Will Illinois Get A Concealed Carry Law?

Chicago has home rule, so I would guess Chicago wins, but not sure. Any municipal attorneys wasting time today?

Asinine how?

Most states have this law, and I've seen little evidence that the law has caused a spike in shootings or related incidents. Have you? I am willing to change my mind if the facts demand it.

Accidents will no doubt happen, but I am willing to give people the right to defend themselves as long as they take regular, deep training and are held responsible for reckless or negligent behavior. I am not a gun nut--don't even own one, and have only fired guns designed for hunting--but I think regular people--not just criminals, nor paranoid local officials with taxpayer funded bodyguards and their own packed heat--should be allowed to at least think they are defending themselves. Tax (non hunting) ammo out the ass if you are worried about wasted shots.

Doesn't all preparation for self-defense involve an illusion, though? We prepare for threats we think we might face, whether through martial arts or pepper spray or, on a larger scale, nuclear missiles. Sometimes we are wrong, sometimes we are right. But people should have the right to defend themselves within reasonable bounds, don't you think? Do we leave this merely to the government?

Natural selection will indeed help keep tabs on the overly stupid people with guns.

"Nothing like fear of sudden murder to keep the plebs in line."

Or the potential muggers worried about who might have a gun and also have the skill to use it in a quick manner. Fear can indeed bread something that resembles respect, or at least caution on the part of criminals and trouble makers. Basic human nature.

I agree generally, but I still don't think any of those points erase the need (bad word, I know) for responsible citizens to defend themselves. You assume that citizens cannot be responsible when it comes to firearms. I know scores of gun owners that would counter that assumption. I also think you assume that all criminals cannot be deterred by various means, perhaps including armed citizens. I am not sure the facts support that yet, though I am willing to have my mind changed. Not every criminal, for instance, is a junkie or insane. Many are pretty rational, at least as far as being a criminal goes. And like it or not, fear works, oftentimes pretty well. We fear losing our jobs, so we save more and work harder and learn new skills. We fear spending a weekend in Cook County Jail so we don't fight at bars even when drunk SOBs goad us on.

don't assume all gun owners are irresponsible. I have a FOID card myself, though I haven't owned a gun in years. Before I got it I took an extensive gun safety course, not that I needed it as I grew up in a family that hunted, but it was for my own peace of mind.

But we're muddying the issue a bit. Concealed carry is about packing when you're out and about. I can stalk around my home with my rifle if I like. It's the notion that people will be armed, in public, with concealed weapons. That strikes me as an irrational amount of fear. I foresee jittery types carrying firearms into "dangerous" neighborhoods (Like Wicker Park!) which will not end well.

Looking at statistics on violent crime, robbery and assaults the numbers have trended down for decades. You're right, not all criminals are bug-eyed junkies, some are just dumb desperate fools who threaten people outside bars with a knife. They should be arrested, jailed and serve their time, not summarily executed.

Honestly, I'd be all for unconcealed carry. Go on, strap on a side-arm old-west style. And I'd fully support businesses declining to serve the armed and general social avoidance of people who think that a weapon makes you safer, when really it just makes you armed.

@dopplerd
we do NOT need Lincoln Park Trixies lighting up Sedgewick with their pearl handled vanity gun because a bum "threatened" them.

Hysterical and completely true. A good friend of mine is a really scary looking dude. 6'5", about 280 and tattooed, shaved head, muscled mexican dude. He's also a eucharistic minister and one of the nicest human beings you will EVER meet. One more than one occasion, once in my company, he politely spoke to a woman (once to say she's dropped her phone, another to ask the time) and was threatened with mace/pepper spray. Seriously it went
"Excuse me Ma'am you drop-"
"STAY AWAY FROM ME!"

At worst, he'd have gotten an eyeful. Concealed carry? I don't like to think about it.

You make good points that people like me must consider. But, save from noting the general crime trends, you rely too much on anecdote for my tastes (though I admit I do, too). I just can't get over the fact that I am prevented under the law here from taking on a reasonable level of self defense, even under the conditions I propose (I would honor requests and laws about where I could carry my gun, too, though some people would not). I simply don't trust government to do it for me, especially as crime shows all the signs of undertaking a significant upswing in the next few years. Absent more facts, I can't change my mind on this.

But, save from noting the general crime trends, you rely too much on anecdote for my tastes (though I admit I do, too).

Don't dismiss anecdotes out of hand. Cumulative, they are useful, and in some cases can weight statitics, which are very easily manipulated, especially on this topic. We're talking about "giving" people a "sense of safety". If the desires of some can be in play, the experiences of others should be as well.

The DOJ gun violence stats are a good read. I don't trust the NRA or sites that seek total bans on firearms, it gets histrionic real quick.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

I just can't get over the fact that I am prevented under the law here from taking on a reasonable level of self defense, even under the conditions I propose (I would honor requests and laws about where I could carry my gun, too, though some people would not).

I think the argument hangs on the definition of reasonable. I don't think that people carrying concealed firearms is a reasonable defense. Non-lethal alternatives are available and sensible precautions can prevent quite a bit of crime.

I simply don't trust government to do it for me, especially as crime shows all the signs of undertaking a significant upswing in the next few years. Absent more facts, I can't change my mind on this.

Because of the recession? I'd generally agree, but I don't think there's going to be an upswing in violent crime, more property crime, theft and robbery. The best advice cops give when being robbed is to drop your money and run. The mugger wants your cash and as little trouble as possible. Pulling a gun escalates the situation. If things really are going to get more dire do you really think adding more firearms to a scared populace is a good idea?

Well, there has been an upswing in crime in Chicago over the past couple of years, according to city statistic and ... uh ... anecdote.

Reasonable is a vague thing, isn't it? I agree-there are many self-defense steps one can and should take that fall short of carrying anything more lethal than pepper spray. I take most of them. For me, reasonable would probably stop at the right of a responsible citizen to carry a concealed handgun provided that citizen underwent regular training and certification, engaged in no reckless or negligent acts, and paid a high tax on (non hunting) ammo, and obeyed the part of the law that limits where the guns can be carried. That's about as far as I can go.

And perhaps I am in the minority, but I do think--no, I have no stats to back this up, as there are no stats--that some criminals would be deterred by the thought that the victim might have a gun and be able to use it, even if it is only a .22.

Here's some sand for the oyster. You say you don't have faith in the government to protect you (ie cops) but you do have faith in the same government to keep guns out of the hands (and purses and pockets) of those who would use them recklessly?

I'd point to the Licenses for bribes scandal and the entirety of the Daley administration as my evidence on that.

Each activity allows for some errors at the margins, but that's a good point.

I trust the ISP more than the SoS office, though. Much, much more.

So ISP should take resources from policing to administering gun permit program? I don't like that deal.

Seriously, how much resources do you imagine this taking to do background checks and the like? And you can always hire a few more clerks from the licensing fees. Training you can do at certified facilities, paid for by gun owners. I call red herring on this one. Sorry.

I firmly disagree. On one side you talk about rigorous training, but on the other is just "hire a few more clerks" to license the gun owners.

As suggested by the sheriff in the lede, "If we allow concealed carry, we must make sure only the right people have the guns. This is best done by requiring training, proper identification, and a thorough background check — including a mental evaluation." Do you want those things in the hands of a clerk?

Sorry, I don't mean to be annoying with multiple post, but what do you think goes into a background check? It's basically checking out existing records, not polygraphs or home visits or IRS data mining stuff.

How much money, then? My view is that the cost can be borne through the licensing fees. You have a different view. If so, provide details. In any case, this a rather minor objection to the broader concept of concealed carry.

Cops don't generally propose programs that would amount to unfunded mandates on their departments. Not saying it can't happen, only that is generally does not. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide.

So, we just let the gangbangers have guns, then, while the rest of us go without? I don't understand the logic. No, I don't think guns will make any of us into John Wayne or Gary Cooper, but what's wrong with reasonable self-defense?

And if police do pressure gangs--and it has happened--fear does work, at least around the margins--fear of losing one's profits, of one's life, of one's freedom (granted, this does not work on sociopaths, or people too far gone from civilization). Fear almost always works in some way. The most primitive parts of our brains make sure of that.

"So, we just let the gangbangers have guns, then, while the rest of us go without?"

Actually, I would say yes, we do just that, though I would say it's disingenuous to say we "let" gangbangers carry. It's as illegal for them as it is for anybody else. A better suggestion would be to apply the pressure on the criminals through police pressure, as you suggest has worked before.

My point, though, is that gangbangers exemplify a group of criminals undeterred by the fear that those they attack might be armed. This example points to a flaw in your argument.

Criminals already pack on the CTA, despite the law against it. I can't imagine "most" people in Chicago would choose to carry a gun, or want to spend the money for a gun, ammo, training and license. Yes, there will be some knuckleheads taking part in concealed carry--assuming it ever comes to Chicago--but there are knucklheads in every group.

So now people can fear in addition to criminals that some dumbass citizen might accidentally (purposefully) kill them.

yeah, but read something like malcolm gladwell's "blink," where he dissects the amadou diallo shooting in new york, and finds out that all these split-second decisions were made that added up, one on top of another, leading to an innocent man getting killed.

while i wish more people would stand up and do things when they saw things happening, that *could* start by getting out their cell phones and calling 911. which i don't see people do on a regular basis, and which seems like a great first step, and one which i will do on a regular basis without shame or fear.

Dopple; Yes, more unbiased study is needed, but I don't know what your example really adds. Idiots are everywhere, and so many situations can escalate into violence. And who is to say the Trixie 1) Also did not come from an NRA family and knows about guns; or 2) has undergone training in gun use and ownership?

What do you propose given that criminals in the USA will always have access to guns--no way we will totally ban them, nor have the power to do massive gun sweeps? I would love to live in a place where the worst thing we have worry about are knives, but that's not the USA, and likely never will be. Why can't I defend myself if prove myself--even on a yearly basis through recertification--to be a responsible citizen? Why must I rely on the police, especially as fewer officers patrol these days?

Exactly, idiots are everywhere. Conceal and Carry puts more guns on the street. Even if the responsible person to idiot ratio is 100 to 1 that means that 1% of the CC permits are going to idiots. Also here in Illinois we have a history of the licensing authority being compromised due to bribery. Google Gov. Ryan scandal for details.

The gun rights groups always focus on training as the catchall safety net. How many licensed drivers get tanked up and kill some one? Christ, even licensed commercial airline pilots get dinged for drinking and flying every once and a while. Again I think police should be allowed to carry off duty (as they are allowed to under current law) but they receive hundred hours of up front training along with mandatory retesting. I guess I am OK with concealed carry, we are just disagreeing with the training requirements. Want to carry? Become a police officer.

But cars and idiot drivers do kill, while responsible, careful drivers do not. I would not have used the driving thing, but I was merely responding.

I am amused at the caviler way you dismiss the accidental killing of innocent people as an acceptable loss.

By the way, a car is designed to convey people from one place to another in a generally safe manor. A gun is designed to propel a few grams of lead to a sufficient speed that significant damage is rendered on whatever it contacts.

It's not cavalier, only a reflection of reality. People die and people will always die, sometimes deliberately, sometimes accidently, sometimes because of their own stupidity. I fail to see how enabling a few more people, most of whom likely will be responsible, will change this fact of life. I'd rather increase my chances of living through reasonable self defense (which means, for instance, no machine guns for me or anything like that--I'm not that much of a nut, after all). You seem to assume that this law would lead to more needless deaths. That's as big of an assumption as mine are.

Matilda, this is my understanding of your argument:

Current system: Illegal guns kill innocent people.

C&C system: Illegal guns kill innocent people, but to a lesser degree. Some idiots with a permit also accidentally kill innocent people.

So the assumption you are making is that the sum total of prevented killing from illegal guns is more than the number that idiots with a permit kill.

I just happen to disagree that there will be a big enough decrease in illegal gun killings to offset the idiot permit holders.

Yeah, I guess you could reduce it to that, but my main concern is what I think is my right to a reasonable self-defense, nothing more or less than that. Again, I wish there were more facts than propaganda on this issue, as I like to strive toward pragmatism on most things.

Don't get me wrong: I have been involved in crimes where, even if I had a gun, and even if I had the skill of Wyatt Earp, the gun would have done me no good at all, as the crime happened too quickly. I don't pretend to think carrying guns will solve all the crime problems--not even close--but I think citizens have a right to reasonable self defense.

I guess the real debate is over "reasonable." I am encouraged that most states allow CC, and that the local cops have changed their minds on this, which is a big deal.