CCW makes some progress in illinois

[Indy Lurker]

HB245 made it out of committee in a vote of 11 to 1.

It was also endorsed by the Illinois Sheriff's association.

More than 90% of the Illinois Sheriff's association support CCW with proper training.

[57_TomCat]

1. Let us hope it makes it through.

I am all for a well regulated individual bearing arms concealed.

[DonP]

2. Now it has to be called for a floor vote

First, Mike Madigan has to call it for a floor vote in the House.

Then John Cullerton has to call it to the Senate floor.

Both are Daley puppets in the legislature and it is very unlikely that the bill(s) will ever see the light of day, even with the Sheriffs support and a majority of Illinois counties in favor of it.

Then Quinn has to sign it.

It's the Chicago tail wagging the dog again.

[doc03]

3. I read the other day that Illinois is trying to

make it law that to posses a gun you have to have a $1 million liability policy. Why is it the states with the most crime are always the ones that have the strictest gun laws?

[iverglas]

4. you're just full of questions today, aren't you?

Why is it the states with the most crime are always the ones that have the strictest gun laws?

Huh. Gosh. Let me scratch my head.

Why is it that the states with the hottest temperatures have the most air conditioners?

Of course, I'd spend more time pondering your question if the premise were, like, true.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Violent crime rates, 2007
Alaska: 661.2/100,000
Illinois: 533.2/100,000

Murder rates, 2007
Alaska: 6.4/100,000
Illinois: 5.9/100,000

Huh.

[Indy Lurker]

5. Just to provide a little background

There are two parts to Illinois. Chicagoland, and everywhere else. Chicagoland (Cook County)has a population of 5.2 Million The rest of the state has about 7.6 million.

Much of the non-Chicago area of the state is rural, and doesn't have any kind of issues with firearm use or possession, in-fact, many firearms are family heirlooms.

In the Chicagoland area, firearms are viewed as a criminal tool such as lock picks or bolt cutters, anyone with a firearm who is not a cop must be up to no good. Telling someone from Chicagoland that you own a few handguns, generates the same reaction as if you told them you own a few crack pipes.

People in the rest of the state think Chicagoland has too much influence outside of the city. (such as trying to increasing state sales tax to pay for a transit system that only operates in the Chicago area)

People in Chicago don't realize there is anywhere in Illinois that is not part of Chicago.

They mayor of Chicago has as much or more power than the governor.

And even though the state capital is in rural Springfield Illinois, most state business is conducted in Chicago.

back to homicide rate.


While the homicide rate for the state was 5.9/100,000 in 2007

the homicide rate for Chicago was 15.6/100,000

So if you talk to someone from Chicago (where many of the state politicians live and work) there is a crime epidemic.

If you talk to someone from some other part of the state, or look at statewide statics, there isn't a problem with firearms.

I happen to live on the rural side of the line (but near the line)and work on the Chicagoland side of the line (again near the line) and get very differing opinions from various people.

[iverglas]

7. and this explains the high violent crime/homicide rates in Alaska ...

... how?

I was responding to a particular non-factual assertion.

I expect as much response from the person who made it as I received the previous time he made it.


People in the rest of the state think Chicagoland has too much influence outside of the city.

And don't give a shit about the problems that firearms transactions outside Chicago cause in Chicago, I have gathered.

Who influences what, eh?

[Indy Lurker]

27. Reality being what it is

Political entities craft law for for those within it's boundaries, those are the citizen the elected officials are representing.

I don't know how it works in Canada, but here, if elected officials ignore the will of their constituents, if favor of the opinions of people living outside of their jurisdictions, they are not doing their job, and will soon lose said job in the next election.

[paulsby]

29. and if elected officials

ignore the constitution in order to pander to their constituents desire to infringe on constitutional rights, they get slapped, as in DC v. Heller.

if people in chicagoland wanted to restrict abortion because that's the will of their constituents, they would still have to defer to roe v. wade and other relevant cases.

similarly, in the post-heller environment they can wank all they want, but they don't have the authority to restrict people's civil rights IN or outside of chicago.

[Critters2]

25. Ummm...Springfield isn't rural.

And you're not from here.

[Indy Lurker]

26. Rural compared to Chicago

Or at least the attitudes are more rural.

I'd put it in the same category as Rockford,

Sangamon County 200,000
Winnebago County 300,000

Cook County 5,300,000

You can travel 30 miles from downtown in any direction and still be "in town"

I've been to Springfield many time, good Asian food, bad pizza.

[Critters2]

28. I've been to Chicago.

Bad...well, just lots of "bad". If you Chicagoans could find a way to free yourselves of us hick downstaters, we'd be grateful. But then, who'd pay for your free el rides?

[JoDog]

31. A-freaking-men

I grew up in rural IL, and now live in one of the collar counties of Chicago. Outside of Chicago, most people view gun ownership as a personal choice to express their rights from the 2nd amendment. The majority of these guns are used for hunting. In the greater Chicago area, the attitude is that anyone who owns a gun is a potential criminal. Friends of mine who grew up in Chicagoland don't understand the depth of resentment the rest of this state has for this area. The entire state pays taxes for freeways and a public transportation system most will never use. Meanwhile, the lack of public transportation in other areas--even metro areas like Peoria and Rockford--is disgusting. If you do not have a car, you are basically a shut in. Downstate pays the bills while Chicago tells the rest of us what to do.

This new insurance proposal is an example of that. First, let's be clear that this is an indirect tax proposal. Anytime the government requires you to obtain something you must pay for, it is an indirect tax. The Illinois mandated vehicle insurance is a tax. Anytime you must pay for anything for your kids' schools it is a tax. As a gun owner, I accepted the tax "fee" of $10 to get my state mandated firearms owner's ID. However, the "tax" of $1 million in liability insurance is outrageous. Not to mention unnecessary. If I harm someone by being irresponsible with my gun, that person can sue me under the provisions of my renter's insurance policy. If there is not enough money there, they can take me to civil court and garnish my wages (if I am not in jail). Same as if I am irresponsible with my car, garden tools, etc.

This bill essentially would be a tax on citizens' right to own guns, which we are guaranteed in the Constitution. No government can force people to pay money in order to express their rights (remember the poll tax?). In addition, insurance actuaries are already stating that such policies would be next to impossible to write, not to mention the problem of getting one tacked onto a renter's insurance policy like mine. Nevermind how much it would cost me out of pocket. And what about the thousands of hunters who come into this state every fall for the deer hunting and pump money into rural economies? Would they have to have the insurance? What about hunters acting as agents of state agencies to lower the deer population in certain areas?

Even if this bill is passed, I doubt it will ever be implimented. I'm willing to bet my Beretta that federal courts will overturn it as unconstitutional. It is a waste of the statehouse's time when they should be figuring out a way to fix the state's $8-9 billion deficit and make overdue payment for social services.

[Taitertots]

9. Misleading statistics for the win

You do realize that just comparing Alaska and Illinois doesn't prove anything. If you wanted to show that places with gun control have lower crime you need to do real comparison. Multi variable regression analysis using more than 2 states, for more than one year, with various variables for the vastly different conditions. What you posted essentially proves nothing except that you don't understand statistics.

Murder rates, 2005
District of Columbia:35/100,000
Iowa:1.3/100,000
Huh.

[iverglas]

11. irrelevant for the bzzzt

The question on the table was:

Why is it the states with the most crime are always the ones that have the strictest gun laws?

Kinda like: why is it that the cow jumped over the moon? you see.

If you wanted to show that places with gun control have lower crime you need to do real comparison.

I didn't want to show anything. I wanted to demonstrate that the premise in the question was false.

I did it.

[Taitertots]

12. But you didn't

All you did was demonstrate that you don't understand statistics and different states have different crime rates.

What you posted demonstrates nothing, other than that two states have different crime levels. Now show that the information you posted has any relation to the statement "Why is it the states with the most crime are always the ones that have the strictest gun laws?". This would take the form of multi variable regression analysis taking into account a vast number of different factors over multiple years with multiple states.

[iverglas]

13. do I have to do everything for you?

Now show that the information you posted has any relation to the statement "Why is it the states with the most crime are always the ones that have the strictest gun laws?"

Are you really disputing the fact that Illinois has stricter gun laws than Alaska?

Forgive me for skipping that one little step there, when I thought the entire universe knew that Alaska has lax gun laws and Illinois doesn't so much.

This would take the form of multi variable regression analysis taking into account a vast number of different factors over multiple years with multiple states.

Nope. All it took was the evidence that Alaska has (consistently) higher violent crime and homicide rates than Illinois.

I wasn't the one making a claim. The poster to whom I replied, who hasn't graced us with his/her presence since, was: the states with the most crime are always the ones that have the strictest gun laws. Bzzt. False. The exception to that rule tested the rule and found it wanting.

[Taitertots]

14. Again, you obviously don't know much

about statistics.

All you have shown is that different places have different crime rates. It doesn't matter what their gun laws are because they are so fundamentally different in order to compare them you need to do rigorous analysis.


Lets look at your reasoning.
Places with more republicans smell more like garbage.
You know a republican's house that smells less like garbage than a Somalians house(not republican), therefore republicans don't smell like garbage. One individual doesn't matter when you are talking about groups.

[iverglas]

16. to try to make this perfectly simple for you

THIS HAS FUCK ALL TO DO WITH STATISTICS.

The poster who has not returned made a claim. The claim was that "x" is ALWAYS true.

The claim is easily demonstrated to be false BY DEMONSRATING ONE INSTANCE WHEN IT IS NOT TRUE.


Lets look at your reasoning.

No, let's look at yours. Because that is what what follows is -- YOURS, not mine:

Places with more republicans smell more like garbage.

THAN WHAT?

How can you pretend that your sample claim here is in any way analogous to a claim that MADE A COMPARISON, that HAD a "than"??

Maybe I should say WHY do you pretend this to be so? Because you think someone is stupid, and you think you can get away with something? This suggests the question: why do you want to get away with this?

You know a republican's house that smells less like garbage than a Somalians house(not republican), ...

Now, where did this Somali come from? I didn't see any Somalis in the original claim you made. So why would *I* be talking about Somalis???

therefore republicans don't smell like garbage.

Wowser. I sure do smell something.

One individual doesn't matter when you are talking about groups.

One case matters when it is contrary to the claim made about ALL cases.

The claim that ALL cats are black can be proved to be false by presenting ONE white cat.

If the claim made had been Republicans' houses always smell more like garbage than Somalis' houses, and I found you a Somali's house and a Republican's house and the Somali's house smelled more like garbage than the Republican's house, I WOULD HAVE PROVED THE CLAIM FALSE.

You may need to learn to read better.

[Taitertots]

19. Think a little

Why is it the states with the most crime are always the ones that have the strictest gun laws?

Not states with highest per capita murder rate or highest violent crime per 100,000

So what should we base "most crime" on?
An irrelevant comparison to a state totally different with no effort to account for vast difference or a weighted value based on multi variable regression analysis. At least make an effort to compare comparable areas. Cherry picking totally different places and acting like any relation matters is easier than thoughtful analysis. If you fail to take into account the obvious externalities of situations you are making conclusions based on intentionally flawed data and your conclusions are irrelevant.


You sound like a creationist proclaiming evolution false because a monkey is not your grandpa.

[iverglas]

20. you're knocking on the wrong door, chum

Why is it the states with the most crime are always the ones that have the strictest gun laws?

Not states with highest per capita murder rate or highest violent crime per 100,000
So what should we base "most crime" on?

Go ask the poster who made the moronic claim in the first place.

Hmm. How come you didn't do that in the first place?

I wonder, I wonder.

An irrelevant comparison to a state totally different with no effort to account for vast difference or a weighted value based on multi variable regression analysis.

FUCKING DUH.

And yet ... Alaska still has higher violent crime/homicide rates than Illinois.


You sound like a creationist proclaiming evolution false because a monkey is not your grandpa.

Funny thing is -- no evolutionist has ever said my grandpa was a monkey.

The poster who made the claim under discussion here MADE THE CLAIM. The claim that just doesn't seem to bother you and prompt you to flights of statistical analysis.

Here's an easy one for you.

Is that claim correct?

[Taitertots]

21. King of the irrelevant comparison

I don't believe there is a demonstrable connection between gun control and crime. The vast disparities in all levels in criminality between areas with gun control and those without are evidence of this.

I'm not say the claim is correct. I'm saying that irrelevant comparisons between incomparably different places isn't going to show that the claim is wrong. You need an objective method to take into account the obvious externalities of the situation.

He claimed that all humans descended from apes
You are saying it can't be true because a monkey is not your grandpa.

[iverglas]

23. you are indeed

[iverglas]

6. I see you didn't answer last time I asked you either

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=193716#193755

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Next time change your question to usually instead of always.

Iverglas, will still get her panties in a wad about something. Which is very strange since she often professes to not give a shit about our gun laws. Anyhow you were almost correct, cities with the strictest gun control often have higher crime rates than cities with less strict gun control. Your mistake was always. It's also much better to compare cities instead of states.

David

[iverglas]

17. so many strange tihngs

she often professes to not give a shit about our gun laws

That false statement would be one of them ...


Anyhow you were almost correct, cities with the strictest gun control often have higher crime rates than cities with less strict gun control.

And cities with high rates of air conditioner ownership often have higher mean temperatures than cities with lower rates of air conditioner ownerhship.

Funny how that works, eh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. You respond so often with I don't give a shit, it's hard to keep up with what you do care about.

My apologies for mixing them up. Your analogy lost me though, it just doesn't work.

David

[Longteeth]

8. Some sensible, common sense, gun control coming to Illinois. Bout time!!!

[Furyataurus]

10. Good for

the citizen's of Illinois. Hope this "shall issue" does get passed. Mayor Daley's literally going to have a "cow" should this pass!!!! lol, should be a good show.

[AlinPA]

22. More effort should go into allowing guns to be carried openly instead of hiding them.

[paulsby]

30. I'm in WA state

we have legal open carry. in fact, to carry openly, no permit is even required.

it is very rarely exercised. the vast majority of people who carry do so concealed here.

but there is a movement to popularize open carry.

i prefer concealed, but that's a matter of taste. the law protects both.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

24. Does Illinois have preemtion involving gun laws?

If not, ccw legislation will only accomplish making more felons out of law abiding citizens.
IMO, if you have CCW then firearm laws should be the same across the state.

I remember Ohio prior to preemption... you had to be careful where you drove and what you did if guns were involved.
Especially around Cincinatti, C-bus, and Cleveland.