Comments on: Chicago Tribune and Gun Control

By: Zetsumi

Zetsumi — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:44:46 +0000

This is my opinion on all this… If a person unlawfully carries a gun, and they carry it where it’s illegal to carry a CW, then any victims have a horrible chance of defending themselves.

But if the same thing where to happen in a state with a CCW law, then you would see a drop in gun crimes because people would actually be able to adequetly defend themselves

By: ben

ben — Fri, 30 May 2008 04:03:39 +0000

Where are all the gun control activist?the fact of the matter is,handgun bans,like the one in Chicago and DC haven’t saved anyone,don’t get me wrong i do believe in some sort of gun control,the ones that keep guns out of the hands none law abiding people,when are these so called law makers are going to pass criminal control laws instead of gun control laws,because i know of no law abiding citizens that are free from antiphyscotic meds,that just wakeup and go on a shooting spree.

By: David Morrison

David Morrison — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:54:08 +0000

Forbidding people (like this woman) the means to defend themselves, on the ground that doing so will somehow make the rest of us safer, is a form of human sacrifice.

By: peter

peter — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:18:37 +0000

There can’t be a cop around everyone all the time. Criminals are criminals and obviously not going to follow gun laws anyway putting an unarmed public in danger.

By: Don

Don — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:12:01 +0000

While the law failed the victim, it will succeed in protecting the predator from the same fate. Irony isn’t even the beginning when the perp demonstrates he/she has far more power than the state which is suppose to be the manifestation of the will of the people.

By: Kirk Parker

Kirk Parker — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:00:04 +0000

Jonathan, I think you left out 5) it's a case of projection. 'Say Uncle' certainly seems to find regular instances of this.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:29:54 +0000

Whenever a new and liberalized concealed-carry law has been proposed, to my knowledge in every state where such laws have been proposed, opponents have asserted that people will shoot each other over minor traffic accidents, it’ll be like Dodge City, etc. They never present evidence for these assertions, and they always ignore the experience of states that have already liberalized their laws. (Of course the dire predictions never materialize.)

The obvious explanations for this behavior by CCW opponents are either 1) ignorance, 2) they are trying to gin up controversy, because controversy sells advertising, 3) they know they won’t change the minds of CCW proponents, so they are trying to keep everyone else ignorant and thus easily swayed by hysterical predictions, or 4) they don’t want to antagonize anti-CCW police administrators whose goodwill they need in order to cover the news. I used to think the answer in most cases was 1 but now I think it’s usually a combination of 1-4.

By: Carl from Chicago

Carl from Chicago — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:01:52 +0000

It seems like the Tribune really goes a long way to avoid linking these sorts of crimes to the inability of Chicago citizens to own firearms. Even if they were to reject that linkage, the evidence seems substantial enough that they ought to mention it, under the principle of “dispassionately looking at the facts”. The fact that they never mention it is what is so odd to me, as if Indiana is a galaxy away and their experience is of such irrelevance that there is no possible connection.

I agree with your sentiment on the elites. Like Rosie, they aren’t giving up their armed bodyguards for orders of protection. They want their protection “up front” rather than after the barn door has closed.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:49:00 +0000

Isn’t an obvious conclusion from this tag line that if the system can’t protect innocent people from those committed to harming them, that people should be allowed to protect themselves?

Yes, if you value more the protection of innocent people. No, if you value more the preservation of political elites’ privileges.