NOTE– This edition of the Rhubarb Patch breaks with format in order to allow two advocate/newsmakers with opposing views to have a detailed discussion of their issue. They are:
John Birch, President of Concealed Carry, Inc. in Oak Brook. “I retired from the US Army in 1995 having served in the 82d Airborne Division, then as a Counterintelligence Special Agent and finally as an Inspector General retiring at the rank of Major. I spend my time `Saving Lives By Arming Citizens’ as President of Concealed Carry, Inc. My company advocates the passage of a concealed-carry law in Illinois as well as holding a Federal Firearms License to lawfully arm the citizens of Illinois.”
Thomas Mannard executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence “I have been Executive Director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV) since November , 2000. Prior to joining ICHV, I worked as an independent political and public affairs consultant. My clients included both state and local elected officials as well as state and national associations. In the area of gun control, I worked with the Million Mom March during the 2000 election cycle. Additionally, I have worked as a lobbyist for the Illinois Hospital Association and served on the staffs of U.S. Representative William Lipinski and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. I hold a bachelors degree in political science from Marquette University. My wife Kelly and I have two children– Quinn, 4 and Jane Shea, 1.”
Introduction: April 11, 2002
Should law-abiding citizens be allowed to carry concealed firearms in Illinois, as they are in most other states? The question is again before lawmakers in Springfield, and it gets to the heart of the gun-control debate.
Those in favor say a concealed-carry law will make ours a safer society. Opponents, who block it every year, say it will make life more dangerous.
To probe these positions, I’ve invited gun-rights advocate John Birch, president of Oak Brook-based Concealed Carry Inc., and Thomas Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, into the Rhubarb Patch. The Rhubarb Patch is this column’s occasional feature in which a debate begins in the newspaper and continues on the Internet.
To Thomas Mannard, The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
From John Birch, Concealed Carry, Inc.
With 666 victims in 2001, Chicago again became the murder capital of the nation. Concealed Carry Inc. estimates in 53 of those cases, the victim would likely have survived had he been armed. At concealedcarry.org we have already documented 18 such cases in 2002.
Currently, 32 states, including Michigan, Indiana and Kentucky, allow citizens trained in the use of firearms to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons, provided they have no felony convictions or serious mental-health problems.
Another 11 states, including California, issue such permits at the discretion of local law enforcement. On average, these laws have caused an 8 percent drop in the murder rate. In states without such laws, we often see a moral disconnect between politicians and the citizens they are sworn to serve.
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, for example, sees no hypocrisy giving anti-gun speeches while surrounded by an armed security detail. Aldermen allow themselves the right to carry concealed handguns, but leave their constituents to dial 911 and hope for the best.
The nurse leaving her night shift job at Cook County Hospital faces a terrible choice: Does she walk unarmed to her car and risk being assaulted by gangbangers? Or does she carry a handgun in her purse and risk being arrested and charged with a felony?
Opponents of concealed-carry laws say our streets will come to resemble the “wild west” if trained citizens are allowed to carry handguns. Wrong. The “wild west” is what we have now.
I ask this of Illinois residents: If you knew you were about to be attacked, would you rather have a gun in your hand or a telephone? Pick one. It’s your life.
To John Birch, Concealed Carry, Inc.
From Thomas Mannard, The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
Proponents of concealed-carry laws often describe the scenario of the man who stalks us at the ATM or is following a defenseless woman through a dark parking lot waiting for his opportunity to rob, rape or murder. These proponents claim a gun provides the most effective security in such situations.
However, the risks of having a gun actually far outweigh the benefits, particularly for women. According to FBI homicide data from 1998, 302 women were murdered in handgun homicides for every one time a women used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense.
Firearms experts know that armed citizens, even the ones who receive some firearms training, routinely make deadly mistakes when carrying a gun.
Master firearms instructor and concealed-carry advocate Massad Ayoob talks about the human physiological and psychological response to mortal danger as the “fight or flight reflex,” which he states in a training video will bring about “severe, dramatic, cataclysmic loss of fine motor coordination. Dexterity falls [away]”
This is a serious problem because, he says, “The firing of a gun is dexterity intensive. You can’t change that.”
The effect of these unavoidable changes is well documented. The handgun owner is not only less likely to be able to effectively use the gun for self defense, but he is also more likely to endanger himself, members of his family and innocent bystanders.
Do incidents occur in which people effectively use guns in self-defense against an unknown attacker? Yes. However, compared to the total universe of gun crime and violence, such incidents are rare.
The FBI tells us that out of the 7,875 handgun homicides reported in 1998, only 95 (1.2 percent) were justifiable handgun killings of an assailant previously unknown to the person defending themselves.
To Thomas Mannard, The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
From John Birch, Concealed Carry, Inc.
I’d like to start the Internet side of this rhubarb by thanking Eric Zorn for allowing me to borrow his readers and to thank you, Thomas, for participating as my opponent in this important public safety debate.
In the following primer on violent crime reduction I will be quoting you in italics and by the end of the day I am pretty sure you’ll be sitting with us on the right side of this issue.
The risks of having a gun actually far outweigh the benefits, particularly for women. According to FBI homicide data from 1998, 302 women were murdered in handgun homicides for every one time a women used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense.
So if we take away the women’s guns the statistic will change to 303 dead for every life not saved? Your own numbers prove our point: Guns Save Lives!
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey every day 550 rapes, 1,100 murders and 5,200 other violent crimes are stopped just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun actually ever fired.
In the course of meeting with Concealed Carry, Inc. members many incidents have been related to me by Chicago gun owners who thwarted crime by the expedient of simply brandishing a gun. Every time I ask them if they called the police after the incident they say; “No, because the police will come and arrest me and take my gun away.” Victim as criminal? Only in Chicago folks.
Due to Chicago’s ban on handguns the dirty little secret of Mayor Daley’s “War on Gun Owners” is simply that anyone speaking out about owning a gun is inviting search and arrest. If you are a city employee, and own a handgun, you have violated the Chicago Code of Employee Ethics and will be fired muy pronto. Pardon the pun, but gun owners have been “muzzled.”
When all the citizens in Chicago hear is one side of the gun argument, it’s not surprising gun owners find themselves vilified as a class. Like gays in the early 1980’s, gun owners are deeply in the closet and have become societal outcasts both in Chicago and in the legislative halls of Springfield.
Do incidents occur in which people effectively use guns in self-defense against an unknown attacker? Yes they do, however, compared against the total universe of gun crime and violence they are few in number. The FBI says that out of the 7,875 handgun homicides reported in 1998, only 95 (1.2%) were justifiable handgun killings of an assailant previously unknown to the person defending themselves.
These figures do not take into account the number of murders stopped because the potential victim was armed. As stated above that number is 1,100 daily. It’s nice to know that are options other than being a victim, isn’t it Thomas? While it is regrettable there were 7,875 homicides reported in 1998, none, that we have discovered, were attributed to a person with a concealed carry permit. When citizens are allowed to be armed they do not commit crimes, rather they prevent crimes and save lives. Only a hopeless optimist would think the police are going to protect them. A safe society is reflected in the character and responsibility of its citizens and not in any pie-in-the-sky omnipresent police force.
Even firearms experts know that armed citizens, even the ones who receive some firearms training, routinely make deadly mistakes when carrying a firearm.
So do the police. According to David Kopel 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person compared to just 2% for the aggregate of both trained and untrained citizens. Thomas, given the fact that even an untrained citizen is less likely to kill an innocent civilian than is a cop, do you now also suggest we disarm the police?
Master firearms instructor and concealed carry advocate Massad Ayoob, talks about the human physiological and psychological response to mortal danger as the “fight or flight reflex” which he states in a training video will bring about “severe, dramatic, cataclysmic loss of fine motor coordination. Dexterity falls (away).” This is a serious problem because “the firing of a gun is dexterity intensive. You can’t change that.”
This affects the criminal as well. The last thing a criminal wants to do is get into a gun fight with his intended victim. In the book “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A survey of felons and their firearms” (Wright and Rossi, 1986) it is documented that criminals are more afraid of armed citizens than they are of the police. Advantage: Clearly the law-abiding, gun toting, citizen.
The effect of these unavoidable changes is well documented. The handgun owner is not only less likely to be able to effectively use the gun for self defense; he is also more likely to endanger himself, members of his family and innocent bystanders.
This is an old anti-gun bromide totally unsupported by fact. Let’s take a look at the numbers for those injured resisting attack compared to those who were passive.
In a study done by the liberal biased British Home Office, those who resisted robbery with a gun were injured 6% of the time. Those who did nothing at all were injured 25% of the time; while those who offered non-violent resistance suffered a 45% injury rate. I think I’ll take my chances toting a gun whether it’s a felony in Illinois to do so or not. Better judged by twelve than carried out by six eh Thomas?
Let me conclude by relating the latest on what happens when the average Joe is permitted to carry in self-defense. I think we’d all agree that Michigan is a state not unlike Illinois. There is one dominant liberal city, Detroit, and then a vast area of rural farm land. In July of 2001 Michigan became the 33d state to allow any trained, background checked citizen to carry a concealed handgun.
The liberals wailed the streets of Detroit would run in rivers of blood as citizens shot it out over parking spaces and used guns to settle even petty disputes. Now, 8 months later the liberals worst nightmare has come true: Concealed carry has produced zero gun related violence and violent crime is down. Read the details in this article: “Gun Permits Surge, But Not Violence,” The Detroit News, March 21, 2002 .
Thomas, your buddy Mayor Daley seems to think he has a winning issue in keeping citizens away from the means to defend themselves on his streets. And he may well be right. But as the Chicago murder rate continues to skyrocket one wonders how long before the good citizens of Chicago wise up and realize all the CAP programs in the world are going to do nothing but give them more opportunities to mourn their dead. (third installment of 10)
To John Birch, Concealed Carry, Inc.
From Thomas Mannard, The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
I’d also like to start the internet side of this Rhubarb by thanking Eric for allowing us to debate this important issue.
John, you often like to blame Mayor Richard M. Daley for why ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry concealed weapons in this state, however, Mayor Daley is only the mayor for 3 million citizens in this state and while he certainly has a great deal of influence, he could not control the fate of a concealed-carry bill that comes before the state legislature. In addition, it would appear that the great majority of Chicago citizens are quite comfortable with the Mayor’s position on concealed-carry and other gun control issues since he has been re-elected three times since 1989, always by considerable margins.
As for the rest of the state, the voters of Illinois have consistently supported candidates for statewide office that have opposed concealed-carry initiatives. During this most recent primary election, five of the six candidates for governor stated they were opposed to concealed-carry. And the one candidate who supported the idea, Patrick O’Malley, was soundly defeated. In addition, in the Republican U.S. Senate primary, the winner was Jim Durkin who has consistently opposed concealed-carry.
Over the course of the last ten years, concealed-carry legislation has consistently been introduced in the General Assembly in both the House and Senate, and it has consistently been defeated.
This should not come as a surprise to most people who have studied this issue, as it has been clear for some time that the majority of American citizens do not support concealed-carry laws.
The December 2001 issue of Injury Prevention cited a survey that had done by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health in 1996 and 1999. The survey results were based on responses from random telephone interviews with more than 4,400 adults conducted nationwide in 1996 and 1999. Respondents were asked in 1996 whether they would feel “more safe, the same or less safe” if more people in the community carried guns. Respondents in 1999 were asked if “regular citizens should be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants, college campuses, sports stadiums, bars, hospitals or government buildings.
In 1996, 59% of those interviewed said they would feel less safe and 12% said they would feel safer if more people in their community carried guns. Three years later, 90% of respondents said they did not believe regular citizens should be allowed to bring their guns into the public places named. Women were particularly likely to believe that regular citizens should not carry guns in to the places named, at a percentage of 96%.
The fact of the matter regarding concealed-carry is most Americans simply don’t have a high comfort level around guns. They realize that carrying a gun or having one in their home provides a greater risk than it does protection.
Finally, while concealed-carry proponents would like us to believe that everyone that carries a concealed weapon is a law abiding gun owner who does not pose a threat to public safety, the facts prove otherwise.
For example, the state of Texas enacted a concealed-carry law in 1995. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, from January 1, 1996 to October 9, 1997 Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 946 crimes. Of these, 263 were felony offenses. Felony crimes for which license holders were arrested include: murder/attempted murder; kidnapping; sexual assault; assault; weapons related offenses; drug related offenses; burglary and theft. During this same period, concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 683 misdemeanor crimes including: 120 instances of assault; 194 weapons related offenses; 215 instances of driving while intoxicated and 24 drug related offenses. Clearly, concealed-carry permit holders are not always individuals who are carrying their guns for self defense. (fourth installment of 10)
To Thomas Mannard, The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
From John Birch, Concealed Carry, Inc.
While you are correct that I do blame Mayor Daley for the fact the Illinois does not have a concealed carry law, the larger issue is that I blame Mayor Daley for the fact that Chicago is the murder capital of the USA. It seems the Mayor wants to hold gun owners responsible for his failure to control crime. But the fact is, those of us with Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Cards are NOT the ones robbing liquor stores or shooting it out over gang turf.
Getting the Mayor to admit that it was his own misguided views on trusting citizens with guns that got him into this mess is just not going to happen. He’s got his power, his clout, his armed guards and unless US Attorney General Fitzgerald sends him to prison, he’s got a lifetime employment contract as “Da Mayor.”
It’s fair to say that if Chicago were to dry up and blow away Illinois would have a concealed carry law within months. That is not going to happen so the next best thing I can offer Thomas is that you take a look at this page on our web site and see for yourself the promises made by Chicago’s elite since 1997 to control crime by stopping a concealed carry law.
Fact is, Chicago has done a great job keeping guns out to the hands of law abiding citizens. Now if they would just do something about that pesky murder problem?
I have to say Thomas, you are sadly correct that Republicans chose liberal candidates to run in November. I am a Republican Precinct Committeeman and it galls me to admit that you’re right about Republicans in Illinois. They picked machine Republicans (Jim Ryan and Jim Durkin) to run in November and that means they picked RINO’S. (Republicans In Name Only.)
I am distressed that Senator Pat O’Malley did not win the primary, as his victory would have given the voters a real choice. As it is, Blagojevich and Ryan are two sides of the same leftist coin and I don’t see myself going door to door getting the vote out for Ryan. As things stand today, Blagojevich is our next governor and gun owners stand ready to be punished. We see the handwriting on the wall. The only question in our minds is “will Blagojevich go too far and push gun owners into ‘civil rights’ mode to defy his laws?”
While I would like to see a Republican defeat Dick Durbin it’s clear Jim Durkin is not the man to do that. Durkin has been my state representative for years and he’s a staunch foe of gun rights. A real “Soccer Moms Rule” kind of guy.
The only joy I see in November is that it will be fun to watch Durbin stomp Durkin decidedly on Election Day. The only difference between Durbin and Durkin is the letter “K” and the voters will soon know that. I can’t say it makes one whit of difference to me who wins as both have never learned to read�the Second Amendment.
And Thomas, it get better! As a bloc, gun owners are a powerful voting force. But this year we are not a bloc. Some are going “GOP party first” and will hold their collective noses and vote for Ryan. A whole bunch of otherwise “Ryan voters” plan to jump ship and vote for Libertarian Cal Skinner.
Here is the kicker, a rather significant group is voting for Blagojevich both to punish the Republican party and to finally settle the issue of gun rights once and for all in Illinois. Can you spell “Showdown?”
If I were an Illinois politician in this election season I think I would write off the gun- rights voters and concentrate on other issues. Gun owners were routed on March 19th and are no longer players in this election unless some unifying entity emerges.
So you see, Thomas ,we do agree on several points and you have my grudging admiration for not only successfully marginalizing gun owners, but you have also co-opted our party into your ranks. Even our own state gun rights organization, The Illinois State Rifle Association, is at best a good defensive squad. Believe me, with Blagojevich as governor the ISRA better know defense, as for the next four years their time in possession of the ball will be ZERO.
Now. Where don’t we agree?
You cite the results of a survey published in the December, 2001 issue of Injury Prevention that showed a large percent of the population hated gun owners and believed us to be the cause of crime (at least by implication that is certainly the conclusion the survey made).
Thomas, you simply can’t use surveys to deny people their civil rights and you should know better. We live in a republic, not a democracy. If you live in a city and every resident votes that you have to move out it just makes no difference. Your property right trumps their collective right and you get to stay.
So too with gun owners. Heck, so, too, with blacks, Jews and gays. If I were to produce a study showing that black people are statistically more likely to cause crime than gun owners, would you advocate the City Council pass an ordnance banning blacks from the city? Do you think such an ordnance would be well received by blacks or any right thinking people?
I am sure if one were inclined to spend money on such things that one could find polls showing a majority opposed to gays. Again, would you use that poll to pass laws banning gays from society or restricting their freedoms? Of course not.
It is a tribute to the law-abiding nature of gun owners that we have not resorted to civil disobedience to the blatant discrimination and vilification of us. What other group would willingly allow itself to be singled out as the cause of crime and have nefarious laws banning and restricting its rights passed and not even put up a whimper? I submit the proof gun owners are the safest members of society is that you can use us as a punching bag. I can think of no other group that is so passive when confronted by lies, distortion and adverse legislation.
Thomas please don’t say things like; “According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, from January 1, 1996 to October 9, 1997 Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 946 crimes.”
What you really meant to say is that the anti-gun owner Violence Policy Center (VPC) made those assertions. That VPC study was done as a hit piece to nail George Bush in his run against Al Gore. In fact it was issued on October 3, 2000, the day of the first Bush/Gore debates. Timing is everything after all! Why do you think the study was done in Texas and not some other state like Florida? For those unfamiliar with this VPC propaganda the can view the “study” here.
The proof that this study was purely to attack George Bush and to help elect anti gun-owner Gore can be found here at the Brady Campaign web site:
So what is the truth about Texas concealed carry permit holders? Are they really just a licensed criminal element of society?
The facts: Texas’ carry law took effect Jan. 1, 1996, and as of Sept. 1, 2000, there were 215,003 active firearm carrying permits in Texas. Only 0.5% of permits have been revoked for any reason, and Texas revokes permits for a variety of reasons including misdemeanor violations that have nothing to do with firearm possession or use. Two permit holders have been convicted of murder, but there is no evidence that permits played a role in the crimes.
Murder rates in Texas fell by 25% between 1995 and 1997, much faster than the 16% decline in states without “shall-issue” laws. Overall, Texas’ total violent crime rate has dropped 20%. The fact is, despite a flawed and failed effort to prove otherwise, the Texas Concealed Carry Law has been instrumental in proving what we have said all along: Guns Save Lives.
As to conviction data of concealed carry permit holders in Texas, I would suggest avoiding the filter of the VPC and going directly to the source at the Texas Department of Public Safety as soon as that site is updated:
Statistics are fun, but we are talking about human lives here not “gotcha” statistics. According the FBI in 1997 there were 18,209 murder victims, 497,950 robbery victims and 96,122 rape victims the police could NOT help. US News and World Report reported in their June 1998 article “This is 911�Please hold” that the police arrived too late to stop a crime or make an arrest an astonishing 95% of the time.
Thomas these numbers are staggering in terms of the toll on victims and their families. You can keep dreaming that guns are going to disappear from society with the stroke of Blagojevich’s gubernatorial pen or you can turn your considerable energy and talents into proactively saving lives by arming citizens. (4-11-01–Fifth installment of 10)
To John Birch, Concealed Carry, Inc.
From Thomas Mannard, The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
As you stated, we do agree on several points, and thank you for the grudging admiration. However, reasonable people can agree to disagree, so I’ll move on to our disagreements.
You assert that non gun-owners hate gun owners. Well many non gun-owners in this nation, including myself, have a close family member or a close friend that probably is a gun owner and I can tell you that doesn’t mean that they don’t love that individual any less. They may disagree with them when it comes to this issue, but that’s where it ends.
As for civil rights, yes you have a right to own a gun, but I have difficulty finding anything in the Constitution that mentions carrying a concealed weapon as a civil right. Whether you believe the second amendment is a collective or individual right to bear arms, I don’t think it says anything about carrying a gun in a holster under your sport coat or in a fanny pack.
I find it ironic that you talk about members of Concealed Carry Inc. being law abiding citizens when you readily admit that these same people are carrying concealed weapons in Illinois in direct violation of state law. The drug dealers, gang bangers and thugs that are part of your “Wild West” world you believe we presently live in also carry guns for their personal protection.
They are breaking the same laws you are. When someone drops their child off at school while packing a piece, they are committing the same crime as the armed schoolyard pusher. The point is, if you are carrying a concealed weapon in Illinois you are not a law abiding citizen.
In your last entry, John you said “statistics are fun, but we are talking about human lives here not gotcha statistics”.
Well John you are right, and most people don’t need statistics to tell them that more guns on our streets is going to mean more lost human lives. Is there danger out there? Absolutely, but most people realize that the chance of running into danger is minimal if they go about their lives in an appropriate manner. The mentality of people who are intent on carrying concealed weapons seems to be that the world is such a scary place you need a gun to protect yourself.
Those of us who don’t feel the need to carry a gun for protection simply look at the world a little differently. I’d rather live my life trusting that the man walking next to me on the street doesn’t want to harm me rather than living my life in fear. Martin Luther King stated “Non-Violence is a way of life for courageous people” and that’s they way I choose to go about
my life.
Finally, as I conclude my comments for this section, I have to take issue with you for your claim that certain murder victims in the City of Chicago would have saved themselves if they had been armed. How do you come to such a conclusion? Do you assume that if conceal carry were legal in this state that those individuals would have exercised the right to carry a concealed weapon. Are you assuming they would have been able to legally own a firearm? Are you assuming they would have killed their attacker? To make these types of statements is not only presumptuous but shows a complete lack of consideration for those murder victims and their families and friends. (4-11-01–6th installment of 10)
To Thomas Mannard, The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
From John Birch, Concealed Carry, Inc.
So Thomas you don’t see anything in the Second Amendment about carrying concealed weapons? Last time I checked the word “bear” means simply to “carry.” In this case the carrying is in a holster. What is the problem?
If the problem is that the Second Amendment didn’t anticipate the advent of semi-automatic hand guns, I can assure you the First Amendment didn’t anticipate high speed printing presses and the Internet either. Yet both the press and the Internet enjoy protections of the First Amendment. I don’t think the Fourth Amendment anticipated X-Ray Machines and Metal Detectors, yet these devices are used routinely to establish probable cause to search. Technology does not invalidate the US Constitution.
Thomas you have outraged an entire class of people by equating law abiding gun owners with drug dealers and thugs. For instance you say; “When someone drops their child off at school while packing a piece, they are committing the same crime as the armed schoolyard pusher. The point is, if you are carrying a concealed weapon in Illinois you are not a law abiding citizen.”
I frankly find your comparing a concerned parent protecting a child to a schoolyard drug dealer to be patently offensive and in fact: “hate speech.”
But your point is well taken in the sense that the absurdity of Illinois gun law is that it makes no distinction between a woman protecting her child from violence and an ex-con back in the ‘hood yet again plying his murderous trade.
Yes, many Chicagoans break the law every day and carry a gun. Not in defiance of the law, but for the higher purpose of self-defense. Where would the civil rights movement be today if African’s living in America had your attitude? I can see Rosa Parks sitting in the back of the bus thinking, “Gee, I should be able to sit in any seat I want, but the law says I sit in the back and I don’t want to be a criminal so I will just mindlessly obey the law and be a good citizen.”
Thomas I love your quoting the great civil rights leader in your comment; “Martin Luther King stated ‘Non-Violence is a way of life for courageous people’ and that’s they way I choose to go about my life.”
I wonder if Mayor Daley will share your faith in your fellow man and now dismiss his armed security detail?
Anyway , I’ll call your civil rights leader and raise you one: Indian non-violent peace advocate. Mahatma Gandhi said, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
For what it’s worth, I share your non-violence policy Thomas except I do not forsake the use of force to deter, prevent or stop an attack on my person or family. You may be content so passively watch your wife raped in the spirit of courageous non-violence, but I am not.
I think that a self-inventory is in order for those wishing to examine their own conscience on this issue; therefore I offer the following personal inventory., excerpted from a quiz posted here to a-human-right.com website.
Before completing this inventory, please remember that possession of firearms by felons is already illegal in the United States. Therefore, you don’t need to concern yourself that “prohibiting criminals from having guns” is a solution: the law already does that for you.
We have also seen that the laws are not very effective in preventing possession. Do consider, however, the effects of guns and crime on you, personally.
Is it morally correct for a police officer to shoot in order to save an innocent victim from an attack?
Yes.
No.
If no police officer is present is it morally correct for the innocent victim to shoot to protect self or dependents from an attack?
Yes.
No.
The proper response to a drive-by shooting is…
- prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying the type of the car used by the perpetrator.
- prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying the type of the gun used by the perpetrator.
- prosecute the perpetrator of the crime
The proper response to an arson is…
- prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying gasoline.
- prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying any flammable fluids, matches and lighters.
- prosecute the perpetrator of the crime
If my child or my spouse were assaulted, I would…
- run away and hope my kid or spouse can keep up with me
- be a good witness so I can tell the cops what happened later
- try to convince the attacker to stop through verbal persuasion
- fight to stop the attack
If I choose to resist, my primary concern would be…
- health of my attacker
- my own safety
Given a choice, I would prefer to defend myself with…
- my bare hands
- an ineffective weapon, such as pepper spray
- an effective weapon, such as a firearm
If I choose to defend myself with a firearm, I would favor the…
- least effective type possible
- most effective type possible
Criminals often gang up on a single victim. Shooting accurately under stress is often difficult and more than one shot may be required to stop each attacker. If defending myself with a firearm, I would want the magazine to hold…
- one round
- six rounds
- ten rounds
- thirty rounds
Some say that just owning a gun would make you a violent person; if I just had a handgun, I would…
- go shoot up the nearest fast food restaurant
- go shoot up the nearest Army base
- kill somebody I know next time I get angry
- none of the above. I would continue to be a peaceful person.
- act even more politely than before so as to avoid confrontations
Others would say that having weapons simply makes psychopaths more dangerous. If we only limited everyone to least effective tools, in your opinion, that idea should also be applied to…
- alcohol. The Prohibition worked like a charm, let’s revive it.
- computers. If everyone just stuck with 286, we’d have fewer problems with hackers.
- cars. The Constitution says nothing about the right to drive, and making everyone drive at 5 mph would reduce the number and severity of accidents.
Now let’s talk about what other people would do.
Police officers carry high-capacity handguns and store shotguns or submachine guns in patrol cars because…
- the cops are evil and want to kill innocents.
- police departments cannot afford tanks.
- such firearms are effective means of self-defense.
If all guns were outlawed, I think that all criminals would…
- turn in their weapons to police and become model citizens.
- turn in their guns and beg for small change
- keep their guns and prey on disarmed law-abiding people.
If a person planning robbery, rape or murder cannot get a handgun, they would think…
- “I better stay home tonight and get a job in the morning”.
- “I will buy an illegal gun from my drug supplier, then go kill”.
A rapist choosing between two victims (one armed, one unarmed), would prefer to…
- attack the armed one, so he could “take her gun and use it against her”.
- attack the unarmed one because that would be less hazardous.
- not to mess with either, as he can’t tell which one is armed.
Someone planning a drive-by shooting would use…
- only legal 10-round magazines because they plan to get caught.
- anything he wants because he doesn’t plan to get caught.
The First Amendment to the Constitution:
- authorizes free speech for official State news agencies.
- protects the individual’s right to own quill pens and 18th century manual printing presses.
- recognizes inalienable individual right to free speech.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution:
- authorizes possession of arms by the Army and National Guard.
- protects the individual’s right to own flint lock muskets and other 18th century arms.
- is about the right to hunt ducks and shoot at paper targets.
- recognizes inalienable individual right to keeping and bearing arms.
Thomas, I would love to know your answers to the above questions, but in the end those are really a matter between you, your family, your intellect, your moral conscience and God.
There will be a couple of important announcements in my final installment of this Rhubarb and I hope readers will check back in a couple of days. (posted 4-12-02–Seventh installment of 10)
To John Birch, Concealed Carry, Inc.
From Thomas Mannard, The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
Unfortunately, my days of taking multiple choice exams ended years ago so as you stated, the answers to your questions will have to stay between myself and my moral conscience.
I don’t think we have time to get into a discussion about the Second Amendment, that’s for another Rhubarb. However, I will tell you that I am thoroughly comfortable with the Supreme Court’s interpretation that the Second Amendment serves only as a check on the power of the federal government, thereby preventing it from interfering with a state’s ability to maintain a militia, and in no way limits the individual state’s power to regulate firearms, including controlling handgun ownership in any way they see fit.
I have also found it amusing when people have written to me saying it is their “God Given right to carry a concealed weapon.” I guess that was the eleventh commandment. I must have missed it.
Back to the issue before us. We can continue to go back and forth about the merits or lack thereof of carrying a concealed weapon, but the bottom line is that the great majority of the residents of Illinois do not support regular citizens carrying concealed weapons which is why it is not the law.
I don’t understand why you think the majority of Illinois residents should concede to the minority on this issue. Quite frankly, I’m tired of hearing the whining and moaning from people who feel as if their rights are being denied, and believe me since this Rhubarb started John, I’ve been receiving plenty of e-mail from your supporters who are doing just that. If they have a problem with our law here in Illinois, perhaps they might want to consider Indiana or Michigan. You might want to suggest that they avoid Wisconsin and Missouri, however, since they also prohibit carrying concealed weapons.
John, I think you know as well as I do that when it comes to this issue an individual’s response is often visceral and no amount of statistics can change that, which is why I’ve avoided using statistics in this installment. Many individuals on your side of the issue think a gun provides the ultimate security, while many individuals on my side of the issue believe a gun is a
death wish for themselves and their family members.
Finally, you took issue with me comparing a gun-owning parent protecting his child to the armed schoolyard pusher; well below is a story from this week’s AP wire. Tragically, this young child was not protected by the guns that were there to supposedly protect his safety
Associated Press
April 9, 2002
JACKSONVILLE, Florida.- A 4-year old boy died Monday after he apparently shot himself in the chest while playing with his grandfather’s gun, police said.
Sabarius Dwight Mortin was airlifted to Shands Jacksonville where he died in surgery, homicide Lt. Rick Graham said.
The boy’s grandmother and grandfather, father and younger sister were in the three bedroom apartment when the shooting happened at about 4 a.m.
Three guns belonging to the boy’s grandfather were found in the home Graham told the Florida Times Union in Jacksonville. He declined to say what type of gun was used or how the boy got a hold of it.
A second gun was also discovered in the front of Sabarius’ diaper, according to a police report. The boy’s grandfather told police he keeps the guns locked inside a footlocker in his bedroom and believed Sabarius found the key and unlocked the case.
Unfortunately John, children have a tendency to emulate their role models. (4-12-01–Eighth installment of 10)
NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR— Since both of you haven’t really used your allotment of total words I’d like to extend the limit to 2,500 for each of your closing statements, if you would like to take that many. And I’d like you to use it to do a few things, if possible—to identify common ground and areas of possible compromise: John, what limits and controls do you think are appropriate for private ownership of firearms and why? Do you think the Second Amendment ought to cover simply everything that qualifies as a firearm?
And Thom, under which circumstances do you think private citizens should be able to own and transport, even carry weapons?
The most relevant issue that I feel has not been fully and carefully and statistically explored so far in this discussion is the issue of safety and what we have learned from states that do have concealed carry.
Thom, when you write “most people don’t need statistics to tell them that more guns on our streets is going to mean more lost human lives,” I’m afraid I don’t fall into the “most people” camp. What seems intuitive to you seems counterintuitive to John, while the social scientist in me approaches such a question as an agnostic.
So I’d like both of you to address this not with conjecture or scenario, but with the (ample) record that will tell us if “most people” are in fact correct.
The least relevant issue, it seems to me, is public opinion. If we let public opinion settle debates or cut off or curtail the search for facts, for truth and for enlightenment, well. I won’t confuse the point by making invidious analogies, but let’s just agree that history is filled with examples of public opinion having been wrongheaded.
Which is not to conclude that they are here, by the way. I am wearing my moderator’s hat and am simply trying to keep the conversation moving along productively.
This has been a zesty exchange, by far the fastest rhubarb in the short, happy history of the Rhubarb Patch. I thank both of you, again, for being so swift in your replies and so willing to share your thoughts with readers of the Tribune and this affiliated site. I hope that those who have read even this far have learned something. I have.
To Thomas Mannard, The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
From John Birch, Concealed Carry, Inc.
Thomas, all good things must come to an end and so it is with this Rhubarb as I write my final installment.
Eric, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to address your many readers and you have my thanks.
Out of deference to Eric I will address his issues first, then briefly respond to Thomas and finally I will leave those who are on the pro right to self-defense side of the house with some proactive initiatives we are instituting at Concealed Carry, Inc.
Eric asks: “John, what limits and controls do you think are appropriate for private ownership of firearms and why? Do you think the Second Amendment ought to cover simply everything that qualifies as a firearm?”
As a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) I routinely transfer handguns to the public. My direct experience in dealing with laws governing the sale of guns to private individuals is that we clearly have enough laws on the books to gag a maggot.
The anti-gun crowd frequently claims the problem with gun violence is the easy availability of hand guns. Wrong.
Clearly these people have never bought a gun and have no idea the steps involved. So for those of you who have never bought a gun and think its like going into a 7-11 to buy a pack of
smokes, here is the routine:
1 . Obtain an application for a Firearm Owners ID (FOID) Card, get your picture taken, send the application together with $5 ($500 under Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich’s proposed law) to the Illinois State Police and then wait and wait and wait.
- In two to six weeks, if you pass the background check, you will get your FOID Card. You may now begin shopping for your gun. Prior to getting the FOID card no gun dealer will even give you the time of day.
- Select your gun, pay for it and fill out a Federal Form 4473 and swear under penalty of Felony conviction that you are not a criminal, drunkard, drug addict, mentally infirm, wife beater, etc.
- The gun dealer calls the Illinois State Police to verify that you are still a citizen in good standing. About half the time the approval is within minutes, the other times the approval can take up to a day.
- Go home and wait another 3 days to “cool off.”
- Ah, the blessed day arrives. Go to the gun dealer and show him again your FOID card AND a government issued photo ID. Why isn’t the FOID card good for ID? You would have to ask greater minds than mine. But after all the hassle of getting the FOID card to start with, it turns out the card is pretty irrelevant at the end of day. The only ID we record for our records and the only ID we may accept is the government issued one.
Anyway Eric, you asked me the time of day and instead I told you how to build a watch. The point is there are tons of laws and restrictions on the books now (over 20,000.) Too many laws for a society that values liberty and personal freedom.
I agree it would be folly to suggest that there should be no restrictions on handguns. It is simply important to me that the good guys have easy access to handguns and the criminal element be incarcerated for even simple possession of so much as unloaded gun.
So my hand gun laws would boil down to treating guns like cars. After all, we license drivers and register cars do we not? And isn’t one of the Mantra’s of the anti-gun lobby that since we license drivers and register cars we should do the same for guns?
Thomas, you know this is one of your cardinal arguments for gun registration so, surprisingly, I am going to accept your argument as correct!
Now Thomas, let’s treat guns like cars. If I purchase a car and only use it on my land, I do not require a license to operate, nor am I required to register the car. So using your car analogy, guns bought for use on private property would remain unregulated.
Those who have a driver’s license and a registered car can freely move about the nation with their car and purchase gas just about anywhere. For those who wish to license and perhaps register a single gun for self-defense, so to should they be allowed to carry that gun anywhere in all fifty states and purchase ammunition as needed. Private businesses, land owners, churches, local school boards, etc. would simply post signs prohibiting guns on their premises if they so chose.
I personally think such signs are dangerous. Letting criminals know that an area is “gun free” is an invitation to them. I notice no anti-gun owner types have signs in their yards advertising that their home is “gun free.” However Thomas, if you want I’ll have such a sign made for your domicile.
Gun owners deserve a unified, easy to follow set of gun laws. Not 20,000 “Gotcha” laws. It is ridiculous that an Indiana citizen lawfully carrying a loaded hand gun on the east side of South Avenue A commits a felony just by crossing the street into Illinois.
As to what guns we should be allowed to have it makes sense to look at the Second Amendment for guidance on that.
The word “bear” is the operative word. One cannot “bear” a tank or an artillery piece. One can bear handguns, long guns, even machine guns. I know the thought of machine guns terrifies the average person, but believe it or not thousands of gun owners have them and your own experience should tell you, machine guns are NOT the criminal’s weapon of choice. They are just too big and too expensive. Criminals don’t use .50 caliber rifles either; despite Rod Blagojevich’s rampant anti-gun paranoia.
So the weapons we should be allowed to own are any weapon that can be born by a US Army Infantryman, Law Enforcement Officer and the like.
Eric, you rightly ask what are the statistics that show states with concealed carry having reductions in violent crime? The short answer is that in every state and every county that has concealed carry violent crime goes down. Cook County is not immune from such an effect.
The best data available comes from John Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime.” This book is so good at exploding the anti-gun owner mythology that groups like the Violence Policy Center relentlessly attack it.
To read an abstract of Professor Lott’s work I encourage you to click here:
And because I’m such a fair guy, I also encourage you to read the Violence Policy Center’s attack on Professor Lott here:
Those interested in reading the complete book (not recommended unless you have a head for statistical analysis) you can get “More Guns, Less Crime” from Amazon.com here
I’ll briefly move on to responding to Thomas’ last shot at me.
What struck me the most Thomas is that your arguments are so bereft of moral rectitude that you have to resort to raw emotion to sell your case. When all else fails trot out the little 4 year old tragically shot with a hand gun seems to be the rule.
Thomas it is the rarity of such occurrences that makes the tragic death of the four year old newsworthy. Let’s look at the causes of accidental death for children ages 0-14 according the National Safety Council:
Suffocations: 42.6%
Automobiles: 6%
Poisoning: 6%
Drowning: 0.3%
Fire: 0.2%
Firearms: 0.1%
Thomas, you could save 426 children for every one child accidentally killed by a gun if you would work on banning plastic bags rather than guns! Every death is tragedy, but to blame firearms for some kind of child death epidemic is misleading at best and a damn lie at worst.
Anti-gun owner crusaders frequently point out that 13 children (or some such fabricated number) die each day in gun violence. What they don’t tell you is that to get such a number that they count as kids those 19 to 24 years of age. They conveniently don’t mention that 70% of the gun deaths are “children” aged 17-20 engaged in gang warfare. Our numbers come from the Center for Disease Control and are well documented.
With that I’m going to move on to the proactive side of the house.
I get the question all the time asking me how you can carry a gun lawfully in Illinois? Interestingly, if you have a FOID card there is a limited carry option available. Illinois law requires that guns be transported:
Unloaded
Encased
By a person possessing a FOID Card
This means if you carry an unloaded gun in a fanny pack strapped to your waist with a loaded magazine at hand you are quite legal and can have a loaded gun in your hands in seconds.
This is not as good as concealed carry loaded, but in Illinois it is as good as it gets for right now.
Full details and a recitation of the law are available on our website:
So far, two of our members were prosecuted by over zealous State’s Attorneys for carrying in a fanny pack. In both cases the State’s Attorney came to their senses before trial and dismissed the charges. Fanny pack carry is the law of the land in Illinois.
Of course Chicago liberals will say they have banned hand guns in Chicago. Well, they haven’t. Chicago residents are required to register hand guns with the city and in a catch-22 are further prohibited from doing so. But the fact is, owning a gun in Chicago is problematic only if you get caught and then it’s only an ordinance violation., not a felony.
I encourage Chicagoan’s to read Chapter 8-20, Article II, Weapon Registration of the Chicago Municipal Code of Ordinances to know just what the law says and not go by what your neighbor, Joe I. Hateguns has to say about it.
At Concealed Carry, Inc. we believe Chicagoans, of all people in Illinois, should be armed and clearly, based on the email generated by this Rhubarb, many Chicagoan’s already not only own guns, but are actively carrying.
So let me give some free advice on carrying a loaded concealed firearm. It would be nice to carry a full frame Glock, but doing so invites detection of the gun by law enforcement. The whole idea of carrying concealed after all is to keep the weapon concealed!
While not as effective, to reduce your chances of a stay in Cook County Jail, make sure to carry a pocket pistol and to be really safe, put the pistol in a case (cut a calculator case in half) to break up the outline in your pocket.
If queried by anyone if you have a gun always DECLINE TO ANSWER. If permission is sought to search your person, respectfully DECLINE.
I know the decision to carry, with a felony hanging over your head for doing so, is onerous, but each of us has our own separate set or circumstances to deal with and not having a gun at a critical life and death moment is clearly not an acceptable option to many.
At this time Concealed Carry, Inc. cannot recommend that anyone carry a loaded concealed weapon given the risk of felony prosecution.
CONCEALED CARRY, INC. ADOPTS ONE GUN A MONTH PROGRAM
I’ll now tell you what Concealed Carry, Inc. is doing to educate and rectify the entire issue of self-defense in Illinois. Keep in mind our motto is: “Saving Lives By Arming Citizens.”
The membership of Concealed Carry, Inc. therefore is going to put their money where mouth is and give away a North American Guardian Pistol to one deserving Chicagoan in May 2002. Just send an email to john@concealcarry.org and tell us why you need a gun for self-defense. Our members will pick the most deserving and your gun will be delivered to you free here in gun friendly Oak Brook. We will even pay the sales tax. The requirements are simple:
You must be a Chicago resident and 21 or over.
You must have a FOID card
You must fill out the BATF form 4473 and pass the instant check.
If there is significant interest in this we will do this monthly. Consider this our version of “the one gun a month” program touted by liberals.
All entries will remain confidential and not be released to the public or Mayor Daley.
You can check out the gun here
GIVING UP ON THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE
As noted earlier in this Rhubarb we acknowledge we have lost the day in Springfield and there is nothing on the horizon in this coming November General Election to give us any hope of getting our gun rights back. In fact, we expect to lose what few rights remain.
That does not mean we are without options. On April 10th state courts ruled Ohio’s ban on handguns unconstitutional. See this news article.
Concealed Carry, Inc. is now in the final editing process of a complaint along similar lines. Since we cannot get the legislature to pass common sense public safety laws, we are going to get the courts to do it for them.
As this complaint is pending imminent filing I cannot go into detail, however as soon as the case is filed it will be placed our web site
We expect this case to be a bombshell when it hits and we have retained a top notch constitutional lawyer to represent us.
The members of Concealed Carry, Inc. are financially and personally committed to changing the dangerous gun laws that currently exist in Illinois. We are determined that Chicago will no longer be the murder capital of the world and that all of Illinois will be place criminals fear to tread.
If you believe as we do, join us!
Interesting Resources:
Get a Copy of Illinois Gun Laws
Apply for a FOID Card
Educate a liberal; get our free Gun Facts Book
Operation Ohio: Saving Illinois From Mayor Daley
(4-15–02–ninth installment of 10)
To John Birch, Concealed Carry, Inc.
From Thomas Mannard, The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
Thanks again to Eric for the chance to participate in this discussion. I hope it’s been helpful to your readers.
As we come to the end of this discussion, John, I have to say that I’m pleased we’ve been able to have a relatively civil dialogue about this issue. This issue certainly raises the emotions of people and I have the e-mails to confirm that, I only hope that the readers of this Rhubarb understand that it is neither John nor I who control the fate of this issue, so please remember that as we move forward.
Eric asked me to comment on which circumstances I thought private citizens should be able to own, transport and even carry weapons. My answer is that I believe current Illinois law regarding ownership and transport of firearms is sufficient. I do not agree with you, John, about the legality of carrying weapons in a fanny pack, and both States Attorney Dick Devine of Cook County and Joe Birkett of DuPage County have stated that carrying an unloaded weapon in a fanny pack is illegal according to their interpretation of the law. Even Senate President Pate Philip has stated the intent of the law is not to allow guns to be carried in fanny packs. That being said I’m sure you and many of your supporters will continue to carry weapons in a fanny pack until you can get busted and have your day in court.
You refer to there being 20,000 “gotcha” laws on the books that only serve to hassle the gun owners of America. However, what you don’t tell us is that the vast majority of those laws are state and local laws dealing with such issues as zoning, discharge of a weapon, etc. A minority of these laws deal with gun sales and possession and virtually none deal with the design, manufacture and distribution of these products themselves.
In fact, toy guns are more regulated than real guns and the NRA has done everything in their power to make sure that the gun industry remains exempt from having to meet any federal health and safety regulations; even though establishing such regulations would help to reduce accidental death and injury attributable to firearms. It’s simply unconscionable that such a deadly product is not subject to basic health and safety regulations. The choice is not gun control or enforcement, but gun control with enforcement.
Eric asked what we’ve learned from states with concealed carry and you did not skip a beat by quoting the work of conceal carry advocate John Lott. A few years ago, Lott published “More Guns, Less Crime” in which he argued that states with conceal carry laws saw a reduction in violent crime. Unfortunately, Lott’s work has been repudiated by leading researchers and scholars including Albert Alschuler from the University of Chicago where Lott was previously employed.
In Alschuler’s study “Two Guns, Four Guns Six Guns More Guns: Does Arming the Public Reduce Crime?” Alschuler hypothesized that if concealed carry laws had a deterrent effect, it would be far greater for homicides between strangers than for intra-family homicides. This is because gun possession in the home is already lawful and would be unaffected by any new concealed weapons laws. By definition, such laws only affect handgun possession and use on the street. However, Lott’s study found that the proportion of stranger killings actually increased after the enactment of concealed-carry laws while the proportion of intra-family killings decreased. Alschuler concluded: “At this point there is essentially no reason for an intelligent consumer of social science research to accept the Lott findings.”
An examination of other Lott writings shows that his views on guns are only one piece of a mindset that runs contrary to many Americans views. For example, an abstract of one of his studies states that “Increases in the percent of minority police officers increases crime rates” and that racial and gender changes in the composition of police forces resulted in at least 2,000 more murders” in cities he studied.
To summarize, Lott’s belief is that arming untrained white men (the vast majority of conceal carry permit holders) saves lives, while arming trained minority police officers takes lives. (My thanks to Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center for this information).
Regarding statistical data on what happens when states adopt concealed carry laws. The state of Texas is the most comprehensive regarding records of every incident involving a conceal carry permit holder, regardless of whether it is ultimately a criminal offense. It gives us a pretty good picture of the so called “law abiding citizens” that have conceal carry permits.
Arrests of Concealed Handgun License Holders in Texas, January 1, 1996 to April 30, 2000:
Non-Arrest Incidents of Concealed Handgun License Holders in Texas, January
1, 1996 to April 30, 2000
John, we could continue to go back and forth on this issue, but I believe we’ve given the public enough information to make an educated decision about this issue. The bottom line for myself and the members of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence is that we want to see a reduction in the amount of death and injury caused by firearms and it is simply hard to imagine how allowing people to carry concealed weapons can contribute to that goal. Adding more guns to the streets will only increase death and injury caused by firearms. It doesn’t really take a great deal of analysis to figure that out.
