Not so fast Jo...

Posted: Saturday, September 17th, 2011 9:47 AM

I'd venture to say the primary purpose of a gun isn't to kill people. I know it sounds crazy Jo but of all the people you actually know with a gun....how many do you know that have shot someone, let alone killed someone? In the majority of the cases a gun's primary purpose is for self-defense, not to be an aggressor.

Gun Lobby from yorkville

Posted: Friday, September 16th, 2011 11:53 AM

"The NRA stacked the deck" hmm the NRA membership in that area is in double digits. It wasn't the NRA who tried to stack the deck, it was the anti-gunners who brought in father flakey and imported his crew. The majority of those who spoke in favor of the legislation were from the district who wanted to particpate. Maybe the WJ just can't believe that people whe see gangbangers carrying guns and live with it everyday would have an opinion different then theirs.

Matt from Oak Park, Illinois

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 5:45 PM

I have to agree that the WJ Editorial Board needs to step back here. This article is indeed racist and elitist. I am not an NRA member, and I agree with some sort of AR ban. But come on, guns do no kill people any more than cars do. PEOPLE kill people.

scott

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 4:49 PM

People in urban areas are constantly bombarded with news stories about gun crimes; the resulting emotional fear blinds them to the fact that these crimes are committed with guns that are already illegally possessed, and the people possessing them don't pay attention to gun control laws, training needs, or safety. Legal carry holders, on the other hand, tend to be law-abiding, cautious, and safety-oriented; in other words, responsible citizens.

scott

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 4:39 PM

I obviously didn't have room to paste more of the report I quoted, but the Minnesota study and related studies actually indicated that concealed carry was more effective in dense urban areas, and that the reason so many urban politicians seem to oppose it has to do more with constant exposure to gun-related violence.This often results in a a knee-jerk fear reaction to the subject, emotionally preventing people from analyzing and thinking clearly on the issue(a "fire burns, fire bad" attitude).

jo

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 4:39 PM

The primary purpose of a car isn't to kill, though.

T.J. from Oak Park

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 4:32 PM

Hey WJ Editorial Board, cars kill people too. Most people would agree that we need cars on the road and accept the risk. If I lived on the Westside of Chicago I too would want to own a gun. Nobody cares about your safety as much as you do. If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you should be allowed to carry one. The criminals will always be willing to break the law and carry a concealed gun or weapon. After all, they're criminals.

willing to listen to both sides

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 4:09 PM

I'm not sure how I feel about CC for handguns but I do believe I should be able to carry a concealed stun gun and/or taser for personal protection. Right now you must have a FOID card to own a stun gun and it has the same restrictions as hand guns.

Silly

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 3:23 PM

Back pedaling.....So like you Coughlin. When ever the truth arises, you seem to shrivel like a prune.

Jim Coughlin

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 2:59 PM

We bet $1,000? Check your meds, Silly. You are hallucinating. Any reason you refuse to use a Facebook Verified screen name? It's a very simple process and would go a long way in proving that you are not just a lone gadfly who seeks to bully and harass folks on this forum. If you actually have that $1,000 to spare; give it to an area food bank or the Animal Care League. You can make that generous donation in my name. You know who I am. Of course we can't say the same about you.

Silly

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 2:24 PM

How about you pay me the $1,000 that we bet? You seem to be SO sure. Gee, you make nice to the ACL? Dont you ever have any questions for that group? I'm shocked

Jim Coughlin

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 1:35 PM

I'll make my 2011 donation to Animal Care League in your name when you post as "Facebook Verified". Talk it over with all of those dubs you use and get back to me.

Silly

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 12:44 PM

I will put up $1,000 that I am only but 1 dub. Will you take my bet...to be verified by the WJ?

Daniel Hurtado Facebook Verified

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 12:44 PM

Q from Oak Park says: "Daniel Hurtado, lets take your reply further. That means if the NRA comes to Oak Park, they will not be allowed to fill the audience so they will be not [be] allowed to voice their opinion. Excellent Daniel." I'm not sure how that follows from me demonstrating that that the WJ article is not libelous. Do I agree that Oak Parkers should organize to keep the NRA from packing the crowd? I'm not sure what that means or how it would be accomplished. I assume that it means getting lots of Oak Parkers to attend so that any outsiders that might be shipped in by the NRA are not the only voice or the dominant voice. I don't see anything wrong with THAT. The NRA could still have its voice, but so would those who disagree with the NRA have their voice. It would help ensure that Mr. Ford is hearing the voice of Oak Parkers and not just the voice of outsiders who have been shipped in. And who knows? WJ might be wrong. It might turn out that Oak Parkers by and large support conceal and carry laws.

Jim Coughlin

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 12:43 PM

And with the blink of eye, "Q" turns into "Silly". Again, no "Facebook Verification". The gadfly likes to pretend.

Silly

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 12:39 PM

Coughlin you accuse me of the same thing. I'm also a gadfly. More than 5 people on the WJ forum see beyond your _______!

Mike Weisman from Glen Ellyn

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 12:35 PM

Actually, there *were* people from Oak Park there at the meeting. They were in favor of CCW. Where were the editors? When "the NRA stacks the deck", that means that motivated gun owners take the time out of their busy schedules to stand up and be counted. Remember that Oak Park had their handgun ban handed right back to them as a result of McDonald v Chicago. Remember that as a result, the right to keep *and bear* arms is a fundamental civil right that cant be taken by local government.

Jim Coughlin

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 12:24 PM

The ball is in your court,Q. Explain why not a single one of the dubs you employ has ever posted as "Facebook Verified"? Until you can demonstrate otherwise, I remain convinced that the majority of the nonsense directed at me is the product of a lone gadfly. And that would be you! P.S. I'll remind you again that the Wednesday Journal is trying to fix the verification tag for my postings. So don't use that as your excuse for refusing to step in to the light. Put up or.......

Jim Coughlin

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 12:06 PM

Thanks,Scott. When you stated "it is a proven fact", I wondered about the source you were referencing. Both sides on this issue often cite studies to support thier positions. As I previously posted, I was not disputing what you posted; just asking for info.

scott

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 11:29 AM

Jim- a qoute from a Minnesota Gov't study: "The 1997 Lott and Mustard Study3 Summary of findings. This study concludes that shall-issue licensing laws: 1) deter violent crimes, including murder, rape, aggravated assault, and (marginally) robbery; 2) increase property crimes, such as larceny and auto theft (but not burglary), in which there is less chance of confrontation with an armed victim (i.e., a substitution effect); and 3) essentially have no effect on the number of accidental deaths...."

scott

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 11:22 AM

Jim, i think my point that the great majority of states have a permit system in place, and there are a number of easily found reports from various independent and government sources(including the FBI) that show either a positive or at least a neutral effect on crime statistics. this is in fact not contested by anyone that I can see, and appears to be the norm, rather than the exception.Man It seems that it would be more appropriate for you to provide an example of the opposite effect somewhere.

Q from Oak Park

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 11:04 AM

Mike Weisman from Glen Ellyn LOL, That's very insightful Mike. Good catch. Why wouldn't Oak Park people want to walk on over. You know why, and they won't admit it.

Q from Oak Park

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 11:02 AM

Jim Coughlin Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 2:55 PM Scott, don't this listen to gadfly who is... You are once again thinking that someone is the same person because you can't imagine that there is more than one person who disagrees with you. Do your own homework stranger. Don't be assigning it out. LOL

Q from Oak Park

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 10:59 AM

Daniel Hurtado, lets take your reply further. That means if the NRA comes to Oak Park, they will not be allowed to fill the audience so they will be not allowed to voice their opinion. Excellent Daniel.

Q from Oak Park

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 10:55 AM

That's so funny, Stranger Danger. You have quoted Coughlin correctly. He will say things and when ask him to prove it, he never will. LOL Stranger Danger Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 12:34 PM Scott, if I were you I would turn the tables on Coughlin and tell him "Don't assign homework, stranger, find it yourself" just as he does on a daily basis here.

Mike Weisman from Glen Ellyn

Posted: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 9:54 AM

I find it fascinating that the editorial board would think that it necessary for Rep Ford to hold a town meeting on one side of Austin Blvd or the other. Are Oak Parkers unable to make the short trek into Chicago's west side in order to attend the town meeting held by their Representative? Or too afraid? Are they admitting that there are self-defense issues abound that the free whistles will not cover?

Jim Coughlin

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 2:55 PM

Scott, don't this listen to gadfly who is using the dub "Stranger Danger". We're dealing with a difficult person who is unwilling to allow a free and fair discourse on a subject. It's a disruptive routine used by this gadfly who employs a variety of dubs in an attempt to create a false impression of a consensus. You used the term "proven fact" and I'm simply asking if you can direct me to any specific information that supports that claim. I'm not disputing what you posted; just asking for info

RLM from Oak Park

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 2:37 PM

For the record; I am an Oak Parker with an FOID card who was just lamenting this week about the fact that only because I live in Illinois, I am not allowed to carry my handgun in my car or on my person with live rounds. And as an Oak Parker I am lightweight offended that Oak Park, or at least the Wednesday Journal, danes to believe they should set policy for the entire state especially when comparing our crime rate to Austin or ANY other Chicago neighborhood. We should defer on this.

ed

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 2:07 PM

The 49 other states have some form of conceal/carry. Did they turn into the Wild Wild West? Is their gun crime worse than Illinois or Chicago? Hardly. Quit legislating on emotion and liberal dogma and legislate on facts.

Luke ScotWalker from Oak Park

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 1:18 PM

This is one of the more condescending editorial I've seen in WJ, and that's saying a lot. Yes, we upscale white folk in OP have a much more informed, nuanced view of this issue than you poor, uneducated west siders. The mayhem to which you refer has been created by the criminal element, with plenty of help from the Great Society types trying to asuage their white guilt. The folks on the west side are simply looking for a reasonable deterrent. They are capable of safely defending themselves.

Daniel Hurtado Facebook Verified

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 12:53 PM

I believe TJLR is referring to the following statement as libelous: "If Oak Parkers could organize to keep the NRA from packing the crowd (yes, we have our suspicions) then we expect the representative would get a different earful on this subject." That statement is not libelous for at least two reasons: (1) It is not a statement of fact. It is a prediction that an event in Oak Park would have a different composition of people in attendance and a statement that WJ SUSPECTS that the NRA might have packed the crowd in the Austin event. (2) The statement is not defamatory. The NRA or any other group has a First Amendment right to try to "pack" an audience with people sharing their point of view. As to "pubic attitude," the editorial acknowledges that the NRA point of view is the majority view at the present time. But WJ has the right to disagree with that point of view.

Stranger Danger

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 12:34 PM

Scott, if I were you I would turn the tables on Coughlin and tell him "Don't assign homework, stranger, find it yourself" just as he does on a daily basis here.

Stranger Danger

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 12:31 PM

Shorter version: Rep. Ford, listen to us, White Oak Parkers, and not your constituents of color in Austin as they are just pawns of the NRA and cannot think for themselves. How paternalistic and racist can the WJ be? Did Hubbuch write this or has the editorial page been turned over to Violet Aura?

Phil of Ideas

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 11:48 AM

Libel? I think not. If it were, you would have to say that membership in the NRA brings disrepute? I bet you would be proud to say you are a member. When will the self-victimization end? Being outraged by a suburban newspare editorial shows that you are insecure in your beliefs.

scott

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 11:15 AM

I believe the vast majority of the country has been doing just fine with concealed carry; I'm not sure what type of environment you live and work in, but I work in and travel through the St. Louis metro area, including East St. Louis and surroundings, often with large amounts of expensive equipment in my vehicle. I am licensed to carry in Missouri, but must unload and pack my gun away in order to drive home at night in Illinois. I find this concept to be ridiculous.

scott

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 11:06 AM

I didn't think it was that difficult to see- it's mentioned constantly if your browse the web on the subject. The fact that approximately 40 states have a defined concealed carry program, with the remaining 9 states at least allowing some form of legal carry. Did Wisconson break out in "mayhem" after passing their law recently? why don't you show me an example of "mayhem", since it isn't visible to my knowledge?

Jim Coughlin

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 10:57 AM

Scott, I would appreciate reading the "proven fact" you cite to support your position. Please provide the source. Thank you.

scott

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 10:52 AM

Vehicles kill people, drugs kill people, alcohol kilss people, etc., etc., etc. Do you see the obvious parallel to your argument? You also make an untrue and mis-leading statement when you say "Adding more gun mayhem..." it is a proven fact that there is no "mayhem" resulting from properly administered concealed carry programs. In fact, populations in the rest of the country haven't really noticed, except for the occasional "Chicken Little" articles such as this.

The Journal is a Liberal Rag

Posted: Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 8:27 AM

I hope you have some statistical evidence that the "NRA packed the crowd" for Rep. Ford, instead of throwing out that libelous comment. Of course you suspect that, because no left-wing liberal media outlet would actually be willing to acknowledge that the public attitude about concealed carry may actually be shifting. No, thats not possible with this editorial board. Pull your heads out of the sand and see whats going on around you.