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  
•       •       •

7887 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 12:45:22 PM

Molavian: macadamnut: Guns are gay.

Armed gays don't get bashed.


This. My cousin and his husband both have ccws and they own two very nice M4s (I bought them, customized them and provided training as their engagement present) as well. They both say that they can't understand why more gay men AREN'T pro second amendment. Not only does it provide protection for a routinely abused minority, but, they go to the range, have started hunting, and have joined some shooting groups, and tell me that they have been approached by several members saying that they have really changed their opinion about gays.
 
2013-04-20 12:47:59 PM
Is this the thread where we debate the merits of prematurely escalating a thoroughly unlikely and unpredictable situation?
 
2013-04-20 12:48:23 PM

devildog123: Molavian: macadamnut: Guns are gay.

Armed gays don't get bashed.

This. My cousin and his husband both have ccws and they own two very nice M4s (I bought them, customized them and provided training as their engagement present) as well. They both say that they can't understand why more gay men AREN'T pro second amendment. Not only does it provide protection for a routinely abused minority, but, they go to the range, have started hunting, and have joined some shooting groups, and tell me that they have been approached by several members saying that they have really changed their opinion about gays.


Did they have initial trouble with "limp-wristing"?

/I still do, to my shame.
 
2013-04-20 12:49:30 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.


You need to leave your house more...

In recent months, Darin Fowler had been the victim of several burglaries at his Oroville, Calif. store, Air Cooled Unlimited. Fed up, Fowler, a Right-to-Carry permit holder, decided to arm himself and camp out at the business. While sleeping behind the shop one night, Fowler was awakened by a thief. Fowler drew his gun on the criminal, who complied with the business owner's orders to stay put until police arrived.
A subsequent search of the burglar's home uncovered several of the items that had previously been stolen from Fowler. Following the incident Fowler commented, "It was almost closure because now we can relax a little bit now and get back to work." (CBS, Sacramento, Calif.  April 8, 2013)

82-year-old Jim Brazel and his wife were asleep at home in Linn County, Ore. when they were awakened by suspicious noises coming from Brazel's workshop. After retrieving a .410 shotgun, Brazel went to investigate and discovered a burglar. Brazel said to the man, "You take one more step and this gun goes off in the middle of your chest. Do what you want."  The criminal chose to stay put until police could arrive, 20 minutes later.
Following the incident, Brazel spoke of the burglar to local media, stating, "He's making a mistake to try country people... Because 99 percent of us are all the same. We're not afraid to shoot." (NWCN, Portland, Ore. 03/28/13)

Just after a 22-year-old woman got out of her car in Oregon City, Ore., a man grabbed her by her ponytail and dragged and attacked her. The criminal continued his attack until the young woman drew a handgun, which caused the attacker to flee. In describing the incident to local media, Oregon City Police Sgt. Matthew Paschall recalled, "He continued to assault her until she was able to defend herself by producing her legally-owned handgun." (KPTV, Portland, Ore. 04/01/13, KGW, Portland, Ore. 04/02/2013)

A woman in Elm City, N.C. was home sick from work when she heard a banging at her back door. The noise turned out to be a pair of home invaders who forced their way inside as the woman fled to retrieve a gun and hide in a closet. Eventually the burglars made it to the room where the homeowner was hiding, and when they opened the door, the woman fired at them, striking one and causing both to flee.
Neighbor Wayne Crumpler spotted the home invaders after hearing one of the criminals screaming for help in the street. As one of the burglars moved towards Crumpler's property, Crumpler retrieved a revolver and ordered the man to halt. The criminals fled, but were captured by police a short time later. Speaking to local media about the incident, Crumpler approved of his neighbor's actions, stating, "She was lucky she knew how to use a handgun and lucky she had it. Because if she hadn't, we might be going to a funeral." (WRAL, Raleigh, N.C. 03/22/13)

A homeowner in Maypearl, Texas was at home watching TV when she heard a suspicious noise at the door. When she got up to investigate, the woman spotted one of a pair of armed criminals trying to get into her home. The homeowner then went find her husband and retrieve a gun. The husband was on another part of the property, but once he heard of the intrusion he went inside the house and retrieved a rifle. A gun battle ensued, with the husband and wife firing at the criminals and the criminals returning fire.
The homeowners managed to strike one of the home invaders in the foot, while the other fled in a pickup truck to a nearby field. After succumbing to the armed resistance, both criminals took their own lives.
Following the incident, Lt. James Saulter of the Ellis County Sheriff's Department told local media, "Our sheriff is always letting homeowners know to arm themselves. This is one of the reasons why... Sometimes it takes a while for us to get out this far, and they have to take care of themselves." (KENS, San Antonio, Texas 03/21/13)

Seriously, that took less than 5 minutes to find and there are thousands more.  But keep pretending you know better, okay?
 
2013-04-20 12:51:27 PM

JosephFinn: And bad news for reasonable citizens.


Reality check: You can't be reasonable to a bad guy with a gun. Talking your way out of a bullet doesn't work. All you can do is comply, and pray you don't get shot, or a cop comes by (fat chance on the latter).
 
2013-04-20 12:52:00 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Is this the thread where we debate the merits of prematurely escalating a thoroughly unlikely and unpredictable situation?


No, in this discussion opponents of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems are to present statistical data showing an increase of crime rates in locales where such systems have been implemented and a demonstration that concealed weapons permit holders were responsible for some of that increase.

/We are still waiting.
 
2013-04-20 12:54:08 PM

People_are_Idiots: JosephFinn: And bad news for reasonable citizens.

Reality check: You can't be reasonable to a bad guy with a gun. Talking your way out of a bullet doesn't work. All you can do is comply, and pray you don't get shot, or a cop comes by (fat chance on the latter).


Be aware that JosephFinn is himself "unreasonable", as he has repeatedly lied about Constitutional issues in previous discussions.
 
2013-04-20 12:54:40 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Is this the thread where we debate the merits of prematurely escalating a thoroughly unlikely and unpredictable situation?


They're not all that unpredictable.

Nothing's perfectly predictable, of course, but gun crime is more predictable than, say, a potentially fatal traffic collision.

Time, place, perpetrator ... Gun crime is highly concentrated in certain places, times and demographic groups. Traffic death is far more random.
 
2013-04-20 12:55:01 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.


Ever wonder why cops fire so many rounds in a firefight?  High stress situation.  There is a reason people actually fear gang members with military training (happened in CA already) - they're superior to cops in a firefight because they understand combat maneuvers and can fire under duress.

Tactical units are a different story.  Patrolman?  Good luck with that.
 
2013-04-20 12:56:44 PM
Weapon of choice for Chicago in the 20's
 
2013-04-20 12:58:15 PM

Deep Contact: Weapon of choice for Chicago in the 20's


i45.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-20 12:58:49 PM

craigdamage: THIS JUST IN....


CRIMINALS CARRY ANYTHING THEY WANT, ANYWHERE THEY WANT.

btw...if Texas ever goes "open carry"
I shall carry my Smith and Wesson 21-4 .44 Special wheel gun on my hip. (Thunder Ranch Model!)
Six .44 slugs beats 15x 9mm any day imho.



i74.photobucket.com
Why do sword guys never shut up about their swords?!
 
2013-04-20 12:59:04 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.


This.

Where's Obama and Feinstein to say that the cops don't need those weapons, that they're designed for one thing-to kill as many people as possible, that they're only good for spray firing from the hip, etc.?
Where's Joe Biden to tell them they just need double barrel shotguns and that the rifle is harder to use and aim?

If the police want to be viewed and treated as a civilian police force, they need to dress and equip like one.  They're much more like a paramilitary organization than a police force, and need to be treated and regulated like one.
 
2013-04-20 12:59:39 PM

Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]


If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....
 
2013-04-20 01:00:16 PM
Any gun?


Where can I get a portal gun???
 
2013-04-20 01:01:54 PM

skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....


Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?
 
2013-04-20 01:02:29 PM

Deep Contact: Deep Contact: Weapon of choice for Chicago in the 20's

[i45.photobucket.com image 500x203]


If the Hughes Amendment is ever repealed that's the first thing I'm buying, new production or old, IDGAF.  And if it's not repealed and I happen to live in a free state I might even someday pony up the $20,000 to get a good one.....
 
2013-04-20 01:03:06 PM

enry: 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?


Cops can't shoot straight.
Downgraded threat.
 
2013-04-20 01:03:45 PM
"If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."


I just love this quote.
Suck it liberal bed wetters.
 
2013-04-20 01:06:10 PM

Farkage: skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?


So many guns, yet so few violent assaults with guns.
Hmmm. Pick one, just can't let ya have both in one sentence.
 
2013-04-20 01:07:01 PM

skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....


Farkage was countering the assertion, issued by JoanHaus, that absolutely no armed citizen would have the ability to use their firearm in self-defense in a stressful situation. Only a single example is necessary to disprove the assertion, and Farkage presented five.
 
2013-04-20 01:07:03 PM

macadamnut: Guns are gay.


You are using them wrong.
 
2013-04-20 01:07:14 PM
You mean like our constitutional rights say we can?
 
2013-04-20 01:07:16 PM

Farkage: Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?


Um... yes....  each bit you posted is practically a self-contained definition of the word anecdote. Just because they came out of a newspaper doesn't make them not anecdotes.

Also, I don't think a random farker making a blanket, off the cuff comment qualifies as a "factual claim" in any reasonable sense.

Regardless, I'm not questioning the veracity of your anecdotes, I'm merely pointing out that in the context of the larger debate, they don't exactly mean much from anything but a personal perspective for those involved.

You can't hold "self-defense" up as a valid claim when what you're doing for self-defense is statistically more likely to get you killed than if you'd done nothing. That's like saying your going to stick your head in a bucket of ice once a day to reduce your chances of drowning.
 
2013-04-20 01:09:08 PM

snocone: Farkage: skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

So many guns, yet so few violent assaults with guns.
Hmmm. Pick one, just can't let ya have both in one sentence.


Private gun ownership is steadily increasing while gun crime is steadily decreasing, so I honestly have no idea what you are attempting to say.
 
2013-04-20 01:09:30 PM
Don't all the gangbangers in Chicago already conceal their guns?
 
2013-04-20 01:09:55 PM

skozlaw: Farkage: Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

Um... yes....  each bit you posted is practically a self-contained definition of the word anecdote. Just because they came out of a newspaper doesn't make them not anecdotes.

Also, I don't think a random farker making a blanket, off the cuff comment qualifies as a "factual claim" in any reasonable sense.

Regardless, I'm not questioning the veracity of your anecdotes, I'm merely pointing out that in the context of the larger debate, they don't exactly mean much from anything but a personal perspective for those involved.

You can't hold "self-defense" up as a valid claim when what you're doing for self-defense is statistically more likely to get you killed than if you'd done nothing. That's like saying your going to stick your head in a bucket of ice once a day to reduce your chances of drowning.


There is this place you should stick your head.
 
2013-04-20 01:11:04 PM

snocone: There is this place you should stick your head.


Typically intelligent response from the pro-gun crowd.
 
2013-04-20 01:11:55 PM

Farkage: snocone: Farkage: skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

So many guns, yet so few violent assaults with guns.
Hmmm. Pick one, just can't let ya have both in one sentence.

Private gun ownership is steadily increasing while gun crime is steadily decreasing, so I honestly have no idea what you are attempting to say.


Guess that puts me in the lead, 'cause I know exactly what you are trying to misrepresent.
Your best position at this point is to claim youth and lack of IRW life..
 
2013-04-20 01:12:43 PM

skozlaw: snocone: There is this place you should stick your head.

Typically intelligent response from the pro-gun crowd.


Read my bio and then trot out that crap.
 
2013-04-20 01:13:35 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)


Umm, not true.  I know plenty of people that conceal carry full size .45 autos and they don't print either.
 
2013-04-20 01:15:23 PM

skozlaw: Farkage: Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

Um... yes....  each bit you posted is practically a self-contained definition of the word anecdote. Just because they came out of a newspaper doesn't make them not anecdotes.

Also, I don't think a random farker making a blanket, off the cuff comment qualifies as a "factual claim" in any reasonable sense.

Regardless, I'm not questioning the veracity of your anecdotes, I'm merely pointing out that in the context of the larger debate, they don't exactly mean much from anything but a personal perspective for those involved.

You can't hold "self-defense" up as a valid claim when what you're doing for self-defense is statistically more likely to get you killed than if you'd done nothing. That's like saying your going to stick your head in a bucket of ice once a day to reduce your chances of drowning.


I am a single, thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment. Please explain, with mathematical formula where appropriate, how my firearm ownership increases my risk of being killed by use of a firearm. Identify the specific increase of risk; explain what my risk would be were I not a firearm owner and explain what my risk is as a firearm owner.
 
2013-04-20 01:16:22 PM

ZzeusS: "If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."


I just love this quote.
Suck it liberal bed wetters.


And here is your fundamental flaw.  There is no group called "the criminals."  Criminal acts are carried out by any person sufficiently compromised and will use what is available to them at the time.  Less guns available, less crimes carried out with them.  This will not stop Sandy Hooks, this will not stop any specific shooting, but it will reduce the overall available potential for criminal acts to be carried out with simple deadly force, as well as reduce the number of suicides.  Belief in the existence of, and fearing "the criminals" is a lot closer to being a bed wetter.
 
2013-04-20 01:18:46 PM

Fark It: 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.


Yes, fark Pat Quinn and fark Chicago straight up the asshole with a chainsaw. Ugh. Central IL lifer, and its pretty rural/down to earth here. However, when you travel and people refer to your state as "the people's republic of Illinois", its goes to show how farked up Chicago is and how much power they wield. It'd be nice to split into two states, say north of I80 and east of 55 to the lake is Chicago; the rest of the state is Reality. If you drew the lines closer so it was easier to commute into shiatcago but live in Reality, I wonder if there would be a population shift.
 
2013-04-20 01:19:18 PM

give me doughnuts: 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.


PLEASE .... give me a break.
The idea that safety training ...
The number of dumbass shootings is legion.
No amount of forced safety classes can fix stupid.

I had more than enough safety training when I was much younger, but now to get a handgun permit in chicago I need to get a certification? LOL
Stranger still, it is impossible to get that safety training class in chicago, given that there are no gun ranges in the city.

http://www.chicago-gun-registration.com/chicagofirearmpermit.htm
"There are no public ranges in the City of Chicago. Upon completion of the classroom portion of the course, students will travel to a designated range in the north/western suburbs (determined by date of the class) for the live-fire portion of the course. "

AKA - BULLshiat
Talk about an unfair tax preventing poor citizens from being able to get a permit.

Of course, there are no gun stores in Chicago either ....

/or casinos or brothels ... wtf ... why does anyone live here again? the weather??
 
2013-04-20 01:20:18 PM

Tio_Holtzmann: Fark It: 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 ...


There's already a population shift going on, everyone is moving to places that aren't Illinois to escape the taxes and shiatty economy.
 
2013-04-20 01:20:34 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: ZzeusS: "If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."


I just love this quote.
Suck it liberal bed wetters.

And here is your fundamental flaw.  There is no group called "the criminals."  Criminal acts are carried out by any person sufficiently compromised and will use what is available to them at the time.  Less guns available, less crimes carried out with them.  This will not stop Sandy Hooks, this will not stop any specific shooting, but it will reduce the overall available potential for criminal acts to be carried out with simple deadly force, as well as reduce the number of suicides.  Belief in the existence of, and fearing "the criminals" is a lot closer to being a bed wetter.


How exactly, does establishing a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system increase availability to firearms? Are you able to provide statistical data showing that the establishment of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems increases rates of crime and rates of suicide?
 
2013-04-20 01:25:47 PM

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

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


It's an absurd wingnut propaganda site.  You used to be better than that.  What's next?  Whirled Nuts Daily?
Conservatives need to push back against the wingnuts.
 
2013-04-20 01:27:48 PM

Dimensio: I am a single, thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment. Please explain, with mathematical formula where appropriate, how my firearm ownership increases my risk of being killed by use of a firearm. Identify the specific increase of risk; explain what my risk would be were I not a firearm owner and explain what my risk is as a firearm owner.


First of all, gun policy will not be crafted to the specifications of a "thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment " so your request is both absurd and conceited at the same time.

Second of all, statistical analysis doesn't work that way.

Finally, regardless of those other two things which are enough on their own to dismiss your comment outright, there is evidence that if someone does attempt to assault you, your odds of being killed are higher than someone who doesn't own a gun. That's just the first thing I came across. It even includes links to studies that attempt to dismiss it if you're so interested.

You're also more likely to kill a family member by accident and increased gun ownership correlates with increased risk of suicide.

And, of course, none of this takes into account non-fatal injury rates.

Guns are destructive tools. That's all there is to it. Their only inherent purpose is to destroy things. It should hardly be surprising, then, that an inherent risk is associated with their ownership.
 
2013-04-20 01:29:30 PM

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.


Hawaii has concealed carry, though it requires a permit. The permit also allows open carry
 
2013-04-20 01:29:31 PM

Dimensio: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: ZzeusS: "If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."


I just love this quote.
Suck it liberal bed wetters.

And here is your fundamental flaw.  There is no group called "the criminals."  Criminal acts are carried out by any person sufficiently compromised and will use what is available to them at the time.  Less guns available, less crimes carried out with them.  This will not stop Sandy Hooks, this will not stop any specific shooting, but it will reduce the overall available potential for criminal acts to be carried out with simple deadly force, as well as reduce the number of suicides.  Belief in the existence of, and fearing "the criminals" is a lot closer to being a bed wetter.

How exactly, does establishing a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system increase availability to firearms? Are you able to provide statistical data showing that the establishment of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems increases rates of crime and rates of suicide?


Of course he's not.  There isn't one factual study that has ever showed shall-issue has increased crime.  In fact, quite the opposite.  As gun laws have relaxed, crime across the US has decreased.

If you want even more facts, look at Washington DC.  The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it.
 
2013-04-20 01:30:28 PM

snocone: Read my bio and then trot out that crap.


Yea, good point. It was unfair of me to accuse you of being pro-gun for your childish comment.

Based on your comments so far in this thread, you're clearly just a childish person in general regardless of whatever other opinions you may hold.

Have a nice day.
 
2013-04-20 01:33:57 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.


The other school of thought is that if enough people conceal carry bad guys don't know who is and who isn't defenseless so that those who don't wish to go through the hassle of carrying a weapon also get some benefit.
 
2013-04-20 01:35:11 PM

skozlaw: Dimensio: I am a single, thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment. Please explain, with mathematical formula where appropriate, how my firearm ownership increases my risk of being killed by use of a firearm. Identify the specific increase of risk; explain what my risk would be were I not a firearm owner and explain what my risk is as a firearm owner.

First of all, gun policy will not be crafted to the specifications of a "thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment " so your request is both absurd and conceited at the same time.

Second of all, statistical analysis doesn't work that way.

Finally, regardless of those other two things which are enough on their own to dismiss your comment outright, there is evidence that if someone does attempt to assault you, your odds of being killed are higher than someone who doesn't own a gun. That's just the first thing I came across. It even includes links to studies that attempt to dismiss it if you're so interested.


I am familiar with the study. It surveys a relatively low number participants for a meaningful conclusion, makes no distinction between lawful and unlawful firearm possession (the authors mention excluding individuals under the age of twenty-one, due to such individuals not being able to legally possess a firearm, but they make no mention of individuals over the age of twenty-one who either could not lawfully possess a firearm or who did not hold a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public) and performs no demographic analysis to determine any common factors amongst firearm carriers beyond firearm carry; it did not even attempt to ascertain whether individuals who carried a firearm did so because they believed themselves to be in a position where they experienced a higher than average risk of being shot.

Merely by failing to distinguish legal from illegal firearm carry, the study is useless for assessing any risk of lawful firearm carry in public.


You're also more likely to kill a family member by accident and increased gun ownership correlates with increased risk of suicide.

What are these increased likelihoods? Merely saying an incident to be "more likely" is not as meaningful as stating whether the increased likelihood is 5% or 500%.

And, of course, none of this takes into account non-fatal injury rates.

Have you data regarding such injuries?

Guns are destructive tools. That's all there is to it. Their only inherent purpose is to destroy things. It should hardly be surprising, then, that an inherent risk is associated with their ownership.

I do not deny an inherent risk. I question the claimed magnitude of that risk.
 
2013-04-20 01:36:18 PM

enforcerpsu: The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it


This is also an utterly absurd argument. There is exactly no restriction on travel in and out of D.C. which is a very small area. To argue that a gun ban in one tiny geographical area surrounded by a vast (by comparison) geographical area with relatively few restrictions on the purchase, transfer and ownership of guns caused anything related to guns or gun violence is ridiculous.

You can't say a gun ban failed in one tiny area when that area is completely surrounded by a much larger area with virtually no real restrictions on gun ownership or transport.

While what you're saying might be factually true in the strictest sense, it means nothing other than that you can't ban guns in one tiny area with unrestricted movement in and out of it and expect a positive change to occur.
 
2013-04-20 01:39:49 PM

skozlaw: snocone: Read my bio and then trot out that crap.

Yea, good point. It was unfair of me to accuse you of being pro-gun for your childish comment.

Based on your comments so far in this thread, you're clearly just a childish person in general regardless of whatever other opinions you may hold.

Have a nice day.


And some day, child, you may figure out what is important in this world.
 
2013-04-20 01:40:21 PM

snocone: skozlaw: snocone: Read my bio and then trot out that crap.

Yea, good point. It was unfair of me to accuse you of being pro-gun for your childish comment.

Based on your comments so far in this thread, you're clearly just a childish person in general regardless of whatever other opinions you may hold.

Have a nice day.

And some day, child, you may figure out what is important in this world.


To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women?
 
2013-04-20 01:42:01 PM

skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.


Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.
 
2013-04-20 01:44:01 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 can think of a situation where 6 bullets would not be enough

img849.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-20 01:47:35 PM

Your titties - Do they need sucking: 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'


No one is saying that carrying a gun will save everyone in every situation. If you watch the video you can clearly see that the gunman knew who the concealed carry guy was and shot him right after the teacher. That one scenario does not cover all cases. If your defense is to stand up in the middle of the room and pull your gun while the shooter is already firing they that obviously wont' work very well. Had instead one of the people in the back had a gun and instead ducked behind a desk prior to pulling it out and taking aim behind cover he would have had a better chance.

Another scenario is one where someone in a neighboring classroom has a weapon and is able to take out the shooter from behind, or readies himself for when the shooter comes into his classroom.

Look at the other option where no one has a gun. The shooter blocks the only exit and kills everyone in the room unopposed until police arrive.

What if instead of a gun the attacker walked in with a backpack full of pipe bombs and just went down the hall tossing one in each room?
 
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