Illinois Politicians Don't Understand Concealed Carry

Reason ^ | July 11, 2013 | Steve Chapman

[neverdem]

That's a right, not a shall issue, or may issue privilege, now in five states. It was never a privilege in Vermont of all places. Add up the number of people who can carry concealed in VT, AK, AZ, WY and AR as of this month.

[Steely Tom]

Illinois Politicians Don't Understand Concealed Carry

They don't?

How many Illinois politicians "carry" themselves? Or have armed guards to escort them?

I'm certain the understand quite well.

[Jeff Winston]

What I want to know is, why are states like California, and New York, and Massachusetts, and New Jersey, and Maryland, trying to "turn back the clock" and "hold back progress?"

I mean, I thought there were lots of progressive people in those states.

[Secret Agent Man]

libs: disarmed law abiding citizens in a world of armed criminals == safe

but libs: armed cops in the same world of armed criminals == great

weird since reality: armed cops shoot more rounds in conflicts than ccw’s, cops miss targets in conflicts more than ccw’s - less accurate, more rounds hitting unintended targets, and cops injure more innocents by gunfire in conflicts than ccw’s do.

[Carry_Okie]

Only 8 States now permit groundless refusal of the right to carry: New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Iowa, California, and Hawaii.

Time for Mr. Gura to get cracking. :-) With the drop in crime rates Chicago will realize in the next two years, all arguments against CCW will be bankrupted so completely that none will be able to refute them. Until then, comparisons between Camden and Philadelphia would probably serve quite nicely.

[Secret Agent Man]

and further weird because real world: while ccw’s can be sued for accidents and tried for crimes with guns, cops acting as agents of the state, almost never are tried for crimes, and have special immunities ccw’s do not, while perfoming their jobs and injuring or killing accidetally.

[Secret Agent Man]

for now you still need to include IL in this mix.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The Washington-based Violence Policy Center makes much of the fact that since 2007, by its count, 516 people have been killed by permit holders.

And how many of those were justifiable homicide? I'll bet it was a very large percentage.

[JimRed]

“My foremost duty as governor is to keep the people of Illinois safe,”...

So, they’re safer when they are defenseless against the lawless, who will continue to be armed? Get a clue, MORON!

[RedMDer]

Please Contribute Today!

[reg45]

“My foremost duty as governor is to keep the people of Illinois safe,”...

Then round up one hundred gang bangers, take them to the Daley Center and hang them.

[Carry_Okie]

Thank you John Lott, for writing the book that changed everything.

[Carry_Okie]

Oops

Only 8 States now permit groundless refusal of the right to carry: New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Iowa, California, and Hawaii.

Correction: New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Iowa Maryland, California, and Hawaii.

What was I thinking?

[Procyon]

And how many crimes were thwarted by a CCW either non-fatal shooting or subduing or chasing off a perpetrator by merely brandishing a weapon.

The lower crime rate isn't only a function of killing bad guys.

[MrB]

The whole “brandishing” thing, to me, is a farce...

Now, I can see that if you were attempting to intimidate someone, ie, initiate force without using actual force, then that should be prohibited,

but exhibiting a firearm IN RESPONSE TO a threat of force,
and to head it off,

seems to be a morally superior position to allowing the threat to escalate to the point that you have to draw and kill your assailant.

[Standing Wolf]

Illinois Politicians Don't Understand Concealed Carry

I'm sure they do understand concealed carry: they merely hate the Second Amendment and all of us who dare assert it means exactly what it says.

Blind hatred never seeks very far ahead.

[MrB]

The problem with self defense, as far as leftists are concerned, is that those that assert the right to self defense just might defend themselves against what leftists want to impose on them.

[sarasmom]

I think you nailed it.

[Talisker]

The problem with self defense, as far as leftists are concerned, is that those that assert the right to self defense just might defend themselves against what leftists want to impose on them.

Bingo.

[RipSawyer]

Some things are so simple that those who seem not to understand them may well be suspected of pretending not to understand to further their own agenda. One of those things is this. If laws against guns could prevent the violent use of guns there would be no need for them because all the laws against the violent use of guns would long ago have stopped the violent use of guns. The solution to violations of law is not to be had by passing more laws. It is like trying to stop a water leak by laying a new pipe alongside the old one and running the water through both, it simply creates the potential for more leaks and the old pipe will stil leak until you fix it. Apparently the concept is too much for some to understand.