooter I would not be in favor of concealed carry except for the fact that in this screwball state we already allow off-duty cops and Chicago aldermen the right to carry concealed weapons. Given the number of criminals in Chicago’s City Hall and my experience with the Rambo wannabes who constitute our local and county police forces, I have come to the conclusion that if these thugs should be armed, then so should we all. So I am for it!
One of the reasons I rarely leave Illinois is because I am afraid I am going to get gunned down in the crossfire caused by someone carrying a concealed weapon.
I think it is irresponsible to take my family to a conceal carry state for vacation, such as California or Florida. Usually if we go on vacation, we stay in Illinois or go to Wisconsin.
It is just too risky to travel to a ‘wild-west’ concealed carry state. I love my family, and would *never* put them in harms’ way by taking them to one.
Absolutely opposed to concealed weapons. More people carrying guns equals more people having access to firearms, whether intentionally or not, equals greater risk for individual family members whose homes contain guns as well as greater potential for misuse of weapons in a public setting. Anecdotal stories can support either view point - to carry or not to carry - but more firearms on the street and public safety are counter-intuitive.
- What were they thinking? - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 2:59 pm:
100% support CCW. Statistics show that states that have CCW have dramatic decreases in crime, especially violent crime.
Leroy: I travel west every year for vacation and feel completely safe.
I find it interesting that this state tries to stay ahead of the game and be out front on all issues; Illinois is clearly behind the mainstream about allowing persons to protect themselves and their families (because we know that law enforcement can’t do it all).
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 3:00 pm:
the Other Anonymous - some commonly used CCW terms:
Print - to have the outline of your legally carried weapon bulge through your cover garment. Not a criminal act, happens all the time - just like how a cell phone will bulge against your shirt or jacket.
Flash - to have your weapon become inadvertently exposed while holstered. Shirt rides up, wind catches coat, etc. Not a good thing but not criminal act, will usually result in a stern talking to from law enforcement.
Brandish - the bad one. To wave your unholstered weapon around in public without a legally valid reason. Will usually result in criminal charges and permit revocation, and good riddance.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 3:03 pm:
BBpolNut - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:55 pm:
Huh? AZ has concealed carry, but they also allow unlicensed open carry.
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 3:40 pm:
Ken, thanks for the lingo. Also useful to pick up a new phrase or word.
I guess I am talking about “print.” While a police officer may be able to stop a person based on a “print,” it might not amount to “probable cause” that a crime has been committed. A decent crimial defense lawyer would at least give that argument a shot.
There’s a big difference under the constitution between what a law enforcement officer can do at a stop and what a law enforcement officer can do when she has probable cause.
Maybe this issue has been resolved. If so, good. I still stand by my other argument that concealed carry will have no effect on the crime rate, but it will increase the number of guns in circulation.
An increase in the number of guns creates public health risks in terms of suicides and accidental shootings.
What Were They Thinking is correct that statistics show a decrease in crime after CCW; that same data set has also been used to show an increase in crime after CCW in those same states. Lott — the main guy researcher who claims a decrease in the crime rate — has been discredited. E.g., here’s the National Acadamies of Science chapter on concealed carry.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:27 pm:
the Other Anonymous: some states have addressed the officer safety issue with a requirement that the CCW holder identify themselves when interacting with law enforcement.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:29 pm:
It has nothing to do with “bias.” If you can show some flaws in the analysis, point them out. If not, then bias is not an issue (and if it was, Lott would be even more of a national joke — he’s about as biased as you can get).
By the way, “Ken in Aurora” is not another of John Lott’s little names, is it?
John Lott, is that you? Fess up John.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:35 pm:
Excuse me? No, I’m not John Lott. I’ve heard of him, but haven’t read his work nor do I have an opinion about him. I’d rather look objectively at the evidence for myself.
A little quick with the accusations there, feller.
I would much rather go somewhere that has concealed carry than Chicago. Only the gangsters have the right to concealed carry there. Come on Illinois and join the rest of the country that trusts it’s lawful citizens to carry a gun!! I haave a conceal carry permit from another state that issues to out of state people. When I leave Il. to any of our border states I carry and have never had a prolbem.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:42 pm:
Skeeter, where was I defending his work? All I did was point out the fact that you linked to an obvious smear site.
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something? Hostility is bad for your disposition.
You sure are quick to scream BIAS but not so quick to defend the claim. If your arguments don’t have merit, don’t blame me for pointing it out.
And lighten up on the “Are you John Lott” issue. If you are familiar with his “scientific” work defending concealed carry, you would see the humor in that matter.
By this way, your last post was not an elaborate plot to throw the dogs off the scent, was in John?
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 5:28 pm:
C’mon, Skeet, give the guy a break. Even if he is the nutcase, he gave us some useful new Blog verbiage. Example: “Arthur, I can see that darn BlackBerry printing through your jacket. You either leave it at home while we go to the movies or I’m gonna brandish this frying pan right up side your head.”
Skeeter: Thank you for all of your posts today. You have given me a great deal of insight into the mind of a gun prohibitionist. You have educated us all.
hmmmmmmmmmmm lots of comments, but no compelling reason to throw what we have now out the window. The fact remains, you increase the number of guns in society, you increase the number of deaths due to shooting.
Rather than increase the chance to die by a bullet, we should be disarming.
I think the idea of carrying a gun makes us all feel more like a character out of a noir movie. Maybe more swagger, but less likely to come home at night and be out of harm’s way.
Doug
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 5:52 pm:
Doug, why do you think Illinois is in the right here by not allowing CCW? Doesn’t the fact that 48 of the states allow their citizens the right to defend themselves with a firearm influence you? Is Illinois somehow “better” than the rest?
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 5:53 pm:
Sorry, gang - but this is a hot button issue for me. It’s rough being a pro-gun liberal, let me tell you…
No question, they should allow but I have no problem with qualifying similar to a drivers test.
For all you against CC north of I-80, how do you think Daley will justify going for the Summer Olypmics when the venue includes the use of firearms by people who are not residents and many not even citizens?
I fully support concealed carry. There were some good suggestions earlier about classes, certification, sample bullets, etc that would make sure that only responsible people are able to do this legally. People trust chicago alderman to do this and look at some of the whack jobs they have??
Yes, Illinois should allow CCW. I’m a former business owner, I always carried a gun due to
having large amounts of cash. If I left home w/o
it, I felt naked (unprotected). I’ve never shot
anyone with it, didn’t need to. To this day, I
keep my gun with me at all times. I don’t worry
about being put in jail, because when they catch
criminals with guns, they let them off. To all
you anti-gun people, just think, if Lori Roscetti
(the R.N. fr. Spfld. murdered in Chi-town) might
still be alive today. Doug Dob., wasn’t there a
village, city, state or country that disarmed it’s
people some seventy plus yrs. ago ? Now it’s
coming to me, I think his name was something like
Adolf.
I would support concealed carry with the aforementioned requirements on annual training, etc. But then let’s also require that all concealed guns must be registered with the state (as well as their carriers’ fingerprints). And maybe some liability insurance be added as a requirement.
I’m a pro 2nd Amendment Democrat too Ken. I’m not in favor of taking your gun(s) away. I’m in favor of making you responsible for your gun(s), and any damages that might result from their operation.
- simplify life - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 8:04 pm:
I don’t mind if some people use guns to hunt or defend themselves in their homes, and hopefully they get the necessary firearms training. However, I don’t think we’re going to see much of a dent in crime rates with concealed carry. It really doesn’t deal with the root causes: broken families, poor education and lack of job opportunities, etc. Frankly, I don’t get this gun worship thing that some people have and the NRA is just trying to yank our chains with its over the top political agenda.
In answer to two of my critics - No 48 other states having a ccw doesn’t influence me. I think Ill and Wisc are above the rest in that respect.
In terms of the reference to Adolph Hitler - I find that pure baiting. Hitler put down people having guns to solidify his control of the state. I think the better analogy is Canada or England which has a very restrictive gun policy and very low rates of murder.
The issue here is reducing violence in society. I do not want to see it become the basis for the rise of some right wing nuts. That argument came out of the NRA thinking.
You have to decide if you are for a better society or continuing an escalating violent society. Me I want to see violence curtailed.
- The Conservative - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 9:20 pm:
Yes, where ever this has passed crime has gone down.
- Absolutely Not - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 10:00 pm:
I don’t want to walk around every day with the thought that any idiot might have a gun.
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 10:21 pm:
To Absolutely Not,
I want the criminals to walk around with the thought “that any potential victim might have a gun!”. I think that is the greatest aspect of a CCW Law, that the lazy criminals come to the realization that their job just became DANGEROUS.
- Holier Than Thou - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 4:41 am:
I really hope that one day other states become as ‘enlightened’ as Illinois and Wisconsin. There are so many things in this great country - things that are being held hostage from me by gun toting ‘film-noir’ types. I so desperately want to take my family to see Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon - but those states are just filled with CCW types, and I’d never forgive myself if my family got gunned down in the crossfire resulting from two disgruntled CCWers that are displaying their ’swagger’. Honestly, the gun violence out in the ‘wild west’ of Arizona and Utah (Big, big CCW states) makes me ill.
Why can’t all Americans get to enjoy the US? Why do I have to live in constant fear of being gunned down if I leave Illinois?
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 7:01 am:
Leroy,
Why should I have to live in constant fear of being accosted with no way to protect/defend myself, when I want to enjoy Chicago or the rest of this fine state we live in!?!?
If you think you need a gun as a tourist in Chicago, then you really should stay out of here. You are a danger to everyone around. Do us a favor — go down into your basement and hide from the bad guys. It is safe down there. Stay down there and away from the rest of us.
There is nothing more pathetic or latently racist than people from downstate claiming they need a gun in Chicago. If that is your view, then stay away!
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 9:53 am:
The Constitution gives us the right to keep and BEAR arms. I am for a concealed-carry law provided that the protections of required training, recertification, background check, etc., are in place.
Go ahead. Skin it. Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 12:40 pm:
Skeeter,
“Latently Racist…” I’m not sure how you got there from me using tourism in Chicago, a big city with a lot of crime, as being a racist statement in anyway shape or form. Highland is a lastname and has nothing to do with my location.
I’ve lived in major metropolitan areas and I’ve been mugged in major metropolitan areas. It would have been nice to be able to defend myself.
A lot of crime in Chicago? Get real. In the areas where tourists frequent the only crime is pickpockets.
There hasn’t been an armed robbery on Michigan Ave. in 20 years. I have heard of one armed robbery in the Mag Mile area in the last five years (one person claims to have been robbed on the inner drive a few years back).
In any case, are you really going to open fire in the middle of the Mag Mile?
If you think you need a gun when you come here, then you don’t belong here.
Posts like yours show why I have problems with gun owners more than I have problems with gun laws. Every time I want to take a pro-gun position [see my first post], I am reminded that the reason that we need strict gun laws is that too many gun owners just don’t have any sense.
If you think Chicago is dangerous, stay out. We really don’t need people like you here. People like you MAKE my 42nd Ward dangerous.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:00 pm:
Skeeter,
Would you please tell me how the desire to defend oneself in any location is “pathetic and latently racist”. I don’t see the connection and you didn’t address it.
Maybe my idea of enjoying Chicago doesn’t involve the “Magnificent Mile”. There is a lot more of Chicago to enjoy, including evening strolls.
For me to brandish a firearm in defense of myself I would need to fear for my life. Just because I have a weapon available doesn’t make me a danger to anyone near me unless they are trying to accost me. As a visitor to your fine city I might get lost and end up somewhere other than your “safe” 42nd ward.
Kevin, while not taking a position on the issue at hand, I will point out that your posts indicate you may have some fear issues.
eg: “Why should I have to live in constant fear of being accosted with no way to protect/defend myself, when I want to enjoy Chicago or the rest of this fine state we live in?”
If you’re living in “constant fear”, perhaps carrying a gun everywhere isn’t the best idea.
Oh, wait. I didn’t know you intended to stroll in the evening. If you are going to stroll at night, there is a ton of crime. Very dangerous. You need your gun at night in Streeterville.
Is that the response you expected? Strolling at night somehow justifies bringing a gun?
Your view that in The Big City you need a gun sure is latently racist. Watch out Kevin! At night, they might get you!
Where are those evening strolls going to take place? Englewood?
As I said, in Streeterville, there are nearly ZERO instances of armed robbery in the past 10 years.
If you have a gun and you are already afraid (as you previously admitted), then you make my city dangerous.
Stay home. We don’t need terrified people with guns here.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:15 pm:
I will admit I am unfamiliar with the Chicago area, none of the areas you mentioned mean a thing to me. No where have I suggested any racial or ethnic group in mentioning crime.
So again I ask you how does the desire to defend oneself from harm in any location make one latently racist?
Unless you can detail your thought process on that topic then I’ll have to discount your arguments.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:26 pm:
Rich
The “constant fear” statement was in referenence to leroy’s comment at Mar 22, 07 @ 6:22 am:, “Why can’t all Americans get to enjoy the US? Why do I have to live in constant fear of being gunned down if I leave Illinois?”
It was a counterpoint statement. Obviously we should all be concerned about our safety, in our everyday activities be that driving a car, walking down the street or just sitting at home. I am in actuality a very calm person.
You claim there is a lot of crime, but the evidence is clear that in areas where tourists would have any reason to visit, violent crime is nearly non-existent.
What reason do you have for believing that if you came here, you would need a gun?
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 4:09 pm:
Skeeter,
Like I said previously I don’t know the areas of chicago you are referring to…maybe I’m not there as a tourist maybe I’m there on business or visiting relatives and get lost into one of the “non tourist safe zones”. I used Chicago as an example, this could just as easy be Milwaukee, Gary or anywhere. As population grows so does the potential to be a crime victim.
I have a belief that is is possible in this day and age to have a need to defend myself or my family. I’ve always held that belief. That in no way shape or form resolves into racism of any form.
Now that I have explained why I feel why I may need a gun….I’m pretty sure that you are still going to refuse to profer an explanation why you think that anyone who would like to defend themselves is “pathetic and a latent racist”!
You are the one who said there was a lot of crime in Chicago and you need a gun to defend yourself against that crime.
I pointed out that there are nearly zero armed robberies anywhere you might reasonably go.
How about irrational? Would you prefer that label?
Ultimately, does it really matter?
We can both agree that if you feel a need for a gun to visit Chicago, you really should not come here. You would not feel safe being here, and those of us who live here would feel substantially less safe with people like you around.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 4:35 pm:
Skeeter,
Nice backpedal…it says a lot about you that you started out at racism!
I have proven that you believe that the Mag Mile is the same as Englewood, and that you are a danger to yourself and those around you. I have not proven that you are, in fact, a racist.
You really consider that a victory?
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 7:30 pm:
I don’t think you have proven anything. You have no knowledge of my skill level, training or experience with firearms, therefore you can not state with any confidence that I am a danger to anyone.
I will concede that my lack of knowledge in the layout of Chicago and my lack of knowledge of Englewood proves only that I am unfamiliar with the Chicago area.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 9:19 am:
And, please, no personal insults. Try to stay civil. We’re all we got. lol
- Wumpus - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 9:34 am:
Yes, just because I have the right does not mean I would exercise it. One potenital problem is that thug types and convicts would have thier girlfriends carry for them. Which is not that big of difference than now as they break the law currently and would continue to do so.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 9:38 am:
We don’t need to add more guns to our daily lives. Those packing illegally will continue to do so and having upstanding citizens packing will not balance the situation.
It is just unnecessary.
- C$ - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 9:40 am:
Given the success in almost every other state in the union, and the fact that violent crime has been falling while many other states has been liberalizing their gun laws, gives me no reason to think it couldn’t work in Illinois. You’d be crazy to think that many normal law abiding people in this state don’t throw a gun under their seat when they go to a bad neighborhood… not that I’d ever break the law to protect my family or anything.
- Justice - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 9:42 am:
I support the right to a concealed carry law. Sure would cut down on crime. Most of the “bad guys” are already carrying. Sure, there will be some nut jobs who shouldn’t be allowed to carry as much as a spoon, but for the greatest part, law abiding citizens will continue to be just that. I think it would reduce robberies and assaults. Might cull the gene pool a bit.
- Levois - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 9:42 am:
Absolutely!!!! I believe in restriction particularly for those who are felons and yes there should be mandatory training in the use and handling of a firearm. If you’ve been proven to be “irresponsible” then your gun should be taken away from you.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 9:55 am:
I have very conflicting views on this and don’t have a real position on the issue (due largely to an article written on the subject by Richard Clarke).
That being said, I am curious as to the required training.
In New York, detectives who went through the NYPD’s training program and, assuming their program is similiar to Chicago, had to continue to re-cert over time, still fired 50 shots at an unarmed man.
In Chicago, I am aware of a situation where two POs came across what they believed to be an attempted car jacking in progress. The bad guy and the owner were struggling for control and the car was inching forward. The POs thought they saw a gun, so they fired about 20 times (hitting nothing — a new standard: “Those two couldn’t hit the side of a car moving at 5 mph from 20 feet away”) with apparently equal odds of hitting bad guy, victim or some innocent third person. Nice decision to fire there.
What sort of training could be provided that would prevent those incidents, and what reason do we have to believe that any training will prevent that sort of random gunfire?
If you are going to justify conceal carry (and there are some very good reasons), don’t try and and do so with the “training required” explanation because that is just ridiculous.
- C$ - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 10:03 am:
RE: training required….
How many fatal car accidents do you read about in the news? Now how many innocent casualties do you read about where the shooter was a concealed carry license holder? Which one do you honestly think would benefit more from stricter licensing standards?
- NW burbs - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 10:05 am:
And having more guns on our streets will help how…?
That said, Levois makes a good point. There should be mandatory training with routine ‘upkeep’ of that training (”continuing education” if you will), not just for the FOID carrier but also for every member of the home. True child-proof locks also ought to be mandatory.
At risk of going off-topic, it strikes me as hypocritical that conservatives want to educate children on how best to handle gun encounters but do not want to educate them about other issues of life (and potentially death). Strange dissonance, that.
- grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 10:06 am:
Yes, because I believe I have a right to defend myself and should not be required to rely on the state (ie, the police) as my sole means of protection. (and I say this as the son of a cop, and an avid supporter/defender of law enforcement officers)
As a side note, a federal court just struck down DC’s handgun ban. If the Supreme Court doesn’t take it up and reverse it, gun rights advocates could have solid footing to fight Chicago’s.
- BBpolNut - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 10:08 am:
Absoulutely. Only 2 states out of 50 (IL and WI) have zero concealed carry allowances. Granted about 15 or so make it very difficult but the trend is to allow for concealed carry. The nay-sayers that claim it will be the wild west are not accurate. It just doesn’t happen. The instances of properly licensed citizens using their weapons in an illegal manner is almost nill. We need the right to protect ourselves from punks and drug addicts. Who else is going to do it? The police? They can’t be everywhere.
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 10:28 am:
I would like to see this but with a big caveat. Counties could opt out. So Cook County could decide no, whereas Coles County could decide yes. This makes more sense as smaller communities tend to have more gun nuts and they are small enough to also know who the village idiot is to which they shouldn’t sell guns or ammo. I suspect that mostly rural counties would choose to allow concealed carry and mostly urban counties would choose not to allow it. This would be practical and pragmatic.
- DOWNSTATE - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 10:32 am:
Might work but the training would have to be coupled with a refresher course every year or so. Plus training to be done by the State Police.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:00 am:
Yes, it appears conceal carry laws reduce violent crimes. However, the training should have to be approved by the ISP; and should include accuracy qualification cirteria that match what parol officers and DOC employees must meet. There should be annual shooting qualification testing required. Additional criteria, the permit should identify which weapon or weapons are covered by it. No carrying anything not in the permit. A permitted weapon would require providing the gun to ISP for them to obtain a sample fired bullet. Any changes to the barrel would require providing a new sample. In exchange for the privilege permit holderswould be required to submit dna and fingerprint information.
- Samuri Mike - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:02 am:
Guns, no. Big giant swords, yes.
- Pat Hickey - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:05 am:
Sure - so long as any person carrying a concealed firearm without such a permit goes to prison for a very, very long time - no if’s ands or buts.
- Siyotanka - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:09 am:
I support the right to a concealed carry law.
- Little Egypt - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:22 am:
Absolutely, I support a concealed carry law. The crooks already abide by a law of their own. Why shouldn’t the rest of us be able to pack if we choose. I’m NOT in favor of letting counties opt out unless they don’t throw my butt in jail when I come to Cook county packing my piece. But we’re living in la-la land if we think Illinois will join the other 48 states and let their citizens protect themselves. This is Illinois folks. We don’t do anything right here.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:26 am:
This talk about people coming to Cook County with guns sure makes me more anti-gun.
Here’s a tip from somebody who lives here: If you think you need a gun when you come here, STAY HOME. You are a danger to everyone around you. No reason to come here. Nothing to be seen. Stay south.
- Ma Duece - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:35 am:
Yes, absolutely.
Police officers do the exact same thing, after background checks and training. So why not the general populace?
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:36 am:
Emphatically yes. Pat Hickey makes a very good point - if provision is made for legal carry, violations should be a major crime.
The fact that Illinois is one of only two states that make no allowance for citizens to carry a defensive firearm is inexcusable. Right to carry laws have been enacted in numerous (more than twenty IIRC) states in the last decade or two, and guess what - no blood running in the streets, film at eleven.
The sad fact is that criminals will carry regardless of the rule of law; law abiding citizens such as myself can’t and don’t.
By the way, many Illinois citizens such as myself already hold a CCW issued by another state. Mine is from Florida, and is valid in something like thirty states (not Illinois, of course). I use it when I travel to Indiana on business. And guess what - I haven’t shot up a carload of nuns yet!
- Amy - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:47 am:
No. crime is going up in many states, but not in Illinois. guess we are doing things right here and there is no reason to change.
- Mongo - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:50 am:
This isn’t a simple yes-or-no question. If gun enforcement was better than not as many “bad guys” would be carrying. Then there would be no need for a concealed carry law. I oppose this provision…more guns on the street is exactly the opposite of what we need.
- Way Northsider - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:53 am:
NO.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 11:56 am:
Amy, care to support that statement with objective facts? It’s contrary to the published data I’ve seen.
- i d - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:08 pm:
Yes
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:12 pm:
I’m glad to live in a state where civilians are not allowed to carry concealed firearms.
Concealed carry does nothing to affect the crime rate — it doesn’t reduce crime, it doesn’t increase crime. (Lott is the only guy who claims a connection between reduced crime and concealed carry, but his work has been pretty thoroughly discredited.) The only thing concealed carry will do is increase gun sales.
However, more guns does have serious health consequences, particularly in the cases of accidental shootings and suicides.
Moreover, there’s a law enforcement aspect of concealed carry that hasn’t been fully examined. Right now, a law enforcement officer who saw a person carrying a gun that was concealed (or is imperfectly concealed) has probable cause to stop that person and search them.
If we have a concealed carry law in Illinois, I imagine that law enforcement officers would no longer have probable cause to stop someone just because they have a concealed weapon. (How does the officer know that the person doesn’t have the correct permit?)
Remember, we’re not talking about hunters or about people who have a handgun in the home. We’re talking about people in the streets — some of whom are most definitely criminals, or about to commit criminal acts. And we’re not talking about police going out of their way to harass “law-abiding” gun owners.
It seems to me that taking away probable cause for a police officer to stop someone carrying a handgun before a crime is committed is too steep a price to pay.
- Downtown - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:14 pm:
No reason for it. First of all anyone making the reduction of crime argument must not have seen any of the number of reports recently that nationally we have seen an increase in violent crime over the last year. So if 48 of 50 states have CCW, it obviously isn’t doing the job. Furthermore the crime issue is just a smokescreen. Most CCW permit holders in other states are white men who live in low crime areas in the suburbs and rural areas. It’s not that they are threatened on a regular basis they just want to be able to carry a gun. The Minneapolis Star Tribune just published a report from the State Department of Public Safety that reported there were no lawful and justifiable uses of firearms in 2006 among the 42,000 conceal carry permit holders.
If people want to carry guns in public why don’t we just let them carry around in plain view then at least I would know who to stay away from. Why should the legislature do something on CCW just because a small number of white guys in safe areas of the state feel they should be able to carry.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:19 pm:
I would want to know by whom, when, and where. In a tavern at 3 AM–I think not. Riding around in a car in the middle of the night–I think not.
Lots of questions to be answered before I could say yes or no.
- Ma Duece - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:20 pm:
I was wondering if the people who see no need for it would care to tell us why police officers need to carry handguns, and carry them concealed?
Could it be that the streets are not as safe as some would have us think?
It’s not really an issue of guns or the need for them, it’s an issue of who can carry them.
The message is that the political class don’t think voters, taxpayers, and militia members should have guns. They can have them, but you can’t.
- Doug Dobmeyer - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:29 pm:
NO - we have far too many guns in our society now. The days of the wild west should be behind us rather than in our midst.
As we become more and more technologically adept we invent better and better items, including guns. WHile we need to be protected from criminals we do not need to arm more for that protection. The move should be to disarm.
Guns are big business for the proponents. Those who want to hunt should have that right. Guns should be locked up in cabinets and when a person wants to hunt, they are given their gun or one they can rent, provided they have safety training - then returned after hunting.
The Second Amendment does not guarantee the tight to carry a concealed weap0on amidst society and put others in danger. Its too bad groups like the NRA have taken over the issue and force the idea that if you are not a liberal regarding guns you are opposed.
Doug
- So-Called "Austin Mayor" - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:33 pm:
“Do you support giving Illinoisans the right to carry concealed firearms, as long as there was training and criminal background checks involved?”
No.
If you want to carry a gun, man up and carry a shotgun like I do.
– SCAM
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:36 pm:
Yes, lawful concealed carry is a good answer. The criminals are lazy they want an easy mark, not someone who can defend themselves.
As for the comment that this removes probable cause for the police to question and search a person with an inadequately concealed firearm I say phooey…It is CONCEALED carry not almost concealed carry. If the Office can tell you are carrying then he has the right to question you and ask for your “papers”.
More anti-second amendment laws only mean that criminals will have firearms.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:37 pm:
MD:
Actually most POs don’t carry concealed weapons. They are right there on the hip for everyone to see.
“Militia members” shouldn’t have guns because they tend to blow up federal buildings.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:42 pm:
Kevin in Highland:
A person with a CONCEALED weapon is probably considered the same mark as anyone else, since the weapon is CONCEALED.
If you can provide instancs where somebody was a victim of street crime and managed to pull out the concealed weapon and actually use it, I would be amazed.
Want to ward off criminals? You are better off walking around with a Rottweiler than a concealed weapon.
- Siyotanka - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:42 pm:
As a follow-up…
As I see there are No’s and Yes’ to this arguement. Rich…how about just an open carry law…no concealment…full law enforcement training, etc…??
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:46 pm:
Skeeter,
It is instilling a level of fear into the criminals that their targets may ‘bite’ back. and here is your example!
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/C8F7B714E662ECD68625729E000FA62B?OpenDocument
The dog didn’t deter these malcontents!
- John - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:51 pm:
Without a doubt. I would absolutely support concealed carry in Illinois. Draconian anti guns laws are ineffectual and the violent crime rates in Chicago and Washington DC have conclusively proved this. Allow the people of Illinois to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to protect themselves and everyone (accept of course for the criminals) will be safer and better off.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:53 pm:
As you pointed out, the weapon did nothing to deter the crime at all. Even with the concealed weapon, he was still a victim.
- He Makes Ryan look like a saint - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:54 pm:
I agree with Conceal carry, I would take the training, but would only carry as necessary.
I think it deters crime.
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 12:56 pm:
Kevin,
Of course if a gun is hidden, the officer will not know that you are carrying it. However, consider the situation of an imperfectly concealed weapon — i.e., there’s a telltale bulge; or, you can see a gun peeking out under a shirt. Moreover, think of the situation where a gangbanger will flash a gun.
The CCW law does not require that a gun be concealed from everyone, and never drawn.
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:02 pm:
Skeeter,
The victim chose to give up worldly possesions, but when he had surrended those items and then felt he was in fear of his live he had the option to defend himself with equal or greater force.
Other Anonymous,
If the Officer notices the weapon he can question the presence of it. That is all I’m saying.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:02 pm:
If you “print”, it’s probable cause for a stop in most (or all?) states. What’s the issue here?
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:11 pm:
Kevin and Ken,
Maybe you guys are right — that an officer always has probable cause to question someone with a weapon, even in CCW states. But a state supreme court, or even the US Supreme Court, could rationally decide that in a CCW state, simply carrying a gun does not provide probable cause because the officer has no indication that the gun is carried illegally. In a state like Illinois, without concealed carry, a police officer can always find probable cause when someone is carrying a weapon on his person.
That’s the issue — how many convictions and how much evidence gets suppressed in a state where carrying a weapon is not considered probable cause?
Btw, Ken, I assume “print” means flashing a gun? If so, it still doesn’t address the question of a gun bulge, or a gun peeking out of clothing.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:35 pm:
statistics for crime in illinois from ISP http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/cii/cii05/cii05_Section_I_Pg9_to_26.pdf
If you want to look at statistics for states with conceal carry, I suggest looking at violent versus property crime statistics.
the problem with statistical analysis is every state is different in its criminal laws. For example, do states with 3 strike laws have an increase in violent crims after the passing of such legisaltion? such laws increase the punishment on non-violent crimes to the level that there is no reason to refrain from use of lethal force if you are on your 3rd strike.
Also quality of local law enfrocement agencies, state spending on law enforcement, penalties etc can create cause and effect as well.
- pickles!! - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:45 pm:
Yes, we should have the right to do it, if we so choose to. It should be a personal choice if you want to or not.
I think it would lower random crime a bit. Criminals will think twice before they attempt to rob or rape someone if there is a chance they can get killed doing it.
- Skirmisher - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:45 pm:
Frankly, even though I am an NRA member and an active shooter I would not be in favor of concealed carry except for the fact that in this screwball state we already allow off-duty cops and Chicago aldermen the right to carry concealed weapons. Given the number of criminals in Chicago’s City Hall and my experience with the Rambo wannabes who constitute our local and county police forces, I have come to the conclusion that if these thugs should be armed, then so should we all. So I am for it!
- mrtrman - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:45 pm:
There are more people killed by medical mal practice than guns! Yes Concealed Carry is the way to go.
- BBpolNut - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:55 pm:
Arizona allows only a carry in plain sight. You must keep your pistol on your hip like a police officer. I’d go for that. Then you know the score.
- Leroy - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 2:06 pm:
I’m with Doug Dobmeyer up above.
One of the reasons I rarely leave Illinois is because I am afraid I am going to get gunned down in the crossfire caused by someone carrying a concealed weapon.
I think it is irresponsible to take my family to a conceal carry state for vacation, such as California or Florida. Usually if we go on vacation, we stay in Illinois or go to Wisconsin.
It is just too risky to travel to a ‘wild-west’ concealed carry state. I love my family, and would *never* put them in harms’ way by taking them to one.
- Chicago - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 2:58 pm:
Absolutely opposed to concealed weapons. More people carrying guns equals more people having access to firearms, whether intentionally or not, equals greater risk for individual family members whose homes contain guns as well as greater potential for misuse of weapons in a public setting. Anecdotal stories can support either view point - to carry or not to carry - but more firearms on the street and public safety are counter-intuitive.
- What were they thinking? - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 2:59 pm:
100% support CCW. Statistics show that states that have CCW have dramatic decreases in crime, especially violent crime.
Leroy: I travel west every year for vacation and feel completely safe.
I find it interesting that this state tries to stay ahead of the game and be out front on all issues; Illinois is clearly behind the mainstream about allowing persons to protect themselves and their families (because we know that law enforcement can’t do it all).
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 3:00 pm:
the Other Anonymous - some commonly used CCW terms:
Print - to have the outline of your legally carried weapon bulge through your cover garment. Not a criminal act, happens all the time - just like how a cell phone will bulge against your shirt or jacket.
Flash - to have your weapon become inadvertently exposed while holstered. Shirt rides up, wind catches coat, etc. Not a good thing but not criminal act, will usually result in a stern talking to from law enforcement.
Brandish - the bad one. To wave your unholstered weapon around in public without a legally valid reason. Will usually result in criminal charges and permit revocation, and good riddance.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 3:03 pm:
BBpolNut - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 1:55 pm:
Huh? AZ has concealed carry, but they also allow unlicensed open carry.
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 3:40 pm:
Ken, thanks for the lingo. Also useful to pick up a new phrase or word.
I guess I am talking about “print.” While a police officer may be able to stop a person based on a “print,” it might not amount to “probable cause” that a crime has been committed. A decent crimial defense lawyer would at least give that argument a shot.
There’s a big difference under the constitution between what a law enforcement officer can do at a stop and what a law enforcement officer can do when she has probable cause.
Maybe this issue has been resolved. If so, good. I still stand by my other argument that concealed carry will have no effect on the crime rate, but it will increase the number of guns in circulation.
An increase in the number of guns creates public health risks in terms of suicides and accidental shootings.
What Were They Thinking is correct that statistics show a decrease in crime after CCW; that same data set has also been used to show an increase in crime after CCW in those same states. Lott — the main guy researcher who claims a decrease in the crime rate — has been discredited. E.g., here’s the National Acadamies of Science chapter on concealed carry.
- m - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:05 pm:
I strongly support a CCW law. In the alternative, an open carry law. There is a right to bear arms. Illinis should accomodate it somehow.
- John Q. - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:10 pm:
“An increase in the number of guns creates public health risks in terms of suicides and accidental shootings.”
You got a source on that ‘Anynonymous’, or are you just making stuff up?
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:21 pm:
John Q:
Those of you who rely on the work of John Lott (aka Mary Rosh) really shouldn’t spend time questioning other peoples’ facts.
For more info, see:
http://whoismaryrosh.com/lottresearchblog.html
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:27 pm:
the Other Anonymous: some states have addressed the officer safety issue with a requirement that the CCW holder identify themselves when interacting with law enforcement.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:29 pm:
Skeeter, that’s hardly an unbiased site.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:32 pm:
Ken,
It has nothing to do with “bias.” If you can show some flaws in the analysis, point them out. If not, then bias is not an issue (and if it was, Lott would be even more of a national joke — he’s about as biased as you can get).
By the way, “Ken in Aurora” is not another of John Lott’s little names, is it?
John Lott, is that you? Fess up John.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:35 pm:
Excuse me? No, I’m not John Lott. I’ve heard of him, but haven’t read his work nor do I have an opinion about him. I’d rather look objectively at the evidence for myself.
A little quick with the accusations there, feller.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:39 pm:
Fine “Ken.”
For somebody who claims not to be John Lott, you sure are anxious to defend his extremely discredited work.
Why the big defense, John (or sorry, I meant to say “Ken in Aurora”)?
If the matters I noted above are incorrect, point it out. Otherwise, merely screaming BIAS doesn’t do much to advance the debate.
- NIEVA - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:41 pm:
I would much rather go somewhere that has concealed carry than Chicago. Only the gangsters have the right to concealed carry there. Come on Illinois and join the rest of the country that trusts it’s lawful citizens to carry a gun!! I haave a conceal carry permit from another state that issues to out of state people. When I leave Il. to any of our border states I carry and have never had a prolbem.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:42 pm:
Skeeter, where was I defending his work? All I did was point out the fact that you linked to an obvious smear site.
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something? Hostility is bad for your disposition.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:49 pm:
Ken/John:
You keep yelling BIAS but you don’t show any factual issues.
Please provide a factual dispute for the site, if you have any.
“Bias” is a meaningless criticism. So what if they are biased, if they are right?
If they are wrong, show us the errors. If not, move on.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 4:56 pm:
Skeeter, I don’t have to justify myself to you. Grow up, or take your Lithium.
Rich?
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 5:01 pm:
Ken,
You sure are quick to scream BIAS but not so quick to defend the claim. If your arguments don’t have merit, don’t blame me for pointing it out.
And lighten up on the “Are you John Lott” issue. If you are familiar with his “scientific” work defending concealed carry, you would see the humor in that matter.
By this way, your last post was not an elaborate plot to throw the dogs off the scent, was in John?
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 5:28 pm:
C’mon, Skeet, give the guy a break. Even if he is the nutcase, he gave us some useful new Blog verbiage. Example: “Arthur, I can see that darn BlackBerry printing through your jacket. You either leave it at home while we go to the movies or I’m gonna brandish this frying pan right up side your head.”
- Pat Hickey - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 5:28 pm:
Ken,
No use, may man. Skeeter put away alot of paint chips as a youth.
Skeeter, the good folks at Jays’ make a great line of products - give them a sample and lay off them tastey albeit lead based comestibles.
- Pro-gunner - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 5:43 pm:
Skeeter: Thank you for all of your posts today. You have given me a great deal of insight into the mind of a gun prohibitionist. You have educated us all.
- Doug Dobmeyer - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 5:46 pm:
hmmmmmmmmmmm lots of comments, but no compelling reason to throw what we have now out the window. The fact remains, you increase the number of guns in society, you increase the number of deaths due to shooting.
Rather than increase the chance to die by a bullet, we should be disarming.
I think the idea of carrying a gun makes us all feel more like a character out of a noir movie. Maybe more swagger, but less likely to come home at night and be out of harm’s way.
Doug
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 5:52 pm:
Doug, why do you think Illinois is in the right here by not allowing CCW? Doesn’t the fact that 48 of the states allow their citizens the right to defend themselves with a firearm influence you? Is Illinois somehow “better” than the rest?
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 5:53 pm:
Sorry, gang - but this is a hot button issue for me. It’s rough being a pro-gun liberal, let me tell you…
- Link - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 6:20 pm:
No question, they should allow but I have no problem with qualifying similar to a drivers test.
For all you against CC north of I-80, how do you think Daley will justify going for the Summer Olypmics when the venue includes the use of firearms by people who are not residents and many not even citizens?
Just curious…
- e V i L T - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 6:34 pm:
I fully support concealed carry. There were some good suggestions earlier about classes, certification, sample bullets, etc that would make sure that only responsible people are able to do this legally. People trust chicago alderman to do this and look at some of the whack jobs they have??
- Nostradamus - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 6:56 pm:
Yes, Illinois should allow CCW. I’m a former business owner, I always carried a gun due to
having large amounts of cash. If I left home w/o
it, I felt naked (unprotected). I’ve never shot
anyone with it, didn’t need to. To this day, I
keep my gun with me at all times. I don’t worry
about being put in jail, because when they catch
criminals with guns, they let them off. To all
you anti-gun people, just think, if Lori Roscetti
(the R.N. fr. Spfld. murdered in Chi-town) might
still be alive today. Doug Dob., wasn’t there a
village, city, state or country that disarmed it’s
people some seventy plus yrs. ago ? Now it’s
coming to me, I think his name was something like
Adolf.
- Bridget Dooley - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 7:26 pm:
No, no, a thousand times NO!! Like The Other Anonymous, I am proud to live in a state that doesn’t allow folks to carry guns.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 7:39 pm:
I would support concealed carry with the aforementioned requirements on annual training, etc. But then let’s also require that all concealed guns must be registered with the state (as well as their carriers’ fingerprints). And maybe some liability insurance be added as a requirement.
I’m a pro 2nd Amendment Democrat too Ken. I’m not in favor of taking your gun(s) away. I’m in favor of making you responsible for your gun(s), and any damages that might result from their operation.
- simplify life - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 8:04 pm:
I don’t mind if some people use guns to hunt or defend themselves in their homes, and hopefully they get the necessary firearms training. However, I don’t think we’re going to see much of a dent in crime rates with concealed carry. It really doesn’t deal with the root causes: broken families, poor education and lack of job opportunities, etc. Frankly, I don’t get this gun worship thing that some people have and the NRA is just trying to yank our chains with its over the top political agenda.
- Amazed - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 8:06 pm:
Yes, I support the concept of concealed carry after a background check. I am guaranteed the right to bear arms by the Constitution.
- Doug Dobmeyer - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 8:12 pm:
In answer to two of my critics - No 48 other states having a ccw doesn’t influence me. I think Ill and Wisc are above the rest in that respect.
In terms of the reference to Adolph Hitler - I find that pure baiting. Hitler put down people having guns to solidify his control of the state. I think the better analogy is Canada or England which has a very restrictive gun policy and very low rates of murder.
The issue here is reducing violence in society. I do not want to see it become the basis for the rise of some right wing nuts. That argument came out of the NRA thinking.
You have to decide if you are for a better society or continuing an escalating violent society. Me I want to see violence curtailed.
Doug
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 8:24 pm:
Two Words: Ice Bar.
- The Conservative - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 9:20 pm:
Yes, where ever this has passed crime has gone down.
- Absolutely Not - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 10:00 pm:
I don’t want to walk around every day with the thought that any idiot might have a gun.
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, Mar 21, 07 @ 10:21 pm:
To Absolutely Not,
I want the criminals to walk around with the thought “that any potential victim might have a gun!”. I think that is the greatest aspect of a CCW Law, that the lazy criminals come to the realization that their job just became DANGEROUS.
- Holier Than Thou - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 4:41 am:
You’ll shoot your eye out, kid…
- Leroy - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 6:22 am:
Right on Doug Dobmeyer!
I really hope that one day other states become as ‘enlightened’ as Illinois and Wisconsin. There are so many things in this great country - things that are being held hostage from me by gun toting ‘film-noir’ types. I so desperately want to take my family to see Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon - but those states are just filled with CCW types, and I’d never forgive myself if my family got gunned down in the crossfire resulting from two disgruntled CCWers that are displaying their ’swagger’. Honestly, the gun violence out in the ‘wild west’ of Arizona and Utah (Big, big CCW states) makes me ill.
Why can’t all Americans get to enjoy the US? Why do I have to live in constant fear of being gunned down if I leave Illinois?
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 7:01 am:
Leroy,
Why should I have to live in constant fear of being accosted with no way to protect/defend myself, when I want to enjoy Chicago or the rest of this fine state we live in!?!?
- Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 7:21 am:
Kevin,
If you think you need a gun as a tourist in Chicago, then you really should stay out of here. You are a danger to everyone around. Do us a favor — go down into your basement and hide from the bad guys. It is safe down there. Stay down there and away from the rest of us.
There is nothing more pathetic or latently racist than people from downstate claiming they need a gun in Chicago. If that is your view, then stay away!
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 9:53 am:
The Constitution gives us the right to keep and BEAR arms. I am for a concealed-carry law provided that the protections of required training, recertification, background check, etc., are in place.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 9:57 am:
Fan of the Game,
You ought to take another look that document. It doesn’t say that at all.
The actual document [how conservative of me — looking at the text to determine meaning] speaks about a well-regulated militia.
Are you a member of a well-regulated militia, Fan?
- Ken in Aurora - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 11:03 am:
Skeeter, I believe you, he and I all are per Article XII of the Illinois Constitution…
“SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP - The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law.”
Caveat: I’m not a Constitutional scholar, just an insurance underwriter that interprets contracts for a living. It looks clear to me.
- Wyatt Earp - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 11:47 am:
Go ahead. Skin it. Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 12:40 pm:
Skeeter,
“Latently Racist…” I’m not sure how you got there from me using tourism in Chicago, a big city with a lot of crime, as being a racist statement in anyway shape or form. Highland is a lastname and has nothing to do with my location.
I’ve lived in major metropolitan areas and I’ve been mugged in major metropolitan areas. It would have been nice to be able to defend myself.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 12:52 pm:
Kevin,
A lot of crime in Chicago? Get real. In the areas where tourists frequent the only crime is pickpockets.
There hasn’t been an armed robbery on Michigan Ave. in 20 years. I have heard of one armed robbery in the Mag Mile area in the last five years (one person claims to have been robbed on the inner drive a few years back).
In any case, are you really going to open fire in the middle of the Mag Mile?
If you think you need a gun when you come here, then you don’t belong here.
Posts like yours show why I have problems with gun owners more than I have problems with gun laws. Every time I want to take a pro-gun position [see my first post], I am reminded that the reason that we need strict gun laws is that too many gun owners just don’t have any sense.
If you think Chicago is dangerous, stay out. We really don’t need people like you here. People like you MAKE my 42nd Ward dangerous.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:00 pm:
Skeeter,
Would you please tell me how the desire to defend oneself in any location is “pathetic and latently racist”. I don’t see the connection and you didn’t address it.
Maybe my idea of enjoying Chicago doesn’t involve the “Magnificent Mile”. There is a lot more of Chicago to enjoy, including evening strolls.
For me to brandish a firearm in defense of myself I would need to fear for my life. Just because I have a weapon available doesn’t make me a danger to anyone near me unless they are trying to accost me. As a visitor to your fine city I might get lost and end up somewhere other than your “safe” 42nd ward.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:07 pm:
Kevin, while not taking a position on the issue at hand, I will point out that your posts indicate you may have some fear issues.
eg: “Why should I have to live in constant fear of being accosted with no way to protect/defend myself, when I want to enjoy Chicago or the rest of this fine state we live in?”
If you’re living in “constant fear”, perhaps carrying a gun everywhere isn’t the best idea.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:08 pm:
Kevin,
Oh, wait. I didn’t know you intended to stroll in the evening. If you are going to stroll at night, there is a ton of crime. Very dangerous. You need your gun at night in Streeterville.
Is that the response you expected? Strolling at night somehow justifies bringing a gun?
Your view that in The Big City you need a gun sure is latently racist. Watch out Kevin! At night, they might get you!
Where are those evening strolls going to take place? Englewood?
As I said, in Streeterville, there are nearly ZERO instances of armed robbery in the past 10 years.
If you have a gun and you are already afraid (as you previously admitted), then you make my city dangerous.
Stay home. We don’t need terrified people with guns here.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:15 pm:
I will admit I am unfamiliar with the Chicago area, none of the areas you mentioned mean a thing to me. No where have I suggested any racial or ethnic group in mentioning crime.
So again I ask you how does the desire to defend oneself from harm in any location make one latently racist?
Unless you can detail your thought process on that topic then I’ll have to discount your arguments.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:26 pm:
Rich
The “constant fear” statement was in referenence to leroy’s comment at Mar 22, 07 @ 6:22 am:, “Why can’t all Americans get to enjoy the US? Why do I have to live in constant fear of being gunned down if I leave Illinois?”
It was a counterpoint statement. Obviously we should all be concerned about our safety, in our everyday activities be that driving a car, walking down the street or just sitting at home. I am in actuality a very calm person.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:26 pm:
Kevin,
It might be better if you would explain it to us.
You claim there is a lot of crime, but the evidence is clear that in areas where tourists would have any reason to visit, violent crime is nearly non-existent.
What reason do you have for believing that if you came here, you would need a gun?
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 4:09 pm:
Skeeter,
Like I said previously I don’t know the areas of chicago you are referring to…maybe I’m not there as a tourist maybe I’m there on business or visiting relatives and get lost into one of the “non tourist safe zones”. I used Chicago as an example, this could just as easy be Milwaukee, Gary or anywhere. As population grows so does the potential to be a crime victim.
I have a belief that is is possible in this day and age to have a need to defend myself or my family. I’ve always held that belief. That in no way shape or form resolves into racism of any form.
Now that I have explained why I feel why I may need a gun….I’m pretty sure that you are still going to refuse to profer an explanation why you think that anyone who would like to defend themselves is “pathetic and a latent racist”!
Surprise me with your well reasoned argument.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 4:31 pm:
Kevin,
You are the one who said there was a lot of crime in Chicago and you need a gun to defend yourself against that crime.
I pointed out that there are nearly zero armed robberies anywhere you might reasonably go.
How about irrational? Would you prefer that label?
Ultimately, does it really matter?
We can both agree that if you feel a need for a gun to visit Chicago, you really should not come here. You would not feel safe being here, and those of us who live here would feel substantially less safe with people like you around.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 4:35 pm:
Skeeter,
Nice backpedal…it says a lot about you that you started out at racism!
nuff said
- Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 4:47 pm:
Kevin,
Good point.
I have proven that you believe that the Mag Mile is the same as Englewood, and that you are a danger to yourself and those around you. I have not proven that you are, in fact, a racist.
You really consider that a victory?
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 7:30 pm:
I don’t think you have proven anything. You have no knowledge of my skill level, training or experience with firearms, therefore you can not state with any confidence that I am a danger to anyone.
I will concede that my lack of knowledge in the layout of Chicago and my lack of knowledge of Englewood proves only that I am unfamiliar with the Chicago area.