Pantagraph.com | Letters | Concealed carry law should be very limited

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.

Annie Oakley wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:21 PM:

" HAVE GUN WILL TRAVEL. lol "

Russ wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:37 AM:

" Well I knew my letter would stir the pot. I'm not a big fan of blogs "E-courage" makes it way to easy to rant at a fellow human over the 'net and say things we normally wouldn't say face to face. Anyhow, I don't think anybody on either side of this debate will convince me that it's black & white. Calling someone a "Gun Nut" because he/she has a belief that the constitution states that they may own them does no good. I didn't say that a concealed carry law will NOT stop certain persons from committing crimes, it just won't keep a sad & suicidal person from carrying out their act of violence. Guns in the hands of the wrong people is a problem. The question is, how do we keep guns away from those people? Got any answers? "

neilevan wrote on Mar 3, 2008 9:12 AM:

" The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. And the purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.

The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed.

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.

In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in
the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!)

To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no
steenking permits!" "

DJStuCrew wrote on Mar 2, 2008 5:52 AM:

" The object here isn't to deter, although many different studies have shown that CCW does just that for some criminals intent on staying alive. The object is to minimize the damage. The author is correct in saying that many of these shooters are suicidal, and we have seen the futility of having "gun free zones" where any disturbed individual will ignore any such policy or law, turning it into a "criminal empowerment zone" instead. If a trained, licensed teacher or adult student or two had been present at NIU or Virginia Tech, the body count might have been much lower. Having a fire extinguisher handy when a fire breaks out and is still small is smart, rather than calling the fire department and waiting, letting the fire grow large. The same is true of guns. Police can't be everywhere and often take a long time to arrive. In a majority of these cases, they arrive AFTER the shooting is over. If you were in class and a madman kicked open your classroom door and began shooting, which would you rather have; a cellphone or a gun? "

stinger wrote on Mar 2, 2008 4:41 AM:

" to all: statistics have been thrown back and forth like a kids ball. what does it matter if the number is 80,000 , 800,000 or 2.5 million? as long as one life is saved due to conceal carry that is fine with me. what if it was your wife/husband, son/daughter or your parents? would it not make you feel better knowing that someone saved them because they had a weapon and was willing and able to use it for DEFENSE? when my daughter was young she was terrified of guns. then she grew up and married a fine man who just happens to build them for the military. now she is an avid shooter and also studies martial arts. she is even working on getting her CCW permit. she will never lay down and be a victim. a scumbag will have to work very hard to take whatever it is he wants from her. wake up people. the wild west was not as wild as you think. GUNSMOKE style shootouts were rare as they were way too risky. back shootings were the norm. just watch the history channel sometime and you will see for yourself
"

gad wrote on Mar 1, 2008 11:58 PM:

" hey irrevelant fatwa: you libs should argue about abortion and gay rights and leave adult matters to the adults......if you gave up the nra in 64 you are old enough to know better "

The Cat wrote on Mar 1, 2008 4:40 PM:

" To: “The Cats”. Cute using my posting handle with a slight modification to try to negate my comments. When you have no real arguments on an issue it is best to confuse everyone. Perhaps I should take it as a compliment since you always lose these posting threads. If you notice the multiple shootings have been in “gun free zones” lately where the concealed carry laws are not in force. The National Associations of Police Chiefs is a left-wing antigun group as has been explained to you in the past so citing them is no different that you complaint to “real American” and his sources. "

middle of the road wrote on Mar 1, 2008 4:34 PM:

" to The Irascible Fachna they still carry that way in AZ. and it still works well "

lukem wrote on Mar 1, 2008 4:33 PM:

" Law enforcement or military experience is NOT the only way to get training. Many civilians choose to get training on their own from places like Front Sight, Gun Site, Suarez International, etc. I myself became a life member of Front Sight a month after I received my concealed weapon permit because I feel that if I was going to carry a gun then I should be well trained.

And for more information on concealed carry as well as state permit maps, you can visit www.usacarry.com "

farkel wrote on Mar 1, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Fachna, next time you renew your FOID, I hope the ISP does a background check. I think and hope you'll be denied.

Liberal (I never have understood why you're LOL) the point of concealed carry is protection, just in case. It is not offense, but defense. In an NIU-like incident, the second shot fired just might have been AT the perp. Ask the last dozen people shot if, given that some nut job had already opened fire, they would or would not prefer someone returning fire. "

The Irascible Fachna wrote on Mar 1, 2008 1:32 PM:

" Now, I don't have any problem with OPEN carry. Strap 'em on yore hips, Pilgrim, n' carry 'em like a stand-up man! Hidey-hole guns are for crooked faro dealers n'pimps. OPEN carry, that's the ticket! Yeah, then you can see th'nutcases a'comin'! "

Walt wrote on Mar 1, 2008 1:16 PM:

" WEB to all those trying to keep me from exercising my rights here in Illinois. Your reasoning does not stand up in the face of the facts. 48 states have right to carry in some form. The only thing that is happening is that there is a move nation-wide to expand the right and to elininate "gun free(AKA Kill)zones. Every time you read about another mass murder, in the fine print you will find that it happened in a "gun free zone". Illinois gun owners have had their constitutional right to keep and bear arms stripped from them thru legislative fiat concocted by the Chicago(Daley)political machine. Wake up Illinois. Support H.B.4544. The Illinois version of the other 48 states carry law. "

middle of the road wrote on Mar 1, 2008 12:39 PM:

" to cats
Please look at AZ. They have always been able to carry. Starting at 18 years old. right out in the open. you checked you gun at the door of the bar same with long knives. if you went to the bank, they preferred you left it in the car or truck. if you were on a bike you checked it at the door. Many violent crimes have been stopped do to the presence of an armed citizen wandering on to the scene of a crime. most without any shots fired "

middle of the road wrote on Mar 1, 2008 12:32 PM:

" RE LOL Liberal (:-D) wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:16 AM:
LOL you call it a house fire... I think this is more akin to a forest fire or an oil rig fire. The best way to control a forest fire is to back burn. The best way to put out a oil rig is with dynamite.
You see I dont feel that the best way to control a forest fire is to cut down all the trees.
IF it is really just a house fire. Well Im not going to give up living in a house and go back to a cave. Just so that there is no chance that my house will burn down "

Jarhead71 wrote on Mar 1, 2008 12:01 PM:

" IF anything even close to what Fachna has described had EVER happened in any of the 48 other pro-2nd Amendment States, the liberals would still be talking about it. Fact is, it has never happened, so all they can do is wring their hands and say; "What if" "

The Cats wrote on Mar 1, 2008 11:12 AM:

" To Russ...if you really believe that armed students (I can imagine getting ready for school, backpack, pen, M16, Kevlar...yea I am ready to go) would have made a difference then why are all these mass shootings happening in states with CCW laws on the books? How do you know only 3 students would have been armed? How about 100? Then you would have had 100 bullets flying around the room and the death toll would have been much higher. Can you not see the absurdity of your position? Following your logic everyone in the country should be armed. It was tried in the "wild west"...it did not work. "

my 2 cents wrote on Mar 1, 2008 11:10 AM:

" To Liberal

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 " "

The Cats wrote on Mar 1, 2008 11:07 AM:

" To Chicago murder rate...you "more guns" folks have to get more creative. Your argument is lame due to the fact that within 15 miles of inner city Chicago anyone can buy a gun. We need national not local laws. This argument (if that what it is) has been refuted on many posts on these sites but continuing to use it just shows how factually lacking your position is. "

The Cats wrote on Mar 1, 2008 11:04 AM:

" To real American...you quote a group that can only be considered pro gun and yet you expect us to believe their numbers? Any other support for those claims? Only 2%...I guess you should hope that you aren't in that 2%. Why does the National Association Of Police Chiefs oppose CCW? They are certainly not a liberal group. In fact, without CCW Illinois gun deaths declined over the last few years. Why do you suppose that is? One last note...in regards to Florida, the FBI is unequivocal when they state gun deaths declined because of the crushing of the Columbian drug gangs in that state...not CCW. "

The Irascible Fachna wrote on Mar 1, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Unlimber that long, matte stainless barrel in an auditorium full of concealed carry nutcases? I don't think so. I'd be the first that some NRA "Armed Citizen" would target as the shooter. And quit trying to shanghai old-school sportsmen into your crusade - not all "leftists" are unacquainted with firearms. I RESIGNED a life membership in the NRA back in '64 ..... saw the cooties coming. "

gad wrote on Mar 1, 2008 8:42 AM:

" hey liberal....one of the guns used at niu was a pump shotgun. do we have to ban those also. hey fachna....if you were present and armed while some nutjob was slaughtering kids, you wouldn't try to stop him??? what does a leftist do with such a fine gun as the python? "

real american wrote on Mar 1, 2008 8:34 AM:

" In the 10 years following Floridas passage in 1987 of their concealed carry law, over 400,000 citizens obtained a permit to carry a firearm. According to F.B.I reports the homicide rate fell 39% in the 10 years following the law's passage. Floridas murder rate is now below the national average. The writer of this letter needs to do more research, as do all you other gun grabbers out there who only listen to liberal media reports. In 1993 Newsweek printed a story using F.B.I. reports. The story reported that only 2% of civillian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The error rate for police officers was 11%, more than 5 times higher. (*This information was obtained at www.gunowners.org*) Don't just take their word for it, do your own research. You will be surprised at what you find. Illinois needs a concealed carry law NOW. "The right of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT be infringed", sound familier? How about this one, "Give me liberty, or give me death." "

GC wrote on Mar 1, 2008 8:08 AM:

" I'm for the law it would make as people say the bad one's and maybe the nut's think before they try something. But i'm also for training on how to use it and when. "

Concealed Carry wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:19 PM:

" You'd think that if concealed carry is as bad as Illinois Liberals say it is, some of the states that enacted concealed carry laws would have repealed them by now. You know, once they began to experience average citizens running around shooting people all the time (like you tell us would happen). Strange how so many Illinoisans have served in the military, but once they're discharged and return home to Illinois they are immediately considered incapable of the responsibility of defending even themselves. "

Chicago murder rates wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:09 PM:

" If you check the Illinois State Police website crime statistics you can calculate that Cook county has about 11 murders per 100,000 citizens and everywhere outside Cook county (combined) and 3 murders per 100,000 citizens. Why is the murder rate nearly 4 times higher where handguns are banned and gun registration is required?
"

Dear Russ wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:02 PM:

" What about the lady in Colorado who stopped the gunman at the church? Gee, no special police training necessary, knew just what to do and who was the bad guy. Save peoples lives, all by her average-citizen self.
What if instead of your scenarios, we consider this one: gunman starts firing at students from a stage (by himself), students (all looking toward stage) realize person on stage is trying to kill them. Three responsible citizen students pull guns and shoot the criminal. Killing of innocent people stops. I'd like the chance to defend myself if I could, but you don't believe I should have the right to even try. I'd think if your scenario was realistic, we'd have heard it on the news by now from one of the states that allows concealed carry.
"

to To: Bluegrass American wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:42 PM:

" You obviously missed the first 15 minutes of the CNN live coverage "

Census Boy wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:40 PM:

" As a former census taker (we were called ennumerators in the field) NEVER did we ask the residents if they ever used a gun in self defense. "

To: To: TO web wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:58 PM:

" Hey buddy where are you. I posted several posts where I refuted your stated about 2,500,000 and you have disappeared. I guess you can not refute data like that huh. Face it buddy the Kleck study is faulty and useless but you NRA nutcases keep on using it until someone like me shuts your mouth and then you disappear until the next article or letter to the editor pops up. Just to warn you I will again silence your mouth until you decide, if you can, that you can not win and you can not defend statistics from the FBI or the Bureau of Justice, etc. "

To: Robert Edward Johnson wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:22 PM:

" And so why has the murder rate in IL and Chicago gone down so much then? SOunds as though according to your logic our murder rate should ne sky rocketing as we as Chicago but it is not. Actuall our murder rate has not been this low since like the 1970's. "

To: TO web wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:04 PM:

" According to the FBI website there were 241 justifiable homicides last yeat by PRIVATE CITIZENS. If waepons were pulled 2,500,000 times then there are a lot of times that weapons are pulled that prbably should never have happedn. Again the Kelck study is faulty and you NRA nutcases keep using the numbers even though they have no backing. The study was all driven with the sole purpose of justifying the NRA existance and from the numbers reported by the Fedearl Government those numbers are in correct, of course unless the federal government is incorrect and the NRA and Kelck are correct. Let me see who would ie Believe???? Keep on spouting off PARROT and I will pick you apart. "

To: To WEB wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:53 PM:

" According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

Wow that is a lot less than 2,500,000 times buddy. Hey PARROT want to speak now. This came from the Bureau of Justice Website.
"

Robert Edward Johnson wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Russ, the reason for right-to-carry is that empirically, in states (e.g., FL, TX) and cities (e.g., Philadelphia) where it's been adopted, the murder rate goes DOWN. That's probably partly because the alleged nut-job who is allegedly so miserable that he'll slaughter without thought for his own life actually might think twice about it, and those who DON'T think twice are more likely to be near someone who will not need to "get the draw" on the nut-job but will simply shoot him in the back (and rightly so) when the nut-job starts shooting. "

To: To: To WEB: wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:39 PM:

" According to the Census Bureau's annual National Crime Victimization Survey there are about 80,000 times a year that firearms are used in self-defense - a mere fraction of the number that Kleck's survey claims. Unlike Kleck's survey, the Census Bureau's survey is not just a single phone call. It involves trained interviewers who follow up with seven interviews with the same household over a 3 year period in order to verify the accuracy of the data. A good source of information about Gary Kleck and his survey is the Aug. 15, 1994 issue of U.S. News and World Report. The article lists other flaws that have been found in Kleck's survey results. ENOUGH SAID PARROT, haha "

To: To WEB: wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:54 AM:

" The study stands. In it they state that they used "the most conservative" numbers. If they included the higher numbers in the studies they would have doubled the figure. It is a peer reviewed study that has never been refuted by any peer reviewed source. You say it's weak Parrot. Prove it with a cited source. "

WEB to LOL Liberal (:-D) wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:44 AM:

" In your first post your reasoning is incorrect. Rather than compare the gun to a flame thrower in the case of a fire you should, correctly, compare it to a fire-extinguisher. As to the Chicago gun ban, it would appear that you agree that it DIDN'T WORK. It disarmed the LAWFUL citizens, not the criminals. That being the case, why allow it to continue? "

To: WEB wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:31 AM:

" You refer to the Kleck study which is vert flawed buddy. First he states the use is somewhere between 800,000 and 2,500,000 so your numbers will have a very large variance. Next this study relies upon the person that drew the gun to determine whether the use of the gun was self defense so your statement is full of a lot of holes. You need a different story buddy this one is weak and used too much to stand up anymore. "

Qualification to Carry: wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:23 AM:

" "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well regulated, at the time of the writing, meant being able to hit what you aim at. The same as a well regulated clock kept good time. Well regulated, like the current meaning of "hot dog" had its own meaning, not just the sum of two individual words. We'll see what the SCOTUS has to say later this year. "

To: Bluegrass American wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:21 AM:

" You need to read the post buddy. One instance has the perp subdued PRIOR to the people with guns appearing so the perons with guns had no impact on the arrest, the arrest was already completed and without incident.

The other portion that you obviuosly do not understand is that the STUDENTS with the guns were POLICE OFFICERS so your point is what??? They were police and allowed to carry guns they were not ordinary students. "

WEB wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:56 AM:

" 2 1/2 million times a year(6500+ times a day) guns are used defensively by law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminal acts. The students at NIU were denied their very basic right to self defense because of our misguided nanny-state gun laws that time and again fail to do any good. The gunman got off 54 rounds because he chose a "gun free zone" to commit his crimes. Wake up Illinois, demand from your government representatives that your rights be restored as they have been in 48 other states without incident. "

To my dear Fachna wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:50 AM:

" 48 other states have some form of concealed carry. What you propose will happen in IL, does not happen in any of those other states. So are you saying that IL citizens are just that much more stupid than citizens in every other state but one? We can't handle freedom to defend like all the others do? Listen to yourself, man. You are predicting a very ugly future, but it's based on absolutely nothing. "

OGS to LOL Liberal wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:46 AM:

" Your simpleton use of logic just doesn't work anymore. Give it up and take a nap. Thank you. "

Bluegrass American wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:41 AM:

"
To To: Bluegrass American.... yea, and what is your point? My point is there were two students that had gotten guns from their cars and before the policeman got there. Can't have guns on that parking lot but they did. One was an ex marine (no permit to have that loaded gun) who was taking courses there. Like most all the media, they never elaborated on these students with guns, and it was the students with guns that stopped him, period. The gunman raised his hands because he had 2 guns drawn on him by 2 of the students while another student tried to subdue him. The gunman hit the unarmed student in the mouth, that's when the student tackled him. Did you read that...didn't think so. Oh, almost forgot, the policeman showed up after the guy already had guns drawn on him. "

WEB to Russ: wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:35 AM:

" Would you than also be in favor of allowing citizens to vote only AFTER passing an approved civics course, or to allow The People the privilege of writing in newspapers only after passing a journalism course approved by the state? It's a slippery slope you suggest here Russ. At what point does it end? "

Russ is Wrong: wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:26 AM:

" When a good guy needs to survive an encounter with a bad guy there are two possible results. (1) Police arrive on the scene later to find the innocent victim hurt or killed. (2) They arrive on the scene to find the victim OK and the offender on the floor. Every cop in American is going to pick the second result. Support H.B.4544. Illinois' Personal Protection Act.
"

The Irascible Fachna wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:14 AM:

" Yes, Russ, I can very easily imagine law-abiding concealed carriers blowing one another away in a chaotic situation such as a college lecture hall shooting ..... and later-on-the-scene police officers blowing away a few more in the confusion. In such a situation, the very last thing I would do would be disturb my 8" Colt Python's slumber in my armpit. And, if Illinois should ever pass concealed carry must issue, you betcha I'd be "going heavy" ..... with that many armed nutcases around, what sane person wouldn't? "

To: Bluegrass American wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Wow what a story. I think you need to read a little more on the story though. One account has a marine tackling the shooter before anyone showed up with a gun to stop the gunman, and the gunman even put his arms up to surrender and was tackled by the ex Marine. And those two persons you elude to were both police officers who are allowed to acrry their weapons, although they were not allowed on the campus. See nutcase these were NOT ordinary students as you elude to but rather POLICE OFFICERS. I know this is just something that you NRA nutcases like to forget. Just try to report all the information on a story, wait that is not what the NRA is known for, I forgot. "

Bluegrass American wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:43 AM:

" Russ, we are friends and still will be. How do you explain.....Two of the three Virginia law students who overpowered a gunman in a fatal school shooting were armed and used their weapons to disarm the shooter....... Two students got guns out of their cars, another man and a police officer joined in and they stopped Peter Odighizuwa from killing more people. National News. Don't remember? Didn't think so, the news media never mentioned that the students had guns that stopped him, they only said that the students tackled the gunman. How do you think they had him in a position to tackle him? If I were in that position or a life threating one, I would rather have a gun for my protection than a guitar. I understand your thoughts, but can you understand mine? Love ya Russ. "

Thomas D Dittmer wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:48 AM:

" I refer all to the story posted on WorldNetDaily regarding police agencies' recommendation regarding personal firearms. This story relates police agencies admiting ownership of personal firearms is the BEST deterrent to crime. Imagine that! Perhaps the citizenery of the United States should begin to accept PERSONAL responsibility for their own lives and protection! "

LOL Liberal (:-D) wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:16 AM:

" Well said Russ - great points made with clear reasoning. Take cover now, cause the gun nuts are coming for you. They will tell you that Chicago has high gun violence because of it's strict gun ban. Like Chicago was so void of gun violence before it passed the gun ban. We need a national gun ban (exception for hunting - no hand guns or assult rifles) if it is going to work. You can't put out a house fire with a flame thrower. That's what the gun nuts are proposing. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Learn Forex Trading

2008 Diet Of The Year:

Cheap Airfare