Pantagraph.com | Letters | NIU shooting shows need for concealed carry law

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Common Sense Guy wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:41 PM:

" Alcohol is the ultimate cause that kills more people than guns in this country; primarily through the use of cars. In the cases of cars and guns, it is people with problems who cause all the deaths. How do you manage those people? With CCW? "

sigh wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:43 PM:

" re: "The Cats": You keep trying to argue in absolutes, just because no CCW holder stopped one shooting does not invalidate the system. I can list several mass shootings that have been stopped by average armed citizens not to mention thousands of documented incidents where lives were saved in muggings/carjackings/rapes/home invasions. Almost universally, crimes committed with guns use illegally obtained weapons and are committed by repeat offenders not average citizens that legally carry or own firearms for protection. There are of course exceptions to everything but it is also misleading and intellectually dishonest to base your argument off of the minority of incidents rather than looking at the whole picture and the figures behind it. Tell me why you are so afraid that someone who is less likely to break the law than even a police officer might be around to protect you in a bad situation. Sure they might try and fail, as nothing is absolute, but your chances surely have not been lessened over being shot like a fish in a barrel. 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person whereas about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person? (from 1994, can’t find newer stats) "

sigh wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:43 PM:

" re: "The Cats": All recent shootings have been at places that specifically did not allow people inside to carry by posting signs against it. I don't know about whether Wendy's had posted signs or not. The one exception was the church shooting where the church had allowed CCW members to carry on site as "security". As a result, armed church members shot the nutbag when he entered the premise and started waving a gun around. Crime rates are not solely dependent upon CCW nor has that ever been the argument, so stop hearing what you want to hear. Illinois can have a low crime rate for other factors (employment, economy, education, etc…) than just CCW but my position is that it would be even lower with it. At worst crime rates would remain unchanged based on results from free states, so what is your real problem? BTW, I had posted everything above elsewhere at least once already. I also post FBI statistics on a regular basis, which ones would you like? Finally, if my automobile argument is so weak and easy to defeat logically, then do so and let us move on. "

Walt wrote on Mar 5, 2008 7:11 PM:

" " To The Cats: Here are the real facts Parrot. 48 states have right to carry with no problems. Refute that. You can't. You think that Illinois residents are too incompetent to join the rest of the country? Why? Why do you insist that the weak be kept unable to defend against the strong or the one against the many? What is the basis of your fear. It is certainly NOT founded in fact. What part of "shall not be infringed" can you not understand?
"

The Cats wrote on Mar 5, 2008 6:19 PM:

" To all the "more guns crowd". It is apparent from these posts that you will not even consider changing your position in spite of the continuing mass shootings all across the country. In spiote of having your own words turned against you factually as well as emotionally. I know you truly believe you are right but the "world is flat" crowd also thought they were and it took 100's of years to finally wear them down and make them face reality. I hope it won't be that long for you all. More guns does not and is not working as is evidenced every time another mass shooting is carried out. More guns cannot reduce gun violence and it is being proven everyday. "

The Cats wrote on Mar 5, 2008 6:15 PM:

" To sigh...move on to the next level? I am already there and waiting for you to arrive...I can't see you yet but I am sure you are back there somewhere. No response needed to your admittedly "weak" (non-existent is more accurate) argument since it is factually incorrect and foolish. What about the other questions I pose...another shooting (10 of the last 11 in CCW states) in a CCW state. Why isn't your "plan" working? A Wendy's certainly isn't a gun free zone that you (foolishly and without factual basis) think is relevant. Illinois gun deaths down despite no CCW law? What is your answer for that? BTW before you berate other for no facts maybe you should post something besides your personal opinions. We can always count on you for insults. "

Sigh wrote on Mar 5, 2008 3:52 PM:

" re: "The Cats" First off, I have responded to your posts on several occasions and received no answers to what I have said. Secondly, my car analogy is more than reasonable and it is not a fall back argument it is my first, weakest argument but you have to beat it to move on to the next level. A gun moves a bullet from point a to B a car moves a person from A to B. There are more guns in the U.S. than cars. There are many more drunk driving deaths than all gun deaths in the U.S. every year(including justified self defense and police shootings). I am looking just at drunk driving because that is a completely preventable homicide. So we have a much higher percentage of cars being used to kill people than guns in the US. Seems to me that cars are far more dangerous and they are not even protected by the Constitution. I posted the exact numbers in a previous thread I could probably dig them out if you want. "

The Cats wrote on Mar 5, 2008 2:12 PM:

" To all the "more guns equal less gun violence" crowd. Another shooting, this time at a Wendy's, in a state with CCW. You all state emphatically that CCW will prevent these thing, cause killers to think twice, make us all safer, etc. yet it continues. More innocents die but you still want yet more guns available for more people, insisting that will somehow (?) make us safer. What is your argument now? "

The Cats wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:09 AM:

" To all...I asked 4 questions in a March 1st post and I have not seen a reply. Come on "more guns equal less gun violence" (an intellectually bankrupt position at best) people answer the questions without insults and with facts. "

The Cats wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:07 AM:

" To sigh. You continually go back tot he car argument which is so simple that it has no credibility at all. Cars, used as designed, transport. Guns, used as designed, shoot projectiles. If a car is used as designed no one dies. If a gun is used as designed holes get put in to things (including people). Those holes can kill or injure. Your argument is without merit. "

The Cats wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:04 AM:

" To HUH...the "more guns" crowd is continually saying that CCW works in other states yet every time I challenge that erroneous statement I only get attacks (no facts) coming back. The gun death rate in Illinois is FALLING without CCW. These senseless shootings continue in states with CCW. The argument is flawed by facts. CCW does not work...what it does is put still more guns in play everyday which, by the math alone, indicates, there will be more gun violence. Lunatics will find people to kill if that is their intent. CCW does not affect this at all. "

All for truth wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:01 AM:

" Idiots appear everytime there is a shooting. Carry laws are just fine the way they are. The shooter at NIU didn't walk around with the weapons everyday, he went there to cause serious injury to others.

If you are a gun owner, you know all this. If you are not a gun owner be afraid you will meet one of these shooters and not have a gun of your own. "

A Friend wrote on Mar 5, 2008 7:35 AM:

" I would like only two gun laws. The first would be a ban on all guns (with the obvious exceptions for law enforcement and military). The second would be the punishment for violating law number one would be the death penalty administered immeadiately after an expedited trial. The solution is not to give more people guns. I find supporters of concealed carry laws more deranged than the lunatics who commit the senseless shootings. "

Mrs. Bee wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:50 PM:

"
Maybe one answer to the violence is to return to the days when parents could actually discipline their children without fear of someone reporting them to DCFS as an abusive parent. Children growing up today do not know what consequences are....remember when you did something bad at school and you visited the principals office...the paddle that hung on the back of the door, now kids are sent to "time out" or the classic "I'm going to count to 3". That'll teach em! Society is way too politically correct to allow adults to do the job they need to do when raising young people. How many disrespectful kids have you encountered in the last month? Raising fees won't change anything, raising kids with a conscience will.
"

Independent? wrote on Mar 4, 2008 12:47 PM:

" Just Wondering... I have studied this issue fairly extensively while in school and can understand arguments from both sides of the aisle. Here's my question that I'd like people to respond to... Are the people who are in favor of having CCW laws also in favor of making the requirements for obtaining a gun much more strict??? "

stinger wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:52 AM:

" i see several people spouting off about doomsday scenarios.48 states have conceal carry laws and what you are worried about has not happened in all the time they have had them. what is it with the "chicken little" mentality? i carry and i have had arguements with others, but not once did i want to pull my pistol and shoot someone. that is an awful way to win the dispute and has extremely far reaching consequences. "

HUH wrote on Mar 3, 2008 9:31 PM:

" CCW is working in 48 states. Why is Illinois one of only two states that have not passed this? Do they truly not trust us? "

sigh wrote on Mar 3, 2008 1:04 PM:

" re: "Common Sense Guy " Wow, did you know that there were car racing games too? There are even some ones where you are encouraged to run over people and away from the police. Don't you see the consequences of College students with cars and alcohol, there would be dead pedestrians everywhere, oh the horror! Ban cars for college students now! Do it for the children!

.... see what I did there ;) "

Common Sense Guy wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:49 PM:

" Can you imagine a campus full of CCW people who spend a lot of time playing those shootem-up video games? Their consciences are seared with what reality would really be. You can be sure there will be even more shooting going on, especially where there are drugs involved on these campuses. Let's all have some common sense. "

middle of the road wrote on Mar 1, 2008 1:12 PM:

" because those CCW states still have mandated free fire zones , that these creeps go to to do their heinous crimes. you see there they know they are completely safe from every law abiding citizen in the area. "

Sigh wrote on Mar 1, 2008 12:42 PM:

" re: "BigC": personal opinion, personal opinion, personal opinion, conjecture.... Can you actually address anything I have said below with a fact to support your argument? "

The Cats wrote on Mar 1, 2008 10:19 AM:

" To My 2 cents. First name the states. Second this is about GUN violence not overall crime. Third how do you explain gun deaths in Illinois decreasing over the last few years? Fourth how come we still have these mass shootings in states with CCW? "

my 2 cents wrote on Mar 1, 2008 8:15 AM:

" TO BigC

Does the fact that the 7 states with the lowest crime rates ( per thousand people ) all have conceal and carry laws ?
Go ahead and explain that please so you can further your personal opinion.

Regards "

BigC wrote on Mar 1, 2008 6:47 AM:

" Only peolpe well trained law enforcement officers should carry concealed weapons. They should let people well trained by the military police also. They could carry weapons off-duty. But not just anybody with a little 2 day classroom training certificate. You could be a good person to have with a concealed weapon around, but you can't talk for every body. Imagine people with concelaed weaopons at the Jerry Springger Show. "

BigC wrote on Mar 1, 2008 6:32 AM:

" The way us Americans are now in days, will turn simple stupid arguments that turn into violent fist fights into gun fights. Next thing you know, towns will be forming militias and fight against each other and claim self defense. This country will be worst than Iraq. Not to mention all the trigger happy people out there already. Concealed carry is not the answer. "

Peaches wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:46 PM:

" I don't care what anybody else wrote. This is absolutely correct and I'm glad that this is on here. I became really worried that this would cause problems for current gun owners when our rights are already restricted too much. "

The Cats wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:47 PM:

" To: To Tim...the reason the violence ended was because the shooter killed himself. Do you have any factual proof that other students shot him? I would love to see it. How in the world can you say for certain that armed students would have resulted in less deaths? You can't, factually that is. The only argument the radical gun owners have are emotional. I think if the 100 kids in that room had been armed that 100 bullets would have been flying around and many more would have died. All who support your position have in mind the concept that some person who happened to be armed would be a great shot and know exactly when and how to apply armed resistance. 2 cops died at a council meeting...they were trained and on duty...yet they still were shot and others as well. Facts don't seem to get in the way of your arguments though. "

The Cat wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:42 PM:

" To Bluegrass...how about the city council shooting guarded by armed police, or the mall shooting, or the one in California 2 days ago at a bus stop? A crazed person (who can easily obtain a gun because of people like you) does not think rationally. Your comments clearly show the desperation of those who believe more guns will somehow result in less gun violence. You have no logic or reason behind your fascination with guns so you just rant. If CCW is so effective why dop we still have mass shootings in states with CCW laws? For that matter why was the "wild west" tamed by getting guns out of the hands of the masses...because more guns equal more gun violence. "

The Cats wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:38 PM:

" Please, since you are so well informed and clearly better educated than some of us, tell us why there are gun deaths in states that have CCW? Your post clearly says if CCW is allowed "No criminal will attack". How naive of you. "

Jim from Normal wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:25 AM:

" Illinois is dominated by uninformed ignorant people when it comes to firearm carrying. God bless the 2nd amendment, and the right o carry. No criminal will attack if he thinks he is going to be on the receiving end of some bullets. Otherwise keep carrying your useless mace and personal decibel alarms... "

Bluegrass American wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:00 AM:

" Think about it. If you were a psychopathic killer bent on mass murder, would there a better place than an area in which you are guaranteed to face no armed resistance? Gun-control advocate rhetoric aside, has anyone ever heard of a multiple victim shooting at an NRA meeting or a gun club? Anyone remember the Appalachain School of Law Shooting? No one seems to remember that it was 4 other students with handguns that stopped this nut, and no one was killed. Tighter gun laws do not stop a murder, drug addicts thieving, rapist, burglaries and robberies. All these criminals know the laws, they have a goal and their chances to be stopped quickly are null. The no Conceal Carry for these places are havens for death. Your ENTIRE state of Illinois is one of them. "

to tim wrote on Feb 28, 2008 6:15 PM:

" well had the 2 students at Virginia tech not had to go back to their cars to get their guns, less people would of died. You see it was ARMED STUDENTS that stopped that killing spree "

Tim wrote on Feb 28, 2008 2:49 PM:

" I can't believe that this suggestion is being made. The last thing this world needs is to allow people to carry concealed weapons. "

Sigh Part 3 wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:08 AM:

" Finally, look at the crime statistics for states that have passed in the last 20 years. Their crime rates are all sitting much lower (close to half in Florida for example) than they were when the law was passed. Now this does not conclusively prove that the CCW laws had a direct effect on reducing crime but there is a strong correlation and it shows that allowing people to carry certainly does not increase crime/shootings. "

Sigh Part 2 wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:08 AM:

" Second, realize that people who choose to carry legally in other states have been statistically proven to break the law (violently, or otherwise) less than even the police do, who are, in turn, less likely to commit crimes less than regular people. These are responsible, good people that I would trust with my life if need be and so should you. Third, police/security do little more than provide a feeling of safety at schools because anyone that is planning something like this will be able to plan for them and neutralize them before they can do anything. Take the shooting in the city council meeting, for example, where the shooter made sure to shoot the guards before they could react. Also, someone legally carrying concealed cannot be planned for because they may or may not be present anywhere. Adding armed guards everywhere also invites other problems, like paying for them and it is one of the big indicators of a police state – it will be a sad day when the U.S. finally becomes the police state it has been marching towards and I don’t want to hasten it. "

Sigh Part 1 wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:08 AM:

" re:“The Right Answer”: I have a lengthy response to you, everything I say further on is with respect because it seems like you are actually reasonable and are trying to come up with an answer. On its surface giving people the right to carry might not seem like it would reduce violence but you should take a closer look. First, the only people who do not carry firearms in Illinois right now are law-abiding civilians (and oddly enough: Chicago alderman), the police have them- as do criminals. Someone who is planning on rape, murder, theft, etc… has no problem being armed because they know that if caught that charge will be plea-bargained off. Mass shooters don’t care either, as they plan to die and don’t care about laws. Also, many criminals intend to kill their victims and a firearm is their only chance, even if it is a slim one. Think of the recent department store shooting were the victims were herded into the back and shot, Someone dialed 911, time that could have been used to deal with the criminal if that person had been armed and there would be five fewer innocent people who died. "

stinger wrote on Feb 28, 2008 3:31 AM:

" here's to all who would do away with guns to eliminate "gun violence"-let's get all 6 billion plus humans to agree to destroy ALL the guns in the world, oh that won't work.we can't even get 2 people to agree which sports team is the best.never mind. as to all the MASS shootings in the last few years, they all happened in so-called gun free zones. this is like waving ared flag under a bulls nose.free advertisement for a psycho with an axe to grind.he/they know there will be no opposition and they have free reign to wreak havoc. i am sorry to see our world go to hell, but removing our best defense against these monsters is not the answer.the shooting in missouri is an atrocity that should never have happened. but like was stated elsewhere in this forum, no amount of training will help you when a prepared nutcase comes in with HIS weapon already to fire and yours is not. we need serious social changes and not more laws that are not and can not be enforced. "

To: to all the wrote on Feb 27, 2008 5:20 PM:

" Part 3:
You might suggest that I give up my Constitutional right to stop gun violence. I say lets look for other ways to reduce violent behavior and identify violent people.
I have never in 30 years of hunting and participating in shooting sports known anyone who got shot or attacked another person. Why is there such a rash of violence like this in the last couple of years? "

To: To all the wrote on Feb 27, 2008 5:19 PM:

" Part 2:
Q: How would students, most minimally trained on the operation of a gun, be better at defending against these loonies than the police?
A: Because they were at the scene! They had no protection at all.
Q: Many (I have seen the number from 12 to 48) states have CCW laws then why are there still these acts of gun violence taking place in those states?
A: My first answer addresses one problem. Mental illness is another problem. Drunk driving still occurs in states that conduct roadside checks. And many more people are killed by drunk drivers than by firearms. You can look up the states yourself for example by going to the Florida website. You will find a long list of states with CCW. Numbers quoted to you vary because 49 state have CCW provisions. A few, like Hawaii, won't hand out licenses to average citizens. Vermont doesn't require a license.
"

To: To all the wrote on Feb 27, 2008 5:18 PM:

" I'd like a chance to answer some of your questions. Part 1:
Q1: If CCW is so effective why are there these senseless gun deaths in malls, city councils, and schools, in states where CCW is in effect?
A1: These places have all prohibited the right to carry on their property. The people there are expected to be defenseless. (If I should trust in the police for all my protection, why haven't they protected these people?)
A2: I do not believe the FBI is opposed to CCW. The National Association of Police Chiefs is lead by the chiefs of the large anti-gun cities who promote gun control. I personally know five police officers and none of them oppose CCW.
Q: A city council meeting in Missouri was attacked by a gun wielding lunatic.
A: I imagine the 1st policeman was taken by surprise and I don't know about the second. Please note this man had a history of violent behavior at the council meetings.
"

ISU Student wrote on Feb 27, 2008 4:43 PM:

" I am a current college student at ISU, and completely agree that Illinois should allow CCW, and further that right to allow CCW on campus. Disturbed individuals who are going to come into a lecture hall and begin shooting innocent people are not going to follow the law anyway (NIU). All that the law against CCW is doing is assuring the crazy shooters that no one in the room will be able to respond with equal force, until 6 minutes later when the police arrive and the deed is done and the shooter has taken his own life the way coawards always do.
I for one would feel much safer if I knew that there were a couple other guys in my class armed with proper training, a permit, and a weapon. Police officers are just people too, and I and others can be just as qualified to bear the responsibility of carrying a weapon and understanding laws regarding use of deadly force as they are, even if we aren't getting paid to do it as a full time job. "

redtack wrote on Feb 27, 2008 11:52 AM:

" To:Guns not a deterrent.
There are studies, (Harvard Law-"would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide") that confirm what you find hard to belive. That some countriees with high gun ownership have low murder rates, while some countries (see:Russia) with guns bans, have some of the highest murder rates. "

ISU Student wrote on Feb 27, 2008 1:44 AM:

mrd wrote on Feb 27, 2008 12:54 AM:

" is anyone else getting really tired of typing in their email addy?
to stupid right answer
you got it completely wrong! more people caring guns will make more people think twice and even refrain from acts of violence. you have obviously not lived were anyone can just strap a gun on and go out in public. well I have at first it was odd seeing all those armed people. before long you don't give it a second thought.
The majority of people want to go though life without harming anyone. that doesn't change with or without having a gun. people carry pocket knives all the time. Yet very few even think about their pocket knife when angry. sure there will be a few most of those are probably armed right now whether they are allowed to or not. but they will be so out numbered by the normal caring people. that the end result is a safer place to live. the only ones that need to be truly afraid are the evil doers. many will soon go to safer(for criminals) hunting grounds "

The Right Answer wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:12 PM:

" Stupid. Making it easier to carry guns would mean more people would carry guns. More people carrying guns means more shootings.

It's a delicate line. I'm not saying get rids of guns entirely: Trying to outlaw guns entirely means only the outlaws will have the guns.

Rather, the best solution would be more police presence in campuses/schools. "

Sigh wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:38 PM:

" re:"Guns not a deterrent ": ummm.... automatic weapons? The NIU shooting involved a pump action shotgun and a few assorted handguns. This aside, someone who had taken the requisite training and practiced in advance would have little trouble putting a stop to the situation. Guns are more of a deterrent for average crime rather than mass shootings. Muggings, home invasions, carjackings and the like all trend down after such laws because average criminals are afraid to be shot. CCW is worth it just for that, if nothing else. The way that CCW's are a deterrent in mass shooting scenarios is that the person doing the shooting is trying to go down big, making a name for themselves and the chance they might get shot early on dissuades them. It is possible that nothing would have been different if other students were armed in that classroom. However, they had no chance as it was while there would have been a slim hope the other way around. There have been several instances where such mass shootings have been stopped/lessened by responsible citizens that were able to respond. "

middle of the road dude wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:02 PM:

" so ok you don't see me as middle of the road on this subject. so be it. The fact is on MOST subjects the right is too far right for me and the left is to far left to me. hence MRD. Yet i am very tired of watching groups try to dissmantle the constitution. This is the first time in this countrys history that the congress and senate have had to try to protect the constitution from the president. who btw is the first Pres. to NOT swear to uphold the constitution from all threats from both inside this country and from abroad. We have allways had the Pres. protecting the constitution from transgressions from both congress and the senate. I think i will keep my moniker "

jack wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:13 PM:

" Most of you people have no idea what your talking about conserning concealed carry. Law abiding people do not pull there guns out to shoot anybody. They have it to protect themselves. I live in Illinois with an out of state concealed carry permit and God help you if your in trouble with me there because this permit is to protect my family and myself, period. Good luck to the next victums of violent crime. "

To Middle of the road dude wrote on Feb 26, 2008 11:42 AM:

" I don't think your comments pass as middle of the road, dude. Anyways, to your comment... The point is, yes, people will always kill each other. Unfortunately we have a lot of misplaced and psychotic people in this country and world. That sucks. But the notion that more guns for everyone is absolutely absurd. There is absolutely no correlation between more guns and less violence. "

Guns not a deterrent wrote on Feb 26, 2008 11:35 AM:

" First of all, when making an argument, never begin with many may disagree with me. It implies you are not sure of yourself. Second of all, I do not understand the logic that more guns = less violence. A man burst into a room with automatic weapons and opened fire. You really think in a chaotic classroom, someone with a gun would have the time to get his gun out, take aim and fire before the psycho had a chance to shoot off a bunch of rounds into the classroom? I'm sorry I just don't see that happening. Horrible tragedy, I just don't buy the argument that more guns is the answer. I especially don't think allowing thousands of college students (think about what college students do very frequently and all the fights that result because of it) to conceal and carry is a very good idea. Also there is no evidence that indicates guns are a deterrent to crime. "

Sigh wrote on Feb 26, 2008 8:23 AM:

" re: "To Sigh" When one actually lacks a valid response to anothers argument they can resort to insults or they can open their mind and listen. Armed security is a visible deterrent to spontaneous crime and can be overcome with any significant planning (even military bases are not immune to planned attacks as Iraq shows). In this case the aggressor approached the security guards and shot them point blank before they could respond. Their training could never come into play because they were not given the opportunity to react as it had been premeditated that way, with the killer even taking one of their sidearms to use in the shooting. CCW is a non-visible deterrent to crime, no-one can plan for it or even know if there will or will not be armed citizens present and people carrying concealed cannot be targeted at the beginning of such a spree giving themselves the chance to fight back. There was plenty of time between the start of the shooting and the end for someone in the room to end the shooters rampage as is evidenced by people attempting to stop him by throwing chairs.
"

ex Ghetto Boy wrote on Feb 25, 2008 8:25 PM:

" I lived in a gang controlled neighborborhood where murder was nearly a weekly occurence. But home invasions and burglaries really didn't happen as often as I expected. Why? The gangbangers presumed we all had guns. The ones who didn't were sitting ducks. Did I feel safe? NO! There were too many guns around for me to feel safe. I moved out of Chicago 23 years ago and never will move back. The handgun ban was in effect then, but didn't make any difference. I can't imagine the horror of a college campus of 20,000 kids carrying guns. "

promote responsibility wrote on Feb 25, 2008 7:11 PM:

" I think America was founded on principles that hold the citizen more important than the government. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms reaffirms an individual's right to safety and security. People who commit crimes must be held responsible, not those who believe in freedom and respect their neighbors. "

to sigh wrote on Feb 25, 2008 1:25 PM:

" No they would not. but on the other hand had this person felt that many of the people there were armed. he might of thought twice about doing his crime. Those that prey on others. look for easy victims. why did you not scream for more auto laws when that guy snaped and drove over children in a school parking lot? how does that differ? It does not differ at all. a guy snapped and people died because of it. should schools be car free zones also.
"

middle of the roade dude wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:52 AM:

" i have a better idea. since gun ownership is constitutionaly protected right and gun free zones are not protected by the constitution. How about you prove your gun free zones work. oh sorry i quess you can not. they are failing miserably are they not. The sad truth is murder has been against the law in nearly every country.
since man first started deciding there should be laws. some people in every society will not abide by laws. more laws will not suddenly force these people to abide by them. they and people like them have preyed on the rest of the people since the begining of time. Why should we let fools like you try to take away our ability to defend our loved ones? unless of cours you are one of the killers or wannabe killers . then i understand your position KILLER "

to to the writer wrote on Feb 24, 2008 7:19 PM:

" can you explain those c.c. states that it does work fine in "

Thought wrote on Feb 24, 2008 4:36 PM:

" "I know many people may not appreciate these proposals - especially the gang bangers, the drug dealers and the thugs who terrorize our neighborhoods with their weapons." Mayor Daley : Comments on his confiscating firearms.
Like the three groups he names could really give a hoot ! "

To Sigh wrote on Feb 24, 2008 4:29 PM:

" Great answer to my question about the city council shooting. Just ignore the fact that there were armed, well trained, and alert police on duty but still advocate that a student or an audience member would be better equipped to kill an intruder. Do you really believe that? Your comments are always good for a chuckle and always advance the cause of those of us who are for gun control. A thinking person would not be swayed by your comments and actually would be embarrassed to be associated with someone who thought that way. Thanks. "

To Jimmy 2-21, 5:48 post wrote on Feb 24, 2008 4:24 PM:

" The National Association of Police Chiefs and the FBI are 100% opposed to your position. No poll necessary. Ask a police officer if he would rather have the public with no weapons and the answer would be a resounding yes. Maybe then they would not have to wear Kevlar vests to make traffic stops. Your comments are factually lacking and just plain silly. "

To Sigh wrote on Feb 24, 2008 4:22 PM:

" Where are the several cases you keep ranting about? You keep using that phrase over and over but you never document it. The 2.5 million figure has been discredited by the FBI to name one of hundreds of groups to refute that claim yet you still use it. Where did you find that number? Just doing the math it would seem that you claim, using 2.5 million, that about 6,800 times per day people use guns to defend themselves. That is ridiculous. You simply can't carry the argument unless you provide some factual basis for your claims. As to emotion...read your 4:33 post and tell me 1 documented fact in it. "

To John Weaver wrote on Feb 24, 2008 4:10 PM:

" I have addressed questions to you on at least 4 of these posts yet you seem to disappear shortly after you write down fiction and call it fact. Illinois gun death rate dropped in spite of no CCW. How do you reconcile that? Secondly in at least 12 states the gun death rate has risen in spite of CCW. How do you reconcile that? You are right about the number of gun laws needing to be reduced. It is simply because the federal government has not gotten involved and overruled the states. 1 law would be enough...no handguns, assault weapons, or automatic or semi automatic weapons to be manufactured or possessed. 1 is enough. "

To IDT-2 wrote on Feb 24, 2008 4:06 PM:

" You rant on about how you can defeat any argument...in whose mind? Your position that all should be armed in order to prevent gun violence is illogical and absurd. Why would you think what you write would have any effect on those who actually want to engage in debate? You all keep going on about CCW yet you cannot answer a couple of simple questions. First why does the FBI and The National Association of Police Chiefs (neither a "liberal" group) oppose your position? They are professionals in the world of law enforcement and protection while you are amateurs. Second, how come we still have these mass killings in schools, malls, and city council meetings in states that have CCW? "

To The writer wrote on Feb 24, 2008 3:58 PM:

" We recently had a shooting at a city council meeting. It was guarded by 2 police officers...trained on how and when to use weapons, trained to be alert to situations, and trained and equipped to kill. It did not work. They were killed along with the others. This happened in a CCW state as well. Your arguments simply have no logical thought behind them. You "more guns equal less gun violence" believers simply look reality in the eye and ignore it. We had the wild west where everyone was armed. It did not work. We have harsher laws for crimes using guns...it does not work. We have the death penalty...it does not work. You just don't get it and, by your comments, never will. Meanwhile people die. "

To Farkel 8:24 post wrote on Feb 24, 2008 3:54 PM:

" We have these trained people...they are called police. "

Parent of NIU student wrote on Feb 24, 2008 9:09 AM:

" To l d t

I have exercised my second amendment rights "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" hunting game on our family farm here in Illinois.

I have read the second amendment nothing about tax.

Plus nothing in the constitution about college students being policemen.

Thank you and have a nice day.

"

TO NIU Parent - LDT wrote on Feb 23, 2008 1:31 PM:

" It is time to heavily tax the right to free speech. Perhaps even any news organization that exercises the freedom of press.If anyone ever gets arrested we should charge them a fee for due process. Oh, we may as well just re-institute a poll tax too. Heck, lets just tax every guaranteed right in the constitution. Well set up little tax booths right outside of churches. When someone walks up for Sunday Sermon we can tax them for going to church.
My opinion is that anybody who thinks we should tax a right is an idiot. How can you possibly suggest TAXING something that is a RIGHT GUARANTEED by the Constitution? Maybe you should spend a little money and put yourself through a few college courses at NIU. (Of course, we will tax you though) specifically the ones that deal with American Govt & Politics. Perhaps even state & local Govt. This way you can find out that not only is the right to bear arms granted in the US Bill of Rights, it is also an amendment in the IL constitution. Furthermore, it is specifically spelled out as being an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT in the IL constitution. "

Parent of an NIU student wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Parent of an NIU student

It is time to heavily tax guns, so we can fund better law enforcement, metal detectors, background checks, gun education.

Thank you. "

conceal carry service wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:59 AM:

" with the exception of VERMONT who allows everyone who is not a felon to carry.
insta-check is a very useful tool.i received my Virginia CCW license less than a month after the shootings and had to go thru a very thorough screening to get it.
we all have the right to carry under the constitution and infringement is not an option.i do believe background checks to be an acceptable evil to responsible gun ownership but do you actually think that those who commit these heinous acts are truly bothered by them.crimes committed with guns are not enacted by law abiding citizens but by those with no regard for law,life or personal honor.do not enact more gun laws, make the penalties for crimes committed with guns harsher.
kill an innocent while robbing or raping them, you get the death penalty. worked in the old days when everyone could carry openly. "

conceal carry service wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:51 AM:

" 48 states with concealed weapons laws,48 states that DO NOT train the average citizen in firearms usage.the instructors are private citizens who have passed a stringent training course and background checks before being allowed to teach.
these instructors pay for their training and then are allowed to charge for their teaching. to I AGREE: along with gun ownership comes great responsibility.in almost all states it is illegal to carry a weapon(loaded or not) into an alcoholic beverage serving establishment, for the very reason you mentioned. heaven forbid anything should ever happen to your 2 year old, but a RESPONSIBLE gun owner would never leave a gun(loaded or not) on a table within reach of a child. to everyone else: Va.Tech,NIU- once again the system failed in proper screening. both of these individuals had histories of mental illness, yet were allowed to have guns. i sell information on how to get CCW licenses in states outside of illinois and i can attest to the fact that all of them have very stringent history checks including mental health. "

to duhh wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:49 AM:

" your example happens all the time too.what if the person wants to kill you not take your moneyyou always change the scenario to fit your needs law abiding citizens defend themselves thousands of times every year "

Duhhh wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:21 PM:

" Yeah. That happens all the time. I've been killed four times by knife wielding bandits. If somebody pulls a knife on me and I'm not in a position to escape, they can have my friggin' wallet. In a concel and carry society, he'd be pulling a gun. If I had a gun in that situation, what do you think my chances of retrieving my weapon before he shoots me first? Thieves that brandish weapons are always going to be one step ahead of the victims. They're desperate, not stupid. I'm far more afraid of people who are so paranoid about our society that they feel the need to have hidden deadly force on their persons at all times...and are itching to use it. "

to duhh wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:45 PM:

" what if a mugger approaches you head on,stops ten feet in front of you and pulls out a knife and says he is going to kill you.you could draw your weapon er wait you don't have one.....nevermind "

to Fakel from Duhh II wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:24 PM:

" You mean former military like say....Timothy McVie? "

to Farkel from Duhhh wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Exactly. Thanks for suppoting my argument. "

Farkel wrote on Feb 22, 2008 8:24 PM:

" Let's try to be contructive for a change. How about enlisting a select group of students as undercover security guards, carrying concealed? Vet them, train them, identify them to each other, arm them, pay them with tuition waivers and/or credit hours. Start with National Guardsmen, ex-military and reserves, former and future police officers, maybe even ROTC. In an NIU-like incident, the second shot fired just might be AT the perp. "

Farkel wrote on Feb 22, 2008 8:15 PM:

" to Duhhhh: If the classroom scenario you paint were to play out, exactly as written, would you be any more dead if you WERE carrying? "

reader wrote on Feb 22, 2008 7:27 PM:

" Prayers to all those who suffered a lose that day. "

What IF, What IF wrote on Feb 22, 2008 6:36 PM:

" Fachna and the rest of the hand-wringers are throwing out emotional straw man arguments. We do NOT have shootouts at the OK corrale in the 46 other contiguous states that allow CC. In fact, Fachna and the rest of the would-be Nazi/Ghestappo informants cannot point to a single documented shoot out vis-a-vis their hysteria about CC in any of those 46 states in the 20th century, prohibition era not-with-standing. Fact: crime goes down, shootouts do not occur. Write the law so that firearms are illegal in alcohol serving establishments. Write it so that CC is illegal if under the influence of alcohol or drugs, even impairing legal prescription drugs. A little common sense, that ain't so common anymore, would help here. DUH! "

Duhhhh wrote on Feb 22, 2008 6:27 PM:

" I can't wait for the day when I can pack heat. That way when a mugger comes up from behind me and sticks his weapon in the back of my head I can take out my gun...oh, wait. Er, I mean, when I'm in a classroom and some nut job opens up on the students with a fully automatic weapon I have at least 5 - 8 seconds before I figure out what the heck is happening. There's no way he could shoot me in that amount of.....nevermind. "

WEB to ISU Alumni wrote on Feb 22, 2008 6:07 PM:

" Your reading comprehension skills need some work. I said "The Constitution was held hostage by the founders until the Bill of Rights was written and included as part of the whole package. FYI the first ten amendments to the Constitution are commonly referred to as "The Bill of Rights". "

hey sigh wrote on Feb 22, 2008 5:02 PM:

" I told "to all" the same thing earlier. I tell you what though. I honestly think that we may be dealing with a "slower" crowd. All that most people in IL know is anti gun thinking. Most in IL are from Chicago area and have little desire to own a gun. Perhaps they were born in the area and their parents were never able to own a gun either. They just grew up thinking that there is no "need" to have one. Who knows. Until we get some real legislators in office who will pass a CC law, most in IL will remain ignorant to the fact that a CC law can work. I do find it amusing however when someone talks about how they would never want to be in an area that allows conceal carry. I usually ask them if they could take a week off and travel to FL tomorrow for free would they do it. The answer is always yes. I usually then bring up the fact that FL has more permits issued than any other state in the nation, so they better stear clear of FL. After all Mickey might be packing. "

another to nucase spot - LDT wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:49 PM:

" I think the reference to a shot being taken by law enforcement is about the church shooting. Actually, a licensed carry holder took the shot. She was a volunteer security guard in the congregation. To be fair though, it was ex law enforcement...but she was also fired from her department for misconduct. She lost her temper with a bus driver and cursed at the civilian. Then she lied about it even though she was caught on tape doing it. In reality she was not cut out for law enforcement, but was still able to do a fine job of protecting a church with her licensed carry arm. This is no different then many hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans that could potentially protcet others by simply allowing them a basic right to carry a weapon.

Allowing someone the right to carry a weapon doesnt mean that the rest of the laws dont apply to them. Too many people here feel that if someone has a gun they are automatically a crazed "nutcase". Since nearly 1/2 of all homes in the US have guns there must be at least 150 million crazed killers out there then huh... "

to NUTCASE SPOTTER - LDT wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:40 PM:

" Responded to hoot by saying that the parents have banded together to say that they want more gun control. That is exactyl hat we need. A bunch of emotional parents responding to a rare situation with a knee jerk reaction. Since my cousin was killed by a drunk driver, does that mean that I have a good idea to ban alcohol and cars. Am I a subject matter expert who is qualified to make a legitimate proposal on how to eliminate drunk driving deaths. Besides, you didnt address his statement. Saying that they wish the gun control laws should be tighter doesnt mean that they wouldnt go back and put a gun in their sons or daughters hands to protect themself if they could go back to do it...
"

Sigh wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:33 PM:

" People with CCW’s do not go crazy and start shooting up the place as has been proven time and again using government statistics. Also, there are very few, if any, innocent bystanders shot by a CCW when trying to defend themselves or others. I cannot think of one instance where this has happened (although there could be I try and keep track). Anyone using the unintentional shooting and blood in the streets reasoning is just throwing a non existent red herring out there because 48 states have CCW now and it hasn’t happened. There have been several documented mass shootings in progress that have, however, been stopped by people carrying legally and it would be almost impossible to say how many have been stopped before there were any victims. Firearms are used defensively 2.5 million (low end number from several studies) times a year by people in the U.S. and in most cases a shot is not fired because the presence of a firearm is all that is needed to make a criminal flee. If you want to argue the point, that is fine BUT lets please try using something other than just a pile of logical fallacies and emotion. "

ldt - 2 wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:25 PM:

" Another one. "what happens when 200 people all unload at the same time" About the only place where you find that many people packing at the same time is at a gun show, in police depts, or at a miltary base. Less then 10% of the population is licensed to carry and less then 1/3 carry regularly. The notion that you will have 100+ carry holders all drawing guns at the same time shooting is absurd. On the other hand, it is not uncommon to hear of 2-3 carry holders being able to engage a suspect in a given situation. Take Appalachian School f Law shooting for instance...
Either way, I can all but guarantee that there is absolutely NOBODY on this thread who can come up with an objection that I cant rebut with a fact based answer. But I welcome all to try. I personally enjoy educating others on gun control myths. "

LDT - part one wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:25 PM:

" honestly I am surprised that the anti gun folks cant produce some people with even a small speck of intelligence to argue their anti gun propoganda. They result to the same old arguments that have been proven wrong already.

"There will be gun battles in the streets over a parking spot, etc". Admittedly, there was a RARE situation in FL today where people drove around shooting at eachother in a case of RoadRage, but from what I understand, neither of the individuals had a CC license...Even if they did, it is one incident in a state with close to 3/4 MILLION carry holders. I already gave stats in an earlier post about the rate of CC holders being arrested vs the gen public.
"

Sigh wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:18 PM:

" Re: "Confused": Easy mistake, these shootings always happen in places that have posted "no carry signs" making it illegal for people to carry on that property. So even though the state allows CCW, the places do not - creating pockets of unarmed victims.

Re: "To All": the first targets of the shooter in the city council meeting were the armed guards. One or two armed security personell are a good deterrent BUT someone who can plan knows that they must also be their first target. Armed civillians that carry concealed cannot be planned for or noticed and would not be the first target of a planned attack. "

to OGS/Obama - LDT wrote on Feb 22, 2008 3:54 PM:

" Perhaps you should look up a little info on the "Huckster" before you say he wants your guns.....Huckabee is rated quite highly according to the NRA and The GOA scorecards. He is an A+ if I remember correctly. In fact, they said that he is a champion of gun owner rights.

Hardly after your guns buddy. Though I would have preferred Ron Paul in the White House, I realized that voting for Ron was a wasted vote by the time the IL primary got here. I voted for Huckabee because he still seemed to have a chance. "

Fitasc wrote on Feb 22, 2008 3:35 PM:

" To all: Criminals do have an edge in most situations however I would rather be armed than not. In many States with CCW busines's can bar guns and most schools and colleges are "gun free" nothing more than an invitation. Most any Police Chief has CCW so what does He or She care. I would be suprised to find the FBI opposed to CCW but if they are same as Police Chiefs. S. NY Chuck Schummer, S. Ca. Feinstein, and CA.St. S D. Perata all enjoy CCW that should say it all. "

To: Hoot wrote on Feb 22, 2008 3:26 PM:

" Actually if you were to read the Tribune several pareants have come against guns and want stricter gun control. Guess that kind of shoots that idea doesn't it. That shot was taken by law enforcment not some nutcase NRA wishing to be a hero.

"

Confused wrote on Feb 22, 2008 3:25 PM:

" Whether or not law-abiding citizens can own a gun responsibly is completely irrelevant. Who cares? We're not be shot by law-abiding citizens. We're being shot by formerly-law-abiding citizens who have lost all hope. When life no longer seems to be worth living, your conscience is severed, and taking a few with you in your suicide seems like a good idea, a room full of armed students is NOT going to stop you (or even slow you down). "

Confused wrote on Feb 22, 2008 3:16 PM:

" You all keep mentioning all of these other shootings - they happen all over the nation - Colorado, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Texas (several), etc. You also keep implying that a concealed carry law would prevent people from committing these atrocities. Why, then, are they STILL HAPPENING in these states with conceal carry laws?

The fact is, you are using these tragedies, and the innocent lives lost, to promote your own desire to carry a gun. Conceal carry laws do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent these types of tragedies. "

Hoot wrote on Feb 22, 2008 3:00 PM:

" To Fachna: Yes, the scenerio you paint could happen. Or, a meteor could crash through the roof and kill the bad guy before he kills anyone. Or, a rocket launched by Martians could save the day. Or, one trained and armed lady, like the one in the Colorado church shootings, could take the bad guy out before he killed anyone else. What if one of those council members in the Missouri case had been armed and had the time to react to the threat? Concealed carry works, and yes, it needs to be controlled. I'll bet the parents of those kids at NIU wish there was someone there to offer resistance. "

OGS Gun Control /Obama wrote on Feb 22, 2008 2:38 PM:

" Obama is pushing for a global poverty tax that we would pay to the United Nations. Further Obama is pushing for GUN CONTROL. Read George Orwell's 1984,,,could happen any day. Also McInSane, Hitlery, and the Huckster wants your guns. Only Ron Paul, champion of the constitution, supports the 2nd Amendment. "

I don't get it? wrote on Feb 22, 2008 2:38 PM:

" The gunman already broke the law, he murdered people. How is a law against concealed weapons going to carry any more wait than a law against killing someone?? The logic just doesn't make sense. I will not feal any safer just because there's a law like that, if a person wants to pull off a horrific scene such as that, a meaningless law isn't going to help. "

ThosSpence wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:09 PM:

" What a demented debate. In an increasingly violent and fearful society, the only means of securing our safety is to be armed to the teeth. We can escape harm only because others fear we will kill them. Nowhere else in the world is such utter lunacy taken seriously. "

to Fachna wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:01 PM:

" Did you stop taking your medication again??? I think you may be dilusional now, as well as angry. I was hoping that the people in the white coats would have helped you by now. "

LDt wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Florida provides detailed data on permit holders. From 10/1/87 through 9/30/01,
Florida issued 780,840 CCW permits. During that period, only 1,396 permits were
revoked for crimes committed after licensure. As of 1996, the Florida Secretary of
State’s office reported that only five permit revocations were the result of a
conviction for a violent crime

Now to TX. TX had 217k permits from 96-00. Those permit holders were arrested (for violent crime) at a rate of 194 per 100k. On the other hand, the general public of TX was arrested for violent crime at a rate of 730/100k. Furthermore, out of the CC hodlers that were ARRESTED for a violent crime, 55% had the charges dropped.

TX also had only 27 out of 217k arrested for murder. Of those, 8 were immediately dismissed as self defense. 19 went to trial where 16 were found self defense and only 3 were convicted of murder. The rate of a TX permit holder commiting murder was .35 per 100k. The gen publics rate in TX is 5.5 per 100k.

These numbers show that a CC holder is typically much more responsible then the average citizen. "

re: this is crazy - LDT wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:57 AM:

" You wonder what would happen if 100-200 students all pulled out their guns and shot at the same time...

Well, in the case of NIU the class had 160 enrolled. So no more then 160 could shoot...Also, most states have less then 10% of the population is licensed. For example, Fl has the highest ratio of CC holders and they only have 780k issued permits.

So, for the sake of keeping it simple., lets take 10%. 160/10 means only 16 CC holders. Plus, not all of the kids would be able to carry based on age restrictions, etc. So, lets say that we had 10 kids carrying at the most.

Additionally, most people with a permit dont carry 100% of the time. Most estimates say that less then 1/3 carry on a regular basis. This reduces the number to 3-4. Also, the people who do carry regularly are also the ones who truly believe in the law and prepare the most.

I can understand your belief that many more people would die or get injured, but your argument doenst hold true. "

Me wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:51 AM:

" I can see why someone would argue that people should be able to carry concealed weapons. But I don't like the picture of having all of those guns on a college campus. "

to GNJAXON - LDT wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:46 AM:

" I mistakenly attributed your suicide by CC holder theory to "to all". please read the post I addressed to them for my rebuttal. Thanks. "

tO: Jimmy wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:46 AM:

" Yes Jimmy that article proves a lot to the gun control side. 1) you had one person that knowingly fired blindly just what you want someone to do. 2) you had one person enter a location that had been broken into, that is the job of the police not some vigilanty 3) you had one person shoot someone that turned out to be an ex-relative and that story sound fishy to begin with. Lastly you had another person that can not sleep and has sought medical and psycological help after shooting. Those sure do convince me that CC is needed and that everyone should have a gun. Nutjob give it up. "

Reply: To all - LDT wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:44 AM:

" For one thing, all of the places you mentioned were no carry zones. Govt buildings are always excluded from conceal carry. In addition, The shooter in the city council went at the two armed police first. He recognized the armed threat and decided to ambush the possible resistance prior to beginning his assault. His escapade may have been cut short had there been some conceal carry holders carrying in the building. He would not have recognized them as an armed deterrant and may have passed them over. This would allow the CC holder time to engage the shooter.

The mall in Utah was a resricted carry zone. Most states allow businesses to determine if they want the CC allowed in their business. In the case of the Utah mall shooting, the right was denied.
Virginia is a carry state, but the right is denied on college campuses.

Also, to address your suicide by carry holder theroy...Do you think that suicide by carry holder would be vastly higher then suicide by cop? Suicide by cop is relatively uncommon and instances of suicide by CC holder would probably not differ much.

"

LDT wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:25 AM:

" There are 48 states that allow concealed carry. Some people seem confused as to how many states allow carry...

The majority of states (37) are considered shall issue. This means that a person WILL get a permit provided that they meet basic requirements. In some states this basically means just being qualified to own a gun in general. Other states require some training classes as well.

There are 9 states that are called May issue. As in, they MIGHT issue you one if you meet the requirements. Typically these states allow the local sheriff to determine if you will get one or not. These states are generally considered restrictive, because they can arbitrarily deny a permit saying that the person has no "NEED" for a permit.

There are two states that require no permit at all. Alaska and Vermont.

Finally, are TWO states that dont allow CC, Illinois and Wisconsin. (DC as well). However, Wisconsin allows open carry. As a result, IL is the ONLY STATE IN THE COUNTRY with absolutely NO RIGHT to carry a weapon at all.

"

Jimmy wrote on Feb 22, 2008 10:38 AM:

" If these wild west fantasies people keep bringing up to argue against concealed carry occurred don't you think we would read about them almost daily as so many states allow concealed firearms. Again this is pure fantasy. Someone please give me a specific example and prove me wrong. Shoot outs in Illinois primarily occur in certain areas of the "gun free" city of Chicago. Imagine that folks gun violence in a "gun free city" wonders never cease. One only has to read todays article in the pantagraph titled forced to kill to find examples of people using guns to defend themselves. If you do not wish to exercise your right of self defense don't. However do not make me forfeit mine. "

to web ISU Alumni wrote on Feb 22, 2008 10:13 AM:

" web the bill of rights is part of the constitution not a seperate or lesser document. the bill of rights and all other amendments are constitutionally approved additions or changes to said forth constitution. or is woman and black's right to vote subject to being ignored because it wasnt included in the original document. remember its the constitution itself that allows us a process to change it and all changes are held as the law of the land just like the original text. "

The Irascible Fachna wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:23 AM:

" Actual shoot-outs often end disappointingly, unlike those on film, on TV, and in video games. Suppose, in the NIU scenario AFTER Illinois amends the law to the NRA's liking, you were to fetch your Sig-Sauer from its nest in your armpit, and some other, law-abiding concealed carrier were to decide that YOU'RE the original shooter? And what if a third, law-abiding concealed carrier saw the second one shoot you, and, naturally, shot him? Finally, the police show up ..... and what choice do they have but to shoot all of the surviving law-abiding concealed carriers in the room? The original shooter then chuckles, slips out a stage door, and shoots himself in the corridor - which was always his ultimate intention. "

Lizzy wrote on Feb 22, 2008 8:31 AM:

" To (:-D)

It's not the gun nuts I really care about - it's everyone else. Safety should be the first and foremost thought when dealing with weapons. What do teachers teach pre-schoolers? How to hold a pair of scissors the safe way.

Glad to see you still around!! "

to I'll take my chances wrote on Feb 22, 2008 7:51 AM:

" you are right there is alot of paranoia. from those that think :1) guns kill people and not people kill people. 2) those that think every adamant gun owner actually wants to shoot someone. "

jason wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:06 AM:

" i agree we all should be given the right to carry a weapon because it might keep this kind of thing from happening until they allow it its just gonna continue to happen more and more "

Jimmy wrote on Feb 21, 2008 9:59 PM:

" I agree crime is a societal issue. My point is as a law abiding individual I should be able to defend myself, if it comes to that, and I choose to become proficient in the safe use of firearms. I don't advocate having people with no training being allowed to carry a gun as Vermont and Alaska presently allow. The whole reason for carrying a gun is to diffuse a potentially violent situation without ever having to fire a shot. Many police officers never fire their gun in anger during their whole careers. I would never want to shoot another human been yet am willing to carry a gun because I also do not want to place my life in their hands. I so like it when people like myself are stereotyped as angry, poorly educated trigger happy fools. The people who ignore gun free zones are the ones you should fear, not people like me who presently obey the law but wish it were changed to allow for self defense. "

Two thoughts wrote on Feb 21, 2008 8:34 PM:

" 1. To Jimmy - based on the states you listed as CCW permissable, I've lived in two of them and don't ever remember a "citizen" shooting a bad guy on a street. Maybe in their home, but not off their property. Bad guys in these states still commit crimes and murders, but it appears the CCW doesn't cut down on that type of crime. 2. I don't think it's a gun issue, it's a societal issue. "

to to all the wrote on Feb 21, 2008 7:57 PM:

" no rational person would agree thatall gun violence would stop just because you can carry.cc would reduce deaths not stop them.we all know by the example you gave that some one walking into a room and opening fire is a rare occasion.having c.c.will not stop all shootings,everyone knows that.the answers to your questions seem very obvious "

WEB

Ads by Yahoo!

Online Degrees

Refinance Rates As Low As 5.34%

See Today's Mortgage Rates