[Allen Balkema]

Well, illinois just dropped the law banning all firearms outside of a persons house. i dont live in illinois(im from Michigan), but my dad is currently with my uncle and a few others getting lots of liquidated conveyors and equipment from a closed down power plant, and where the power plant is located is one of the worst districts in Chicago, and my uncle just got all new trucks for my dad and two others, since theyve been down there, his truck has been attempted to be broken into 3 times over 2 weeks, and my dad had to scare them off them off with a crowbar, and he was so mad that he couldnt take his CPL into chicago. hes going to be down there two more weeks, and now he can take his concealed pistol to illinois! both me and my mom are sleeping better at night knowing that he (and everyone else down there) is now almost perfectly safe from anybody who tries to mess with them.

anybody here who lives in illinois who is happy for the law being dropped? or plans on going to take CPL classes now?

[palandri]

A couple of things. I am prior military. In the past I was an avid duck and pheasant hunter and I was also a member of the NRA back then.

I don't know what power plant your father is at, but from your description it must be the power plant in Ford Heights. I am an electrician and I actually did a lot of electrical work there during the construction of the power plant. If that's where he is at, yes it not a real great area. What's bothering me here is, what good is a gun going to do? If you shoot and kill a thief, you'll get charged with manslaughter. Am I missing something here?

Lastly, guns are a real touchy issue right now given the events in Newtown, so I am going to watching this thread closely. If it starts to get out of hand, I am going to close it. I am sure you understand.

[Allen Balkema]

A couple of things. I am prior military. In the past I was an avid duck and pheasant hunter and I was also a member of the NRA back then.

I don't know what power plant your father is at, but from your description it must be the power plant in Ford Heights. I am an electrician and I actually did a lot of electrical work there during the construction of the power plant. If that's where he is at, yes it not a real great area. What's bothering me here is, what good is a gun going to do? If you shoot and kill a thief, you'll get charged with manslaughter. Am I missing something here?

Lastly, guns are a real touchy issue right now given the events in Newtown, so I am going to watching this thread closely. If it starts to get out of hand, I am going to close it. I am sure you understand.

you dont kill the guy, you never shoot unless you have to, the only time i would personally shoot is if another guy was pointing a gun at me or someone else, and thats the same for my dad, but if the guy had successfully broken in, my dad could have drawn his gun, told the guy the obligatory "i have a gun, if you do not comply i will shoot"(its something like that) and had him get down on the ground until he called the cops to come arrest him.
and i totally understand about the newtown shooting thing, if it causes too much trouble just delete it.

im not sure if its in ford heights, and i dont remember the name of it, ill ask him tonight when he gets home.

the entire point to getting a concealed weapons permit(which by the way in michigan is impossible if you have even 1 misdemeanor on your record) is that you hope you never ever HAVE to use it, but if you ever do have to, you know how to use it, and you can potentially stop another newtown. what people never hear about are incidents like these Pearl High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where if the principal had been allowed to carry his weapon on him, the shooter would not have been able to harm anyone.

just so you know, im not some super biased militia guy, i own a shotgun, and i duck hunt, and shoot sporting clays with some friends, and my parents are (i think) the two most level headed people on the face of the earth, I've only seen my dad get angry once, and then he only raised his voice.

P.S. Palandri, thanks for serving in whatever branch you were in, without you guys we wouldnt be chatting on the forums right now.

[jaj324]

what good is a gun going to do?

Seriously??? You really don't see the value of being armed in a dangerous location??

[krystea]

Oof.

[Laura Knotek]

Would it be possible for the company to hire security guards who would be present at the site?

[palandri]

Seriously??? You really don't see the value of being armed in a dangerous location??

My point was you can't shoot a thief.

[palandri]

@allen, let me know where he's at

[Laura Knotek]

My point was you can't shoot a thief.

And drawing a weapon on a thief who might not be armed could escalate the situation unnecessarily. It isn't that easy to simply keep someone still until the police arrive.

[crystal_planet]

I don't understand this whole gun thing.

Signed,

The rest of the world.

[Allen Balkema]

Hes at the state line power plant in chicago, and i forgot to clarify in the first post, my uncle told me it was one of the most dangerous districts, who im thinking got it secondhand. and inside the power plants property is safe(enough) but the hotel parking lot is a different story

[palandri]

Hes at the state line power plant in chicago, and i forgot to clarify in the first post, my uncle told me it was one of the most dangerous districts, who im thinking got it secondhand. and inside the power plants property is safe(enough) but the hotel parking lot is a different story

.

I know where that power plant is. It's actually in Hammond, Indiana and outside the jurisdiction of our union. I am in IBEW 134 which covers Chicago proper. The state line power plant is covered by IBEW 697 an Indiana local.

Thanks for the info.

[mlm1950]

I don't understand this whole gun thing.

Signed,

The rest of the world.

Well, some of the framers of the United States Constitution didn't believe in standing armies, as in a full-time military, like we have today, even during times of peace, and thought that the best solution, in times of conflict, would be for armed citizens, a Militia, to band together and fight, much like what happened in the Revolutionary War. In order to ensure that this was possible, they inserted an amendment to the Constitution asserting the right of people to keep, and bear arms.

Fast forward to the future, when the concept of the Militia has gone the way of the Dodo, but by virtue of an outdated Second Amendment, some people in the United States believe that gun ownership is an inalienable right. Add to that a general distrust of government and/or society, and you have the underpinnings of a gun culture, like that which exists in the United States.

[11B1P]

Am I missing something here?

Lastly, guns are a real touchy issue right now given the events in Newtown, so I am going to watching this thread closely. If it starts to get out of hand, I am going to close it. I am sure you understand.

Yes, obviously you are missing something. You never shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat. Another thing, we're not going to blame the guns. The guns didn't just get up on their own and decide to go shooting. The individual did. Besides, he didn't have to use a gun, he could have used a baseball bat, knife, etc.

Fast forward to the future, when the concept of the Militia has gone the way of the Dodo, but by virtue of an outdated Second Amendment,...

Outdated Second Amendment? What makes it outdated compared to all the other amendments? Maybe I misunderstood. Please correct me if I did.

I don't appreciate anyone trying to push their anti-gun agenda on me because "they" think guns are evil. If you don't like them, that's your prerogative. I don't try to have cars banned even though they are involved in more deaths than guns.

[Soxpranos]

This place is nowhere near Chicago!!!!

[palandri]

Yes, obviously you are missing something. You never shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat. Another thing, we're not going to blame the guns. The guns didn't just get up on their own and decide to go shooting. The individual did. Besides, he didn't have to use a gun, he could have used a baseball bat, knife, etc.

This is where I have to respectfully disagree with you on your first and second statement. You don't pull a gun on a thief and you can't shoot a thief. Even if you shot him in the legs because he ran, you would be in legal trouble, criminally and civilly, or am I still missing something? Are you just shooting in the air to scare them?

I do agree with your third and fourth statement.

Outdated Second Amendment? What makes it outdated compared to all the other amendments? Maybe I misunderstood. Please correct me if I did.

I don't appreciate anyone trying to push their anti-gun agenda on me because "they" think guns are evil. If you don't like them, that's your prerogative. I don't try to have cars banned even though they are involved in more deaths than guns.

I know you didn't direct this part of your statement to me, but I'll chime in. I basically agree with everything you're saying here, but it's a hot issue right now. People are real tired of seeing these nuts go out on a killing spree, and these nuts are what, .001% of all gun owners.

So what do we do? Arm everybody? You have an Airborne avatar, so I am guessing your prior military, as I am. I am sure you've had some type of CQC (close quarters combat) training, and you know how tense and dangerous a CQC situation is. I think the Colorado theater shooting would have been a worse nightmare if people in the theater started shooting in a dark theater. It's CQC, people would have gotten confused and started shooting the people who were shooting the shooter.

[mlm1950]

Outdated Second Amendment? What makes it outdated compared to all the other amendments? Maybe I misunderstood. Please correct me if I did.

I don't appreciate anyone trying to push their anti-gun agenda on me because "they" think guns are evil. If you don't like them, that's your prerogative. I don't try to have cars banned even though they are involved in more deaths than guns.

It is outdated because gun owning citizens are no longer required to take up their own arms in defense of their country, as we now have a standing army, and national guard units.

I hope what I wrote wasn't construed as anti-gun, as I was only attempting to explain to outsiders a little bit of why we have such a gun culture in the United States.

[11B1P]

This is where I have to respectfully disagree with you on your first and second statement. You don't pull a gun on a thief and you can't shoot a thief. Even if you shot him in the legs because he ran, you would be in legal trouble, criminally and civilly, or am I still missing something? Are you just shooting in the air to scare them?

I do agree with your third and fourth statement.





I know you didn't direct this part of your statement to me, but I'll chime in. I basically agree with everything you're saying here, but it's a hot issue right now. People are real tired of seeing these nuts go out on a killing spree, and these nuts are what, .001% of all gun owners.

So what do we do? Arm everybody? You have an Airborne avatar, so I am guessing your prior military, as I am. I am sure you've had some type of CQC (close quarters combat) training, and you know how tense and dangerous a CQC situation is. I think the Colorado theater shooting would have been a worse nightmare if people in the theater started shooting in a dark theater. It's CQC, people would have gotten confused and started shooting the people who were shooting the shooter.

For the sake of the public forum , no you're not going to shoot a thief. No, you don't shoot into the air, you're responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel, and it violates the 4 firearm safety rules. I'm tired of the killing sprees too. I believe the media is partly responsible too.

Yes, 82nd Airborne, way back when. I'm a Security Police Officer now at a DOE facility, and yes we do CQC training. We've discussed the theater shooting and we all agreed it was a nightmare situation that would have taxed the best of us. Then again, you have to employ the 4 safety rules.

[WPmunkey]

This is where I have to respectfully disagree with you on your first and second statement. You don't pull a gun on a thief and you can't shoot a thief. Even if you shot him in the legs because he ran, you would be in legal trouble, criminally and civilly, or am I still missing something? Are you just shooting in the air to scare them?

Castle doctrine. You can often shoot an intruder or attacker in many states with little legal implication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_...h_a_Castle_Law

[palandri]

For the sake of the public forum ��, no you're not going to shoot a thief. No, you don't shoot into the air, you're responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel, and it violates the 4 firearm safety rules. I'm tired of the killing sprees too. I believe the media is partly responsible too.

Yes, 82nd Airborne, way back when. I'm a Security Police Officer now at a DOE facility, and yes we do CQC training. We've discussed the theater shooting and we all agreed it was a nightmare situation that would have taxed the best of us. Then again, you have to employ the 4 safety rules.

I agree!

For those that don't know what the four firearm safety rules are: http://www.bobtuley.com/safety_rules.htm

[palandri]

Castle doctrine. You can often shoot an intruder or attacker in many states with little legal implication.

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand that doctrine, but good luck using it with a thief breaking into your car. Just saying.

[jaj324]

Bottom line, if you don't want to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, fine, don't. That is also your right. But don't you DARE try to to stop me from exercising mine. That's not your place and it's a fight that you are obviously not equipped for.

[WPmunkey]

I understand that doctrine, but good luck using it with a thief breaking into your car. Just saying.

Luck seems to be on my side:

"But, according to these codes, Illinoisans:
1) Are justified to use force to protect themselves, others, the defender's dwelling, and other property of the defender.
2) Are justified in using "deadly force" ONLY, but GIVEN a reasonable belief that such force will prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, or will prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
3) Using force justified by the ICC, have an affirmative defense to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of the "aggressor."
4) Have no explicit duty to retreat from a defensive role."

Many states have castle doctrine that extends your "castle" to mean property like your car. As long as you don't shoot the perp in the back then the only words the court will have for you are: "did you feel that your life was in danger?" me: "yes". Judge: "have a nice day"

It's really that beautiful, as it should be. It's not always that easy though, look at the Treyvon Martin case out of Florida. Zimmerman (the shooter) went out and pursued, then shot Martin. Zimmerman should go to prison imho. Florida has a similar but different "stand your ground" law. Then there is the man in Texas who dispatched 2 thieves that were robbing his NEIGHBOR'S house and if iirc, he served no time.

[mempko]

A car is not worth anyones life, or a threat to anyones life.

OP, you mentioned that your father would not shoot someone unless they drew a gun at him. What if the thief had the same reaction? What if the thief, like your father, would not shoot unless someone drew a gun at them?

Pulling the gun out is a huge gamble. Scarin away the thieves with a crow bar is one thing, but if I was him, I would not risk it over some car.

Now about the gun law. I don't feel safer going out. Frankly, I don't feel safe around police with guns. The reality is, people who carry guns are one step closer to using them as they are intended, tools of death.

[Daniel Ratcliffe]

I must admit, I live in a gun-free country (mostly), but that doesn't seem to lower the crime rates. You still see all these muggings, killings, etc, even in the UK. They just use weapons like knives etc. So my question is, is outright banning guns in the US really going to make the country safer? I don't believe it would personally.