Reflections on Pending Passage of Personal Protection Act – Part 1

The front page treatment of the Appellate Court decision by the Chicago Sun-Times.

The front page treatment of the Appellate Court decision by the Chicago Sun-Times.

“Concealed carry.”

What a public relations disaster that label has been.

When I ran for Governor on the Libertarian ticket in 2002, I certainly supported the concept, but I knew it was a kiss of death for those advancing the right for people to protect themselves with guns outside the home.

I referred to the concept as being a “personal protection” measure.

In 2001, Michigan had approved such legislation.

Similar state, similar problems, but no experience by the time I was running.

I remember reading that the Sheriff of Wayne County predicted shoot-outs on the streets of Detroit.

A year later, he admitted he had been wrong.

Ten years later, the Detroit Free Press ran an article entitled,

10 years after concealed weapons law, unclear why many in state were gun-shy

Another article is here.

If you are a liberal who believes approval of this concept of personal protection is the beginning of the ending of your world, please read the article.

Only about 4% of adults have licenses in Michigan. 2% of them have been sanctioned for misbehavior by law enforcement officials.

My argument eleven years ago was that a very small percentage of individuals could act as a deterrent to crime.

Let me give you my theoretical argument first and then a real life example from the streets of Chicago.

While I was running for Governor, there was a serial rapist on the North Side.

I argued that rapists are basically chickens.  They are too afraid of women to ask them for a date.

So, if even a small, but well-publicized percentage of women in an area were able to protect themselves with guns, I figure that there would be less instances of sexual assault.

That approach would work on college campuses, too, but my guess is that the Illinois General Assembly will continue to make them “Protection Free Zones.”   (Think back to the Northern Illinois University massacre. There was a woman killed sitting in the second row of the auditorium.  She was a former member of the Armed Forces.  Although she served in a supporting role, she would have been trained and capable of taking out the gunman on stage, had Illinois allowed her to carry a weapon.)

More tomorrow.


Reflections on Pending Passage of Personal Protection Act – Part 1 — 13 Comments

  1. Be careful for what thy ask for, you may just get it.

    In this case, taxes, fees and mandated training.

    I suspect the IL legislature attempt to raise revenue, will up licensing fees, taxes and mandate semi-annual training in order to pack heat.

  2. In a so called civil society why would one need to carry a weapon on you?

    Please, let me know if you can mention any other modern western society than our’s that have such a loony idea.

    I hope the lawmakers in Springfield required the loons to take a 3 weeks class with emergency room visit of the results from the violence associated with guns.

    I also hope there is a mandatory requirement to carry a 1 million dollar liability insurance for each carried concealed weapon.

    Yes, I have also severed in the military.

  3. Bjorn M; hopefully, with your thinking, you can convince the street thugs and murderers to do the same. Good Luck with that one.

  4. @Bjorn M.= Another UNinformed voter. Maybe (with your so called LIBERAL mind)

    you could educate yourself on the statistics from 49 other states that have concealed carry laws proving the LOWERING of crime because of them.

  5. Unfortunatly the article is incorrect on the subject of Rape.

    The act of Rape is one of violence and has nothing to do with sex.

    However that being said there is greater need for women to protect themselves from violence.

    The problem I have is that the State or even the Feds cannot seem to “manage” anything very well so I have real concerns about their ability to ensure that people get training and proper license to carry.

    I can tell you our lives are put at risk by illegal hunters every single year and we cannot get anything done about it so I have serious concerns about this new law.

  6. People who claim to have “severed” in the military make me sick. I have many in my family that have served in all branches.

    My first grandson is now a US Marine on his way overseas.

    God bless the real military.

  7. Regulating the training should be simple enough, except that the “State” will certify completion, and they can’t find their butts with both hands.

    However, once completed, THEN the permit application will/should be accepted.

    I don’t fear the citizen who plays by the rules; I fear the morons who don’t.

    Either way, I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, as the saying goes.

    Those who say that with a gun in their possession aren’t afraid are fools tho.

    A good healthy dose of fear and caution never hurt anyone.

  8. to the bjorn person. You served in the military? The reason we have a military is to defend our way of life–our freedom and Constitution– and you don’t think people should be allowed to carry guns? I don’t understand. No, wait, YOU don’t understand.

    We could also flip this on you and point out several countries that restrict guns greatly that are hell holes. You can’t point to any one thing and say “A HA” There are countries with lots of guns with high crime and some with low crime and there are countries that restrict guns with high crime and some with low crime.

    It’s more complicated then that. I know this probably infuriates liberals and conservatives, but it’s true. That being said–Illinois is not the safest state and we are the only state without concealed carry. Obviously it isn’t working. We aren’t the most dangerous state either, so don’t expect a massive drop in crime because of this. The effect it will have on crime, I suspect, should be negligible.

    I’m not totally nuetral on this though. I’m actually glad we’re going to get concealed carry. For me it’s a Constitutional thing. Also, not being able to defend yourself is scary and criminals really don’t care about laws anyway. From a populist perspective, liberals are just on the wrong side of this one too….and I know how much they like to speak “for the people”.

  9. Again I hear you. Most of you apparently has not been outside MacHenry County and much less in any other country and thus you swallow line, sinker and hook what you are told about gun violence.

    Don’t give me all that claptrap about the constitution. In many countries around the world we are looked upon as stupid and uninformed idiots.

    I know better but we are stuck in a movie generated set that is very destructive to the future of our society.

    Many of you would be upset and devastated if any of your love once would be killed but that does not mean that everybody on the sidewalk is a potential murderer !

    Be real!.

    Most large cities in the world like Paris, London, Amsterdam and Berlin you feel safe to walk around in the city and have no fear of the other person as it is highly unlikely that he has a weapon and want to harm you.

    Snap out of this crazy notion that everybody is a threat.

    We are grown up people and should be able to judge for ourselves.

  10. Spot on Bjorn…your analogy of McHenry is correct.

    I have always said that if you must carry, you are over compensating for other short-comings.

    Like you, I am a vet (30 yrs), have lived around the world.

    Your assessment is correct.

    We need to tighten up legislation and take an unpopular step to really look at the 2nd Amendment.

    This is no longer the land of muskets and inaccurate pistols.

  11. Has the NRA made any statements on the innocent kids and adults killed today by a punk who concealed his guns walking into a school to gun down a kindergarten class?

    Let the NRA folks put a gun to their heads before coming to the conversation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.