What is it going to take to wake up Cook County Democratic state legislators and City of Chicago politicians?
All you have to do is read this morning's Chicago Tribune. Read the front page article about the 67-year-old man who was stabbed in an apparent robbery attempt.
Did this happen late at night? In a "bad" neighborhood?
It happened inside the Westin Hotel men's room! About 6:30PM! His relatives and he were downtown for the Magnificient Mile Lights Festival.
After finding the Cheesecake Factory in the John Hancock Building overcrowded, they crossed the street to the Westin, planning to dine in the Grill there. The unnamed 67-year-old man was attacked in the restroom. The robber was not described in the Tribune article, other than he was dressed all in black.
Here is an excellent reason for concealed carry. The punk who attacked him would not have known whether he was armed. And he would not have known whether others nearby might be armed.
It'll take a few days after the passage of concealed carry for the word to get around town that it's no longer safe to attack. And, no, the streets of Chicago and of Illinois will not become the Wild Wild West. Responsible, armed citizens know they cannot shoot in restricted spaces where they might hit a bystander.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
8 comments:
Umm, no Gus. This is not the reason that concealed carry should be the law. The reason that concealed carry should be the law is that it is guaranteed by the Constitution.
A Westin hotel bathroom mugging of a 67 year old is NOT a reason for concealed carry, in fact it is the opposite. Just like you felt you could disarm the bailiff, it is just as likely that the mugger could have taken this man's gun and shot who knows who.
In sort of a reverse argument, also this mugging is a good argument against concealed carry because what if the man shot the mugger. Although you might feel that the shooting was justified, it seems the death penalty for mugging someone seems a little high. From what we read the man survived ... a gun would have only increased the chance of a death.
If you are going to help the cause of concealed carry, I believe you need to argue your case more effectively.
Ray, you seem to miss the point. If the mugger was unsure of this fellows status of armed or unarmed it MAY have stopped him from committing this crime in the first place. As for the death penalty being a little high for a "mugging", so is being stabbed a high price to pay for using the bathroom.
Mike, I didn't miss the point. Generally, I am for generous concealed weapon permits for that very reason.
But that is not what the post is about, it's about advocating for concealed carry. When you advocate you have to anticipate the other side, and while making good arguments ... attempt not to give the opponent and opening. A lame "what if" story about a man getting mugged in the bathroom, is about as relevant to concealed carry as keeping swear words off of the tv to prevent teenage pregnancy ... you could link the two but why?
Ray ts exactly what i am doing, anticipating the other side. If this "mugger" as you refer to him was unsure ofwhat mighthappento him he may very well have chosen not to commit this act. That is the otherside. As for your first post of the death penalty being justified for a "mugging" i know ofno statutetitled "mugging". I do know of armed robbery attempted murder and aggavated battery. Ise of foce, including deadly force, is justified in the case of this fellow in the barhroom. If you are worried aboutthe" muggers " fate at the hands of this ruthless victim you thinking is somewhat twisted.
Mike, I never said me thinking wasn't twisted. The other side of the argument here is, "what if it didn't matter if the victim had a gun or not?" What if the criminal didn't care, or the victim was ineffective in deploying it? Isn't it better not to have concealed carry if the criminal is going to get a gun for mugging this guy?
Once again, that is why the best argument for concealed carry is that it is your right, not that you can come up with some sort of hypothetical or real life example that shows if it went perfectly one way that proves that concealed carry should be the law.
That's why you don't take a random story and try to use it to argue about concealed carry, it literally goes both ways.
* * *
In the alternative...
What? No statute for "muggleing" Why you are so right! I must be mistaken, how could I have missed that. You have totally changed my mind, I take everything back. You are much smarter, and your teeth are whiter.
I was really worried about the muggler. My priorities must be in the wrong place, thank you for being so much smarter and being able to read.
* * *
back to reality
"Your convincing argument in the comments section of a blog has swayed me," said nobody ever.
You are correct, in this case I am smarter!
And again, using a hypothetical to show the need works better most of the time than just screaming because it is my right.
Oh, I didn't realize you were screaming. And the "you are smarter" part was in the non-reality part.
Post a Comment