Concealing reason and carrying to an extreme

Opinion: Ken Trainor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Ken Trainor

Staff writer

As of late Sunday afternoon, my latest column [Before bearing arms, bare your soul, Viewpoints, Sept. 21] had generated 256 comments at, the clear majority coming from arms-bearers baring their souls.

Interesting souls.

As I predicted in my column, their reactions ranged from "explosive rage to derisive contempt to arrogant condescension."

Generally, people react that way when they're afraid, and what a frightful universe gun extremists live in. Their obsession with guns is matched only by their obsession with all the bad guys out there just waiting to mug them. They inhabit an alternate universe where every day is combat — the great gunfight at the I'm OK, You're Not Corral.

Their biggest fear, however, is a tyrannical government itching to take away all their guns. Most seem to believe it is their civic duty to own guns in order to rise up and overthrow that tyranny when the time comes. They belong to a nationwide "militia" of gun owners just waiting for ... well, that's not quite clear.

They love to quote Thomas Jefferson (often fabricated) on the need for revolution, but he and the other founding fathers made a point of listing the "long train of abuses" they were overthrowing and giving public notice through the Declaration of Independence. I'm not sure what procedure gun-owning tyranny fighters would use to launch their revolution.

When I was growing up, stockpiling weapons and threatening to overthrow the government was called treason. Gun extremists call it patriotism.

They're also partial to calling names. I went through all 256 comments and compiled a list. They lump the opposition (which would include the late Jim Brady, staunch Republican) into a general category called "typical libs" as if only liberals were in favor of gun regulation.

Either I or others were branded: progressive lib freedom-hater, intellectually incapable, idiot (lots of those), badgering idiots, einstein, communist (actually "commnist"), fascists, really must suck to be you, jackass, statist, naïve, Brady Bunch, hippy, anti-gun zealots, cowardly, parochial, "a ignorant soul," ANTI GUN ****, gun nuts (for opposing them), ultra left-wing liberal rantings (that was me), you liberal goons gnash your teeth, your block is likely occupied by 2/3 insane people and 1/3 sane as is the rest of Oak Park, racist and elitist (gun control, that is), loser, sore losers, troll, leftist/anti-gunners/pansy types, fellow travelers, silly little man, uneducated fop (me again), cowards, ignorant, foolish, what a boob, flat earther, laughable, lives in a dream world, Pollyanna-ish, and hoplophobia.

Explosive rage? Check. Derisive contempt? Check. Arrogant condescension? Check.

To be fair, a small amount of name-calling came from the opposing side — gun nuts, out-of-town gun nuts, idiot, gun-clingers, and crazies — but it was very tame by comparison.

The gun extremists' barrage could easily serve as the basis for an entire course on logical fallacy, inverted reasoning and ineffective forms of persuasion. Their attitudes reflect a "you can't trust anybody" failure of the social contract. They succeeded in persuading me only that arming the public is a giant step toward anarchy.

I'm grateful to so many for doing so much to prove the main point of my column — that no ordinary citizen is mentally (or emotionally) stable enough to carry a gun (judging by these responses). One Second Amendment supporter, attempting to criticize gun opponents, put it best when he (or she) said, "That's how you know when someone has lost the debate ... they get 'personal.'" In that case, the gun supporters definitely lost last week's debate.

They've also lost the moral argument.

Here, by the way, is what a reasonable argument would look like:

"The Second Amendment gives us the right to own and even to carry guns, and the current majority on the Supreme Court agrees. So until the court shifts or this country repeals the Second Amendment, we are within our rights. But being rational people, we recognize that no right is absolute and with every right comes responsibility. The statistics on gun deaths in the U.S. annually should give us all pause. A line must be drawn somewhere, and reasonable people on both sides of this controversial issue should be able to reach a compromise on how much gun control is acceptable and effective. We gun owners take great pride in being law-abiding citizens, so for the sake of the many Americans who have legitimate fears about guns falling into the wrong hands, we're willing to accept some regulatory inconvenience (within reason) as long as you recognize our right to own guns."

But these are not reasonable people. They are extremists who will not stop until they eliminate any and all restrictions on guns (No, I'm not exaggerating. They call it "constitutional carry"). Only one gun lover in our entire online thread acknowledged that the right to own and carry was not absolute.

Until gun owners get over their unreasonable defensiveness, we need more voices raised publicly by those who oppose the insanity of arming the public. Silence, remember, gives consent.

We need more people like the stalwart "Gunz Kill" who refused to back down and never called his (or her) opponents names in spite of suffering a long train of abuse.

To reverse the scourge of gun violence in this country, those of us who still believe in the social contract need to be just as determined (and vocal) as our gun-loving fellow citizens.


Reader Comments

100 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

on Ken's side from Oak Park  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 3:54 PM

Prompted by Ken's comment about people who agree with him not speaking up, I'm speaking up: I agree with Ken, and share his concerns!


Posted: October 3rd, 2011 9:33 PM Here are some facts for ya Kenny

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 3:44 PM

jack burton, you keep trying to pull me into your ridiculous world which won't work. You missed one of the training programs in your years.


Posted: October 3rd, 2011 1:21 PM

New to the Internet, eh, anonymous?

Anonymous from Anonymousland  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 1:18 PM

What kind of logic is this?Since when are anonymous Internet comments evidence of anything other than people can make commments anonymously to provoke others? For all we know Gunzkill was arguing with his or herself. How do we know the pro-gun commenters even were pro-gun? What if they were just being provocative to stoke the fire? Both columns are ridiculous and frivolous. I want the couple of minutes I spent reading them back....

jack burton  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 10:53 AM

Poor Q... reduced to that being the best he can do, eh.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 10:42 AM

Jack Burton, did you know the Military went searching for a new 45 to replace that whimpy 9 mm when you were in. You were packing a matching size to what is in your pants. You can tell the size of a man by the size of his toys. Good luck with that 9mm. Maybe you can make some iceberg rounds to better improve your killing.

Jack Burton  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 10:33 AM

Deez: Here is a woman who got a gun in the morning and didn't quite have the time to take your (taking classes, get certifications, hours put in on the range, gun registration.) After listening to the 911 call perhaps you can tell us if you're happy she had the gun or sad that she had the gun. .

Jack Burton  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 10:29 AM

Deez: millions upon millions of "regular Joe Shmoes" have carried for decades across dozens of states without any harm to society, and many of them having an opportunity to save themselves and others from losing their lives to social deviants. Trust in your fellow citizen... isn't that a major part of what America is all about?

Jack Burton  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 10:25 AM

Poor Q... Still won't (can't) list his quals showing why he so blithely posts bad fireamr info. Life would be much easier for him to fess up and acknowledge that he really doesn't know much. He's like a six year old on a tricycle in a group of NASCAR drivers, trying to give them advice on how to win a race. And BTW, I remember quite well when the military switched to the Bernetta, since I was actually, you know, IN the military at that time, unlike Q who probably was in short pants.

Jim In Houston from Houston  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 10:23 AM

DEEZ: Your concerns about how licensed carriers are understandable, given that you live in a benighted state that has no recent history of legal carry. However, you need only observe what happens in other states that DO permit carry to realize that your concerns are groundless. BTW, we do not "shoot to kill"...we "shoot to stop". That is all the law allows and is a huge legal distinction.

DEEZ from OP  

Posted: October 2nd, 2011 3:25 PM

Although the OPPD response time is often quick, we should still have other options. I don't think any regular Joe Shmoe off the street should just be able to carry a gun on their person, but it STILL happens. Armed robbery is common in Oak Park. Shooting to kill isn't the answer, but again I believe that having options is.

DEEZ from OP  

Posted: October 2nd, 2011 3:22 PM

I'm not amped up on the thought that everyone should be allowed to tote a pistol and use it at every chance they get. I do however believe that given a strict set of regulations (taking classes, get certifications, hours put in on the range, gun registration.) citizens should be given the option to arm themselves and defend their homes/families. I read the police blotter faithfully and have time and time again read about cases where people walk through doors and climb through windows.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 11:37 PM

Ray Simpson, checked out the calendar of events and they have one's that aren't that far. That's a good website. Read about Illinois and CC, it seems like it won't happen but you are probably on top of that. Do you think it can get passed in Illinois?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 11:16 PM

Q from OP' Go to and get info. I am not sure if the Tri-County league still exists but that was a fun league. Elgin rifle club has a large group of bullseye pistol shooters. Send me a note on Face Book and I will give you any info that I can.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 12:14 PM

Jack Burton, from your weblink.. "One officer opened fire with a Colt Government Model .45 ACP. Upon being hit in the right shoulder by a 230 grain Federal HydraShok JHP bullet, the surprised offender's facial expression instantly conveyed shock, horror and utter disbelief." Sure he was in disbelief, it knocked his ass down. information, it is not definitive in nature and states the importance of accuracy and penetration. Accuracy is not easy with a moving target for the first time killer.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 11:57 AM

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, I appreciate your sensibility about bullets sizes and Ernest Hemingway. You must be an excellent shot with that many rounds. How do you become a member on the Illinois State Pistol Team? Is there one around Chicago?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 11:51 AM

Male, you are wrong. Harry carried a 44 mag., the most powerful handgun in the world. It will blow a head clean off. Do you feel lucky? Well punk... Do you?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 11:49 AM

Jack Burton, you wouldn't have been in Delta by chance? Your comments are ridiculous, and without researching I'm confident you don't even know why the .45 cal was made or why the Military standard was switched to the 9mm.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 10:53 AM

Our own Ernest Hemingway was a competitive pistol shooter and claimed it was one of the most mentally challenging sports.As a member of the Illinois state pistol team, I have loaded and fired 10's of thousands of rounds of 45 cal ACP. Never fired a single round in anger nor at anything but paper targets. I was a medic at Ft Sam Houston,in the 60's we saw the damage done by all of the military rounds and I would not like being shot by even a 22 or 25. They all hurt!Ken has all of the answers- NOT


Posted: September 29th, 2011 7:23 PM

He got his info from the master: Inspector Harry Callahan

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 6:33 PM

Notice, Dear Readers, that Q ~still~ won't (can't) say just where he got all this knowledge about ballistics. About how he KNOWS that a .45 will knock a man down no matter where it hits him. How a .45 will "tear apart" a man. He wants to claim expertise and yet he gets everything wrong. Massad Ayoob is one of the most highly regarded firearms trainers in the world. Here's what a true expert has to say about the .45... and just compare it to the nonsense that Q is putting forth... and here is some real info about ballistics from one of the most highly regarded firearm training schools... And as for me... I'll simply match my 26 years in the military against what Q doesn't have.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 5:24 PM

jack burton, I will wait for the real Jack Burton who has always used facebook verification. You aren't educated in ballistics or have had any dealings with what rounds do when entering the body. Your information comes from sensational gun magazines and websites made up by people who want to post their own information. I'm a professional gun toting newbie and don't want to associate with sensationalism. It's my choice just like my choice to protect myself which is major reason for packing heat.

jack burton  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 5:05 PM

Q... if you think a .45 slug really "tears open" the body then I know you don't have real life experience. But I am always game. YOU started on how you knew what various calibers could do... so back it up with HOW you know. Give detail. Be specific. Work in an emergency room? EMT? Military? Police? Start out by telling us just how you know the .45 slug, NO MATTER where it hits, will "knock someone off balance."

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 4:43 PM

jack burton, you aren't using facebook so you must be another jack burton but that's fine. I don't think you have ever seen a gun shot would to a human body because you think I get my ideas from movies. It's a lot different than the movies and what you think it will look like if you need to blast away at anyone. I think I would prefer to fine information out from people who have experienced real life with bullets but thank you for the invite.

jack burton  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 4:33 PM

Really don't know much about guns and calibers, eh, Q. Gotta stop getting your info from movies and TV. You're welcome to come over here to Indiana and I'll take you out shooting. Won't even charge you for the bullets you use.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 4:26 PM

jack burton, is this really the Jack Burton? You always capitalize your first and last name and have bee very consistent doing that so I'm not sure if it's still you. Glad you let me know about the right .Cal for the individual person. I favor the .45 cal because I've seen results of smaller Cal's compared to the .45 cal and the .45 cal really tears open the human body. Smaller cal's punch holes and unless they hit a vital organ, the bad guy can keep moving forward.

jack burton  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 3:56 PM

Q...I don't recall anyone here posting that you "need a smaller cal". The absolutely best caliber is the one that works best for you. No one else can make that determination. And I wouldn't be so quick to accuse someone else of less-than-good writing if I were you... You post like Chauncey Gardiner on coke.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 3:49 PM

Cont... Jack Burton My question is if a .45 cal will penetrate the sorry S.O.B. who thinks he can now make me his victim, why would I need a smaller cal that may go faster or go through the bad guy and hitting some innocent person who happened to be in the wrong place and the wrong time? Also, I like the idea of the bad guy soiling his pants when he hears the sound of me jacking a shell into my pump action 12 ga.. Would a shot gun be your way to go with protecting yourself, wife and kids?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 3:47 PM

Jack Burton, I checked the website. It is a bit childishly written but ok. I do have a question about powerful ammunition. I always favored a .45 cal but have been told from my fellow gun owners on these postings that I don't know what I'm talking about and got my information from the movies.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 1:14 PM

Thanks wildfire. We all do our part.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 1:10 PM

Jack Burton, my new fellow gun toter, I can appreciate the good ole boy humor, and figure that saying I fit in more with a girly website, but watch out, I'm going to be a fellow pistol packing mama.

Marvelous Wildfire from Tombstone, Arizona  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 1:05 PM

Jack Burton your posts are always so "to the point" and well thought out! I've been reading your post for quite a while, and have always enjoyed your posts very much! Thank You for contribution to the efforts to educate the ignorant and refute the lies of the deliberately misleading. Keep up the good work!

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:32 PM

I'd start with the website. I know it's primarily for women but in your case I think that might be the perfect fit.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:19 PM

Jack Burton, you have me convinced. How can I become a gun owner and carry one in Illinois?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:10 PM

Marvelous Wildfire, if you are in Arizona, stop worrying. You can carry what you want and maybe still wherever you want. You can spend time grouping your loved one's together and protect them through their day and evening. You can event stay up 24/7 and protect them. It is your right to protect them. Now assuming you live in another State, you have the right to own a gun in your home, and you also have the right to choose what danger you put yourself in. You have too much fire and brimstone in u

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:05 PM

And... for the women readers who are interested in finding out more about firearms and how they can protect your family but you would prefer not to deal with what you consider the machoness of guys drooling over the latest in firepower... Kathy Jackson is a married mom of over 20 years and her website at will walk you through almost everything you need to know about guns and why women should consider owning and knowing how to use one.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:00 PM

Sorry again Q, but you've given far too much away about yourself. But I do appreciate your willingness to be a foil so that I get to again post vital info such as where the readers can find all kinds of documented facts about firearms and the people who use them versus the dribble that you are putting forth.

Marvelous Wildfire from Tombstone, Arizona  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 11:51 AM

Q from Oak Park you know less than nothing about me. (You can't even understand what is written in plain English) Since there is no one in your life WORTH protecting, you emote that is the case with me and everyone else that is not to cowardly to assume personal responsibility for their own safety. You are too ignorant to even understand what is posted right in front of your face: WHERE do you emote Tombstone, ARIZONA is located? "New Joiesy"? Psychiatrist Sarah Thompson MD wrote about people like you here: . Q my great-uncle told me "He who knows not, and knows he knows not, is a child; Teach him. He who knows, and knows not he knows, is asleep; Waken him. He who knows, and knows he knows, is was wise man; Follow him. But he who knows not, and knows not he knows not, is a fool; Shun him." Pardon me, but I have nothing further to say to you.

Dan in Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 11:03 AM

The law is the law and it reflects the will of the people, mostly. It is OK to work to change the gun laws, but until you can make those changes happen I suggest that you take immediate action. Wear a bulletproof vest and buy an armored car and learn the finer points of cover and concealment. Also, when outdoors always run in a zigzag pattern. Don't just write about how guns make you unsafe, take your safety seriously.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 10:52 AM

Jack Burton, I know that lump in your pants is more than just your excitement of next months issue on, "97 Year Old Man Blasts Away With His Nighthawk Defender", so please tell me some of those amazing stories of how your guns saved you and your dear one's from being raped and murdered.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 10:49 AM

Jack Burton, do you have a mouse in your pants when you are saying "We", or do you need to say "We", so you are not standing alone and shaking in the corner with guns in both hands. Of course I know people like yourself will disagree with a .45 cal because you spend many days and nights reading "Gun's And Our Rights", "What's The Best Round To Defend When The Bad Guy Shows UP To Rape Your Wife And Kill You". You say decades you have been packing. Cont...

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 10:39 AM

Q carries on as if he has any credibility on the issue of carry and how well it works. He self admittedly does not know any one who carries, does not carry himself, and knows little about guns. (Anyone who believes what he posted about a .45 round is naive and only gets his info from movies and TV.) He sets up no-win situations and because a firearm is not like a Harry Potter wand, able to perform miracles, he then declares that because a firearm won't save you in ~every~ situation it obviously isn't any good in ~any~ situation. While we, who have used and carried firearms for decades obviously don't know what we are posting about and move thru society just shooting willy nilly anything that moves. But it's okay... as I said about the OP, it gives us a chance to get the correct info out to the public who otherwise might not be exposed to it.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 10:30 AM

Cont.. Wildfire, you can pack as much heat in Arizona, legally, I don't understand why there are so many illegals not fearing every gun packing person in Arizona. If they did, then the drugs and everything else that flows into Arizona wouldn't happen. They would be to afraid knowing everyone is packing blasters. So that is the problem with you thinking guns give you better defense. They are in the long run useless even in war, since conflicts end when people seat down and divide up the booty.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 10:26 AM

Cont.... Wildfire, munitions is big business, and for them to survive they need wars. One thing that never gets outsourced is the manufacturing of weapons. I'm getting a bit off track here, and I know you don't have the ability to follow much beyond you having the right to own guns. You may believe you can pack your pistols in 49 other States and carry them anywhere you want, legally, but that is not true. If you want to carry anywhere you want, go to Arizona.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 10:22 AM

Marvelous Wildfire, I'm understanding more about you. You feel you are being victimized and you can't get rid of that feeling without having a gun, which then you can say, "I will not become a victim". The men who lost their lives holding a M16 should never have been in danger, since we have never had a real reason to defend our land, since WWII. Wars are created to benefit a group of people who considers themselves to be special and outside of the normal class. Cont...

Marvelous Wildfire from Tombstone, Arizona  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 10:07 AM

Well yeah Q, you "told me" when you posted: "You believe every woman is going to be raped and a gun needs to protect that." I've had too many friends die while holding loaded M-16s, to believe "Guns save everyone!" A gun just increases the chance of survival. You asked: "Can you explain it to me because I thought bad guys do use guns for these purposes. ..... 'Guns have strict responsibilities already: you can't use guns to commit rape, robbery, murder or any other crime.'" Giving a person a gun permit or allowing Freemen to carry a gun, DOES NOT make committing crimes with a gun LEGAL, the acts are STILL crimes and thus ILLEGAL ACTS. A gun is simply an inanimate object, a tool. It has no will or power of its own, it can only do what the hand holding it makes it do. CRIMINALS are what needs CONTROLLED, NOT the tools the law-abiding could use to stop the criminals. How do you believe, taking the guns away from the intended VICTIMS of CRIMINALS, will make the victims and society safer? IF YOU WERE ARMED: Would YOU really kill me, if I took a parking space you wanted badly? Would YOU really kill me, if I negligently backed into your car in a parking lot? Would YOU really kill me, if you saw me brake in line in front of you at the movies or in a Walmart checkout line? Whom WOULD you actually murder, now that you are armed? What businesses would you rob, now that you have a gun? What woman would you rape, now that you have a gun? What car would you take away from it's legal owner, now that you have a gun? So again I ask you: Specifically how do you believe taking guns away from the intended victims of criminals will make society safer?

Jim M. from River Forest  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 1:03 AM

Jg Morales, you da man !! The Wednesday Journal should hire you to replace Kenny Boy. I have read your comments over the months and you are the most sensible poster on this site by far. Good day to you sir.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:27 AM

Jg Morales, you are right that is is all sensationalism. That is what sells to people. Get the numbers so you can increase the ad costs is priority one with media. I come from a line of people who carried weapons back to the Civil War. Don't know beyond that. It was just part of where you lived.

Jg Morales  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:18 AM

I think this is my last post here, but I just wanted to add that my perspective comes in part from indirect experience. 5 maternal great aunts, all between 4'11" and 5'2" lol... each one carried a gun in her purse at all times. Two for sure always slept with their guns close by. They never shot anyone. They never had any accidents. They were the sweetest little old ladies you could ever find anywhere on the face of this earth. But, they knew they lived in a dangerous world, and weren't going to take any mess. They were brought up around guns. Even my great-grandmother had one. =-) I still have one aunt... 90 years old. It's just her, 6 dogs, 2 shot guns, and at least 1 revolver. She's never killed anyone either. Coming from that sort of gun toting family, in which the kids were learning to shoot early on (be it for hunting or protection)... when some of my relatives moved to the "big city", they definitely kept gun. Sometimes on their person. No, they never killed anyone. They never accidentally shot off a pinky toe. Their children, who knew how to handle guns, never had any accidents either. As someone else pointed out, negligence is often the cause of these accidents. The only one I've ever known to pull a gun in my fam was my uncle, who passed several years ago. He didn't need to fire, but he pulled it for protection. He didn't lead a dangerous lifestyle, but he effectively resolved the situation. They were all in very real situations every day of their lives. Yet, no one accidentally shot the paper boy. Like my mom, I don't own a handgun and have never fired one. I, personally, would not feel comfortable with a gun in my home considering I have children and I'm not trained in firearm use. Yet, all of this anti-gun stuff is nothing more than sensationalism at it's finest.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:18 AM

Cont... I know this is not always the case, but I do know the need for having a gun is very limited and very bothersome to carry, bu if there was ever a time to need a gun against danger, I would want to make sure I had one. I'm just not willing to carry one around when I'm at most places because I don't think I will be getting into any shoot outs from bad people. But you have your opinion and ideas too, and I'm all for that. We can not all be in agreement, and it's fine to disagree.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:15 AM

Jg Morales, I'm sure most gun carrying people are very responsible and also good people, just like non carrying people so I don't base anything against anyone who wants to carry a weapon for protection. I just always thought as we progressed in a civilization, that if we continued to hold off on guns that we would be able to live better without them. Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:12 AM

Jg Morales, a lot of people will defer over there favorite round, but I favor the .45 cal. Reason is, regardless where you hit your target, that target will be knock off balance. Another thing is the damage it does and I'm sure like most gun carrying 2nd admendment rights activists you have witnessed that first hand. I've learned a lot from gun posters how they commonly come into a lot of danger and how a lot of the women they know have been raped. I don't know why that is, but it must be.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:05 AM

Jg Morales, I am 100 percent sure that I can get the drop on you and if you went for your weapon, you would never make it. I'm not a bad guy, but a bad guy can do the same, and if that bad guy has no reservations about shooting you, you will be shot. It is that black and white. The only chance you have is if you have someone who is using the weapon for fear or if you sustain the gun shot wound and are able as you turn bring draw your weapon, take aim and fire and hope you hit your target. cont..

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:01 AM

Jg Morales, unless the fanny pack law has changed, then if I recall it correctly from reading about it a few years ago, you are allowed to carry a gun in a fanny pack as long as the gun isn't loaded. The bullets if I recall correctly can even be in the fanny pack, so all the good guy needs to do is ask the bad person to hold off while the good guy loads up.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 12:00 AM

Jg Morales, I'm not opposed to the idea that a lot of gun carrying people are well trained in firing their weapon and hitting their target. I'm sure they even do role playing without any rounds in the weapon. But now put that person in a real situation that is not expected with live rounds, and the result may be different. If it isn't, that's great. And when they go to court on shooting charges, if they can prove they were in deadly danger, then that's terrific. cont..

Jg Morales  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 11:36 PM

You're losing me, Q and don't seem to be following along. =-/ It's already been addressed and stated by others that those who are pro-gun tend to have lots of training. Hobbyists are into their hobbies. I don't doubt that in some cases they're better trained than some police or military personnel because of this. Your question assumes that more people will carry guns, but I already addressed that in my reply to you. Those who want them already have them in most cases. Those who want to already carry them in most cases. Legal or "illegal". As for staying out of dangerous situations, that's just absurd. I was a child and not in any particularly dangerous situations. But given your example of someone coming up behind you, you should very well understand how you don't have to be looking for danger for it to find you. *rollseyes* My point was that this... wild merry-go-round of what-ifs and cynical assumptions doesn't really hold a lot of water lol. And, on that note I think our little convo is pretty much done, as you're not really dealing with this matter from a very logical perspective. No offense...

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 11:18 PM

Silence, remember, gives consent. An interesting comment from Ken considering the amount of bashing those who dissent got from Dan Haley and John Hubbuch this week.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 11:07 PM

Jg Morales, if insurance companies found insuring gun carrying people profitable, they would welcome gun carrying. Do you know if States require insurance for gun carrying? In your late teens you carried a knife for protection. You should have tried a machine gun and grenades. It never gave me a sense of real protection. Best protection is not being in a dangerous situation. What about bad guys knowing you are packing and instead they just shoot you first then rob you?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 11:02 PM

Jg Morales, I don't really care who carries guns. What I do care about is their response to what they feel is a threat to their life. How does a gun carrying person react in a dark situation when someone jumps out of the bushes? Is there time to get the gun out? Is there time enough to determine if the person is a child playing or a bad guy jumping out with intent to kill? What about backgrounds when shooting if you miss. An innocent by stander may take a hit because someone made a mistake.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 10:56 PM

Marvelous Wild Fire, You wouldn't know I had a reading disability because I didn't tell you, so it's not your fault and don't feel bad about it. Here is something else you wrote that I can't understand. Can you explain it to me because I thought bad guys do use guns for these purposes. ..... "Guns have strict responsibilities already: you can't use guns to commit rape, robbery, murder or any other crime."

Jg Morales  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 10:43 PM

@Q- You're not all wrong. In my mid-late teens I carried a knife with me for protection. One day I was talking to this old dude (a buddy of mine), and he was explaining why he never carried weapons... the likelihood of having them used against you. If the case is that you're not well trained, the likelihood is naturally increased. However, I think that's up to the individual to decide. Take the risk of added protection or not. Maybe in some cases you can't do anything if someone comes up behind you. But... maybe you can if you happen to witness a crime in progress and know how to handle yourself. Maybe then too you're taking a risk. But, again, I say it's the choice of the individual. The "fanatics" as they're called, for the most part, are more interested in protection in general than tyrannical government. Even if they really just think guns are cool, and even if they only see them as an extension of their manhood (one of the many accusations that Mr. Trainor overlooked), most would/do use them responsibly and for good instead of evil. The "evil" bastards you have to worry won't be prevented from obtaining a gun because of strict gun laws. To me, it's pretty hilarious. Prostitution is still alive and well. Laws haven't put it to an end. Yet, men, even important and supposedly moral men, break the law every single day because of this. For the men who choose not to, it has absolutely nothing to do with it being illegal. It has everything to do with their values. The same is true for guns. In some areas, laws really won't make much of a difference. Anti-gun people often forget that we live in a nation of cowboys. Prohibition, war on drugs, lol... the people will do what they will. Ideology, not laws, shape our decisions. Cowboys. =-)

jack burton  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 10:10 PM

Sorry're on your own from here on out.

Marvelous Wildfire from Tombstone, Arizona  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 9:47 PM

Sorry Q from Oak Park, I didn't realize you had such a reading disability. What did I post, that confused you so badly, that it made you believe the idiotic idea: "You believe every woman is going to be raped and a gun needs to protect that"? You ask: "How many people do you know that have been raped?" Too many. Rape is an all too common violent crime, there is seldom a day that goes by that a rape report isn't taken. But that aside, I know of no reason, that I'd feel better if the women in my life were UNARMED. Now is there a REASON, that YOU'D WANT the women you encounter TO BE unarmed? Hmmm... What number of rapes do you consider an acceptable number? Do the women in your life know how you feel about rape, that you believe they should "just lay back and enjoy it"? (Why else would you be against them having the means to protect themselves?)

James Adams Ghost from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 6:56 PM

Yawn, funny how history shows your full of it Herr Ken "Goebbels". But hey, you can prove the US Constitution gives rights instead of affirms those rights pre-existed, or that the BOR is a control on the people instead of the government, uh yeah right. Get back to us when you can, oh wait, I am sorry, my bad for demanding an intelligent logic and data backed reply from the clinically insane. Wont make that mistake again!

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 6:42 PM

Jg Morales, I'm in agreement with you. If Ken is as clever as I think he is, he pulled in gun owners knowing they would demand their right to packing heat 24/7 and give ridiculous reasons why which would make gun owners seem foolish. If this was his reason, he accomplished that goal but at the same time, made himself seem childish by calling others he disapproves of having certain ways of thinking. You have to accept others thoughts about things and it's apparent that Ken doesn't with this.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 6:35 PM

WakeUp from campbellsville, every gun proponent mentions woman being raped and people can't protect themselves and what to do if the government takes over. Those are terrible reasons to use for the basis of carrying a gun. You know guns and you know that if someone came up behind you with a gun, the likely hood of you getting your gun is not even probable. Sure, there are times when you can use a gun to better protect yourself, but those are times you would have your finger on the trigger.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 6:29 PM

Jack Burton, I'm not opposed to people carrying guns for self protection but I don't a gun needs to be something a person surrounds their life with so I'm not in agreement with the movement you mention. I also understand now the fallacies of gun proponents saying 49 States are allowed to carry but with very strict limitations from Bill from Elgin sharing. Start sharing the real facts limiting carry conceal in 49 States.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 6:24 PM

Jake Burton, went to the link you send and it still doesn't work.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 6:22 PM

Bill from Elgin, thank you for the information on carrying a gun in L.A.. Now I understand when they say you can carry a gun in L.A., it is only factual if you are one of the few.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 6:21 PM

Marvelous Wildfire. You believe every woman is going to be raped and a gun needs to protect that. How many people do you know that have been raped? I only know one and she was not old enough to own a gun.

Jg Morales  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 5:15 PM

Your entire piece was condescending lol. How can you complain about condescending replies? You can't start out by saying "Those buggers are crazy" and not have people fire back at you. Under other circumstances, I would call it a bit trolly also. Anyone used to the internet knows what such provocations will lead to. I'm inclined to believe you chose this route for a greater response. You would have better made you point if your pieces were actually even-tempered. In your attempt to make others look unreasonable, you've cast that very same light on yourself. =-/

WakeUp from campbellsville  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 5:11 PM

"No right is absolute"-that is true only if someone has the ability to use force to take away your right. A 110lb college female has the right to life, to not be raped, beaten, abused etc...but wait, that happens all the time. I suppose that actually illustrates your point, doesn't it? An interesting story: google Amanda Collins If you'd really like an argument for the 2nd amendment, read "Why the gun is civilization"

NYC42A from New York  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 4:23 PM

I do not know if our Founding Fathers would find our current government acceptable but you did mention the Declaration of Independence. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should not have changed but some local governments such as New York City are denying people the ability to protect themselves and their families. Wanting to deny people their inalienable rights is immoral and extreme.

NYC42A from New York  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 4:22 PM

You mention their biggest fear is a tyrannical government. Would you prefer a tyrannical government? If not, what means would you use to stop it? The only way history has shown is with a gun. If you have a better way I would appreciate it if you could share it.

NYC42A from New York  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 4:20 PM

You mention that gun extremists live in a frightful universe but you do not deny that it exists. I can only surmise that this is because there are countless examples of very frightening people out there. The most recent example is the Petit home invasion where the father was unable to protect his family and the police just sat idly by while they were raped and murdered.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 4:01 PM

BTW... thank you, Ken, for letting us get this type of pro-freedom information to the public. I would guess that regular readers of yours don't really have an opportunity to hear the truth about firearms very much so having them come here and read the comments from people who actually know about the subject is a real bonus for the movement. Thanks again.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:57 PM

Q... if the people in your life don't know that it is legal or not to carry handguns in their state it is probably because they themselves do not carry handguns. Most people don't know about things that don't interest them. And most people who have a mishap with a firearm do it because of negligence... not because it is an avoidable accident. When the human race finds a cure for stupidity then we might be able to avoid some of the problems we currently have.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:53 PM

Q.... go here:

Jim M.  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:44 PM

As I predicted in my column, their reactions ranged from "explosive rage to derisive contempt to arrogant condescension. Kenny Boy, you missed your calling. You should be reading palms for $10 a crack. I guess your talent is endless

Bill from Elgin  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:39 PM

To Q, Cali is a may issue State. So, you have to go to your county sheriff, beg him or her to grant you a permit, then you can carry. In LA, I understand this is mostly impossible for a regular citizen. However, much like Chicago, where only aldermen and above can carry, in LA you better be at least a B list celebrity, a studio exec or a very wealthy business person. Holli polli need not apply.

Marvelous Wildfire from Tombstone, Arizona  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:35 PM

Q from Oak Park you have me curious now! Does law enforcement officers in "New York, Boston, Los Angeles, etc." carry guns? Why? What do they KNOW, that you are obviously ignorant about? They seldom arrive in time to use their guns, and besides isn't the danger of Barney Fife accidentally shooting a by-stander, a real concern? Or do law enforcement officers operate under different laws of physics, so that the "dense population" is irrelevant when cops are armed to protect themselves? (The POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS: "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others." -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989.) I would never wish you to be force to be armed; but if you and your loved ones were attacked with deadly intent, if you could, would you call the police? Why? Because they are ARMED? Why should a cop, risk his life to save something so insignificant (your life), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?


Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:33 PM

After reading this, you see why so many classify all liberals as "elitist". Bottom line: Despite more and more firearms in this country, and more and more legal concealed carriers, the homicide rate is nearly at a historical low. It is the lowest its been since the early 60's, which was among the lowest ever recorded. Your boogeyman of the Wild Wild West is completely unfounded, and based entirely in YOUR fear of people defending themselves.

Bill from Elgin  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:15 PM

Ken is obviously very confused about this topic and he feels he can insult his fellow Americans exercising their rights that he doesn't feel they should have. His feelings trump 1000s of years of human history, the Constitution and logic. Then he prattles on about the imaginary "social contract". I've never seen it, let alone agreed to it and signed off on it; Where is this contract Ken?

Marvelous Wildfire from Tombstone, Arizona  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:12 PM

Gee Golly and you can't understand why, the non-cowards that aren't afraid to accept personal responsibility for their own protection and safety, takes offense at your insinuating they are paranoid murderer-wanna-bes and budding criminals? Shazam! What a touchy lot! Go figure. Kenny states: "Their obsession with guns is matched only by their obsession with all the bad guys out there just waiting to mug them." So Kenny, you wish to disarm the police as well, right? You know, violent criminals being so rare and almost non-existent and all. Besides, the police virtually never arrive in time to even arrest a suspect, much less USE their guns; why do the police need guns? Now THINK Kenny: If a cop really, honestly, truly NEEDED a gun for a call; doesn't logic suggest that the victim the call was made FOR need a gun as well? Kenny the POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS: "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others." -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989. This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it's up to YOU and YOU ALONE to provide it. What you call "what a reasonable argument would look like" consisted of lies and baseless emotional drivel: 1) the 2nd Amendment GIVES us nothing, it simply guarantees preexisting Human Rights. Guns have strict responsibilities already: you can't use guns to commit rape, robbery, murder or any other crime. What new gun control law, do you honestly believe, those CRIMINALS that use guns and ignore the laws against rape robbery and murder, would obey? Why do you believe they would obey the new laws? Where has your belief in "The more helpless you are when attacked with murderous intent, the SAFER you are" actually worked? Columbine? Luby's? Virginia Tech? Fort Hood?

Marvelous Wildfire from Tombstone, Arizona  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:11 PM

So Kenny as for: "The statistics on gun deaths in the U.S. annually should give us all pause." Wait a minute Kenny! What "statistics on gun deaths in the U.S." are you talking about?! Are these violent crimes, or were these instances of a grown son finding his elderly mother being raped with a knife to her throat, and so the son shot the rapist to save his mother? No? OH! So you WERE talking about ILLEGAL MURDERS committed by CRIMINALS preying on their unarmed VICTIMS! So wasn't these the kind of things you mocked as "Their obsession with guns is matched only by their obsession with all the bad guys out there just waiting to mug them"? So which is it Kenny? Are you being obsessive and paranoid about an insignificant number of gun deaths (why are you only concerned with gun murders anyway?), or are the numbers of CRIMINALS preying on the defenseless REALLY a reason to be armed in defense of one's self and loved ones?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:10 PM

Ken Trainors article saying there were 256 posts would have you believe there were 256 posters making it a hot topic. Actually, there were many of the same posters going back and forth and many posters comments required 3 or more posts to make one comment. I really like the idea of 256 posts on one subject, but I prefer the honest count so I know I can depend on hard work to get to the real facts. This is nothing against Ken Trainor because I do enjoy his writing.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 3:01 PM

Jack Burton, I went to the website you suggested and waited for the information to open, and while waiting, I noticed an ad saying get rid of Obama. That makes me think that Obama doesn't like carry conceal and I don't need to be told who to get rid of. I decide by how well they do their job. As I continued to wait, I decided that I had invested enough time waiting for information that is bias to open and left the website. Do you have another website I can review?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 2:44 PM

Jack Burton, I agree. There are no gun accidents because of people carrying guns. If there were, it will be in the news. I just can't figure out why people who I meet from other States do not know they can carry guns. Could you clarify what is required to carry a gun in Los Angeles?

Ken give it a rest  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 2:19 PM

I read many of those posts. Gunz Kill made very asinine statements, generalizations, and refused to budge (yes) even when he clearly had little reasoning to defend his arguments.If Trainor celebrates his comments, then me taking Trainor seriously is a personality flaw on my behalf. The notion that we are not stable enough as humans to have guns is weak and poorly crafted. Gunz Kill, the hero, had one point: let's get rid of all guns. Sure...that's critical thinking at its best.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 1:41 PM

Dear Q... Yes, there are many people who carry into major cities. The three you named are not the only population dense areas in the country. Dallas; Miami, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and many other large cities allow carry. People even legally carry in Los Angeles. But you still don't seem to hear or read about "accidental discharges" by the tens of thousands, or even by the hundreds, or even by the tens, eh. I would suggest you check out the free book at for documented, real facts instead of listening to hysteria and believing it yourself.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 12:45 PM

All people who live in Carry Conceal States. I want to know if you are allowed to carry your guns into major cities like New York, Boston, Los Angeles, etc.. Most States do not have the dense population as these and have a lot of rural areas where you won't have an opportunity to hurt many people with accidental shootings. I can't find anyone from any State that knows they can carry conceal except for Florida and the one's I've met from Florida shouldn't be allowed to carry anything dangerous.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 9:56 AM

As your neighbor to the east I must apologize for Indiana's part in helping to dramatically increase the incidents of murders in Illinois. You see, for many years my state of Indiana has allowed law-abiding residents to carry concealed handguns, and criminals know it is a bad idea to attack a Hoosier. Nothing says "no" to a badguy quite like a bullet hole in the chest. Because of that, Hoosier criminals are quite aware that it is much safer to do their evil deeds in places where people like Mr. Trainor prefer residents to be completely helpless. This encourages our rapists, muggers, mass killers, white-sheeted bigots, gay bashers and anti-Semites to leave Indiana and move to Illinois, the only state left where the "defenseless lambs" theory of self-defense still exists. The mass exodus of our criminals helps ensure the continued well-being of Indiana residents -- even those who choose not to carry a handgun. It might not be of much comfort to your folks who will be victimized by these transplanted predators, but Illinoisians can find solace in knowing that we appreciate your willingness to make yourselves available as easier targets of opportunity. If it saves just one Hoosier life, it is worth it.

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 28th, 2011 9:51 AM

"The First Amendment gives us the right to speak and even to print and broadcast our thoughts, and the current majority on the Supreme Court agrees. So until the court shifts or this country repeals the First Amendment, we are within our rights to do so. But being rational people, we recognize that no right is absolute and with every right comes responsibility. The statistics on the amount of willful and knowing published lies, libel and slander by journalists in the U.S. annually should give us all pause. A line must be drawn somewhere, and reasonable people on both sides of this controversial issue should be able to reach a compromise on how much speech control is acceptable and effective. We journalists take great pride in being law-abiding citizens, so for the sake of the many Americans who have legitimate fears about the lies we tell, we're willing to accept some regulatory inconvenience (within reason) as long as you recognize our right to publish. Reasonable regulations include licensing of journalists, submitting articles and columns to government review before publishing to ensure no lies, libel or slander are involved, no more than one article or column a week published, and if we are caught in just one, even minor, lie we have our fingers cut off so we can no longer type."


Posted: September 28th, 2011 9:27 AM

And someone please explain to me, what law is going to stop a criminal or just someone who doesn't care from walking into a "gun free zone"? Thousands of gun laws and not a damn one works because the gun is not the issue. If our laws worked so well we wouldn't have carjackings, murder, assault, rape, etc, because there are already plenty of laws against those things.


Posted: September 28th, 2011 9:18 AM

Statistics for what any of them are worth show when it comes to concealed or open carry (where it's allowed), at worst there is NO increase in crime. At best its shows a decrease of crime with over 2 million cases per year of a weapon used in self defense and where a majority of them no shots were even fired. And where concealed carry is not allowed, at best the results show there is no decrease in crime but at worst they show a major increase in crime, specifically in violent crime!


Posted: September 28th, 2011 9:17 AM

There are those that say because I carry that I'm unreasonably defensive or paranoid I prefer to call it being responsible, vigilant and accountable. And then there are those that imply that I carry because I'm compensating for a wee willie but whatever at least I have the balls to carry the responsibility and provide for my own protection.


Posted: September 28th, 2011 9:17 AM

Next, whether you like it or not and apparently some don't care, the protection of you and yours, is your personal responsibility. The police have no legal responsibility or obligation to protect you. And why should they care anyway since you obviously don't care enough to take on the responsibility to protect yourselves why the hell should they?


Posted: September 28th, 2011 9:16 AM

For starters let's get one thing straight, the Second Amendment did not grant us the right to own and carry weapons. The right already existed before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written. The Second Amendment merely established the fact that government was not supposed to infringe on that right.


Posted: September 28th, 2011 8:01 AM

Here's another rational argument: 1. Criminals, by definition, disobey the law. 2. By (1), gun laws will not reduce crime. 3. Any law which does not do that which it was intended to do is a bad law, and should be repealed. 4. By (2) and (3), most (if not all) gun laws in the U.S. should be repealed. Q.E.D.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2018

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2018 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad

Latest Comments