I’ll eat my hat
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 15th, 2006 at 10:56 am
I’m not sure CCW performs directly, rather than indirectly, to reduce these sorts of crimes. In Florida, based on raw permit-issue numbers, something like 2.1% of the population has a CCW, so a little better than 1 of every 50 people may be carrying (legally). My experience on the street is that, maybe, 1 in 500 permit holders actually is carrying. The usual reason is along the lines of “I have a permit, but I only carry my gun when I’m going to ______________.” My response is “so, you take the spare tire out of your trunk when you’re driving someplace you don’t think they have nails?”
In the Chicago case, unless carry is allowed in courthouses – typically, a prime victim disarmament zone – most lawyers won’t carry at all because it’s a hassle to carry at the office, but have to take it off every time you go to the courthouse, or ride public transportation (subways, etc.) to get there. So, even with CCW in Chicago, this event could probably be repeated several times, in various businesses, without impediment, at least until sufficient numbers of people, with sufficient publicity, have legal carry to convince the bad guys that the probability of encountering an armed victim is high enough to discourage them from commtting the act.
A few guns in desk drawers, and the training and will to use them, would have performed equally well in this instance. With the current Chicago environment, however, there are sufficent ownership/possession restrictions that the probability of even that is pretty low; I’d offer that removal of purchase/possession restrictions would be a good first step, with the end goal of unrestrictive shall-issue permitting and fewer restrictions on where one cannot carry.
I’d bet that the law offices where this happened had sprinklers everywhere and several fire extinguishers as protection against excessively rapid oxidation events; it doesn’t seem unreasonable to have user-available equipment as protection against other undesirable events as well.
December 15th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Concealed carry IS allowed in Chicago. It’s allowed ex officio to aldermen. It’s allowed to “part-time” deputy sheriffs whose part-time work is actually being precinct captains who bring out the vote on election day. Or who are celebrities. Walter Payton was a part-time deputy sheriff with a carry permit. It’s allowed to “legislative investigators” whatever that means. I think I counted about 48 loopholes in Illinois’s gun law the last time I read it. All of them for those who are politically connected one way or another.
BUT please don’t eat your hat. If you need fiber, just some chopped (not shredded lettuce) with chopped green onions, olive oil, vinegar and salt with a good hunk of feta cheese and half a loaf of crusty bread. Don’t be stingy with the olive oil. Use plenty and dip it up with the bread.
December 16th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Elitist CCW, huh! And I thought Democrats, like those who control Chicago, were for the common people–yeah, right. They have armed protection along with those to whom they grant special privilege, but all the others must be unarmed victims for criminals–enforced by the government.
“When will it dawn on the anti-gun nuts that making sure that only the
criminals are armed makes them accomplices to the criminals?” -K. A. Skala
I think they know that.