New Illinois law allows firearms in public. What could possibly go wrong?


guns penis

In today's Los Angeles Times, there was an article about Illinois' mandatory gun training program. Why do they require 16 hours of Gun School in that state? Simple: Illinois citizens now have the right to carry firearms in public.

What could possibly go wrong?

Training is a positive. Preparing Mr. and Ms. America to cope with a potential Mass Murder Moment should alleviate everyone's concerns, right? Wrong.

As I posted back in January, "Here’s proof that carrying a gun won’t protect you in a crisis," even with training. But that doesn't stop the GOP, the NRA, and the firearms industry from waving their Second Amendment flags (and stuffing their already-full wallets).

But back to Gun Class. One participant, Gregory Colon, is training to become a licensed armed security guard, and he was nervous before class even started. Per the Times, "the atmosphere was designed to add to the tension and get his heart rate up," because without simulation of a real-life emergency, the course wouldn't be very effective.

"It was much more intense than I expected," said Colon, 21, of Chicago, who shot his "attackers" in self-defense. "I was sweating and my palms were sticky. It shows in real life how fast you can get hurt."

That is not unlike what Diane Sawyer and others said.

But learning how to protect yourself and legalizing concealed carry permits should not be tantamount to permission to morph into Mr. and Ms. Aggressor, nosireebob:

"The concealed-carry permit, realistically, is only there for you to protect yourself. It's not a license to go out and go looking for trouble or deal with a situation that is best left to law enforcement," said Queen, executive director of the Fidelity Investigative Training Academy in Chicago.

"Law enforcement training is about securing and containing the danger," he said. "Concealed-carry training is about protecting yourself and moving away from the danger."

"Moving AWAY from the danger," said Gun School Executive Guy. Ordinary citizens should never "interject themselves into dangerous situations," said the instructors. Not exactly consistent with what we hear from gun fondlers like, say, George Zimmerman.

Those same zealots also argue that two days of arms training "unnecessarily prolongs the process for obtaining a permit." Tell me again why that's a bad thing.

Here's what happens when one finds oneself confronted with a life-and-death situation:

A rush of adrenaline causes the hands to shake. Blood flows away from the fingers and toes, dulling the senses. Motor skills weaken. The perception of time changes, making everything seem to move in slow motion. You lose peripheral vision, and it seems as though you're looking through a tunnel.

Now imagine those physiological symptoms experienced by someone trying to respond for the first time to a gunman in a dark movie theater wearing a bulletproof vest tossing tear gas canisters while shooting off 30 rounds from an AR-15 into an unsuspecting crowd. Imagine traumatized, inexperienced Mr. and Ms. America trying to respond while doing their best to save (their own and others') lives while scrambling to instantly recall 16 hours of instruction on how to successfully deal with a sudden, unforeseen deadly threat.

And here is one more reason why common sense gun legislation advocates like myself get flop-sweat nervous:

Before enrolling in Queen's security guard course, Gloria Sauno said, she did not realize a gun should be the last resort.


As Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said:

"It's not the fear of someone walking down the street with a gun that bothers most people; it's the unexpected consequences. Someone going out to have a drink does not intend on killing somebody, but it happens."

  • chris kraska

    Not only do I agree with both of those but I also think there should be mandatory pre-ownership testing

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    I can't disagree with your proposed solutions only to add that if by "stricter requirements for ownership" you mean universal background checks for every single purchase and a complete firearms registry just like we have for automobiles which is renewed annually, then we can agree.

  • chris kraska

    I realize you don't know me but your lingo is fairly silly. If you're talking about "all gun related deaths not just homicides" no, we're not number 4 or even number 10. But I'm not here to argue statistics. You're screaming and incoherent, even in text, and Uzis are worthless. Most people in this country are killed with handguns. Machineguns are owned legally by half a million people and no one gets killed with legal machineguns. NO ONE. The problem is that any tom, dick or harry can walk into a store and buy a cheap handgun, walk down the street and blow their neighbor away because he looked at them funny. Guatemala, a country which has incredible restrictions on the ownership of firearms has a firearm death rate 4 times the US. And whether or not you care about per capita rates they are the ones that matter. So, my solution is stricter requirements for ownership, education, training, carrying and storage. What is your solution?

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    First of all, I didn't say 'per capita' and I'm talking about ALL gun related deaths not just homicides.
    But if you do take just the documented murders, we're only forth in the world behind Columbia, Thailand and South Africa so I guess everything is just okie dokie. Hey we're way ahead of El Salvador and Peru they only have a fraction of gun murders.
    Yay!!! we're number 4. Let's celebrate by going out and buying an uzi!
    Seriously we have a demented and out of control gun culture that's responsible for tens of thousands of annual deaths in our country and if you're content with comparing the USA to third world banana republics, knock yourself out.
    Guns are the problem, not the solution.

  • chris kraska

    Sorry, delusional i'm not. My point was that in Pennsylvania you can point at a gun and say "gun" and get a permit. In other states the requirement varies from 10-20 hours. What I mean was that we should look at a national standard. I guess you didn't read that far into it. I love 60 minutes as much as the next person but their classroom shooter experiment was biased and destined to fail. I've been offering my training services for 22 years. I turn away more people than I accept. Yes, (A) the US has more guns in private ownership than any other country. But no, your (B) is incorrect. US gun deaths per captia are not number 1 in the world.

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    You said: "But honestly, the majority of states have low standards" if that's supposed to mean something to somebody.
    Now let me tell you honestly;
    A) The US has many, many more guns per resident than any other nation on earth.
    B) America's gun related deaths unquestionably dwarfs the same statistics in every single nation on the entire planet by a huge margin.
    That ain't no coincidence bucko!
    So I suggest you go back to that article posted by Laffy and take a good long look at the charts again before offering your training services. In the meantime I'll take the word of 60 Minutes over your delusional little comment.

  • chris kraska

    Someone going out to have a drink with a gun is breaking the law.

    But most importantly, the ABC "experiment" was a pathetic attempt at an experiement. They took one kid with no training, gave him a few hours of hands on with a simunitions pistol and then put him in a room which was invaded by a shooter. He was never told how to draw from concealment as demonstrated in his grabbing his t-shirt. it was a failure from the word go.

    Take 50 people, 5 of whom are carrying handguns and have been trained beyond what was demonstrated in the video and it would be a much different outcome. I'll even train them myself.

    But honestly, the majority of states have low standards. If they were standardized nationally it would be much better.