If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC Local)   Concealed carry fails in Illinois House. This is good news for gun owners because if they don't pass one in the next few weeks you can carry any gun you want any time you want in the Land of Lincoln   (abclocal.go.com) divider line 331
    More: Cool, Illinois House, Illinois, Chicago Democrat, concealed weapons, gun owners, parliamentary procedures, Brooke Anderson  
•       •       •

7889 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2013 at 10:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



331 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-20 11:56:22 AM  
Fun fact:

Chicago Gang Violence went up AFTER the Feds swooped in with their RICO case against the largest gang, because they only arrested 20 some odd folks, effectively splintering said largest gang into many different territories vying for control of the drug trade.  It's getting even worse now because the Mexican gangs are pushing up the corridor and attempting to establish a presence.
 
2013-04-20 11:56:46 AM  

Fark It: namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true

No, but it should.  At minimum there should be no charge for the FOID card.  As it stands, it takes the ISP longer than the maximum 30-days allotted under the law (and this law is almost 50 years old, they haven't found a better way), if you move, you have to re-apply, you can't just get an updated card by showing a utility bill and some other documents like with a driver's license.  Almost every Illinois county also fails to report disqualifying info to the State Police, so people who shouldn't be allowed to keep their cards end up keeping them.  It was a punitive measure born of racial paranoia by the Chicago machine in response to the civil rights movement.  That's why under "Race" there are three checkboxes:  Black, White, and Other.

I think all of Chicago's and Cook County's gun laws should be invalidated, but I'm not big on "constitutional carry."  Carrying a gun in public is something that should be regulated reasonably.  Of course, if Springfield fails to come up with legislation then so be it.



KEEP AND BEAR. for those of you in rio linda you get to own a gun and carry a gun in (gasp) public!!!
 
2013-04-20 11:56:57 AM  
Meanwhile, people ary dying left and right because the proper legislation is not inplace. Don't those lawmakers realize they are playing god with people's lives and with every penstroke they cause or prevent thousands of gun deaths?
 
2013-04-20 11:58:25 AM  

Phinn: You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.


You claimed that "Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.". Your claim remains unsupported by any data.

You have provided no rational justification for not enacting a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system that does not rely upon false or unsupported premises.
 
2013-04-20 11:58:58 AM  
Concealed carry means the weapon must be small and concealable under clothes. A small frame "snubby' or a single stack short auto.

Open carry would mean you can carry a larger,more powerful and or more accurate "duty-sized" weapon.

My point about carrying my .44 revolver.

...but yes,I am indeed a BADASS. (with a boner)
 
2013-04-20 12:00:38 PM  
Carry it right there on your hip

No need to keep 'em guessing who's the easier victim
 
2013-04-20 12:00:41 PM  

scotty425: Fark It: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois.  They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be.  The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue.  Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad.  So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.

An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade.  The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago.  This concealed carry bill passed 64-45.  Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes.  It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto.  I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).

Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) keeps watering down his  HB 997 with more restrictions to try and appease the northern/Chicago Dems and it still can't get passed. That's the funny thing about gun politics in Illinois, neither side really has the numbers to advance their agenda.


The pro-gun side absolutely has the numbers to advance their agenda, they have an uncooperative governor (the most unpopular in the country) and a gaggle of Chicago politicians who want special rules for their fiefdom.  "B-b-b-but homerule should let larger cities decide for themselves...."  Blow it out your ass (not directed at you, btw).  How do you think Western NY feels about being governed out of Manhattan when it comes to the NY SAFE act?  They want home-rule when it comes to pro-gun legislation, but they're fine with a simple majority when it comes to inflicting their gun laws on the rest of the state.  Brandon Phelps and the farking NRA have bent over backwards to appease Chicago, and they've basically taken their ball and gone home.
 
2013-04-20 12:01:18 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Did...did you just link to Breitbart?


Awwww....poor thing. Where did the bad Breitbart man touch you?
 
2013-04-20 12:01:43 PM  

scotty425: Fark It: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois.  They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be.  The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue.  Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad.  So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.

An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade.  The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago.  This concealed carry bill passed 64-45.  Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes.  It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto.  I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).

Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) keeps watering down his  HB 997 with more restrictions to try and appease the northern/Chicago Dems and it still can't get passed. That's the funny thing about gun politics in Illinois, neither side really has the numbers to advance their agenda.


Divided and Conquered.
This is what happens when the sheeple vote by remote control with their emotions instead of marching in the streets.
 
2013-04-20 12:01:50 PM  

trappedspirit: Meanwhile, people ary dying left and right because the proper legislation is not inplace. Don't those lawmakers realize they are playing god with people's lives and with every penstroke they cause or prevent thousands of gun deaths?


You're assuming politicians care about anything other than getting reelected.  I honestly can't stand either party.
 
2013-04-20 12:02:04 PM  
I wasn't aware that Kentucky had restrictive gun laws.
 
2013-04-20 12:02:30 PM  

Fark It: "Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....


Fark It: I'm sorry, I can't hear you over that dog-whistle.


So now you have to ask yourself. Why are YOUR ears so finely tuned to the "dog whistle" that you hear?

I heard "cultural problem" as the systemic corruption that sullies a liberal government to the extent that "Chicago Politics" is synonymous with "(D)irty as Fnck".

I guess that's what I get for thinking about what is really wrong with Chicago instead of sitting in my basement patrolling for racists.
 
2013-04-20 12:03:33 PM  

Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.


Of course it requires concealment.   Your statement that having a gun out in the open where people can see it assumes that criminals will instantly run.   The open carry simply allows the crimanal to ID anyone that is a threat to them robbing the 7-11.  Once they see you, they can walk past you and fein interest in the King Size Snickers bar.. then they pull a gun out that they are illegally carrying.

No fair!  They arent supposed to be carrying !

If you want to look at the likely results of this,. look at ABCs pretend journalism piece on concealed carry.  They had some guy walk in to the classroom and shoot the teacher, and then targeted the guy in the room that they knew had a gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Of course, this is simply proof that you dont want to be a criminals first or second target.  Also proof that if you are 140 pounds, perhaps you should not wear shirts that John Candy could wear.

By openly carrying, you are simply saying 'shoot me first, before I have a chance to react'
 
2013-04-20 12:04:00 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery


Let's see:  Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.
 
2013-04-20 12:04:26 PM  

craigdamage: Concealed carry means the weapon must be small and concealable under clothes. A small frame "snubby' or a single stack short auto.

Open carry would mean you can carry a larger,more powerful and or more accurate "duty-sized" weapon.

My point about carrying my .44 revolver.

...but yes,I am indeed a BADASS. (with a boner)


I have no difficulty carrying a double-stacked .45 caliber handgun.  However, because I carry it in a fanny pack I must acknowledge that I appear to be a "pussy" in doing so.
 
2013-04-20 12:04:49 PM  

Capo Del Bandito: T-Servo: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 425x460]

I expect the discussion in this thread to be reasoned and measured.

And based on your pic, slightly erotic?

...is there a field for 'gun erotica'?


Are you unfamiliar with rule 34?
 
2013-04-20 12:05:08 PM  
"If it's so scary, why isn't there one other state in this country that's repealed concealed carry? Because it works," Phelps saidy

So that's why Chicago is the murder free paradise that it is today. And thanks for giving us that genius Slobama too.
 
2013-04-20 12:05:34 PM  

s2s2s2: Fark It: "Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....

Fark It: I'm sorry, I can't hear you over that dog-whistle.

So now you have to ask yourself. Why are YOUR ears so finely tuned to the "dog whistle" that you hear?

I heard "cultural problem" as the systemic corruption that sullies a liberal government to the extent that "Chicago Politics" is synonymous with "(D)irty as Fnck".

I guess that's what I get for thinking about what is really wrong with Chicago instead of sitting in my basement patrolling for racists.


"Political correctness" is, in my view, a catch-all way for people to imply things that would otherwise get you odd looks during polite conversation.  If you wanted to address the "cultural problem" you'd address the culture problem, not claim that "political correctness" prevents you or others from doing so.
 
2013-04-20 12:06:41 PM  

Fark It: The pro-gun side absolutely has the numbers t

...


Sounds reasonable. I may not agree with everything you say, but I thought I'd chime in on a "maybe you're not so bad off" note, here.
 
2013-04-20 12:07:12 PM  

dittybopper: Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery

Let's see:  Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.


www.psiopradio.com
 
2013-04-20 12:07:24 PM  

trappedspirit: Meanwhile, people ary dying left and right because the proper legislation is not inplace. Don't those lawmakers realize they are playing god with people's lives and with every penstroke they cause or prevent thousands of gun deaths?


People are dying in traffic collisions, many multiples of those killed with guns.

And traffic is an area of plenary state control. And yet, legislators fail to enact laws to prevent the roughly 90-100 people who die daily on the state's roads, along with the many more who are maimed and disabled.

These same legislators also enact drug laws that are the root cause of most gun crime.

Rather than prevent or greatly reduce deaths by (a) repealing drug laws or (b) enacting better car safety measures, over which the state has 100% control, the state insists on pushing for even greater restrictions on guns, over which it has very little real control, and which in the process inhibits the legitimate, defensive use of guns far more than it curbs crime.
 
2013-04-20 12:08:10 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: Did...did you just link to Breitbart?

Awwww....poor thing. Where did the bad Breitbart man touch you?


Just an odd source of "information."  If your goal was to make a point, you failed.
 
2013-04-20 12:09:20 PM  

Mock26: way south: BigBooper: Fark It: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

"Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....

And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....

But guns at least allow the residents to fend for themselves where government is failing.
If they go concealed carry its going to be interesting to see how crime rates there repond.

So far as concealed carry bans, if I recall Hawaii and the US territories still have bans on carry and heavily restricted ownership (where its even allowed).
Getting all stats in on concealed carry would be a big win for us on the fringes.

It will be just like anywhere else.  The crimes rates will drop.  Or rise.  Or stay the same.




I expect a drop, but I'm hesitant to say they simply drop or rise more than just change to different kinds of crimes depending on how they are counted. Fewer rapes and assaults, more daylight (absent homeowner) break-ins.

As long as bad people are on the loose the devil will have his due. The point is allowing the good ones a means to keep the bad guys in check.
Fixing the crime problem is going to take work in alot of areas, but concealed carry would allow legal use of an age old stopgap measure.
 
2013-04-20 12:10:15 PM  

dittybopper: Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery

Let's see:  Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.


My friends don't like it when I point out other police who had black and silver uniforms.
 
2013-04-20 12:10:28 PM  
If more liberties taken away from the public is cool, than subby must be a myopic fool.
 
2013-04-20 12:11:37 PM  

Fark It: "Political correctness" is, in my view, a catch-all way for people to imply things that would otherwise get you odd looks during polite conversation.  If you wanted to address the "cultural problem" you'd address the culture problem, not claim that "political correctness" prevents you or others from doing so


He may have meant that. He may have been blowing that whistle at the top of his lungs. I'm just glad I had to have it suggested by someone else, before it came to mind. I thought of white men making life joy-free and unnecessarily difficult for poor people.
 
2013-04-20 12:15:56 PM  

enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.


Yeah, because criminals, they are well known for making the most logical, well thought out decisions, right?
 
2013-04-20 12:19:53 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-20 12:20:29 PM  

Carousel Beast: aNihilV10L8tr: Because as we all know, is the only thing that couldve saved those people in Boston from bad guys with pressure cookers are good guys with pressure cookers.

It certainly took guys with guns to stop them once they were found, didn't it?


That was indeed a well-regulated militia.
 
2013-04-20 12:20:33 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.

Yeah, because criminals, they are well known for making the most logical, well thought out decisions, right?


Wellll, in the movies they do and on TV,,,,
 
2013-04-20 12:21:07 PM  
If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.
 
2013-04-20 12:21:42 PM  

Pockafrusta: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 528x405]


Good thing private individuals still have the same firepower the government has, amirite?
 
2013-04-20 12:22:18 PM  
We must address the scourge of gun addiction.
 
2013-04-20 12:23:03 PM  

JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.


Your poor little world is so incredibly small.
Do get off yer ass and get out there.
 
2013-04-20 12:24:28 PM  

Dimensio: Phinn: You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.

You claimed that "Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.". Your claim remains unsupported by any data.

You have provided no rational justification for not enacting a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system that does not rely upon false or unsupported premises.


I have not proposed enacting any permitting system at all. This is yet another erroneous assumption on your part.

I am saying that the state's prohibition of open carry is both ethically illegitimate and pragmatically counter-productive to the (stated) goal of crime-reduction.

I, however, can see that the stated goal of crime-reduction (or even death-reduction) is not the true goal of legislators. If it were, they would start with traffic reform, and then move on to the "gun problem" by first repealing drug laws and prohibitions against open carry. These obvious solutions are not even on the table.

The fact that the state refuses to consider its own role in causing both traffic deaths and gun crime, and insists on doubling down on its control mechanisms, leads me to conclude that their top priority is maintaining or increasing the vigor of their control mechanisms.

I judge them by what they do, not what they say.
 
2013-04-20 12:25:25 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.

Yeah, because criminals, they are well known for making the most logical, well thought out decisions, right?


If they were good at planning things in advance then they wouldn't be robbing a 7-11.
A little intimidation goes a long way when it comes to crime prevention.

/and while I'm here, I must say you have an awesome fark handle.
 
2013-04-20 12:25:43 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: LarryDan43: WI had open carry by default up until last year when they passed a concealed carry.

We've had it in Ohio for at least as long as I've been practicing law.  I have a friend who open carries regularly.  He's a big bald imposing guy and law enforcement does get called occassionally.  They know him and just drive by and wave.


WHY?
Why dont they tell the caller that open carry is legal and they should get a life? Sure, there is always the chance it is a really dumb bad guy ...
(rhetorical question ....)


Cybernetic: Really, Chicago? Really? 532 murders in 2012, and you worry that allowing law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves is going to make it worse?


So while it was up 10-15% versus a year ago, the trend has been flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago#Murders

We got a new chief of police in 2011.
http://www.wbez.org/emanuel-defends-his-early-policing-decisions-100 72 9
TADA rahm emanuel disbanded the anti-gang strike force and moved them to beats in lower crime areas. 
TADA murders went up in poor areas.
This goes a long way to completely explaining the increase in murders in 2012.

Corrupt and Insane Police
"A few months after announcing that they would be funding the defense of Cmdr. Jon Burge, on March 17, 2009, the Chicago lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police gave a vote of no-confidence in Weis.[3] "
THE police union paid to defend a known torturer.

some possible answers -http://www.newgeography.com/content/003456-why-are-there-so-many-mur de rs-chicago
 
2013-04-20 12:26:32 PM  

JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.


There are multiple security cam examples available on the interwebs.  My 83 year old great grandmother persuaded a home invader to leave her living room because she was armed.

You need to meet more people.
 
2013-04-20 12:29:39 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Oh, the cops are going to love that.


Believe it or not some would.  One opinion expressed was that it would give the police  reason to openly  treat everybody as if they might be armed.
 
2013-04-20 12:29:41 PM  

JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.


Your statement is astute, and I am certain that no one will be able to dispute it by referencing even a single incident where a lawfully armed citizen was able to stop a crime in progress.
 
2013-04-20 12:31:27 PM  

Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.

You claimed that "Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.". Your claim remains unsupported by any data.

You have provided no rational justification for not enacting a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system that does not rely upon false or unsupported premises.

I have not proposed enacting any permitting system at all. This is yet another erroneous assumption on your part.

I am saying that the state's prohibition of open carry is both ethically illegitimate and pragmatically counter-productive to the (stated) goal of crime-reduction.

I, however, can see that the stated goal of crime-reduction (or even death-reduction) is not the true goal of legislators. If it were, they would start with traffic reform, and then move on to the "gun problem" by first repealing drug laws and prohibitions against open carry. These obvious solutions are not even on the table.

The fact that the state refuses to consider its own role in causing both traffic deaths and gun crime, and insists on doubling down on its control mechanisms, leads me to conclude that their top priority is maintaining or increasing the vigor of their control mechanisms.

I judge them by what they do, not what they say.


Thank you for admitting that you are "trolling" and that you are not in any way attempting to present a reasoned or rational statement. Your postings may now safely be disregarded, as you are intentionally attempting to disrupt discussion and you are not attempting to coherently argue for any on-topic position.
 
2013-04-20 12:32:30 PM  

JoanHaus: No one has ever protected themselves with a weapon concealed on their person or in their car


Anecdotal story time.  My old man was working in Ohio as a construction superintendent.  There was a pipefitter and Desert Storm veteran on one of his jobsites who had a glass eye.  Back several years ago, he was waiting at an intersection in the wee hours of the morning, close to a job site.  Two enterprising criminals walked up to his window and shot him in the face to jack tools and whatever cash he was carrying.  The bullet entered somewhere around his zygomatic/temporal region and blew out his entire left orbit.  He slumped over the center console (still conscious but extremely dazed) and overheard one of the perps say something along the lines of "he's still moving, finish him off."  The guy produced a 1911 from his center console and shot the armed would-be murderer in the chest.  Perp #2 ran, and the guy in the truck stepped out and drilled the fleeing criminal in the back, paralyzing him.
 
2013-04-20 12:34:24 PM  

JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.


I have never met anyone who has shot Osama Bin Laden, therefore, it is no possible.
 
2013-04-20 12:35:59 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: Farkage: Carousel Beast: aNihilV10L8tr: Because as we all know, is the only thing that couldve saved those people in Boston from bad guys with pressure cookers are good guys with pressure cookers.

It certainly took guys with guns to stop them once they were found, didn't it?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...

Looks like they could indeed get all murdery
[d3.yimg.com image 750x500]


Looks like Rob Liefeld designed their equipment. "More pouches! MOAR STRAPS!"


As to the idea of "universal carry", I prefer to regulate concealed carry. I like knowing that the armed people around me have had at least a modicum of safety training.
 
2013-04-20 12:38:05 PM  

dittybopper: Lionel Mandrake: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

And what's the solution?

There is no easy solution.  The conditions that led to that situation built up over generations, and it will take generations to change both the conditions and the culture, and like the old joke about the psychiatrist and the lightbulb, that culture has to *WANT* to change:  It can't be imposed upon them from the outside.

There are some incentives we can enact, and perverse incentives we can remove.

Certainly, gun control was tried:  Handguns were completely banned in Chicago (existing permits were grandfathered), and that didn't stop or even slow down the crime.


I've only been to Chicago once, but I don't recall having to show my passport or get searched for firearms upon entry to the city. Did that only change in recent years? Or can people just travel to somewhere else and pick up whatever firearm they please with little-to-no regulation? If the latter, then I applaud the desire of the city to reduce gun violence, but it's a futile gesture when, at the end of the day, they're still engulfed by an entire country and national culture of recklessly easy gun access.
 
2013-04-20 12:38:33 PM  

give me doughnuts: Your titties - Do they need sucking: Farkage: Carousel Beast: aNihilV10L8tr: Because as we all know, is the only thing that couldve saved those people in Boston from bad guys with pressure cookers are good guys with pressure cookers.

It certainly took guys with guns to stop them once they were found, didn't it?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...

Looks like they could indeed get all murdery
[d3.yimg.com image 750x500]

Looks like Rob Liefeld designed their equipment. "More pouches! MOAR STRAPS!"


As to the idea of "universal carry", I prefer to regulate concealed carry. I like knowing that the armed people around me have had at least a modicum of safety training.


I prefer "shall-issue" permit systems to unregulated concealed carry (though I will say that I do not entirely oppose unregulated concealed carry) so long as the training course required includes substantial coverage of laws regarding the use of deadly force. Kentucky law requires that concealed carry courses address the conditions under which the use of deadly force is allowed; I found the instruction to be comprehensive and meaningful.
 
2013-04-20 12:39:18 PM  

Dimensio: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.

You claimed that "Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.". Your claim remains unsupported by any data.

You have provided no rational justification for not enacting a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system that does not rely upon false or unsupported premises.

I have not proposed enacting any permitting system at all. This is yet another erroneous assumption on your part.

I am saying that the state's prohibition of open carry is both ethically illegitimate and pragmatically counter-productive to the (stated) goal of crime-reduction.

I, however, can see that the stated goal of crime-reduction (or even death-reduction) is not the true goal of legislators. If it were, they would start with traffic reform, and then move on to the "gun problem" by first repealing drug laws and prohibitions against open carry. These obvious solutions are not even on the table.

The fact that the state refuses to consider its own role in causing both traffic deaths and gun crime, and insists on doubling down on its control mechanisms, leads me to conclude that their top priority is maintaining or increasing the vigor of their control mechanisms.

I judge them by what they do, not what they say.

Thank you for admitting that you are "trolling" and that you are not in any way attempting to present a reasoned or rational statement. Your postings may now safely be disregarded, as you are intentionally attempting to disrupt discussion and you are not attempting to coherently argue for any on-topic position.


I'm sure your many psychological defense mechanisms are very comforting to you, but they do nothing to correct your fallacies.
 
2013-04-20 12:40:41 PM  

Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.

You claimed that "Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.". Your claim remains unsupported by any data.

You have provided no rational justification for not enacting a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system that does not rely upon false or unsupported premises.

I have not proposed enacting any permitting system at all. This is yet another erroneous assumption on your part.

I am saying that the state's prohibition of open carry is both ethically illegitimate and pragmatically counter-productive to the (stated) goal of crime-reduction.

I, however, can see that the stated goal of crime-reduction (or even death-reduction) is not the true goal of legislators. If it were, they would start with traffic reform, and then move on to the "gun problem" by first repealing drug laws and prohibitions against open carry. These obvious solutions are not even on the table.

The fact that the state refuses to consider its own role in causing both traffic deaths and gun crime, and insists on doubling down on its control mechanisms, leads me to conclude that their top priority is maintaining or increasing the vigor of their control mechanisms.

I judge them by what they do, not what they say.

Thank you for admitting that you are "trolling" and that you are not in any way attempting to present a reasoned or rational statement. Your postings may now safely be disregarded, as you are intentionally attempting to disrupt discussion and you are not attempting to coherently argue for any on-topic position.

I'm sure your many psychological defense mechanisms are very comforting to you, but they do nothing to correct yo ...


You have yet to justify your initial claim that "concealment is the problem". Your fundamental premise remains unsubstantiated and thus your claims lack any credibility.
 
2013-04-20 12:41:36 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.

Yeah, because criminals, they are well known for making the most logical, well thought out decisions, right?


So wait, you're saying that a criminal is more likely to go around, scope out all the people who are carrying, then shoot them first, rather than go in, get spooked because multiple people are obviously packing heat, get scared, and run off?  If there was a cop in there, you think they'd shoot the cop first then rob the place?
 
2013-04-20 12:44:45 PM  

namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true


Well, NJ gives concealed carry permits, but the process is so incredibly difficult and hard to pass that they rarely give them out.  I'd bet other states are like that.

But hey, I live in the south, you get a gun on your 1st birthday here.
 
Displayed 50 of 331 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report