Illinois has long been one of the most anti-rights states in America when it comes to the Second Amendment, but now there's a push for county ballot questions asking for concealed carry laws, and one such referendum is on the ballot in Winnebago County (Rockford).
Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states without some form of concealed carry and Winnebago County is considering a county law that would allow people to carry if they received a permit from the Sheriff, but a state law would be a far better alternative.
Good stuff.
(Hat tip: Instapundit)
Illinois actually does have a very limited form of concealed carry but it is limited to people working within certain professions (law enforcement, private security) and is not available to the public at large.
Concealed Carry is not going to happen in Illinois so long as Richie Daley is the Mayor of Chicago and Emil Jones is the Senate President. They have the power to block it, and they exercise that power.
Too bad, I favor CC. "A well armed society is a polite society."
You can carry a gun legally now if it is in a case and is disassembled. A small gun can be carried in a purse with the clip out and thus you are in compliance.
You can carry a gun legally now if it is in a case and is disassembled. A small gun can be carried in a purse with the clip out and thus you are in compliance.
I may be wrong but I believe you have to have the ammo in a different container than your "disassembled" gun.
nick danger,
That is not quite correct. The law (720 ILCS 5/24) states that the gun must be in a case that is manufactured specifically for a firearm and that the gun must be unloaded, not disassembled, with the ammunition stored separately from the gun. A fanny-pack with a built in holster would meet this definition but I don't think a purse would, unless it had a built-in holster.
Here is a little more info, but I can't vouch for its currency.
http://www.concealcarry.org/carrylegal.htm
That's a good rule. That way you have time to run away when the mugger is fumbling around with his bullets. Could you just imagine the horror if criminals could have their guns loaded and ready to fire?
Also, I think seat belt laws help to catch bank robbers... because they need to take the time to buckle up before they can drive away at whatever the speed limit is.
But seriously, gun laws basically make guns less helpful to law-abiding citizens and therefore more helpful to criminals.
I am in full support of the 2nd amendment as intended (people can arm themselves to be ready to protect themselves against all threats to liberty, but I dont own a gun at present.) I used to keep a shotgun when I lived on the farm.
I read recently in the pro-gun newspaper circulated in Illinois that a small handgun kept in a small case in your purse with the clip out does comply with the law and could be ready to fire in 3 seconds.
"But seriously, gun laws basically make guns less helpful to law-abiding citizens and therefore more helpful to criminals."
Well, yes. Gun ownership restrictions on otherwise law-abiding citizens are a very clear indication that the elected political leadership doesn't trust the citizens who elect them to handle the responsibility. Gun ownership and use are not the only areas in which this is true, unfortunately.
"...and therefore more helpful to criminals." Examples please.
Examples please.
Criminals don't follow the gun laws. They come in with the guns loaded, drawn and ready to fire while Mr. Law Abiding Citizen sits there like a fish in a barrel with their legally compliant gun at home in the gun safe or in the car, broken down, stored out of the reach of the passenger compartment.
Specific example, the most recent one I can think of, is the 5 murders at the Lane Bryant store in Tinley Park. Did the murderer follow the law? Hell no. But the victims were in compliance. Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy?
Oil Man,
Criminals don't care about gun laws. They are, after all, criminals. So if we use the DC example, while you are fumbling for the key to your trigger lock so you can load your gun and hopefully use it, the guy that just walked into your bedroom with a baseball bat (or worse) has the distinct advantage. Score: criminal - 1, law abiding gun owner - 0.
Sounds like the homeowner also should have been packing a bat...
I'm okay with the right to bear arms and all that, myself (how ELSE are you gonna have the revolution??), just reminding that even in the world where everyone is armed, the guy who starts the conflict (i.e., appears already drawn) is going to have some advantage. Go for your purse, get shot for your trouble.
Not only do criminals not care about gun laws, but a certain segment of criminals is also far more ready and willing to shoot first.
That said though, pack away.
Those gun laws are working so well in Chicago that the governor now wants to add speeding cameras on the highways to beef up Chicago with more STate troopers--I doubt if we'll hear much from Mayor Daley on that.
What are you all so afraid of?
Can any of you provide an example of a crime committed against you that you either did or could have thwarted by 'packing'?
Criminals are almost never shot by 'law abiding citizens'. They are shot by other criminals or law enforcement. Guns, especially hand guns, shoot family members and neighbors and the guy down the block. Look at the murder and crime rates in other 'developed' nations. Where they have reasonable gun laws.
Its not 1800 any more.
In Iraq, citizens have the right to have a full-auto AK or similar weapon around home. Not that that is really much of an advantage compared to a similar semi-auto weapon, but there you have it. Doesn't help much with car bombs, but it's probably heck on burglars.
"What are you all so afraid of?"
A government that wants its citizens to be defenseless.
"Criminals are almost never shot by 'law abiding citizens'."
Using your logic, why do you have a lock on your door? How many times has a burglar tried to open your door only to be stopped by the deadbolt?
Guns are a deterrent. Concealed carry laws deter criminals because there is a greater chance that the person they will try to rob is armed.
Supposedly most defensive uses of firearms don't involve a shot actually being fired, as the threat of force is typically enough for most assaults, muggings, burglaries, etc. Those statistics, like most in the gun control debate on both sides are heavily debated on accuracy/reliability etc. Similar to the often refered to idea that a gun in your home is more likely to kill a friend or family member... which is based on stats that generally include suicide and criminal associates being included as 'friends'... ie drug deals gone bad. For the record, I'm generally against suicidal people and drug dealers having a gun in the home. If you aren't in that group though you're probably more at risk of injury or death by owning a car or swimming pool.
As far as concealed carry goes, it hasn't caused any major problems in any of the 48 states that issue permits for it (most are shall issue states where pretty much any law abiding citizen can get them). Our high violence stats in the US are still almost entirely due to people who carry concealed illegally, and typically as part of other criminal activity. Dealing with poverty with all of its side effects culturally, with educational opportunities, and desperation, etc... would probably do far more to reduce violence in America than worrying about concealed carry permits. We have a violence problem in the US even before start including gun violence and gun homicide. Even without the guns we are far more homicidal and violent than most western/industrialized nations. Guns are just one effective tool we use to hurt each other or ourselves.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
A lock is not the best analogy, because a lock is something continually deployed and functioning before the crime happens. The lock is an actual physical deterrent, as well.
A concealed gun, even if it's on your person and loaded, you have to draw it and aim it at your target. This is possible when you hear someone break in downstairs and you creep out of your room with the gun first (or your bat, for that matter) but if it's a robbery, plenty of cases the first notice you get, the perp is there already with his gun out and aimed at you. If he thinks you're armed, he can stick you in the back before he pats you down. The one who is making the first move and can do it from a position of surprise will always have an advantage.
Not to say concealed carry is useless (by any means) but it's not a magic bullet guarantee you'll never be victimized, either.
"Not to say concealed carry is useless (by any means) but it's not a magic bullet guarantee you'll never be victimized, either."
Neither is police protection, despite their best efforts.
People should be allowed to protect themselves. It's the right thing to do, and the government should trust its citizens with the responsibility if an individual so chooses.
You'll note I'm not arguing against concealed carry...
My doors came with locks. I use them sometimes. Usually when I'm at home. Much more likely to use the lock on my car. Doesn't prevent the car from being stolen but its a harmless deterrent
Concealed carry laws make criminals carry guns and use them preemptively. It simply escalatest the level of violence.
So if someone pulls a gun and demands your wallet.you are going to start a 'shootout'? So when your bullet goes through a window and kills an innocent bystander that's just 'collateral' damage?
Other countries have learned that its better to ramp the level of voilence down. And prosecute criminal possession of firearms much more seriously than possession of drugs. You may not like it but a lot more people stay alive.
That is not to say that I think there is no place for guns in society. I just can think of few reasons to allow handguns or assault rifles and none to justify concealed carry permits by non-police.
"You'll note I'm not arguing against concealed carry..."
Never said that you were. Just adding to your comment.
Concealed carry laws make criminals carry guns and use them preemptively. It simply escalatest the level of violence.
You'll have to prove that one.
I just can think of few reasons to allow handguns or assault rifles and none to justify concealed carry permits by non-police.
How about an abusive ex-husband that just got released from jail, swearing to get even? Or an HR director that has been threatened by an ex-employee?
"Concealed carry laws make criminals carry guns and use them preemptively. It simply escalatest the level of violence."
So far that doesn't appear to be the case in any state thats implemented concealed carry laws in the last couple decades. Violence has generally decreased... probably more due to other factors than more gun ownership or more access to concealed carry permits... but that still doesn't help this claim.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Concealed carry laws make criminals carry guns and use them preemptively. It simply escalatest the level of violence. "
I'd love to see the evidence for this, but I don't think there is any.
"I just can think of few reasons to allow handguns or assault rifles and none to justify concealed carry permits by non-police. "
I can think of two - people have a right to defend themselves, and the government has no right to tell people that they cannot.
If you get a stronger lock, they'll just get a larger battering ram. It's a hopeless cycle of escalation.
The easiest and most peaceful way to stop the cycle escalation is for one side to preemptively surrender. But that's sort of not the point.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
There may be some examples of gun laws being "...more helpful to criminals." but they are rare if any. While gun laws are a burden to law-abiding citizens, myself included, that does not translate directly to being helpful to criminals. My use and owership of guns for over 50 years has never help a criminal. Obviously my neighbor's cased 44 under the seat of his car with the full ammo clip in a container under his dash does not help any criminals. Although viewing some examples of 'road rage' recently, I admit I am relieved not everyone's car is equiped like his. I have to agree with Glock21, we have a violence problem in the USA. It is unfortunate both the pro and anti gun groups avoid working at violence reduction yet leverage it as 'fear' to push their view on gun usage.
Here's what happens after a country successfully bans weapons from the hands of civilians; the following are comments from LAST MONTH by the PM of the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7497098.stm "Brown pledges anti-knife measures" "Ministers will take "any legislative measures" necessary to tackle knife crime, Gordon Brown has insisted. Speaking on the final day of the G8 summit in Japan, the prime minister said it was "completely unacceptable" for young people to carry knives. "We will consider any new legislation that is necessary to get knives off our streets," he told reporters. Tory leader David Cameron wants anyone caught carrying a knife without good excuse to expect to go to prison..."
Oil Man,
If your neighbor carries his weapon in his vehicle like that you may want to do him a favor and direct him to the criminal statute that says it's illegal to do so. I'd hate to see him lose his weapon because he has it in the wrong part of his car.
When some people made suggestions that there should be banning of any sort of knife or knife registries for the "dangerous" knives etc in Japan, they were pretty soundly laughed at by the general public. Most common murder weapon in Japan by far is the common triangular kitchen knife.
But yeah, people been getting stabby lately.
Laura
If your neighbor carries his weapon in his vehicle like that you may want to do him a favor and direct him to the criminal statute that says it's illegal to do so. I'd hate to see him lose his weapon because he has it in the wrong part of his car.
PB, quit acting like you know WTF you're talking about. A gun has to be unloaded and encased. That's it. Oil Man's description of his friend is perfectly fine. I would go one step further and say that he doesn't even have to keep the ammo in a different part of the car. The loaded magazine can be in the case right next to the gun. As long as it's not IN the gun, it's fine. It's a silly little rule, but that's the law.
People use firearms over 2 million times a year to protect themselves and their families.
The women security guard last year who killed that shooter at the church who had already killed a couple of people in the parking lot probably save a lot of people in the church.
As was already posted 48 states have concealed carry. Criminals like it easy they so don't like running into people with guns so crime rates have dropped in the states with concealed carry. In Florida they started robbing people coming off of international flights because the bad guys knew they could not be armed.
This is possible when you hear someone break in downstairs and you creep out of your room with the gun first (or your bat, for that matter) but if it's a robbery, plenty of cases the first notice you get, the perp is there already with his gun out and aimed at you.--Maybe but using a gun in a robbery gets you an extra 5 years so not likely. I think I still have a better chance and how does the criminal know I have a gun and I think he would rather find a liberal who the perp knows doesn't have a gun, of course no money either.
Anon- I think your wrong on both issues, you can't have the ammo in the case. The gun can't be with-in reach of the driver of the car.
People use firearms over 2 million times a year to protect themselves and their families.
I would love to see your source that conclusively determines that more than 2 million crimes are prevented by the use of firearms. Hell, I'd settle for something that conclusively proves half that number. NRA or similar groups with a pro-gun agenda don't count for obvious reasons, but I'm sure that won't hurt your chances of finding something credible...
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
720 ILCS 5/24-1
Thanks Anon. It looks like we're both right. I had learned that each condition was necessary; however, the statute clearly says "or".
(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealedon or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;or(ii) are not immediately accessible; or(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; orNRA or similar groups with a pro-gun agenda don't count for obvious reasons, but I'm sure that won't hurt your chances of finding something credible...I know you don't trust anyone that would agree with me I will check the Brady Gun Control website for my data. Just kidding here you go http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=372361 you probably don't like John Lott either but he is really quite good.
anon 10:19, you are wrong. If you don't believe me, put a gun in a case with ammo and roll up to a squad car. Show the officer what you have. We'll read about it in the N-G.
I know you don't trust anyone that would agree with me I will check the Brady Gun Control website for my data. Just kidding here you go http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=372361 you probably don't like John Lott either but he is really quite good.
I trust people that disagree with me, and people that would agree with you, but come on...John Lott? I have read his work (specifically More Guns, Less Crime), because I do like to read differing opinions to see what passes for fact to the reactionaries. His research on concealed-carry significantly lowering crime was roundly rejected, however his assertion that concealed-carry doesn't increase crime was well corroborated with peer review.
That source doesn't corroborate what you said, though. Unless I'm somehow confusing your statement of "People use firearms over 2 million times a year to protect themselves and their families" with the source's statement of "For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year". Being that you're only pointing to an abstract that doesn't actually say what you think it does, I'm gonna have to ask for a different source.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Thanks Anon. It looks like we're both right. I had learned that each condition was necessary; however, the stature clearly says "or".
First of all, we're not both right. I was right and you were wrong. In the future don't claim expertise on something that you are not an expert of. Just because someone told you so doesn't make it so.
anon 10:19, you are wrong. If you don't believe me, put a gun in a case with ammo and roll up to a squad car. Show the officer what you have. We'll read about it in the N-G.
Secondly, I will repeat myself and tell you too, anon, not to speak on subjects that you obviously don't know anything about. The statute is very clear. If that's not enough for you and you still want to maintain that you're such an expert on the subject, read Illinois V. McDade.
Based on Bruner we find that defendant was entitled to an exemption under section 24-2(i). We acknowledge that, while facts in Bruner do not indicate that the defendant was carrying ammunition for the gun, defendant in the instant case had a magazine containing seven bullets in his jacket pocket in the car's back seat. However, the statutory exemption contains no requirement regarding the absence of or location of ammunition. Therefore, we must find that defendant was exempt from section 24-1(a) (4). http://www.concealcarry.org/mcdade.htm
I know I'm coming off as kind of an arrogant butthole, but I just get plain sick and tired of listening to all these so called experts try to tell everybody else what is and what isn't so. It's not limited to this subject either. It's okay to give your opinion on something, but don't try to pass something off as a fact if you don't know for sure.
...you hear someone break in downstairs and you creep out of your room with the gun...
...the guy that just walked into your bedroom with a baseball bat...
Criminals don't follow the gun laws. They come in with the guns loaded, drawn and ready to fire...
So if someone pulls a gun and demands your wallet...
How about an abusive ex-husband that just got released from jail, swearing to get even?
Can we move this thread to Friday Funnies? You folks are watching way too much Nancy Grace.
I'd love a little IP poll: How many of you have ever had a criminal break into your house with a gun? In fact, how many of you have ever had a gun pulled on you by a criminal?
Where does this mentality come from?
Because, no matter what, we have the right to defend ourselves.
D. Boon,
Google "wife killed by ex-husband".
I don't have a gun, and don't think I need one, but if someone was threatening me, I'd like to be able to know I could keep one with me.
OK,
PB, Run, and anon 11:01. I'll say this again. You are all WRONG. All that crap you heard about keeping a gun out of arms reach of the driver, keeping the ammunition in a different area, and any other stuff you might have been told at some point in your life is wrong. You have to have a FOID card and the gun has to be encased and unloaded. That's it. Read Illinois V. McDade
Based on Bruner we find that defendant was entitled to an exemption under section 24-2(i). We acknowledge that, while facts in Bruner do not indicate that the defendant was carrying ammunition for the gun, defendant in the instant case had a magazine containing seven bullets in his jacket pocket in the car's back seat. However, the statutory exemption contains no requirement regarding the absence of or location of ammunition. Therefore, we must find that defendant was exempt from section 24-1(a) (4). I had a longer post about it last night, but I guess IP thought I wasn't nice enough when I chastised people for propagating false info.
anon 10:12, please see my post at 8:33 before continuing to jump on me.
Thanks.
Anon-So you are telling me to hope that I get a judge that will agree with you and this case. The driver you are talking about didn't have the ammunition in the case so I don't think we have the same example. I also don't think a judge in Cook county will agree with this and it wouldn't matter while I am sitting in Cook county jail while they are trying to get it straighten out.
I do think things will be change a do know that there is a form of concealed carry that has been discussed in this thread with people carrying the gun unloaded and ammo separately in the properly designed case or purse.
Remember one thing you are at the mercy of the officer and the states attorney you may win eventually and should but they may still win.
From the State Police web site: http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm How can I legally transport a firearm on my person or in my vehicle? There is more than one way to legally transport a firearm. However, in order to be in compliance with all statutes, it is recommended all firearms be transported: 1. Unloaded, 2. Enclosed in a case and, 3. By persons who have a valid FOID card. What constitutes a legal "case" for transporting a firearm? The Criminal Code refers to "a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container." However, the Wildlife Code is more specific, defining case as "a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun or bow and arrow device which completely encloses such gun or bow and arrow device by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened with no portion of the gun or bow and arrow device exposed." How do I transport a firearm through an Illinois community with an ordinance that prohibits firearms or handguns? Illinois' Unlawful Use of Weapons law does not preempt local ordinances from banning firearms. Persons carrying or transporting firearms through such communities could be subject to local firearm ordinances. It is recommended that you contact local authorities regarding their firearm ordinances. If a non-resident is coming to Illinois to hunt and would like to bring their firearm, how do they legally transport it? Non- residents must be legally eligible to possess or acquire firearms and ammunition in their state of residence. It is recommended that, in order to be in compliance with all statutes, non-residents transport all firearms: 1. Unloaded, and 2. Enclosed in a case, and 3. Not immediately accessible or broken down in a nonfunctioning state. Is it legal to have ammunition in the case with the firearm? Yes, so long as the firearm is unloaded and properly enclosed in a case. I have a friend/relative who has a "conceal and carry" permit issued in the state in which they reside. Is the permit recognized in Illinois? No. Non-residents are subject to Illinois law, restrictions, and penalties, and should be familiar with them if the non-resident plans to bring a firearm into the state of Illinois.
The anon is right. If you're worried about over-zealous cops or states attorneys or judges you can print out the Illinois State Police guide to legally transporting your firearm that notes that the location of the ammunition is irrelevant, even in loaded magazines, as long as it is not in the gun: Transport Your Firearm Legally
The location of the gun... even if it is on your lap while you're driving is also irrelevant as long as it is unloaded and in a firearms case. The Unlawful Use of Weapons code gives many the impression that it can be enclosed in pretty much any case, but the wildlife code (which is in an entirely different section, but still applies) requires that it be enclosed in a case specifically for a firearm.
Local ordinances prohibiting such behavior do exist in some areas, specifically cook county... so I wouldn't recommend anything of the sort near Chicago where my pocket knife would get me arrested (even though it is perfectly legal everywhere else in the state). Also, smaller towns don't tend to have training on the matter so if you do transport a firearm, regardless of how, it's wise to do so within the law and carry a print out of the law and the Illinois State Police brochure with you. You may still face harassment or arrest (notable examples nearby would be in Pekin or LeRoy) from officers who strongly believe the urban legends on how to transport a firearm are the law as opposed to the actual law... just as many citizens do.
If you're going to transport a firearm regularly it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the law, including local or nearby local ordinances, and be eternally vigilant on remaining within the law... for example: campus owned streets are a legal gray area due to the fact that the statutes on trespassing require written consent to have a firearm on such property, but whether it is applicable in most situations like that has yet to be tested in the courts. The consequences for odd ball things could be a misdemeanor conviction with fines and up to a year in jail or if they can catch you on a loophole of the serious stuff in the UUW code it could mean a felony conviction, prison, and the loss of both your 2nd Amendment rights and voting rights for the rest of your life. It's a pretty big risk, even if you think you're following the letter of law. One dopey mistake (like forgetting your wallet at home with your foid card in it) can permanently destroy your rights and quite possibly your life. So be dern careful.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Ack... sorry for the duplicate info. Looks like anon posted while I was typing.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
In Illinoi you do not lose your voting rights if convicted of a felony, you just can't vote while incarcerated (because home is where the hearth is, not where the prison is).
Glock,
Thank you for validating my simple anon opinion. But just to clarify a point you made:
One dopey mistake (like forgetting your wallet at home with your foid card in it) While this is a good idea just to keep things simple, I don't think it's absolutely necessary. Any police officer has access to FOID records via their squad car computer (or a dispatcher could check it for them). Your FOID status is kept in a database, just like your driver's license status. So a simple check could verify that you do, in fact, have a valid FOID card.
Only if the officer wants to check for your FOID, as I said it depends on what county you are in.
You're right, criminals aren't SHOT by law-abiding citizens very frequently. But, there are over 2 million defensive uses of firearms EVERY YEAR in the United States. The vast majority only require brandishing a firearm to stop the crime in progress...
As far as I know (I could be wrong here), the police could give you a break if they look up that you have a valid card, just not in your possession, but the FOID act, the UUW code, and the ISP information seems to be clear that it must be in your possession if you're in possession of/transporting a firearm. Perhaps theres some examples or case law I'm unaware of but I've never heard of it being optional, even out of forgetfulness.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
A police officer would have a hard time explaining why they arrested someone whom they knew had a valid FOID card, whether that person had the card on them or not. I can guarantee that the courts would look down on that. It would be like citing someone for no valid driver's license just because they didn't have their license with them, even though the officer ran that person through LEADS and saw that Secretary of State records showed that the person did in fact have a valid DL. In my opinion, that would truly be grounds for a lawsuit due to false arrest.
Just because someone isn't carrying the actual card, if the officer has a way to otherwise verify the person's FOID status, there is no probable cause for arrest under the FOID statute. (that's my opinion, in case it wasn't clear. However, I think it's a solid legal argument).
Only if the officer wants to check for your FOID, as I said it depends on what county you are in.
Run, what are you talking about? You seem to be unnecessarily scared about all of this. I'm starting to see what some of the others are talking about when discussing other topics with you. You don't appear to understand the facts of the situation and instead seem content to complain about perceived injustices that don't really exist.
But, there are over 2 million defensive uses of firearms EVERY YEAR in the United States.
Again, with that 2 million defensive uses figure. Let's see some real corroboration on that. I'm sure the NRA can speculate on this, but I want to see from an independent law enforcement agency that can legitimately say having a gun prevented 2 million crimes. I'm calling shennanigans on this.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/15/gun.toting.teachers.ap/index.html
here's a very timely CNN article
Re: John Lott and the 2 million defensive gun uses per year. His research has been peer reviewed and and scruntized with a fine tooth comb, repeatedly, especially by every anti-2A organization out there and no one has been able to refute his research/data.
Unlike Bellesiles and fraud in "Arming America" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America) along with most of the other "statistics quoted by the anti-2A groups.
I mean even Harvard agreed that "More Guns = Less Crime" http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
And yes, I have used a firearm (did not shoot, only displayed it) and stopped a car from being stolen.
You people should check out http://www.handgunlaw.us/ before you go spouting off with rumors and bad info.
Re: John Lott and the 2 million defensive gun uses per year. His research has been peer reviewed and and scruntized with a fine tooth comb, repeatedly, especially by every anti-2A organization out there and no one has been able to refute his research/data.
Perhaps you should maybe read around a bit, because plenty of people have refuted his claims, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, Yale and Stanford law schools, and several more. Seriously, did you even look, or are you just parroting this from some gun-nut site? Shenannigans are still called on the 2 million number, because it's not something that you can actually *prove*. You can speculate, make an educated guess, etc. to your heart's content, but that's not proving anything because it's not quantifiable.
Thanks for playing, though.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Arvid-Of course, we do not know whether Hupp would have been carrying herGun on her person that day if she had had the legal right to do so (the fact thatShe carries it now is not dispositive on that question), or if she would have beenAble to save her parents or others (rather than just become another casualty byStaying and fighting instead of escaping out a shattered window—This is one example of these peoples thinking why you used to refute Lott’s data. I have watched Hupp's testimony in front of the Congress she sounded very credible and there is no doubt from her comments she could have taken out the jerk who killed the people in this case so I think your source seems to be the one with the gun control agenda, hard to believe. Anon-You need to drive though Cook County with your gun tell them you forgot your FOID and you have your gun in its case between your legs with the ammo. If they don't shoot you maybe they will take you to Cook county jail. Guns Save Life has helped with plenty of these cases and some stupid SA's are still arresting people for transporting weapons incorrectly even for just leaving the zipper partially open on the case (no ammo). So you can tell me I am hard headed if you want but I would suggest you stay away from counties that don't like guns. No the policeman doesn’t have to arrest you and the SA doesn’t have to charge you, if you don’t have you’re driver license it is a fine and if you show up later with it, they drop the fine. It’s different with a FOID card some people hate guns.
For those who were spouting off that a gun case with ammo in it will get you arrested.....
Check out:
http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/transgun0-000.pdf
You will find that you definitely CAN have loaded magazines in the case with the gun as long as you have met the requirements of: 1. Encased, 2. Unloaded, 3. Valid FOID
I have put it to the test. I was checked at one of the "roadside safety checks" and had my cased gun on the passenger seat. I was asked for my license, insurance and FOID. Apparently I checked out and was told to have a nice evening, never asked to see the gun, etc.
When I moved back to IL I asked about transporting guns and got 5 different answers from 5 different officers. Because of that I carry a summary of the UUW, Wildlife code and the FOID act with me so that there are no mistakes if the officer isn't up to speed on the laws.
It took me 3 times as long to type this as it did to verify the web link I posted up top....if you are so sure that I might get arrested, take a few minutes and read over ISP's web site, the info is not hard to find.
When I moved back to IL I asked about transporting guns and got 5 different answers from 5 different officers. Because of that I carry a summary of the UUW, Wildlife code and the FOID act with me so that there are no mistakes if the officer isn't up to speed on the laws.It took me 3 times as long to type this as it did to verify the web link I posted up top....if you are so sure that I might get arrested, take a few minutes and read over ISP's web site, the info is not hard to find. As I have said over and over again I don't disagree that the law says you can have the gun in the case with the ammo. I have said like the first paragraph says every county will treat you differently depending on whether they 1) know the law or 2) Like guns. Chicago and their anti gun legislator don't like guns and every year they try to have them confiscated.
Run,
Then don't go to Chicago and go hide under a rock somewhere. Quit bitching about it. The UUW law is not that restrictive, you just want to claim martyrdom.
I think your wrong on both issues, you can't have the ammo in the case. The gun can't be with-in reach of the driver of the car.
As I have said over and over again I don't disagree that the law says you can have the gun in the case with the ammo.
Since you made both statements, which should we believe. Quit being a flip-flopper. You'd never make it through a presidential race
Run, you still didn't answer my question or show me a real statistic that quantitatively proves this unmeasurable.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
I've never had a gun pulled on me, and I've only seen Nancy Grace one time (and the show disgusted me enough that I will never watch it again).
People were discussing hypothetical scenarios, I only meant to point out that a situation where you know in advance someone is coming with the gun would be different from a stick up with a gun, which my GRANDMOTHER has in fact had happen, twice. What did she do? She gave up her purse, which is EXACTLY what I would do.
As for the deterrence factor, fine, but if they assume you might be armed all they have to do is draw first. Meanwhile, assuming that people on the left aren't armed isn't a very smart move.
I join in the eye-rolling at some of the gun-talk I hear at my workplace and elsewhere, like I said I'm okay with the right to bear arms, but some of the loving detail with which people describe these elaborate scenarios about just how they are going to protect their families or run off the robbers or whatever it is, imagining it, any day there's going to be someone coming for them, kinda creeps me out too. Come to think of it, that sort of thing DOES sound like something Nancy Grace would be all over with her mix of righteousness and voyeurism...
The UUW law is not that restrictive, you just want to claim martyrdom. What are you talking about, why would I want to do that and your right you can't have the ammo lose in the case. It depends on the county whether they will run you in.
Arvid disprove it, others even used the same number on this thread I have been to busy to look it up, but it's accurate.
Concealed Carry is legal in 48 other states why is Illinois only 1 of the last two states to allow it?
Arvid disprove it, others even used the same number on this thread I have been to busy to look it up, but it's accurate.
Right, and others on here are dead set that Obama is a secret muslim and that Ron Paul is the Last, Best Hope for America.... should I just take their word on that too? I would think the fact that with 5 minutes of searching, I found three different sources that completely disprove and discredit the research you tried to use from John Lott would be enough, but I guess you don't read what you cite yourself, why should I expect you to read what others cite?
If this 2 million/year number is so damn accurate, why can't I find a neutral source that corroborates it? I can't disprove something or argue against it if it doesn't actually exist. Show me in black and white where you're getting this number from, and it better not be from the NRA or any groups of similar mindsets. That's like taking a report on how "mass transit is great" from the MTD, and passing it off as if they don't have an inherient purpose for telling you that. It's time to put up or shut up, and right now you're doing neither. Typical reactionary.
FWIW, I'm not anti-gun. I have shot on a fairly regular basis over the years, and still do, albeit not as much as I used to. Still, I'm quite confident that this commie pinko liberal can take you to task on 50m target shooting, without a scope. If you need a pistol on your nightstand to feel like more of a man in your home, so be it, and I'm sure you're in good company with the crowd that believes that in the rare chance that your home is broken into, shooting someone in the chest for trying to take your stereo is a completely appropriate and equitable response. Again, whatever helps you compensate is your business, but don't think the rest of us to be that simple.
When I hear/read such incredibly unprovable statement as this 2 million number or the previously mentioned highly improbable scenarios that are used to justify someone's need to overly exercise their second amendment rights to the point they actually thwart efforts to keep guns out of the hands of people who really shouldn't have them (IE, Steve Kazmierczak and Seung-Hui Cho, who purchased their firearms legally)..... I'm gonna call that bullshit out for what it is every time, and really you should call that bullshit out too instead of just parroting it like a McCain talking point website because it doesn't help you and makes you look like more of an idiot and doesn't bring anybody new to accept your point of view. But that's not really your goal, is it?
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
"I join in the eye-rolling at some of the gun-talk I hear at my workplace and elsewhere..."
I'm with you there. Some of the hypotheticals are so absurd or unrealistic from both sides of the debate. On the pro-gun side you'll have some folks nearly imply some sort of magic invincibility against everything from criminals to empowring them to singlehandedly take on professional militaries as rag-tag insurgent groups (which conflicts with the entire history of the militia in the US, as it was always subordinate to the chain of command, even when that regular military was from break-away colonial governments).
On the other side I'll often hear the exact opposite absurdities or unrealistic hypotheticals. That a gun in a child's hand turns him into some sort of unstoppable killing machine, yet in a woman's hand it'll merely be 'taken right away from her.' And similar to the gun nut scenario of overthworing the gov't or the Red Dawn fantasies about fighting the invading commies... they also tend to neglect the 'organized militia' (which currently comprise NG and ANG, etc in each state) to which the regular yahoos, the 'unorganized militia', would most likely be in a support role for, at most as a reserve infantry. The modern military history of such militia groups, from WWII on, is generally one of supporting break-away regular forces or the remnants of a defeated gov/t/military to be effective. While stories of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are inspriging of the common man holding a sophisticated military machine at bay... the end to such scenarios has almost always been the same as their doomed fate when its done in a vacuum. When its done as part of an organized, even loosely organized front, it has been an important part of almost any modern conflict, from the WWII era resistance movements, from Mao's "People's War" to other communist revolutionary movements, to nationalistic wars within the former colonial States, the 'wars of liberation' that have plagued Africa, and even in the two current wars we're in by our opponents... which eerily mirror many of the concepts from Mao's "strategic stalemate' thoughts.
Both sides exaggerate the usefulness and uselessness of firearms, often ignorinig both the anecdotal and historical realities. Guns sometimes can save your life if they're available in a criminal situation. Guns in the hands of civilians is a strategic plus in times of invasion/rebellion that sometimes helps make the difference in victory over despotism or foreign rule. Sometimes you're just screwed. But that doesn't make a handy slogan if you're an activist pushing for less restrictions on firearm ownership/use or more restrictions. Sometimes exaggeration and hyperbole is more effective in shaping policy than an honest assessment. Sometimes democracy is just screwed. ;-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
It's funny how liberal researchers and the MSM really don't want help prove that guns help keep people safe. Arvid of course just because I really don't want to play with you and I have better things to do since you say I am a liar, of course you come up with some real crap.
Here is the source and someone who says he’s a liberal saying he thinks that Klecks data is accurate. I know that won't be good enough for you because nothing ever is.
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php
It's funny how liberal researchers and the MSM really don't want help prove that guns help keep people safe. Arvid of course just because I really don't want to play with you and I have better things to do since you say I am a liar, of course you come up with some real crap.
I'm not asking you to go shooting with me because I understand how embarrassing it would be for you to lose to a baby-eating liberal such as myself. Just recognize that liberals can and do shoot, quite a few of them better than you.
Did you read what Glock posted? Here, I'll re-post the relevant paragraph which you will promptly not read anyway:
Both sides exaggerate the usefulness and uselessness of firearms, often ignorinig both the anecdotal and historical realities. Guns sometimes can save your life if they're available in a criminal situation. Guns in the hands of civilians is a strategic plus in times of invasion/rebellion that sometimes helps make the difference in victory over despotism or foreign rule. Sometimes you're just screwed. But that doesn't make a handy slogan if you're an activist pushing for less restrictions on firearm ownership/use or more restrictions. Sometimes exaggeration and hyperbole is more effective in shaping policy than an honest assessment.
Glock and I don't always agree on things, but I'm glad he's not throwing out the 2 million number and realizing that guns are not a magic shield that reduces crime and keep you safe from "The Evil Doers". But again, you just don't get it, so I'm not certain why I even bother.
Here is the source and someone who says he’s a liberal saying he thinks that Klecks data is accurate. I know that won't be good enough for you because nothing ever is.
Seriously, are you really this mentally deficient? Did your reading comprehsion teacher fail you this miserably? How difficult is it for you to understand that I am asking you to produce, in black & white, the 2 million figure? This is what I am challenging, this specific measurement of something that can't be quantitiatively measured. It's pure bullshit. How can you specifically measure something that didn't happen, and give such an insanely large number to it? I have zero doubt that posession of firearms can deter some crime, and that posession of firearms can also increase crime. But that's not what you are saying. You are providing a hard, specific number without providing any kind of source, just posting links and saying "this guy agrees with me" without showing where he actually uses this 2 million number. Thanks for playing, but just like every other discussion that involves you and numbers, you have chosen..... poorly. :-)
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Arvid-When I hear/read such incredibly unprovable statement as this 2 million number or the previously mentioned highly improbable scenarios that are used to justify someone's need to overly exercise their second amendment rights to the point they actually thwart efforts to keep guns out of the hands of people who really shouldn't have them (IE, Steve Kazmierczak and Seung-Hui Cho, who purchased their firearms legally)..... I'm gonna call that bullshit out for what it is every time, and really you should call that bullshit out too instead of just parroting it like a McCain talking point website because it doesn't help you and makes you look like more of an idiot and doesn't bring anybody new to accept your point of view. But that's not really your goal, is it? Really show the studies that it's not possible to protect yourself with a weapon. I suppose the police carry Guns because they like how they look and private citizens can’t shoot better then police? Kazmierczak is a perfect example of someone who if there was concealed carry and there was someone carrying could have ended that tragedy much sooner but the government keeps people from protecting themselves in this state. He was only allowed to purchase the gun legally because he didn't inform the government that he was mentally unstable. Seems gun control laws have a lot of flaws doesn't mean we should create more laws for law abiding citizens. McCain talking point website because it doesn't help you and makes you look like more of an idiot--Making this comment doesn't mean your right go to the McCain website and copy this issue about people protecting themselves 2 million times every year (if it’s there) and paste it here. I have been talking about this issue far longer then this Presidential cycle. We have been working on this issue in this state so those clowns from Chicago don't get Gun control bills though the GA for years and have had some success. Arvid-you can call out what ever you want but you will still be wrong, who’s an idiot.
Arvid, I should have known you were to lazy or of course would it prove you wrong, if you had to select another link, so let me help you. Arvid, I will even BOLD 2 million for you can you see it now. If you read the rest of the studies there are actually other studies of from 800,000 to over 2.500,000 hows that? Just like every other discussion you ask for all the proof provide none to prove your side, call names in hopes people will get tired of your crap and give up. Shows you are full of it. Should I bold that part about crap also.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Arvid--So maybe I am wrong, you did read the link saw the 2 Million number, made your last post like you didn't and ran like a scalded dog. That’s alright I will find you and post that you ran, 2 million times. :-)
You are citing guncite.com, which is like using figures from the National Alliance of Public Transportation Advocates to corroborate what the MTD has to say. The Kleck study was pulled from a small sample sized and applied to a population on a factor of 10,000 times through a telephone interview. So no reading of actual crime statistics, just asking people if they felt they used a gun to defend themselves.. That's making an extrapolation and an educated guess, not an actual measurement by any means. But it fits your agenda, so let's leave it. Did you read the accompanying PDF with that from the Department of Justice, which what I was hoping you would come back with since that is a far more neutral of a source? I did and it carries some interesting numbers on how such a survey is actually conducted. Let me pick some key things for you:
On the basis of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.
That's a number I would expect to hear. It's a quantitative measure of actual usage, not speculation through a survey. If you don't report it, how can we quantitiavely track it as a crime? If I have to brandish my firearm to prevent someone from mugging me, you bet your ass I'm reporting that to the police that someone in my area is attempting to mug people because not everyone else in my area may be armed.
Each of the respondents in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone else, or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere?"
That's a fair question, and was the same one asked by the Kleck study. However, the major flaw in this was it did not confine itself to actual attempted victimizations, just ones where there was the fear of it, as shown by this:
This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!
So once a week, this woman had to use her gun to defend herself? Don't you find that just a bit skewed and not based in reality? I guess when you've got a .38 caliber hammer, everybody looks like a nail?
Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator. Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users.
It's skewed even more when your sample size is "2,568 noninstitutionalized adults". So because 19 out of 2500+ adults responding becomes equitable to 1.5 million users? It's not accurate science. You can't poll 2500 adults and make a scientific measure that applies to 200 million adults. This is why all the election polls and exit polls that take place are complete bullshit as well. Extremely small sample sizes produce fantastically skewed results. But whatever, you and statistics have never been good friends anyway, so I don't expect you to fully understand the flaw in this.
Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's criteria).
Given the choice between a phone survey that can produce significant false-positives and flaws, and actual data pulled from crime reports, I'm gonna go with the real data every time. But that doesn't fit your agenda, so again, whatever :-)
In case you missed it earlier, I agree that gun ownership can have the potential to reduce crime, but not to the scale that 1 out of every 50 adults uses a gun to prevent crime every year. I also agree it can potentially cause more violent crime through escalation (a bullet to the chest is not an appropriate response to someone taking your wallet) It may help reduce the perception of crime such as the once-a-week woman above, but that doesn't show it preventing actual crime. Try again, though.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Given the choice between a phone survey that can produce significant false-positives and flaws, and actual data pulled from crime reports, I'm gonna go with the real data every time. But that doesn't fit your agenda, so again, whatever :-) Arvid-I gave you were I got the 2 million number as you asked. Guncite was just the link, I gave you an endorsement by someone who is not considered a conservative friend for; Kleck, he did the study because the other studies that show multiply other numbers of people protecting themselves with guns seemed flawed. So how do you find out if people protected themselves with guns besides calling them, ask the criminal, or the person who protected themselves? The problem with most of these study's of crime reports are that both people involved may be from a large city were it maybe illegal to own a gun so they won't report it to the police hence no police report so flawed study. You questioned whether I even had the number, said I was full of it. I gave you the number and the source as well as quite a few other ourses does it matter or do you just attack people for the fun of it? Arvid is it you don't have a clue or don't want one?