Concealed carry in Illinois, one year later....a "non event".....

[RoshawnMarkwees]

As usually happened when states wanted to follow the Bill of Rights and comply with them by not infringing on the 2nd amendment....the anti gunners said that the streets would run with blood, you would have dodge city....and on and on.....of course, there were plenty of cities that outright banned guns, D.C., Chicago...for example, that ran with blood anyway.....and after each state passed some form of carry law.....nothing bad happened....Wisconsin and Illinois being the most recent examples.....

But after passing concealed carry here in Illinois last Jan. 1...on year out....everything is fine....except in Chicago where they continue to fight citizens protecting themselves and have had a bloodbath since the new year began....

Illinois Concealed Carry Laws Are Now A Year Old Authorities Pleased So Far Concealed Nation

Last January, the state of Illinois became the last state in the country to make concealed carry legal. Thousands applied and received their permits in the first few months, but many other people were unsure of what would happen now that people could legally carry firearms around with them.

The deputy chief of the Champaign police, Joe Gallo, said “For us, it’s been a non-event.” Law enforcement from other areas of the state echoed similar statements.

Champaign County Sheriff Dan Walsh says that his department made one DUI arrest of a person who was legally carrying, and that the man was very cooperative.

As far as any problems, they have yet to encounter a single one.

“I think people were so concerned about it in the beginning, because there was a lot of media hype and speculation,” said Urbana Police Chief Patrick Connolly. “But quite honestly, we have often said the people who are law-abiding and take the time to go to class and register and understand the concept, hopefully, are going to be smart enough to handle the firearm appropriately. So, I don’t think this was something out of the ordinary.”

It looks like Illinois hasn’t turned into a wild west scenario that some feared. Hmm, interesting. We’d say we didn’t see that coming, but we would be lying.

Danville police Sgt. Josh Campbell agreed, saying “When you’re talking concealed-carry, it’s mostly your law-abiding citizens, who don’t cause problems anyway.”

Through mid-December, a total of 90,300 permits have been issued in the state since January.

What did it do for the crime rates?

In WI they went up and there was at least this incident:
Pair of men with concealed-carry permits engage in shootout

Not sure how it has faired for other states, but WI shows it doesn't lower crime rates. I would guess it doesn't really effect them at all. Especially after we determined most defenses are done by criminals....

From past experience...it takes at least 5 years and a certain percentage of people carrying to start to show an effect...and again....more people in the country are carrying guns and the violent crime rate is down.....

So you will wait till the rates go down one year in WI then claim victory. I see. I have never seen any reason to believe it effects crime rates. It may however legally arm criminals.

And how has IL crime rates been?

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

 

[JoeB131]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

You just made the point. A gun in the house prevents criminals from causing death.
Suicides and domestic disputes will resort to something other than a gun to violently resolve that issue if there is no gun available. The gun is ancillary.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

What about incidents where the criminal is injured, but not killed?
Or deterred without the gun being discharged?

 

[2aguy]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

Joe...you know that number is wrong.....

Lies Damned Lies and Washington CeaseFire s Statistics - The Truth About Guns

#1) Dr. Kellerman initially failed to state how he determined that the gun used belonged in the home or had been brought into it by someone else. Four years later he wrote a letter to the NEJM with a correction stating that in follow-up interviews it was determined that in 63% of the cases the gun was organic to the household. So, 0.63 times 22 means you’re only 13.6 times more likely to be ki . . . etc. (I think I’ll start using the acronym TMLTBKBAGIYHTTKAI . . . or, better yet we’ll just use TML (times more likely). So, that has reduced the 22 TML figure down to 13.6.

#2) Dr. Kellerman failed to account for other risk factors like drug use, criminals or criminal activity in the home. According to his study’s Table 3, 53% of the case study households contained at least one adult who had been arrested. So 0.47 times 13.64 leaves 6.4 TML.

#3) Most of the killings didn’t actually occur “in the home,” Oops! According to Kellerman’s own figures, only 23.9% of the homicides happened in the home of the victim. So, 0.239 times 6.4 gives us 1.5321812 so let’s call it 1.5 TML, shall we?

#4) Kellerman’s study includes suicides committed with guns. The problem with that is he did no research to determine if the “victim” acquired the weapon solely in order to commit suicide or if they used it as a “method of opportunity.” And despite the antis claims to the contrary, numerous studies have shown that suicide rates are independent of method. In other words, taking away guns may reduce the gun suicide rate, but non-gun suicides will increase enough to offset this.

#5) And the biggest problem of all: Dr. Kellerman seems to believe that killing someone is the only way to use a gun defensively (one wonders, then, what he thinks of police departments who routinely arrestpeople instead of killing them). But according to Dr. Kleck’s study Targeting Guns (as cited on page 19of Gun Facts ver. 6.0) in less than 0.1% of DGUs is the attacker killed. Indeed, in 92% of DGUs the victim merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot.

So, putting all this together, what do we have (besides the fact that 22 TML is a completely bogus number)? After my swipe at number crunching we have reduced TML to 1.5, but what does that mean in real life?

Well, according to the CDC‘s numbers, over the 11 years from 1999 to 2009 we averaged 11,800 firearm-related murders annually. If we carry that number through 2010 and look at the census numbers, that means the your chance of being murdered with a gun is 11,800/309,000,000 or 0.0038%. So even if we accept Dr. Kellerman’s premise that guns are only useful when they kill someone, having a gun in your home raises your odds of being killed from 0.0038% to 0.0059%.

 

[2aguy]

Joe....Joe...you know that is not true....they have stopped mass shootings...the reason why they don't stop more is that the places mass shooters go to kill......are gun free zones....which means even if a good guy could stop a mass shooter because he knows how to use a gun, he/she can't because they can't carry a gun in a gun free zone...only the killer can.....

NO, they haven't. Not at all. In fact, when the gun nuts tried to list their 10 best cases of a mass shooting being stopped by a gun owner, we found out that 6 of those cases were either off duty police or military reservists.

Military reservists are still civilians....and what was their job in the reserves any way....clerk.....medic....please....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

Joe...you know that number is wrong.....

Lies Damned Lies and Washington CeaseFire s Statistics - The Truth About Guns

#1) Dr. Kellerman initially failed to state how he determined that the gun used belonged in the home or had been brought into it by someone else. Four years later he wrote a letter to the NEJM with a correction stating that in follow-up interviews it was determined that in 63% of the cases the gun was organic to the household. So, 0.63 times 22 means you’re only 13.6 times more likely to be ki . . . etc. (I think I’ll start using the acronym TMLTBKBAGIYHTTKAI . . . or, better yet we’ll just use TML (times more likely). So, that has reduced the 22 TML figure down to 13.6.

#2) Dr. Kellerman failed to account for other risk factors like drug use, criminals or criminal activity in the home. According to his study’s Table 3, 53% of the case study households contained at least one adult who had been arrested. So 0.47 times 13.64 leaves 6.4 TML.

#3) Most of the killings didn’t actually occur “in the home,” Oops! According to Kellerman’s own figures, only 23.9% of the homicides happened in the home of the victim. So, 0.239 times 6.4 gives us 1.5321812 so let’s call it 1.5 TML, shall we?

#4) Kellerman’s study includes suicides committed with guns. The problem with that is he did no research to determine if the “victim” acquired the weapon solely in order to commit suicide or if they used it as a “method of opportunity.” And despite the antis claims to the contrary, numerous studies have shown that suicide rates are independent of method. In other words, taking away guns may reduce the gun suicide rate, but non-gun suicides will increase enough to offset this.

#5) And the biggest problem of all: Dr. Kellerman seems to believe that killing someone is the only way to use a gun defensively (one wonders, then, what he thinks of police departments who routinely arrestpeople instead of killing them). But according to Dr. Kleck’s study Targeting Guns (as cited on page 19of Gun Facts ver. 6.0) in less than 0.1% of DGUs is the attacker killed. Indeed, in 92% of DGUs the victim merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot.

So, putting all this together, what do we have (besides the fact that 22 TML is a completely bogus number)? After my swipe at number crunching we have reduced TML to 1.5, but what does that mean in real life?

Well, according to the CDC‘s numbers, over the 11 years from 1999 to 2009 we averaged 11,800 firearm-related murders annually. If we carry that number through 2010 and look at the census numbers, that means the your chance of being murdered with a gun is 11,800/309,000,000 or 0.0038%. So even if we accept Dr. Kellerman’s premise that guns are only useful when they kill someone, having a gun in your home raises your odds of being killed from 0.0038% to 0.0059%.

I wonder what the numbers are for those who own lawn mowers and garden tools as opposed to those who hire professional landscapers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

You are a liar that supposed fact has been shown to be false time after time, yet you keep using it.

 

[Mr. H.]

That's why, as an Illinois resident, I ignore those signs. Sure I take a chance of getting caught, but I think the risk is worth it.

Yes, the best argumetn for gun control is letting the gun nuts show how completely whacked out of their minds they are.

Brotchsayswhat?

 

[Brain357]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

What about incidents where the criminal is injured, but not killed?
Or deterred without the gun being discharged?

How many times are household members injured but not killed. Guns are far more dangerous to owners than criminals. There are about 600 accidental deaths each year and only about 230 criminals killed in defense. Both numbers are however low given the number of gun owners. The numbers for defenses are greatly exaggerated by many.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

What about incidents where the criminal is injured, but not killed?
Or deterred without the gun being discharged?

How many times are household members injured but not killed. Guns are far more dangerous to owners than criminals. There are about 600 accidental deaths each year and only about 230 criminals killed in defense. Both numbers are however low given the number of gun owners. The numbers for defenses are greatly exaggerated by many.

Guns are far more dangerous to owners than criminals.

Okay. So?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

What about incidents where the criminal is injured, but not killed?
Or deterred without the gun being discharged?

How many times are household members injured but not killed. Guns are far more dangerous to owners than criminals. There are about 600 accidental deaths each year and only about 230 criminals killed in defense. Both numbers are however low given the number of gun owners. The numbers for defenses are greatly exaggerated by many.

I'm still waiting on the numbers comparison to lawn mowers and garden tools.

 

[Brain357]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

What about incidents where the criminal is injured, but not killed?
Or deterred without the gun being discharged?

How many times are household members injured but not killed. Guns are far more dangerous to owners than criminals. There are about 600 accidental deaths each year and only about 230 criminals killed in defense. Both numbers are however low given the number of gun owners. The numbers for defenses are greatly exaggerated by many.

Guns are far more dangerous to owners than criminals.

Okay. So?

So use great care if you decide to own/carry.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The armed criminals will always be armed, legally or not. Crime amongst that demographic will only change upon death or incarceration. However, the victims numbers will drop amongst those who are not criminals.
Pure logic. No-Brainer.

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

What about incidents where the criminal is injured, but not killed?
Or deterred without the gun being discharged?

How many times are household members injured but not killed. Guns are far more dangerous to owners than criminals. There are about 600 accidental deaths each year and only about 230 criminals killed in defense. Both numbers are however low given the number of gun owners. The numbers for defenses are greatly exaggerated by many.

Guns are far more dangerous to owners than criminals.

Okay. So?

So use great care if you decide to own/carry.

I must assume since you doubt the 1'4 or 1;6 million uses in defense number because there are no reports, then you must also disagree with all the supposed rapes that the Government claims are never reported each year? Or is that different?

 

[Brain357]

The problem is, most gun deaths are not "criminals". Most gun deaths are sucidies, accidents and domestic disputes.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

What about incidents where the criminal is injured, but not killed?
Or deterred without the gun being discharged?

How many times are household members injured but not killed. Guns are far more dangerous to owners than criminals. There are about 600 accidental deaths each year and only about 230 criminals killed in defense. Both numbers are however low given the number of gun owners. The numbers for defenses are greatly exaggerated by many.

Guns are far more dangerous to owners than criminals.

Okay. So?

So use great care if you decide to own/carry.

I must assume since you doubt the 1'4 or 1;6 million uses in defense number because there are no reports, then you must also disagree with all the supposed rapes that the Government claims are never reported each year? Or is that different?

Don't know that much about rapes. I do know they typically know the attacker and it seems like drugs are often involve. You'd have to explain your point a bit more for me to answer.

I don't believe the millions of uses for a number of reasons. I think it is much more likely to be 100k or less. Which is still a very large number.

 

[JoeB131]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

What about incidents where the criminal is injured, but not killed?
Or deterred without the gun being discharged?

Or magic fairies scare the criminal off?

 

[JoeB131]

I must assume since you doubt the 1'4 or 1;6 million uses in defense number because there are no reports, then you must also disagree with all the supposed rapes that the Government claims are never reported each year? Or is that different?

Yes, I doubt those because the FBI puts that number at 65,000 a year, and I think even that number is inflated.

 

[Steinlight]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal.

What about incidents where the criminal is injured, but not killed?
Or deterred without the gun being discharged?

Or magic fairies scare the criminal off?

That is a bogus study. 86% of the in that Kellerman study were suicides. It also doesn't account for instances where criminals were wounded by the gun owner in the home. Even Kellerman has admitted the "43 times" figure is incorrect. So if the author of the study admits the numbers are wrong, why does the far left continue to pedal this bunk number?

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/papers-shade/StatisticalMisgivingsandLies.PDF

 

[JoeB131]

That is a bogus study. 86% of the in that Kellerman study were suicides. It also doesn't account for instances where criminals were wounded by the gun owner in the home. Even Kellerman has admitted the "43 times" figure is incorrect. So if the author of the study admits the numbers are wrong, why does the far left continue to pedal this bunk number?

Kellerman's never said anything of the sort, no matter what the gun nuts say.

And, yes, SUICIDES are just as dead as murder victims, so they do count.

 

[Steinlight]

That is a bogus study. 86% of the in that Kellerman study were suicides. It also doesn't account for instances where criminals were wounded by the gun owner in the home. Even Kellerman has admitted the "43 times" figure is incorrect. So if the author of the study admits the numbers are wrong, why does the far left continue to pedal this bunk number?

Kellerman's never said anything of the sort, no matter what the gun nuts say.

And, yes, SUICIDES are just as dead as murder victims, so they do count.

No, suicides cannot reasonably count in such a figure, because you would have to prove that without the gun, they wouldn't have committed suicide. That is, the gun is not what triggered the suicide. Suicidal individuals are suicidal independent of the means they use, so to blame suicide on the method as opposed to the individual itself is flawed for several reasons. One, on a sociological level, we are ignoring why they commit suicide to begin with. We are reducing the issue to one of gun ownership, and ignoring the bigger question of why they committed suicide. That gets totally lost. Secondly, if we are to use this absurd logic and count guns as a risk based almost entirely off suicide, than the same logic could be applied to homes with rope, knives, alcohol, prescription drugs, cars, or second stories from which to jump. You could say houses with these things make a household less safe for family members. So should we ban those things as well? Of course not, because the risk exists with the suicidal tendency of the individual, not the method employed. So the study is very dishonest to say the least.

And yes, he did admit the study was flawed. Unless you have proof the Senate Judiciary Committee is lying about what he said.
Full text of Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 public health and child safety hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate One Hundred Third Congress second session on S. 1882 ... March 23 1994