HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Court to Lisa Madigan: No...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:12 PM

Court to Lisa Madigan: No rehearing on concealed-carry guns ruling (Illinois)

SPRINGFIELD—A federal appeals court has rejected Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s request for a rehearing on the case where the state has been ordered to allow citizens to carry guns in public.

Madigan made the request following the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in December that gave Illinois 180 days to put together a law that would allow concealed weapons in Illinois.

There has been no word yet from Madigan’s office on her next move. She could choose to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or decide to let the ruling stand.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-concealed-carry-illinois-20130222,0,5743060.story

<snip>

The 180 day clock is still ticking from December 10th toward either a concealed carry law or constitutional carry automatically with your FOID card.

More of the "backlash" in the last state to allow it. In the meantime the state police are struggling to keep up with the demand for new FOID cards for NEW gun owners. Last Saturday I was at Mega Sports (larger local gun shop) for some reloading stuff and saw 10 people applying for new FOID cards, just while I waited in the check out line. The manager said last year they normally averaged 10 or 12 a day on the weekends. This year it's been close to 80 a day, including a lot of couples coming in.

58 replies, 4200 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply Court to Lisa Madigan: No rehearing on concealed-carry guns ruling (Illinois) (Original post)
DonP Feb 2013 OP
upaloopa Feb 2013 #1
gejohnston Feb 2013 #2
upaloopa Feb 2013 #3
gejohnston Feb 2013 #4
BainsBane Feb 2013 #14
gejohnston Feb 2013 #22
BainsBane Feb 2013 #23
gejohnston Feb 2013 #25
BainsBane Feb 2013 #28
gejohnston Feb 2013 #30
BainsBane Feb 2013 #32
gejohnston Feb 2013 #39
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #5
DonP Feb 2013 #7
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #8
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #11
hack89 Feb 2013 #12
BainsBane Feb 2013 #15
hack89 Feb 2013 #16
BainsBane Feb 2013 #17
hack89 Feb 2013 #20
BainsBane Feb 2013 #21
hack89 Feb 2013 #24
BainsBane Feb 2013 #26
hack89 Feb 2013 #27
BainsBane Feb 2013 #29
hack89 Feb 2013 #31
BainsBane Feb 2013 #33
hack89 Feb 2013 #34
BainsBane Feb 2013 #37
hack89 Feb 2013 #38
BainsBane Feb 2013 #35
hack89 Feb 2013 #40
DonP Feb 2013 #18
BainsBane Feb 2013 #19
DonP Feb 2013 #45
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #13
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #6
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #9
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #10
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #36
oneshooter Feb 2013 #44
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #47
oneshooter Feb 2013 #48
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #57
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #41
gejohnston Feb 2013 #42
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #49
gejohnston Feb 2013 #50
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #52
gejohnston Feb 2013 #53
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #54
gejohnston Feb 2013 #55
MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #43
DonP Feb 2013 #46
shadowrider Feb 2013 #56
gejohnston Feb 2013 #51
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #58

Response to DonP (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:24 PM

1. Well gunners will be happy I guess.

The rest of us can go suck lemons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:28 PM

2. one way to look at it

is that IL will have concealed carry laws more like the Czech Republic than Mexico.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:49 PM

3. That's another way of looking at it. Not my way.

Mexico has it's good points though. It's the war on drugs that makes it dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:54 PM

4. that and wealth inequality

what makes some parts of the US dangerous and other parts safe as or safer than Western Europe and Canada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:08 PM

14. guns

there is a clear correlation between the number of guns and gun deaths.




I love the delusion that guns have absolutely nothing to do with gun deaths. The fact they are designed to kill is entirely irrelevant. Bullets shoot magically from the sky (or oven) and guns are totally inconsequential. The lengths ideologues go to cover up the obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:41 PM

22. that is including suicide rates,

Wyoming and Montana have high suicide rates, but low murder rates. Rural areas have higher suicide rates than urban areas. That is equally true in Australia and Japan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:44 PM

23. Oh, cause suicides don't count

Those people's lives don't matter. I keep forgetting that. How silly of me. I really must remember than human life isn't important when I come into the gungeon. My memory is so poor.


Australia's suicide rate has declined dramatically since their assault weapons ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:53 PM

25. not what I said

their gun suicide dropped, not their suicide rate.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:02 PM

28. that is 4 years ago, and you are wrong regardless


Statistics: "Suicide rates for both males and females have generally decreased since the mid-90s with the overall suicide rate decreasing by 23% between 1999 and 2009. Suicide rates for males peaked in 1997 at 23.6 per 100,000 but have steadily decreased since then and stood at 14.9 per 100 000 in 2009. Female rates reached a high of 6.2 per 100 000 in 1997. Rates declined after that and was 4.5 per 100 000 in 2009."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Australia


A drop in gun suicides is a drop in suicides because the success rate in using guns is 90%, far exceeding any other methods.

John Howard: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0

You have a bad habit of spreading false information about gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:12 PM

30. there are a number of means that have a high success rate

hanging and jumping in front of a train come to mind.
A couple of years ago Thom Hartmann mentioned that BBC tracked Australian suicide rates with which party was in power. The suicide rate went up when the Liberal party, their right of center party, and dropped when Labour took power. Last I checked, they have a Labour/Green coalition. So, the change could have more to do with getting rid of RWNJ John Howard.

I didn't know pump action shotguns were "assault weapons" and I don't waste my time with op eds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #30)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:18 PM

32. Jumping from a train

that's real common. You don't waste your time with actual information either. Australia's suicide rate dropped 23% after the assault weapons ban. You were proved wrong and can't be bothered to consult CDC information on rates of suicide. You consistently misrepresent the truth to support what is a morally indefensible position. Just give up the pretense of morality. It's obvious you don't care. If you did you would point to false evidence so often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #32)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:33 PM

39. jumping in front of a train not from a train is

common in Japan. Most places in the world hanging is the most common. Your Wiki article proved nothing other than providing an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc
Nope. Mine was from an article citing a peer reviewed study published in a British criminology journal.

What makes you think I didn't go to CDC? I didn't misrepresent anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:05 PM

5. Do you think she'll appeal to USSC?

I think she'd lose there, and she probably knows it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:31 PM

7. Probably not, the issue of "May Issue" might come up

Several May Issue states tried to talk her out of appealing, out of concern for maintaining their current programs. The discriminatory nature of "May Issue" has a decent chance of getting tossed if they go to SCOTUS on this.

If she does try to go to SCOTUS it will be more as stalling issue than anything else. But, unless SCOTUS grants Cert, all of a sudden, the 180 day clock keeps ticking down from 12/10/2012.

Now, if they don't pass a CCW law, the default is constitutional carry with just a FOID card and there are over 1.6 million of them already and growing every day. All the CCW supporters have to do now is demand a decent bill with reasonable costs and training requirements. If Chicago tries to charge $500 for a permit or similar crap, all they have to do is sit tight for the 180 clock to run out.

There's already a good "Shall Issue" CCW proposal in the House from Brandon Phelps (D) with lots of co-sponsors. I think some of the Chicago meat puppets for Rahm are stalling, hoping something magical will happen and make it all go away. Not gonna happen this time.

What's ironic/hypocritical is the people opposing it the most already are allowed to CCW some as former cops, others as former aldermen for Chicago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:19 PM

8. history backs bans on carrying concealed

donP: Several May Issue states tried to talk her out of appealing {to scotus}, out of concern for maintaining their current programs. The discriminatory nature of "May Issue" has a decent chance of getting tossed if they go to SCOTUS on this.

I doubt 'may issue' states have that much to worry about; I believe the below list was either alluded to or mentioned by scalia in 2008 heller or 2010 mcd.. (as well, bone headed mayor of DC was the one who insisted upon taking his handgun ban to scotus, opened pandoras box & there's little left to lose).
.. the below list provides clear evidence that states could enact their own laws regarding carrying concealed weapons, and there wasn't much more than a few whimpers back then about these laws, which generally were upheld & I think a few still are today.
.. these were prohibitions built into state's constitutions in mid 1800s when robbers plyed their trade by carrying concealed guns. Ironically for today, open carry drew less concern, mainly because people were forewarned & revolvers or single shots weren't as much a threat as semi-auto pistols today. Which could create a bizarre situation in chicago were they to try to enable open carry {presuming this is not an issue yet, dunno} while denying ccw.

1 -- Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (enacted 1891).
2 -- Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. enacted 1876.
3 -- Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. (enacted 1974).
1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to .. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3
4 --Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and .. but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
5 -- Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property... but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. 1945.
1875: "That the right of ... but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons."
6-- Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms .. but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. 1889).
7 -- New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen ... but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. 1971, added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
8 -- North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary .. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.1971).
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."
9 -- Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep .. but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.1907).

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

I'd like to hear scalia, robts, kennedy, or alito argue that chicago or illinois couldn't ban concealed carry, after these precedents. Thomas, not that I want to hear him say anything at all, but since he hasn't said anything in discussion for 6 years now, why should this turn him from clarence the mute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:43 PM

11. The 14th Amendment: No state shall...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:58 PM

12. States can grant more freedoms

they cannot take away freedoms defined by the Supreme Court. All those examples you give could become unconstitutional overnight if the SC decides "may issue" is unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:10 PM

15. Lord knows there aren't enough people dying in Chicago

The struggle to raise the death count marches on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:13 PM

16. Except Chicago is an anomoly due to local conditions.

the rest of America is enjoying historically low levels of gun violence - the death count has been steadily falling for 20 years.

And of course concealed carry laws are irrelevant to the carnage in Chicago - criminals don't apply for licenses. They just carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:17 PM

17. Isn't this an effort to change that?

So that more people with carry and more will die?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:26 PM

20. The people causing the carnage are criminals

the spike in Chicago murders is due to a raging gang war and is restricted to a very limited number of neighborhoods. They are all carrying concealed weapons already.

Secondly - there are many states like Texas that liberalized their concealed carry laws decades ago. If you could show that these states experienced an increase in gun violence due to CCW then you might have something. But you can't. We have been hearing cries of "there will be blood in the streets" every time gun laws are relaxed. And yet it never happens - gun violence always continues its steady decline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:31 PM

21. that doesn't answer my question

What you'd done is try to justify concealed carry.

Does this not seek to override gun laws in Chicago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:51 PM

24. Chicago has to obey the Constitution

the court in this case has ruled that concealed carry is covered by the 2A. It is not complicated - unconstitutional laws are null and void. Surely even you agree with this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:54 PM

26. this is obviously pointless

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:57 PM

27. You asked if they could over turn Chicago's gun laws

and you got your answer.

What other answer is there - "yes Chicago can continue to ban concealed carry in defiance of a Federal Appeals Court decision"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:06 PM

29. there is no constitutional protection for

Concealed carry. http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_22651295/10th-circuit-court-appeals-constitution-does-not-protect

The constitution, according to your pal Scalia, says the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear arms, but it doesn't say someone has a right to conceal a gun to blow people off the face of the map whenever they feel like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:14 PM

31. Not according to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

which is what the OP is about.

It will have to be sorted out by the SC - if Illinois decides to appeal. I doubt they will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:19 PM

33. and the 10th circuit says otherwise

As the article I linked cited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:22 PM

34. Which is irrelevant to Illinois

until the Supreme Court reconciles the different rulings - which may not happen anytime soon.

As far as Chicago is concerned, right now concealed carry is a constitutional right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #34)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:26 PM

37. Sorry, is there one US Constitution for Illinois

that doesn't apply to the rest of America? It's not a constitutional right until the Supreme Court says it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:31 PM

38. Still won't help Illinois

they have to obey the court.

And do you know what the funny thing is? It is other gun controllers that will pressure Illinois to accept the ruling and not appeal it. They don't want to give the SC the opportunity to rule that concealed carry is a constitutional right - it would gut "may issue" concealed carry laws like those in CA or NY.

I think Chicago will be forced to take one for the gun control team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:22 PM

35. So once again we have rural and suburban America

insisting on imposing their choices on the rest of the nation, and we're supposed to believe it's only coincidental their policy on guns result in the murder of tens of thousands of black and brown people. So my original points stands. There aren't enough people dying in Chicago to suit the pro-gun crowd. They insist on more, and won't rest until they get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:38 PM

40. So are you saying Constitutional matters should be decided at the local level?

Chicago can interpret civil liberties differently then their neighbors?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:18 PM

18. Your comment is relevant, why again?

Yes, the death rate here is higher now than when Capone ran the city.

But the thread is about passing concealed carry laws in Illinois. Since Chicago and Cook County have every possible gun ban you could fantasize over already, and no legal concealed carry except for the aldermen and political appointees, how is your point relevant?

Or are you suggesting that the 50 Democratic Aldermen are responsible for the death rate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:24 PM

19. Is this not an effort to override Chicago ordinances?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:35 PM

45. No, it's about the entire state. There's a lot more to Illinois than Chicago.

Chicago, as far as I can tell, can keep its failed "assault weapons" ban and bans on "high capacity" magazines. But they won't be allowed to carve out the city limits or County border as a "exemption" to the new law on concealed carry.

Chicago has been the only barrier to having concealed carry for several years. Now there's a good CCW bill, authored by Dems, including training requirements, with lots of co-sponsors already moving through the House. If they don't agree on a new CCW law by the court deadline, then the court's ruling goes into effect and we can all carry with our FOID card.

The court has now brushed the specious objections of the Chicago meat puppets aside, after they pissed away several millions of tax dollars they couldn't afford fighting five losing court battles in a row. Funny how Rahm can lose $3+ million in legal fees but can't find any money for police and fire contracts with the unions?

It reminds me a lot of other state's rights "heroes" like George Wallace and his supporters, you know, people that don't think Federal court decisions apply to them, unless they agree with it.

But it's not like its their money they're throwing down a legal rathole anyway."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:51 PM

13. Note that all but Oklahoma specify "concealed,"

and that even Oklahoma doesn't state that carry can be abolished. These are from a time when concealed carry was less popular than open carry, and concealed carry was considered sneaky and suspicious, as opposed to just being discreet and considerate to delicate flowers. None of these state that carry could be banned altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:31 PM

6. Congratulations to the citizens of IL for the court decision upholding their rights n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:58 PM

9. Illinois doesn't want your congratulations

lurksoften: Congratulations to the citizens of IL for the court decision upholding their rights n/t

I doubt the citz of illinois want your congratulations, & would rather you went away.
In a poll, 10 illinois rural counties voted for concealed carry. There are 105 counties in illinois. More:

Majority of Illinois Voters Support Stricter Gun Laws About twice as many Illinois voters surveyed thought controlling gun ownership was more important than protecting the right to own guns (59.5 to 31.3%). A recent poll of all Americans taken by Pew Research, shows a 49 to 42 percent split on that question.
Also, more than seven in ten Illinoisans thought laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict (72.3).
Only two voters out of a hundred (2.2) thought laws concerning gun sales should be made less strict,
and the remainder (21.3) thought gun-sales laws should be kept the same. Nationally, the Gallup poll shows 58% support stricter laws, 6% fewer restrictions and 34% kept same.

http://paulsimoninstitute.org/images/PDF/spring2013/firearms.pdf

urban populations are more likely to favor gun control, and accdg Census Bureau, 87.8% of Illinoisans live in urban areas - one of the highest proportions in the nation.

feb22,2013: Illinois lawmakers who support concealed carry have been working for years to rally support by offering multiple bills and tinkering.. (see link).. “Seems like every year somebody introduces it. More than one bill — there are usually eight, nine, 10,” says Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democrat who sponsored House Bill 148.
His bill would allow for concealed carry throughout the state but contains a list of places where it would not be allowed, such as bars and schools. HB148 was just six votes short of the three-fifths majority it needed to pass when it came up for a vote last spring. Phelps says he thinks his bill is still a few votes shy of passing. “We’re the closest we’ve ever been in Illinois history, but yet we still don’t have it.”
HB 148 must have more than the usual 60-vote simple majority to pre-empt the power of home rule municipalities. More than 200 cities and counties hold home rule powers. Because of this requirement, some lawmakers are backing a different concealed carry plan that they hope to pass with a simple majority
http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/archives/2012/03/concealedcarry.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:07 PM

10. Yes we do

As an Illinoisan, I accept your congratulations. Looking forward to joining the rest of the civilized states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:23 PM

36. the truth, not a hacks lies

hack wrote: Except Chicago is an anomoly due to local conditions. the rest of America is enjoying historically low levels of gun violence - the death count has been steadily falling for 20 years.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about; the 'past 20 years', chicago's murder totals have fallen from 943 in 1992, to 431 in 2011 to about 517 in 2012. In other words, chicago's murder totals & rate have fallen in the very way you compliment other cities.

repost, wiki: Murders in {Chicago} peaked first in 1974, with 970 murders (murder rate 29), and again in 1992 with 943 murders, murder rate 34.
Chicago, along with other major US cities, experienced a significant reduction in violent crime rates through the 1990s, eventually recording 448 homicides in 2004, the lowest total since 1965 (15.65) Chicago's homicide tally remained steady throughout 2005, 2006, and 2007 with 449, 452, and 435 respectively.
In 2008, murders rebounded to 510, .. 2010 saw Chicago's murder rate at its lowest levels since 1965. Overall, 435 homicides were recorded for the year (16.14 per 100,000), a 5% decrease from 2009. 2011 saw Chicago's murders at 431 for a murder rate of 15.94 per 100,000 for a drop of 1.2% from 2010... 2012 saw a spike in murders to 506


hack: Chicago is an anomoly due to

You are obviously blatantly wrong, & misrepresenting chicagos situation, since in the 'past 20 years' chicago's murder rate nearly halved & murders dropped from near 1,000 to last years 500.
You owe the board a retraction & an apology, as well to chicago, for your lies.

hack89 : - there are many states like Texas that liberalized their concealed carry laws decades ago. If you could show that these states experienced an increase in gun violence due to CCW then you might have something. But you can't. We have been hearing cries of "there will be blood in the streets" every time gun laws are relaxed. And yet it never happens - gun violence always continues its steady decline

This is also wrong, you again don't know what you're talking about; montana enabled shall issue ccw 1991 & since her violent crime rate has near tripled. WVirginia since shall issue near doubled, as both dakotas (tho still low). Pennsy was over for 20 yrs & just last two year slipped below but still at parity.
StLouis enacted shall issue in the city 2005 & following year had highest violent crime rates in the country. Detroit's shall issue about 2002, fat lot of good shall issue did in detroit & flint, eh?
MORE GUNS MORE LIES, this time from hack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:19 PM

44. You might want to proof read what you write.

"chicago's murder totals have fallen from 943 in 1992, to 431 in 2011 to about 517 in 2012."

I don't really see a fall between 2011 and 1012.

From 431 to 517 is more of a RISE to most readers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #44)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:54 PM

47. in context, I am correct, re chicago

oneshooter: You might want to proof read what you write.
"chicago's murder totals have fallen from 943 in 1992, to 431 in 2011 to about 517 in 2012."
I don't really see a fall between 2011 and 1012. From 431 to 517 is more of a RISE to most readers.


In context, during the 20 year period the hack was referring to, 517 in 2011 was indeed a drop from 943 in 1992, which most all unbiased readers would certainly comprehend.
Your challenge doesn't even get half a point.

oneshooter: You might want to proof read what you write.

You might want to think before you write. Your nitpick wasn't very relevant or insightful.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #47)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:02 PM

48. So your telling me that 431 is larger than 517

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:30 PM

57. That pretty much sums up that one's posting history - pro-NRA garabage non-stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:41 PM

41. aussie gun buyback & awb done good

bains: Australia's suicide rate has declined dramatically since their assault weapons ban.
gejohnston Response to BainsBane
. not what I said ... their gun suicide dropped, not their suicide rate.


Your link does not bear out what you contend, johnston, but it does bear out what bains wrote:

johnstons link: And suicide by firearm? Here again, rates were falling pre-1996. And while the decline gained speed after 1996, suicide by other methods began declining then, too.

Johnston apparently cites an aussie rightwing article, perhaps from a rightwing aussie. And since it's been over 4 years since this 'soon to be published paper', I haven't heard much about this samara mcphedran's paper.

may 2008: these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a Univ of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran.
But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians is not borne out by the evidence."


And samara is just a vision of truth & honesty eh?, while most other credible american sources (fact check, politifact) contend that the aussie gun buyback/awb & lower gun crime & lower murder, have gone hand in hand.

on edit: eh, missed this on first read: It won't seem irrelevant to some that McPhedran and Baker are affiliated with the Sydney-based International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting. But it should be, McPhedran argues: their analysis has been peer-reviewed, approved for publication and should be judged on its merits, she says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #41)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:46 PM

42. what right wing Aussie?

it was peer reviewed and published in a British criminology journal by a social scientist that happened to be a target shooter. That's not a straw, that's a blade of grass. BTW, the ban happened during the right wing John Howard's right wing government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:08 PM

49. CW RW not the same as america's RW

johnston: what right wing Aussie? BTW, the ban happened during the right wing John Howard's right wing government.

The rightwing in the commonwealth countries (UK, australia, new zeal, canada) is not equivalent to america's rightwing. CW countries tory party would align moreso to center right america, even center america, certainly never would accept america's far rightwing policies.
It does demonstrate the dichotomy between australia & USA, where a rightwing aussie govt would ban firearms. John Howard is quite admirable, btw.

it was peer reviewed and published in a British criminology journal by a social scientist that happened to be a target shooter. That's not a straw, that's a blade of grass.

That's what she, or the article author, said, evidently prior to publishment of her 'paper'; which again I ask, have you any further proof of her papers' validity or status? You only posted outtakes from her 'paper', but not the paper itself, nor any peer reviews, nor any disagreements.
-------------

You must've missed this part of my post you replied to, johnston, you need to either explain or retract & admit your error:

gejohnston .. not what I said ... their gun suicide dropped, not their suicide rate.

(I wrote) Your link does not bear out what you contend, johnston, but it does bear out what bains wrote:

johnstons link: And suicide by firearm? Here again, rates were falling pre-1996. And while the decline gained speed after 1996, suicide by other methods began declining then, too.


Or maybe I'm posting with invisible ink again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #49)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:20 PM

50. it would make more sense if it were

written in Cuneiform with invisible ink. So Aussies won't shoot themselves with a pistol or bolt action? The number of privately owned guns are back to the pre ban numbers, so what was your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #50)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:11 PM

52. tapdancing again

johnston: So Aussies won't shoot themselves with a pistol or bolt action? The number of privately owned guns are back to the pre ban numbers, so what was your point?

You answer your failures with questions, try to grow up johnston, this isn't karaoke night at your local bar, it's a public forum. You only have the advantage like a child in a forum, crying wantonly it gets accepted.
Iknow it won't do any good, you'll just blow smoke, but the problems you have are two, samaras 'paper', and your contradicting yourself regarding her paper.

johnston: it was peer reviewed and published in a British criminology journal by a social scientist that happened to be a target shooter. That's not a straw, that's a blade of grass.

Then post a LINK, johnston. Your sayso is worth dirt.
------------------------------

You must've missed this part of my post you replied to, johnston, you need to either explain or retract & admit your error:

gejohnston .. not what I said ... their gun suicide dropped, not their suicide rate.

(I wrote) Your link does not bear out what you contend, johnston, but it does bear out what bains wrote:

johnstons link: And suicide by firearm? Here again, rates were falling pre-1996. And while the decline gained speed after 1996, suicide by other methods began declining then, too.


Stop tapdancing johnston, you're making a fool of yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #52)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:31 PM

53. really?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-12/gun-ownership-on-the-rise/3662504
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html
http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/christie-medicalview.pdf

Neill and I found that the firearm suicide and homicide rates more than halved after the Australian gun buyback. Although the gun death rate was falling before 1997, it accelerated downwards after the buyback. Looking across states, we also found jurisdictions where more guns were bought back experienced a greater reduction in firearms homicide and suicide.
Notice it says "firearm suicide and murder" not "suicide and murder" which means weasel words. The suicide using firearms dropped not the suicide rate. Same with murder. That said, where is the gain?

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/guns-policy-saving-lives-20130114-2cpny.html#ixzz2LmOXXTxZ

Actually, I'm doing the Charleston. You are tap dancing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #53)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:55 PM

54. Unbelievable, on australia

johnston: Actually, I'm doing the Charleston. You are tap dancing.

No, it's you doing the twist. You provide NOTHING to back you up, in fact you contradict yourself, & you just blow further smoke to distract that you hoisted yourself on your own petard.
Let's reveiw the 4 links you just posted, which are red herrings having little to do with what you said or what I challenged, indeed one was a guncontrol link completely refuting your own arguments:

1 this was a pdf file, you expect readers to read the entire file to try to find what you're referring to? crazy. Australian gun controls: Should more be done?
http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/christie-medicalview.pdf


2 there was nothing on suicide in this link, johnston, except an off the cuff: But he said: ''It only takes one bullet, and the great majority of gun deaths are domestics and suicides.''
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html#ixzz2LmUXlNfs

there was absolutely nothing on suicide in this link, johnston,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-12/gun-ownership-on-the-rise/3662504

In the following link you posted, unbelievably you post a gun control link which contradicts just about everything you say above!

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/guns-policy-saving-lives-20130114-2cpny.html#ixzz2LmOXXTxZ
from the link immediately above: If there's a gun in your home, the person most likely to kill you with it is yourself, followed by your spouse.
Neill and I found that the firearm suicide and homicide rates more than halved after the Australian gun buyback. Although the gun death rate was falling before 1997, it accelerated downwards after the buyback. Looking across states, we also found jurisdictions where more guns were bought back experienced a greater reduction in firearms homicide and suicide.
We estimate that the Australian gun buyback continues to save about 200 lives per year. That means thousands of people are walking the streets today who would not be alive without the National Firearms Agreement. Other work, including by public health researchers Simon Chapman, Philip Alpers, Kingsley Agho and Michael


Must be johnstons' 'Ooooops' moment!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #54)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:07 PM

55. I don't waste my time with opinion pieces

because they are opinion. Yes I do expect you to read the pdf.
Read the cites above. Unlike you, I don't regurgitate. How does it contradict what I said? For example?

Any criminologists? Didn't think so. So, the use of firearms halved, what about the actual murder and suicide rates? You ignored that one. Oh wait, you ignore that and start talking about dancing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:28 PM

43. Awwww... now gun cuddlers can cuddle their guns in public. Just like babies and binkies.

 

These helpless little gun cuddling creatures have to have their security object within quick reach. Too bad theirs kills, but that the price we pay for their fear and paranoia. Just don't get in their way; they are looking for trouble to prove how big and brave they are, despite all appearances to the contrary!

At least you can see them coming, and try your best to avoid these pathetic cretins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #43)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:48 PM

46. Another Gun Control Fan with nothing to say, whining again

With all your hopes and dreams for more national gun bans being shattered, no real Federal laws being seriously considered, and all those neat new state laws already being challenged in courts. What a shame, huh?

Is that filthy nasty constitution thingy getting in your way again?

But I'm sure you must be an active supporter of more gun laws. How is repealing all the carry laws going in your own home state?

I bet you're out there circulating petitions, marching on the state capital, right?

Or are you more like the rest of your ilk, spending all your time whining online, as if that mattered in some way?

Illinois is just one more state that your going to lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #46)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:33 AM

56. Amazing, idin't it?

Every day they go out, without fear, all the while surrounded by guns they can't see, and nothing happens to them. You'd think that would tell them something about how safe CC people are.

I'm amazed some of them acquire the courage to get out of bed in the morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #43)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:21 PM

51. My kids called them blankies

I'm not afraid or paranoid, are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #43)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:48 PM

58. Yep. Nails it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread