Concealed Carry Views Change Amidst Increased Crime in Illinois

J

JustThisGuy

New member
I read the following article on NBC Chicago's website about a man who was attacked by a knife-wielding man while walking his dog. His throat was slit from behind. The brazen man then stood nearby holding his knife as others near a bus stop assisted the injured man.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Sketch-Released-of-Wrigleyville-Attacker-159886705.html

"The incident, Schmidt said, has strengthened his views in opposition of Illinois' concealed carry laws.

"And now it's justified for us to be carrying weapons," Schmidt said. "If they are, so should we."

I'm seeing a few more stories like this recently, where the increase in viciousness and randomness of crimes is changing peoples' views toward concealed carry laws.

With flesh-eating attackers (several now) and purely random attempted murders in broad daylight, it seems that more people fear going out without some kind of protection. I think as our economy remains stagnant, people are becoming more desperate and in some cases, frustrations are being vented in increasingly bizarre and deadly ways.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure how concealed carry would have helped this guy. Being attacked from behind by a knife is about the most difficult thing a person can defend against. (Cowardly attack too.)
 
I'm glad to read of higher awareness.

It seems to me that all the anti-gun laws affect the wrong folks.

We should do like one state (W Virginia?) did, and urge everyone to own and carry a handgun. An armed society is a polite society.

Open carry is a great deterrent.
 
I think the point of the OP (or the man quoted in the article) is not that a concealed gun would have prevented this particular attack, but that the attack is indicative of an increase in brazen brutality, and that being armed is a an even better idea when violence surges.

Being armed is not a magic shield that prevents any harm, and it is immature to suggest that most who carry think so. Most adults realize that being armed, or alert, or trained improves your chances to survice a greater percentage of possible threats, but does not guarantee survivaility in all situations. Only the childish or argumentative person would try to paint an armed person as believing it is a talisman.
 
In such a black and white situation, it would not have taken much for a CC holder to just plug the BG and contribute a little to the world.

Here we go..."but my CCW is not for saving the world....etc...just to protect myself...I'm not the police..." <sigh>
 
Last week's headlines read:

"46 Hurt, 8 Killed in Violent Chicago Weekend


At least eight people were killed and 46 were injured in shootings since Friday in Chicago, the latest in a string of violent weekends"


The liberal newsmedia typically uses sensationalism and skewed headlines to make it appear that firearms are the root cause of violence within inner-city neighborhoods, and not gangs or drugs. "At least eight 'people' were killed", translates to 8 hardcore gang-bangers permanently off the street.

Even if they do pass a CCW law in Illinois, they'll make it exceedingly expensive, restrictive and difficult to obtain a CCW permit. Joe Average probably won't be able to afford one
 
Yeah, I'm not sure how concealed carry would have helped this guy.
Click to expand...

Was BG standing nearby still holding the weapon not a continued threat against the victim's life? I would view it as such.

So, BG remaining behind, brandishing the weapon that he had just used to commit a violent felony attack against an unarmed innocent victim - how exactly would that not be justified cause for the victim to plug the sob?

Would CC have prevented the attack entirely? Probably not, but nor would the victim have to simply hope that he could find help before BG decided to finish the job. I know police sketches are not always that great - but the guy looks positively nuts
 
There's actually been a lot of support for CC in IL for decades, it's just that nearly all of that support has been from downstate. Unfortunately, you have a single metropolitan area that has been able to hold a nearly 400 mile long state hostage for decades. Were it not for the city of Chicago, IL would've had CC long, long ago.
 
The winds are changing even in CA.

Sacramento Country's Sheriff announced last year that due to budget cuts, he and his troops would be unable to serve the country citizens as before. Due to that, his department henceforth would accept "self-defense" as good cause for the purposes of CA's may-issue CCW law. Many counties quietly have followed suit, and some were there already, toward de facto shall-issue.

It is only the enlightened liberal bastions such as SF and Lost Angles which remain, absent connections downtown, "no-issue". A sort of CCW's by zip code in LA County, 2006, showed war zones like Beverly Hills were getting CCW's, but there was nobody in the real garden spots who was exposed to violence and therefore could have a CCW. City of LA is in court for denying citizens access to permits, whatever their circumstances. They lost in court once, continued their practices despite court orders, and are again in litigation for non-compliance.

Sometime things will change. I wish they would hurry up, though.
 
I think the point of the OP (or the man quoted in the article) is not that a concealed gun would have prevented this particular attack, but that the attack is indicative of an increase in brazen brutality, and that being armed is a an even better idea when violence surges.

Being armed is not a magic shield that prevents any harm, and it is immature to suggest that most who carry think so. Most adults realize that being armed, or alert, or trained improves your chances to survice a greater percentage of possible threats, but does not guarantee survivaility in all situations. Only the childish or argumentative person would try to paint an armed person as believing it is a talisman. NW Pilgram
_________________________

I totally agree with your assessment. Thanks for sharing
 
It would of help in the scene

While the guy would of still got his throat cut, I believe other people were there. So if you just saw someone cut someone elses throat and he is still standing there looking like he want's to cut someone else maybe you. You would be justified in popping him I think.
 
I'm not sure how concealed carry would have helped this guy. Being attacked from behind by a knife is about the most difficult thing a person can defend against
Click to expand...
You got eyes in the back of your head?
Click to expand...

Well first of all - this post is in the Law & Civil Rights forum, not the strategy forum, it's about changing attitudes in Chicago.

But from a strategy point of view - the first slice didn't kill Michael Schmidt, and after being cut, he was face to face with his attacker:


As Schmidt gripped his throat, he said his attacker just stood there for several seconds, watching his victim bleed profusely.
Click to expand...

Is there anyone who wouldn't want a gun after that initial attack?

"He just had this sneer on his face. I think he was amazed that I didn't drop to the ground," Schmidt said.

The Wrigleyville man sought help from a man at a bus stop at North Clark and West Byron streets. As they were calling 911, Schmidt said his attacker re-appeared. The man was standing in the middle of the street, looking at them with his knife in his hand. He then walked away.
Click to expand...

Anyone that wouldn't have wanted a gun after the slasher reappeared?

This line of reasoning that a gun wouldn't have helped is specious. This guy got lucky the slasher didn't follow up with a second attack.
 
There's that old myth "An armed society..." again.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a myth. Would having a weapon have helped Schmidt in this specific situation? Probably not.

But would a climate in which any potential victim might have the tools to resist with lethal force discourage such crimes? Studies among prison inmates have borne out the allegation that armed citizens are among the most pressing occupational concerns of the less civilized elements.
 
BlueTrain, why the semantics games?

One could argue that "all" attacks are "brazen and brutal."

But one could also say there's a great degree of difference between a scary looking guy saying, "Give me your money," and a guy just walking up and cutting a random stranger's throat.

Between those two extremes, there are varying degrees (display of weapon witout drawing weapon; display of drawn weapon; physical assault with intent to intimidate, etc).

There are attacks that people will remember, and there are attacks that will give people nightmares for years to come.
 
Because half the posts on this forum are semantics. Automatic rifles or machine guns. Assault rifles. Clips. Etcetra, etcetra, etcetra. There's nothing new under the sun to talk about, is there?

If a scary looking guy walked up to me and demanded money (tough luck, buster; I'm married), I'd certain call that brazen, if not yet brutal. I have nightmares just from having children.

I think from now on, I'm just gonna say clip.

For God; for country; for Yale; and for the hell of it.
 
In some cases, semantics or terminology have more bearing on meaning than in other cases.

For instance, if I'm flying a plane, and want to sound professional to my co-pilot (which makes quite a deal of difference in the confidence level of a co-pilot who has not flown with me), then calling for "Flaps down," which corresponds to the lever I want him to move, and the placarded position to which I want him to move it, sounds better than "lower the flap thingy."

To shooters, the difference between "magazine" and "clip" can have the same effect, if the wrong term is used. It grates; it sounds unprofessional. In some cases, it's not worth addressing, though - such as when sounding professional (or at least educated) has no real bearing on the question.

To me, this is one of those cases where semantics don't really matter. We all understood what the OP meant; many of us agree with his point.

Sometimes, pointing out semantics can be helpful. (I used the "thingy" example because that one actually was uttered by a Navy pilot I was flying with, who wanted to be taken more seriously by other officers in that squadron. I pointed out that proper terminology would help out quite a bit in that regard; the advice was taken, and turned out to be prophetic.) Other times, critiquing semantics is just snarky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top