CONCEALED CARRY QUESTIONS
We are living in a state of anxiety these days. One of the things that we have focused our fears on is crime, and the only help being offered in the public forum seems to be so-called concealed carry legislation. It has been said that “guns don’t kill people – people kill people.” If approved, concealed carry will put more guns on the streets and literally in the hands of many more people. And why not? Maybe “bad people” will think twice if there’s an even chance their target may be armed. (Or not. Many people who commit crimes do not think things through in a healthy way – their judgment is often skewed.)
But before Illinois rushes into passing a concealed carry law, we need to ask ourselves a few tough questions. Most of us will never commit armed robbery or push drugs. But under the right circumstances every one of us is capable of killing. Having a gun ready to hand will make this much easier. Are you prepared to kill another human being in self-defense? How will you know for sure when your life is in danger? Police officers run afoul of this boundary in the line of duty, and they are well-trained in making this judgment. How will you feel if you kill in “self-defense” only to learn you were mistaken? Are you willing to kill another human being to protect your property? How will you live with yourself after you injure or kill another person just so you can keep your “stuff?”
There are parts of every city now that resemble a war zone. Concealed carry will not cure this; it may make it worse. The illness in our society needs to be addressed at the source before we can feel truly safe. We already know the source: poverty, drug addiction, domestic violence, social and economic inequality and lack of basic physical and mental health care for people living at the bottom of the economic ladder. So the last question we need to ask ourselves is, are we finally ready to do something real and healthy to address crime?
Catherine Wells
Rochester
MISSING DOG
On March 19, Nancy Gray, prepared to attend a funeral. Nancy has macular degeneration, a retinal degenerative disease which causes progressive loss of central vision and gradual blindnes. She cannot drive. Consequently, since the funeral was out of town, she made arrangements to go with a friend. She made special arrangements for her only companion, Tina, her 5 1/2 pound Papillion.
Tina is a member of a relatively rare breed. “Papillion” is French for “Butterfly.” The little dog has large ears that look like butterfly wings. The breed has been nicknamed the “Butterfly dog.” It was made famous by paintings of French and Spanish nobility in the 16th century.
Perhaps Tina’s propensity for loyalty was the very fact that got Tina into trouble. Nancy’s friend walked Tina and proceeded to leave her in Nancy’s apartment. Tina is not particularly “socialized” because she is not around people that much. Consequently, the dog is frightened of people she does not know. So, Tina decided to find her “person,” Nancy.
Nancy’s friend inadvertently left the apartment door open. Apparently Tina escaped the apartment, shot down the hallway to the main lobby and tripped the motion sensor on the outside door to the parking lot. As she made her escape, people who knew Tina tried to catch her but she was having none of it. She was determined to find Nancy. She shot down Southwind Road heading west.
When Nancy returned home, Tina was long gone. Nancy called the veterinarians in Springfield and Chatham. She made flyers and posted them in stores and advertised in the local papers. She received a call several days later. Apparently, Tina made it to the MacArthur exchange. She was sited on the overpass to Chatham next to Iron Bridge Road. The lady who saw her tried to catch her but Tina was terrified and ran from her.
If there is anyone out there who may have seen Tina, would you please contact Nancy? It would be wonderful to see these two united. Tina is about eight inches at the shoulder, weighs 5 1/2 pounds. Her hair is silky, she has a black mask on her face and black “butterfly” ears. She is desperately seeking Nancy.
Kathleen R. Bartolomucci
Springfield
Catherine
It is more than 20 years too late to think Illinois is 'rushing' passage of concealed carry. It has been a l-o-n-g, s-l-o-w, torturous path to get here. Too many legislators think the way you do. They think they have the authority to take away my right to defend myself and my family. They do not.
No, I do not want to kill anyone. And it would take a threat of death or serious injury to me or my family for me to even consider it. But, I can not stop an armed attacker with my bare hands. I need an 'equalizer'. For me that would be a gun.
So, go unarmed if you wish. That is your right. But, a woman lying dead after being raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is NOT morally superior to a woman explaining to the police why her attempted rapist has been shot dead.
OK, let's answer the questions in order:
Are you prepared to kill another human being in self-defense?
Yes, I am. You may not be prepared to do that, and that's fine--I wouldn't force my ways on you, and I think the last 50-odd years have been long enough to have your ways forced on the rest of us. Frankly I think it makes a lot of sense to be prepared to use lethal force in self-defense against someone willing to use lethal force just to get the few dollars in my wallet, or even just to prove how "real" or how "wild" they are.
How will you know for sure when your life is in danger?
The simplest way is to maintain situational awareness, keep your eyes open for warning signs like "interviewing," "unsolicited promises," and "forced teaming," and take threatening words and gestures at face value. The nice thing about all this is that it will usually give you chances to avoid trouble rather than fighting. All those things will help you detect violent intentions; obviously you'll also have to consider whether a threatening person or group has the ability to harm you or others--disparity in numbers, size and strength are important there, as is the presence or threat of a weapon.
How will you feel if you kill in “self-defense” only to learn you were mistaken?
That would feel as terrible as any other mistake that caused a death--a mistake in traffic, for example, or in treating a patient. It would be wrenching and heartbreaking. Why do you assume I'm going to make such a mistake? It happens incredibly rarely in reality. I don't expect another letter to the editor from you, explaining that we have travel needs, but putting average people in charge of two-ton, explosive-powered high-speed transporters would be foolhardy. The question is, what's the difference?
Are you willing to kill another human being to protect your property?
Nope. But that's no big deal, since that would be a felony in Illinois. The technical term for it is "murder." Passage of a right-to-carry law won't change that. Did you write that because you don't know the law, or were you hoping nobody else would notice?
How will you live with yourself after you injure or kill another person just so you can keep your “stuff?”
Not going to happen. Not legal in Illinois. Self-defense is a defense to charges of homicide, yes, but self-defense is defined as acting to prevent someone from killing or doing grave bodily harm to yourself or another (innocent) person. There's nothing in Illinois law that allows using lethal force to prevent the loss of "stuff."
Ms. Wells, I understand that right-to-carry seems new and frightening to some people in Illinois, but it's neither. If you've ever traveled in Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri or Iowa, you've been in a shall-issue right-to-carry state. None of those states have nearly as much crime as Illinois, in any category, not even if you separate out crimes committed with firearms. I've carried firearms, both openly and concealed, in Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina . . . and I've managed to get by without committing any murders over "stuff" so far. I don't think you intended to insult anyone with your letter, but it was deeply insulting to lecture strangers on a subject they know well, suggesting that your assumptions trump their knowledge.