NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember, Guns CAUSE violent crimes like this... right?

Rapist faces charges in 4th attack since 1993 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0506080145jun08,1,1916377.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true&coll=chi-news-hed)

By Susan Kuczka and Courtney Flynn
Tribune staff reporters
Published June 8, 2005

A registered sex offender with a 12-year history of attacks on women in the north suburbs was charged with raping and stabbing a woman who then played dead to survive, authorities said Tuesday.

Christopher Hanson, 29, of Round Lake Beach, slashed the woman's neck with a knife after raping her and leaving her for dead in Monday's attack along a jogging trail in Libertyville Township, not far from the locations of three previous assaults for which he was convicted, prosecutors said. On Tuesday he was charged with attempted murder and sexual assault.

"She is incredibly lucky to be alive," Lake County Sheriff Gary Del Re said of the woman, who graduated from high school last week. "This was a particularly vicious attack by someone who's been convicted not just once, but twice, of serious sexual assaults. We're glad we could take this predator off the streets."

It was Hanson's fourth attack on women since 1993, according to authorities. He was released from prison four years early for good behavior last October after serving half of his sentence from a 2000 attempted sexual assault conviction.

Hanson, arrested at home Monday night, was ordered held in Lake County Jail in lieu of $3 million bail during a hearing Tuesday before Circuit Judge Victoria Martin in Waukegan.

Hanson was 17 years old when he was convicted of two assaults: the rape of a bicyclist in Libertyville in 1993 and the attempted sexual assault six days later of another woman as she wheeled her daughter in a stroller into a wooded area of Round Lake.

Released from prison in 1999, he was arrested again in 2000 and convicted for attempting to drag a woman into the bushes near the same bike path where the first assault occurred, authorities said.

In Monday's attack near Casey Road and U.S. Highway 45 in Libertyville Township, Hanson grabbed the 18-year-old woman from behind as she jogged along a trail about 12:30 p.m., authorities said. He ordered her to disrobe, tearing off her clothes when she failed to undress quickly enough, prosecutors said.

After Hanson sexually assaulted her, he slashed her three times on the neck with a knife with a 3-inch blade and dragged her into bushes, where he covered her with brush, leaving her for dead, prosecutors said.

The woman, a Wildwood resident who sought help at a home near the Oak Openings Trail, told authorities she tried to fool her attacker by holding her breath and pretending to be dead when he grabbed her neck.

Terry Sullivan spotted the blood-soaked woman about 2 p.m. Monday walking up the driveway toward his home, which is about a hundred yards from where the attack occurred.

`I've been raped; can you help?'

"She just came up and said, `I've been raped. Can you help me?'" said Sullivan, 55.

Sullivan, who was outside talking with a Lake County employee, said he noticed the woman's neck had been cut.

The teen asked if someone could call her parents. Within minutes police and fire officials arrived at Sullivan's home.

The girl told Sullivan she had been jogging down the path when she was attacked and said she scratched her attacker with her fingernails in order to get DNA evidence, Sullivan said.

Del Re said the woman's quick thinking saved her life.

"She's really a very heroic young lady," he said. "She laid very still knowing he was still nearby. I can't say enough about the coolness she displayed under extreme circumstances."

Sheriff's police interviewed the woman at Condell Medical Center in Libertyville, where she gave a detailed description of her attacker, prompting authorities to include Hanson's picture in a photo lineup, authorities said.

The woman identified Hanson's photo before doctors released her from the hospital, authorities said.

Hanson's criminal history began when he was accused of grabbing a woman in a bear hug as she walked along a Libertyville bike path. Dressed as a jogger, Hanson pulled the woman to a nearby field, where he sexually assaulted her, police said.

Six days later he attacked and sexually abused another woman who had been wheeling her 6-month-old daughter in a stroller on a trail in Round Lake. His arrest in that attack led investigators to link him to the rape in Libertyville, authorities said.

Hanson served six years of a 12-year prison term for the 1993 attacks, released early for good behavior in 1999.

In 2000 he was accused of attacking a 48-year-old woman in Libertyville as she walked along a bike path near the Lakeside Cemetery. He dragged her into bushes and gagged her before she broke free, prosecutors said.

Served half of 8 years

Hanson received an 8-year term for that attack, but was released last October after receiving credit for good behavior, Illinois Department of Corrections spokeswoman Dede Short said.

Sexual offenders are offered voluntary counseling and screened before their release to determine if they are sexually violent and need additional incarceration, Short said.

Declining to comment on whether Hanson attended counseling or how he scored on his pre-release evaluation, Short said only that he had successfully completed his prison term.

George Strickland, chief deputy of the Lake County state's attorney's office, said prison officials had not recommended additional prison time for Hanson.

Hanson, however, could face a lengthy sentence if convicted of Monday's attack.

His previous convictions were on non-Class X felonies. Those carry shorter prison terms than Class X crimes such as attempted murder, which could mean a 45-year prison term. Hanson is also charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault, which can carry a 30-year term, authorities said.

Prisoners must serve at least 85 percent of their sentence for Class X convictions, and prosecutors can ask that the sentences for each conviction be served consecutively or extended beyond the usual maximum in particularly violent cases, authorities said.

"Our office views this as an extremely vicious random assault, and will treat it accordingly," said Strickland, who prosecuted Hanson the first two times.

Freelance reporter Barbara Bell contributed to this story.
skuczka@tribune.com, cflynn@tribune.com

I'm glad he was incompetent enough to not kill her. It's too bad she wasn't "allowed" to return the favor during the attack.

Remember, Guns CAUSE violent crimes like this... right?

I'm glad he was incompetent enough to not kill her. It's too bad she wasn't "allowed" to return the favor during the attack.
Had that been a member of my family who was attacked, this SOB would already be dead. :)

Um...did I miss something? Did she have a gun where 'shooting him' would have been an option? How is this a gun issue?

The victim was a highschool grad. Excatly at what age do you want kids to be arming themselves?

Although guns weren't mentioned in the article, this is a good example of where allowing people to defend themselves is a good thing.

Unfortunately, I live in a country where there was talk of prosecution against an old man for trying (and partially failing) to defend himself against violent intrudents using a ornamental samurai sword. Presumably he wasn't prosecuted, or I expect I would have heard about it.

Um...did I miss something? Did she have a gun where 'shooting him' would have been an option? How is this a gun issue?
She lives in Chicago. As a resident of Chicago she is prevented from arming herself. That she was a minor is immaterial. The result would have been the same if she were over 21 and could, in more reasonable locales, own a firearm to defend herself.

She can't even purchase a stun gun. To do that you need to get a Firearms Identification Card (about a 3 month wait and not available to persons under 18) then wait an additional 24 hours before you can even take one home from the store. Without an FOID you cannot even legally possess a stun gun.

By Law and Fiat she was preventd from carrying the most effective form of defense against a physically superior oponent - as are all but the most Privileged (or criminal) Chicagoans who can afford bodyguards.

How about pepper spray?

Um...did I miss something? Did she have a gun where 'shooting him' would have been an option? How is this a gun issue?
The issue is that in Chicago it would be illegal for her to carry a gun.

The victim was a highschool grad. Excatly at what age do you want kids to be arming themselves?
Most High school graduates are 18 or very close to it. 18's a good age. You can vote, drive a car, serve in the military, why not carry a gun?

No reason, just pointing out that most gun ownership laws I am aware of only apply to 21+. She likely couldn't get a gun even if they were allowed in Chicago.

But anyway, what about legal forms of protection, like pepper spray?

The issue is that in Chicago it would be illegal for her to carry a gun.

That's a pretty loose connnection guys. I'm against that ban as much as the next person, but seriously.

a) There is no indication the girl WANTED a gun at all
b) The attacker got her from behind, she would have had no chance at all to pull the gun, her arms were pinned in a bear hug. At worst, he would have taken her gun and killed her with it!
c) The law is brand new, if she wanted a gun she would have had it already.
d) Why the hell was this repeat offender let out EARLY in the first place!

How about pepper spray?
While at 18 I believe she could legally purchase it, it's not really very good for CQB situations like rape-grappeling...

First, it really only works if you get a direct hit in the eyes. Not easy to do while grappeling. However, you can put a bullet (or stun-gun) anywhere in the Rapist's body and be reasonably assured of effect.

Secondly, Pepper spray at close quarters gets in your eyes too - making it even harder for the victim to run away.

First, it really only works if you get a direct hit in the eyes. Not easy to do while grappeling. However, you can put a bullet (or stun-gun) anywhere in the Rapist's body and be reasonably assured of effect.

Secondly, Pepper spray at close quarters gets in your eyes too - making it even harder for the victim to run away.

It's hard to use pepper spray in a this situation, but a gun is so much easier to wield when you are surprised and pinned from the onset as NM pointed out?

I'm not justifying the law, or doubting all of your points. But you aren't showing me how a gun would have guaranteed the girl some safety.

That's a pretty loose connnection guys. I'm against that ban as much as the next person, but seriously.

a) There is no indication the girl WANTED a gun at allImmaterial. The point was not debpendant on what she wanted, but what she was not allowed to do.
b) The attacker got her from behind, she would have had no chance at all to pull the gun, her arms were pinned in a bear hug. At worst, he would have taken her gun and killed her with it! How? She was ordered to disrobe. Gun comes out when clothing is coming off.
c) The law is brand new, if she wanted a gun she would have had it already.True, the stun gun law is new, but it doesn't say how much beyond 18 she was. IIRC stun guns are illegal to those under 18 as well.
d) Why the hell was this repeat offender let out EARLY in the first place!Good question. Perhaps his previous victims (both over 21, but disarmed by Chicago Law) weren't allowed to effectively defend themselves so he survived to be able to get "time off for good behavior"?

She lives in Chicago. As a resident of Chicago she is prevented from arming herself. That she was a minor is immaterial. The result would have been the same if she were over 21 and could, in more reasonable locales, own a firearm to defend herself.

She can't even purchase a stun gun. To do that you need to get a Firearms Identification Card (about a 3 month wait and not available to persons under 18) then wait an additional 24 hours before you can even take one home from the store. Without an FOID you cannot even legally possess a stun gun.

By Law and Fiat she was preventd from carrying the most effective form of defense against a physically superior oponent - as are all but the most Privileged (or criminal) Chicagoans who can afford bodyguards.

If we're just making spurious connections then I'm gonna say, THANK GOODNESS IT WAS CHICAGO!! Because if this had been anywhere else he may have shot her and killed her instead of only stabbing her and allowing her to live. You could argue this both ways. This case had NOTHING to do with gun control.

b) The attacker got her from behind, she would have had no chance at all to pull the gun, her arms were pinned in a bear hug. At worst, he would have taken her gun and killed her with it!

Better to know martial arts in that situation.

She lives in Chicago. As a resident of Chicago she is prevented from arming herself. That she was a minor is immaterial. The result would have been the same if she were over 21 and could, in more reasonable locales, own a firearm to defend herself.

She can't even purchase a stun gun. To do that you need to get a Firearms Identification Card (about a 3 month wait and not available to persons under 18) then wait an additional 24 hours before you can even take one home from the store. Without an FOID you cannot even legally possess a stun gun.

By Law and Fiat she was preventd from carrying the most effective form of defense against a physically superior oponent - as are all but the most Privileged (or criminal) Chicagoans who can afford bodyguards.
And if it was legal, she would automatically be packing? That's a tough one to prove...

Immaterial. The point was not debpendant on what she wanted, but what she was not allowed to do.
No. We have no idea whether the law had anything to do with her choice to have or not have a gun. I'm allowed to carry a gun, but guess what, if I was attacked, I wouldn't be carrying one either.

Do you advocate forcing people to be armed?

Um... if gun laws are laxed, then what would have kept this rapist from having a gun as well?

And people wonder why I think the death penalty is a good thing.

No. We have no idea whether the law had anything to do with her choice to have or not have a gun. I'm allowed to carry a gun, but guess what, if I was attacked, I wouldn't be carrying one either.

Do you advocate forcing people to be armed?

I'm inclined to discontinue this discussion. The implication is that if guns laws were just more lax there would be no criminals left because they would be killed in every attempt at a crime. If that is not the implication, then there is no point to be made as there is no evidence that this case is special in that if the laws were different she would be carrying a gun and capable of using it.

Um... if gun laws are laxed, then what would have kept this rapist from having a gun as well?

Well, unless he's a necrophiliac, he's not exactly gonna shoot first.

And if it was legal, she would automatically be packing? That's a tough one to prove...
No, I'm not trying to prove that she would automatically be packing. I am demonstrating that:

(A) Violent criminals attack those who they feel can't defend themselves. In Chicago, only the Elite can be granted the Privilege defense with firearms, so it's a pretty sure bet that most women available won't be able to adequately defend themselves from a strong Chicago Rapist.

(B) The Rapist committed his crime using only his size and a 3" pocket knife. As a convicted criminal, he would not have been able to legally purchase a firearm. But, as a criminal, if he had wanted a firearm, he most certainly could have acquired one through Chicago's well established underworld. (He might have even bought one from the City Water Department along with the Heroin they had for sale (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-050608apwater,1,3696403.story?coll=chi-news-hed).) Gun control wouldn't/doesn't stop criminals but DOES stop rape victims.

I'm inclined to discontinue this discussion. The implication is that if guns laws were just more lax there would be no criminals left because they would be killed in every attempt at a crime. If that is not the implication, then there is no point to be made as there is no evidence that this case is special in that if the laws were different she would be carrying a gun and capable of using it.
The rate of Rapes tend to diminish with the perception that the Woman has a good chance of being armed. They do not have that chance in Chicago, so the Rapist has little to fear.

While the possession of firearms is not a panecea, there aer most certainly areas of crime that can be, and are, reduced by having less restrictive gun laws for law abiding citizens. Rape is one of them.

No, I'm not trying to prove that she would automatically be packing. I am demonstrating that:

(A) Violent criminals attack those who they feel can't defend themselves. In Chicago, only the Elite can be granted the Privilege defense with firearms, so it's a pretty sure bet that most women available won't be able to adequately defend themselves from a strong Chicago Rapist.

Gun control wouldn't/doesn't stop criminals but DOES stop rape victims.
I still don't get your point. Unless you propose forcing all women to carry guns, there is no way that you are going to convince someone capable of rape that they won't be able to find a victim. Plenty of women are still not going to carry guns, and will still be raped. Not having a gun is NOT the reason they are raped...and the rapist is not raping because of guns or lack thereof. These issues are not linked the way you seem to be saying they are.

I still don't get your point. Unless you propose forcing all women to carry guns, there is no way that you are going to convince someone capable of rape that they won't be able to find a victim. Plenty of women are still not going to carry guns, and will still be raped. Not having a gun is NOT the reason they are raped...and the rapist is not raping because of guns or lack thereof. These issues are not linked the way you seem to be saying they are.
See my post above...

I know some women won't carry. and I know the rapist is not raping specifically because of the lack of guns. However, the rapist is raping in good part because he thinks he can get away with it, with, at worst, some jail time.

The widespread ability for law abiding women to carry effective tools of defense creates a global deterant. The rapist cannot know which woman is capable of defending herself and may just go get a porno instead.

The point is, the average woman in Chicago is denied the Right to Choose.... something I would think most women were in favor of.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not actually for gun legislation. But I just question the link here. And I'm still not convinced...but I'll bow out because work is calling me...

The widespread ability for law abiding women to carry effective tools of defense creates a global deterant.

I don't see how wrestling with a gun is easier than wrestling with pepper spray.

I don't see how wrestling with a gun is easier than wrestling with pepper spray.
Try it some time... ;) (Use a squirt gun please...)

If I put a firearm in your side and pull the trigger, your kidneys end up on the street. No aiming required.

If I put a bottle of pepper spray in your side and activate the spray you get stained clothes - or we both get a dose.

Just for fun, I'd like to point out that this woman lived in Libertyville, which is also where the attack occurred -- not Chicago. Libertyville is nearly an hour away from Chicago, and resides in a separate county, having nothing to do with the laws and ordinances of Chicago.

But hey let's not get bogged down in details if we only want to start an argument.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not actually for gun legislation. But I just question the link here. And I'm still not convinced...but I'll bow out because work is calling me...
Oh, poo. :(

Just for fun, I'd like to point out that this woman lived in Libertyville, which is also where the attack occurred -- not Chicago. Libertyville is nearly an hour away from Chicago, and resides in a separate county, having nothing to do with the laws and ordinances of Chicago.

But hey let's not get bogged down in details if we only want to start an argument.

Naah, that's OK - I probably should have mentioned that I do research...

The Libertyville PD Officer on duty told me (I called and asked - (847) 362-8310 (non-emergency)) that there is no local provision for legal concealed carry in Libertyville... and that their firearms regs take their cue from Chicago. (It is a commuter/bedroom community after all...)

Nice try though.

Naah, that's OK - I probably should have mentioned that I do research...

The Libertyville PD Officer on duty told me (I called and asked - (847) 362-8310 (non-emergency)) that there is no local provision for legal concealed carry in Libertyville... and that their firearms regs take their cue from Chicago.

Nice try though.

I still think the premise as posed was spurious. Taking 'their cue' from Chicago is their choice. They are under no legal obligation to do so. Perhaps they take their fashion cues from there as well.

I just think it was disingenious to allow folks to believe that this girl was under the purview of Chicago law. A case in any other city/state/country that 'takes its cue' from larger municipalities like Chicago could have been cited, or the clarification should have been made.

Naah, that's OK - I probably should have mentioned that I do research...

The Libertyville PD Officer on duty told me (I called and asked - (847) 362-8310 (non-emergency)) that there is no local provision for legal concealed carry in Libertyville... and that their firearms regs take their cue from Chicago. (It is a commuter/bedroom community after all...)

Nice try though.
I could of told you that. There might be one or two exceptions(Knollwood possibly, mainly because it's unincorporated) but other than those exceptions the entire North Shore doesn't allow CC.

I still think the premise as posed was spurious. Taking 'their cue' from Chicago is their choice. They are under no legal obligation to do so. Perhaps they take their fashion cues from there as well.

I just think it was disingenious to allow folks to believe that this girl was under the purview of Chicago law. A case in any other city/state/country that 'takes its cue' from larger municipalities like Chicago could have been cited, or the clarification should have been made.
Mea Culpa. Since I live in the greater Chicago commuting area (though not in Illinois) I tend to equate most Illinois-area Chicago 'Burbs with Chicago proper. You are right that that is not fair, but I did not do it intentionally. I would venture to say that most Chicago 'Burbs pattern their firearms laws after the City - if for no other reason than to limit "commuter confusion".

The point though, that Women are not allowed to defend themselves with efficient, effective tools - largely because of Chicago Law - remains.

Mea Culpa. Since I live in the greater Chicago commuting area (though not in Illinois) I tend to equate most Illinois-area Chicago 'Burbs with Chicago proper. You are right that that is not fair, but I did not do it intentionally. I would venture to say that most Chicago 'Burbs pattern their firearms laws after the City - if for no other reason than to limit "commuter confusion".

The point though, that Women are not allowed to defend themselves with efficient, effective tools - largely because of Chicago Law - remains.

It's interesting to note that on other laws (some employment laws for example) there are variances between these localities that would impact "commuters" far more.

You may be spot on that firearms regs appear to follow Chicago's lead. One has to wonder, though, if Chicago's Benevolent Dictator were to allow CC if these communities would again follow Chicago. I would guess not, but have no idea. I can't imagination such a scenario actually happening, though.

She lives in Chicago. As a resident of Chicago she is prevented from arming herself. That she was a minor is immaterial. The result would have been the same if she were over 21 and could, in more reasonable locales, own a firearm to defend herself.

She lives in Lake County, not Cook County. She can own any gun she likes. Still a terrible story, though.

Edit: I didn't see the bit about concealed carry.. that's a damn shame.

Do Americans ever shut up about guns?

Do Americans ever shut up about guns?
Not as long as people continue to insist that Freedom of Choice is a bad thing...

It's interesting to note that on other laws (some employment laws for example) there are variances between these localities that would impact "commuters" far more.I don't know... Technically, even with my Indiana CCW Permit I cannot (legally) travel through Illinois without disassembling/boxing/locking and/or otherwise disabling my sidearm.

Imagine the problems that could occur if someone licensed for CC in, say Wheaton were to inadvertantly cross the virtually invisible county line from DuPage into Cook County where only the Honest Folks of the extended Daley Clan are "allowed" CC. I actually missed DuPage County entirely going up Roosevelt one day and had to turn back... Can you imagine how the Daleites would react? How about like this:
(2003, Joseph Pickett) The evening of Roderick Pritchett's descent into hell on earth started with an ordinary shopping trip to Safeway for his mom last November 21st. The 25 year-old African/Jamaican-American frequently ran errands for her; he was the sole car owner in his family.

On the way out of his south side Chicago apartment, he went back inside and grabbed his Taurus 9 mm pistol -- which was unloaded and in its case as Chicago law requires -- and tossed it in the passenger seat. Roderick liked to stop by the shooting range to practice his marksmanship once a week to stay sharp and keep his groupings tight.

In his wallet behind his driver's license was his FOID (Firearms Owner Identification Card) which he obtained before purchasing the gun in 2000. In accordance with the strict gun control laws enacted by Mayor Daley and the city legislature, Roderick kept the gun in his apartment and never carried it on his person. This seemed strange to him; the law essentially said that defending his property was more important than defending his life from the numerous predatory south side hoods. Pritchett however always followed the law, even the ones that defy common sense.

As he drove down South Ada St. toward the range, he noticed a police car tailing him. It was early evening and Roderick was a young black man with dreadlocks driving alone. In Chicago, that's lights-and-siren time. Sure enough, Police Officer Edward Kos and Officer Rodolfo Camarillo pulled him over at 87th and Ada for a burned out taillight.

The officers approached and asked if he would mind if they searched his car. Pritchett didn't object. He knew beyond a doubt that his 9 mm was 100 percent legal. He even had a copy of the Illinois gun laws in his case. When he handed over his driver's license, he also gave them his FOID and volunteered that he had a legal firearm in the vehicle. He knew he had nothing to fear.

Unfortunately, his confidence was short-lived. The police ordered him to take a seat in the back of their black-and-white. "The officers began questioning me from the front seat of their squad car before they even let me know I was under arrest," says Pritchett. "They giggled a couple of times before sarcastically asking me why I didn't run. I was shocked speechless at their rude treatment of me."

Pritchett couldn't understand why they were hassling him. With all the crime in the city, why should they bother someone with a legal gun? He pleaded that he was only going to the range and that his gun was legal, but to no avail. Pritchett was arrested for violating 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons.

One of the officers left the squad car and got behind the wheel of Pritchett's station wagon to drive it to the station. Apparently, Officers Kos and Camarillo were either ignorant of the laws regarding the legal transportation of firearms, or chose to ignore them. In any case, Roderick Pritchett was on his way to 72 hours of misery that he would never forget.

Pritchett had his legal gun confiscated and was transported to the Cook County lockup and charged with a Class 4 Felony. Next, he endured the standard treatment of any run-of-the-mill accused felon within Chicago city limits -- a quite thorough strip search that left no body orifice sacred, incarceration, long days and sleepless nights in a cramped, urine-stinking cell chockablock with accused rapists and thieves, and meals of stale bread and cold soup in the company of accused child molesters and slightly more palatable muggers.

When his mother finally scraped together the $500 bond to secure his release three days later, Pritchett had one more treat awaiting him, courtesy of the Chicago PD -- a $700 fee to spring his station wagon from the impound lot. He begged the police before they impounded his car to let his girlfriend pick it up. The cops refused.

In the eyes of the police and those who make our laws, Pritchett deserved every minute of the humiliating ordeal he endured over the three miserable days of his imprisonment. He was a most grievous sinner and lawbreaker in their minds. He was a gun owner.

Mayor Daley, Cook County State Attorney Dick Devine, and other prominent city politicians have had it in for legal gun owners for years. Daley has stated that if it were up to him, no one would have a gun. Both have been ardent backers of limiting gun purchases to one per month and closing the non-existent 'gun show loophole.'

In a 1997 news conference at Chicago Police Headquarters, Daley, Devine and other gun control bureaucrats bragged of defeating proposed legislation that would have allowed the law-abiding to carry concealed firearms to protect themselves from criminals.

The police department follows their lead and makes the hassling of good sons like Pritchett a priority. Meanwhile, for all the beauty of our downtown's incredible architecture, the breathtaking museums, the thriving nightlife, and the rich history of our city, Chicago continues to be overrun by violent crime and guns. Despite some of the tightest gun control laws in the country, murders are a twice-daily occurrence in Chicago, on average.

Other jurisdictions around the nation in the last decade have come to realize the fallacy of gun control. Thirty-two states now issue concealed-carry gun permits and on average violent crime has dropped 24 percent in those states1, but Chicago, following the dubious example of Washington, D.C., continues with the old tried-and-failed method of legislating criminal behavior out of existence by restricting access to firearms. Even open-carry of a gun is banned here.

Our booming population of murderous thugs love the 'gun-free' atmosphere that such policies create. It leaves them with all the guns, and they use them. In 2001, their exhaustive, murderous efforts put 665 bodies on slabs in the morgue, which made Chicago the murder capital of the nation yet again. Moral cretins like these pay scant attention to the laws that prohibit blowing holes in other people, so naturally gun control laws are of no consequence to them whatsoever.

To the thugs, Chicago is a new Wild West, where bullets can and do fly anyplace, anytime. Even better for the hoods, the law-abiding guy on the other side of the corral has no way to defend himself from hails of illicit gunfire. With only the lawbreakers armed and the law-abiding obeying gun laws, the piles of cold bodies stack up like bloody cordwood year after grim year. The more 'sensible gun laws' Mayor Daley and company pass, the larger the body counts.

Pritchett's case, however, was not the typical, daily west side murder our good mayor is trying to prevent, and Pritchett was not the everyday violent thug. This was a straight arrow with a 100 percent legal gun obeying the law. And his nightmare still wasn't over.

After posting bond, Pritchett was arraigned on Nov. 27 at the Cook County Criminal Court. Cook County State Attorney Devine offered him a conditional discharge, if he would plead no contest and surrender his gun. Pritchett refused and pled not guilty. He wants his gun back and he wants justice. Now with a lawyer to represent him, Pritchett is ready to go the distance for what is right.

Says Pritchett, "I take this matter very personally and will not rest until this case is concluded in my favor. No matter how much I tried to kill the police with kindness and with the respect my mother instilled in me, they still managed to show no compassion at all for a law-abiding American. Now they have pissed me off and I'm ready to fight this to the end."

The fight is approaching its climax. Interestingly, the city has not charged Roderick with violating Chicago's handgun registration ordinance. They are going for the felony conviction in a trial set for March 20. Chicago is well on its way to topping the 600+ murder mark for the 36th consecutive year in 2003,2 but Devine believes that spending the city's time and taxpayer dollars proving that a law-abiding citizen does not have the right to own a gun is worth the fight.

The Pritchett case presents a prime opportunity. If Devine can convict Roderick Pritchett for legally transporting a cased and unloaded firearm, that renders the laws to purchase and own firearms in Chicago essentially meaningless. If they can do that, Mayor Daley and State Attorney Devine can demonstrate once and for all that The Bill of Rights does not apply to the good law-abiding citizens of Chicago. To some that may seem an outrageous violation of Chicagoans' God-given rights, but to others, making an example of Roderick Pritchett would be a fine way to top off their long, distinguished, and lucrative anti-gun, pro-criminal careers in city governance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:

1 [Original source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports. ]
2 Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0302030137feb03,0,7129258.column?coll=chi-news-hed
Mayor Daley's Finest at work.

You may be spot on that firearms regs appear to follow Chicago's lead. One has to wonder, though, if Chicago's Benevolent Dictator were to allow CC if these communities would again follow Chicago. I would guess not, but have no idea. I can't imagination such a scenario actually happening, though.Oh, I think if Emperor Daley the Younger found it politically expedient to reinstate Chicago's Freedom to Choose, the surrounding communities would comply. (well, maybe not Willmette...)

The issue is that in Chicago it would be illegal for her to carry a gun.
1. There are always exceptions for the motivated. Always. When I was going to University, one of the campus news stories was the woman who was recently granted permission to carry a concealed weapon on a campus of 35,000. One of the two people who weren't police officers, who were permited to do so legally. (Incidently at least two other people I knew on my FLOOR at the time had illegal weapons, one a pistol, and I didn't know everyone) That said, there's always the option of breaking the law. A firearms violation in a case of justifiable homicide, particularly if you're a pretty young girl, isn't going to get prosecuted, and they'll just confiscate the weapon. If you're not as empathy engendering, then a little probation on a misdemeanor is better than an extended hospital stay.

On pepper spray, a direct hit in the face is quite a bit more debilitaing, than a miss. But the result of a miss, isn't a pleasent floral experience. It's going to force everyone in the area to deal with it until it disipates. And that irritation is going to divide attention and provoke mistakes, which create more opportunities for the attacker to fail.

The rate of Rapes tend to diminish with the perception that the Woman has a good chance of being armed. They do not have that chance in Chicago, so the Rapist has little to fear.

While the possession of firearms is not a panecea, there aer most certainly areas of crime that can be, and are, reduced by having less restrictive gun laws for law abiding citizens. Rape is one of them.

This guy has continually been caught at been put in prison pretty much every time he gets out. Do you know what they do to sex offenders in prison? I'd rather die. I suspect that it deters first time offenders considerably, but this guy is beyond ill. Nothing was going to keep this guy from raping which is why he shouldn't have been on the street. This isn't an argument against gun control and, in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. This is an argument for stiffer penalties for sex offenders, particularly repeat offenders. The guy served a total of eight years for three offenses. That's not justice. That's absurd.

See my post above...

I know some women won't carry. and I know the rapist is not raping specifically because of the lack of guns. However, the rapist is raping in good part because he thinks he can get away with it, with, at worst, some jail time.

The widespread ability for law abiding women to carry effective tools of defense creates a global deterant. The rapist cannot know which woman is capable of defending herself and may just go get a porno instead.

The point is, the average woman in Chicago is denied the Right to Choose.... something I would think most women were in favor of.

This shows your complete and utter lack of understanding of how a rapist thinks and what their motivation is. How is a porno going to meet his need to objectify and control a woman? Rape is about sex as much as anorexia is about preventing obesity.

The issue is that in Chicago it would be illegal for her to carry a gun.
Who carries a gun jogging?

Generally, when you're jogging, you want as little as possible on you, usually keys, id and a waterbottle. Who the hell would go jogging with a gun smacking them at every pace?

That's horribly impractical and really quite stupid that this attack was even made into a gun issue. Also, were two articles used in the initial quote? They repeated his crimed twice.

This guy has continually been caught at been put in prison pretty much every time he gets out. Do you know what they do to sex offenders in prison? I'd rather die. I suspect that it deters first time offenders considerably, but this guy is beyond ill. Nothing was going to keep this guy from raping which is why he shouldn't have been on the street. This isn't an argument against gun control and, in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. This is an argument for stiffer penalties for sex offenders, particularly repeat offenders. The guy served a total of eight years for three offenses. That's not justice. That's absurd.
I wholeheartedly agree with this post.

This is really fricking stupid. You know, I TRY and be pro-2nd amendment, a place to bridge that gap between republicans(<<educated assumption) like vous and Socialists like moi, but I mean you make it so hard. This had NOTHING to do with owning a gun. I could post what I did today and show you how having a gun *might* have changed my day, but that would be pointless, because nothing I did today was a gun control issue. Rape is a violent crime for which the offender will be prosecuted by the Chicago DA's office. The woman was actually better off not having a gun, because in this case, by using her wits instead of lethal violence, she escaped. Had she struggled to reach a gun with this guy bear-hugging her, she would not have thought of playing dead, instead she would have been struggling for the gun, and he would have finished her off. And yet that hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with this either because she did not own a gun and was not allowed to own a gun by law and did not expect to be raped and therefore would not have brought one anyways..... aggggghghghghgh :head explodes:

I think that, in a situation where the victim doesn't die, the criminal should get off... and as soon as he leaves the jail, he should be fair game. :mad: I'd beat that fucker over the head with a wooden baseball bat and tie him up in my basement, then invite the victim over to torture him to her heart's content. And if she weren't up for it, I'd do it for her. I can think of some mean, painful fuckin' things to do to that sick son of a bitch, and when I finished he'd be a quadriplegic with half a brain, no teeth, and no equipment.

On second thought, make that the same for cases where the victim does die.

Remember, Guns CAUSE violent crimes like this... right?



I'm glad he was incompetent enough to not kill her. It's too bad she wasn't "allowed" to return the favor during the attack.

Guys like that should be fried already. No point in 'rehabilitating' him if he's willing to murder to cover up rape.

Responses...

This guy has continually been caught at been put in prison pretty much every time he gets out. Do you know what they do to sex offenders in prison? I'd rather die. I suspect that it deters first time offenders considerably, but this guy is beyond ill. Nothing was going to keep this guy from raping which is why he shouldn't have been on the street. This isn't an argument against gun control and, in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. Except that Women aren't allowed to use efficient tools to defend themselves from people like this... This is an argument for stiffer penalties for sex offenders, particularly repeat offenders. The guy served a total of eight years for three offenses. That's not justice. That's absurd.I agree. In my world recidivists would be shot after the second conviction. But I'm not in charge.

Who carries a gun jogging? I do.
Generally, when you're jogging, you want as little as possible on you, usually keys, id and a waterbottle. Who the hell would go jogging with a gun smacking them at every pace? Then you have not picked the correct combination of gun/holster. That's horribly impractical and really quite stupid that this attack was even made into a gun issue.Again, the point is that the women in the article were not allowed to Choose the most efficient tool. Whether or not the would have is not the point. They were not permitted the Right to Choose. Also, were two articles used in the initial quote? They repeated his crimed twice.There were 2 pages to the article. I do not know why they repeated the crimes. I'm not inclined to edit the Reporter's work.

This is really fricking stupid. You know, I TRY and be pro-2nd amendment, a place to bridge that gap between republicans(<<educated assumption) like vous and Socialists like moi, but I mean you make it so hard. This had NOTHING to do with owning a gun. But it has everything to do with the (denied) Right to Choose whether or not to carry one...I could post what I did today and show you how having a gun *might* have changed my day, but that would be pointless, because nothing I did today was a gun control issue.Did you have the Right to Choose, or was that Right denied to you? Rape is a violent crime for which the offender will be prosecuted by the Chicago DA's office. The woman was actually better off not having a gun, because in this case, by using her wits instead of lethal violence, she escaped. Had she struggled to reach a gun with this guy bear-hugging her, she would not have thought of playing dead, instead she would have been struggling for the gun, and he would have finished her off.He was not "bear hugging her" for the entirity of the assault. According to the report he demanded she disrobe, which one would assume means he let go of her for at least a few seconds - sufficient time to retrieve the weapon she was not allowed to Choose whether or not she wanted to carry. And yet that hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with this either because she did not own a gun and was not allowed to own a gun by lawThat IS the point. She (and the other women) were not ALLOWED the simple Right to Choose. Things may or may not have ended up differently had that Choice been allowed, but the result is certain when the Choice is NOT allowed. and did not expect to be raped and therefore would not have brought one anyways..... If I expect to be the victim of a crime, I (a) won't be there or (b) will have a cop with me. The Right to Choose to carry a firearm has to do with the unexpected - not the expected.

This is why people pair-up to jog normally (amongst other reasons but every person I see jogging is either in a pair or doing it in a public place at an active hour). A far cheaper and more effective defence.

Wha that sod was doing out of jail I don't know, crime is bad so they let people out of jail early. Counterproductive or what.

Making this about guns is silly. if you want to defend yourself against a rapist like that a knife would be as good (I see his 3" and raise him a hunting knife) but of course, we must scream about guns at every opportunity.

This is why people pair-up to jog normally (amongst other reasons but every person I see jogging is either in a pair or doing it in a public place at an active hour). A far cheaper and more effective defence.

Wha that sod was doing out of jail I don't know, crime is bad so they let people out of jail early. Counterproductive or what.

Making this about guns is silly. if you want to defend yourself against a rapist like that a knife would be as good (I see his 3" and raise him a hunting knife) but of course, we must scream about guns at every opportunity.
Actually, I'm mostly screaming about the Right to Choose, and how it was denied to these victims.

You point about the knife is taken, though an effective fighting knife is every bit as hard to carry/conceal as a small ("joggable") handgun and allows no ranged defense. You HAVE to be within grappeling range to make it work. Good one-hand-operable folders are actually more difficult to get into play than a sidearm (Forget "automatic" or "gravity" knives. They're "illegal" almost everywhere in the US.) and fixed-blade knives (depending on length) are also (IIRC, but I'll look) "illegal" for defensive carry there. (I have been known to carry a "blister-packaged" - but rapidly extractible - 4" kitchen knife (exactly as purchased from the grocer) on the occasions where I have been forced by circumstance to be otherwise unarmed... I can thus claim "non-defensive possession" with more credibility...)

Actually, I'm mostly screaming about the Right to Choose, and how it was denied to these victims.

You point about the knife is taken, though an effective fighting knife is every bit as hard to carry/conceal as a small ("joggable") handgun and allows no ranged defense. You HAVE to be within grappeling range to make it work. Good one-hand-operable folders are actually more difficult to get into play than a sidearm (Forget "automatic" or "gravity" knives. They're "illegal" almost everywhere in the US.) and fixed-blade knives (depending on length) are also (IIRC, but I'll look) "illegal" for defensive carry there. (I have been known to carry a "blister-packaged" - but rapidly extractible - 4" kitchen knife (exactly as purchased from the grocer) on the occasions where I have been forced by circumstance to be otherwise unarmed... I can thus claim "non-defensive possession" with more credibility...)

The point is that you took a case that could rightfully be about a million things having to do with crime that need to be worked out that would have been more closely tied to this crime than gun control. Gun Control had nothing to do with this crime, no matter how hard you try to say it does. That's why no one is actually discussing Gun Control with you. Go find a case about gun control and you'll get a very active discussion of it. This is just making you look silly.

Hey, here's another case about Gun Control. Because if these kids just had guns Jackson would be dead and we wouldn't have to waste all this money on a trial. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/18/jackson.case/

SANTA BARBARA, California (CNN) -- Setting the stage for a contentious legal battle played out in the world's media spotlight, California prosecutors on Thursday formally filed molestation charges against pop star Michael Jackson in a case involving a cancer-stricken boy invited to the singer's Neverland Ranch.

Jackson was charged with nine counts -- seven of child molestation and two of administering an intoxicating agent for the purpose of a committing a felony. The charges involve incidents alleged to have occurred in February and March of this year, District Attorney Tom Sneddon said.

In addition, the complaint includes special allegations that could make Jackson ineligible for probation in the case, Sneddon said.

In a prepared statement released Thursday, Sneddon said the alleged victim would take the stand at a trial. "The family is committed to this process," the district attorney said.

Later Thursday, Jackson attorney Mark Geragos again asserted Jackson's innocence and told reporters that the entertainer's legal team would "take no quarter" in their defense of the accused singer.

The charges against the 45-year-old singer were filed nearly a month after local authorities raided his Neverland Ranch home. He was booked November 20 on suspicion of multiple counts of child molestation and has been free on $3 million bond.

The singer and his lawyers maintain he is innocent, and contend that the boy in the current case and his family have brought the allegations for financial gain.

Geragos -- who acknowledged he was brought into the case soon after Jackson appeared with the cancer-stricken boy, the alleged victim, in a documentary in February -- said his client will "fight these charges with every fiber of his soul."

"Michael Jackson is unequivocally and absolutely innocent of these charges," he said.

"I'm telling you right now that there is absolutely no way that we will stand for this besmirching of this man with these horrible, horrible allegations, and I will tell you right now that there is no way that the prosecution will prevail in this case."

Geragos called the case "an intersection between a shakedown" -- the alleged victim's family looking for money -- and an investigator who's "got an ax to grind."

Jackson was accused of child molestation in 1993, but the case was settled, reportedly for millions of dollars, and no charges were filed. Sneddon was the district attorney who looked into that case. Later Jackson released a song widely considered to be an indictment of Sneddon for his efforts to prosecute Jackson in the 1993 case. Sneddon denies that the current case stems from a personal animus against Jackson.

Thursday evening, Katherine Jackson, the singer's mother, released a statement proclaiming Michael's innocence.

"On behalf of the Jackson family we know these vicious lies are totally untrue, malicious and motivated by pure greed and revenge," the statement said. "We proudly stand next to Michael who we know could never commit any of the acts he is accused of. We will fight with every ounce of our energy to reveal the truth behind these false allegations and the motivations behind those who have falsely accused Michael."

Dates may be crucial to case
A complaint filed with Santa Barbara County Superior Court accused Jackson of having "substantial sexual conduct" with a boy under the age of 14 in incidents alleged to have occurred in February and March of this year.

Five of the child molestation counts accuse Jackson of a "lewd act upon a child," a felony, "on or between February 7, 2003, and March 10, 2003, in the county of Santa Barbara." The other two molestation counts allegedly happened on or between February 20 and March 10, according to the complaint.

The two counts of administering an intoxicating agent allegedly happened on or between February 20 and March 10 of this year, according to the complaint.

A source close to the investigation told CNN the "intoxicating agent" was wine.

The specific dates could be significant for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. In mid-February, Los Angeles County child welfare officials found there was no evidence Jackson had had inappropriate contact with the boy. (Full story)

Additionally, Jackson's attorneys played for a CNN legal analyst an audiotape from mid-February in which the boy and mother said there had been no inappropriate contact.

Sneddon said prosecutors were aware of the agency's report before seeking a search and arrest warrant for Jackson, but he contended the welfare officials did not conducted interviews, or any investigation.

On the audiotape, sources told CNN that a Jackson representative was present when it was recorded by a private investigator hired by Jackson.

Jackson to travel to Britain

Jackson attorney Mark Geragos speaks to reporters Thursday.
Thursday's charges were filed in Santa Maria, a working-class town close to Jackson's Neverland Ranch.

The filing came after Sneddon had agreed to delay Jackson's arraignment a week to January 16, and return Jackson's passport to allow him to travel overseas. Sneddon said prosecutors agreed to return to Jackson his passport for a planned trip to Great Britain, because Jackson could face "significant economic problems" if he missed the trip.

Stuart Backerman, spokesman for the 45-year-old pop star, said Jackson planned "to relax and enjoy the surroundings of the Christmas season."

On Thursday, Sneddon denied suggestions that the state waited to file charges in hopes of finding evidence in the interim. "That was never, never, never the intent of our office," he said.

Given the intense interest in the case, he said, prosecutors wanted to wait until a Web site was in place, he said. "They're having technical difficulties. I told the court we're not going to wait any longer."

In another development, Geragos told CNN in a phone interview that reports of famed attorney Johnnie Cochran joining the Jackson defense team are false.

"I have known Johnnie Cochran for many years as an attorney and personal friend but he has already expressed publicly that he is not on this case," said Geragos.

The attorney also dismissed other reports that Jackson replaced his management staff with representatives of the Nation of Islam as "tabloid trash."

Why the hell is this thread even still around? The initial crime had nothing to do with guns. The victim probably wouldn't have carried a gun anyways (aside from your paranoia with carrying guns while jogging, I doubt many people would even given the option) and really, she got out of the situation alive in the first place, got help and maybe this time, the creep will get a real jail sentence instead of getting out before he's too infirm to ever do this again.

The point is that you took a case that could rightfully be about a million things having to do with crime that need to be worked out that would have been more closely tied to this crime than gun control. Gun Control had nothing to do with this crime, no matter how hard you try to say it does. That's why no one is actually discussing Gun Control with you. Go find a case about gun control and you'll get a very active discussion of it. This is just making you look silly.

Hey, here's another case about Gun Control. Because if these kids just had guns Jackson would be dead and we wouldn't have to waste all this money on a trial. :rolleyes:
<snip>
Sigh

Firstly: The Jackson case can in no way be compared to this one. His (alleged) crime was not one of random violence against which a child may reasonably take precautions. (The parents, however…)

Secondly: Many people on this board make it a part of their debates to posit that violent crime is a consequence of gun ownership. This story demonstrates that firearms are unnecessary to perpetrate violent crime and shows how the weak will always suffer at the hands of the strong without a method of equalization. The most recent victim survived only because the Rapist was better at Raping than slitting throats.

Thirdly: The logical link between this story and the Right to Choose comes from the simple fact that by Government Fiat, these women were not permitted by their masters to be decide for themselves whether or not they carried a particular and effective method of self defense against a physically stronger opponent.

I am expressing a simple truism. All other things being equal, a weaker opponent who is denied the Right to Choose is more likely to be worse off than the person that is allowed to Choose – if for no other reason than the criminal does not know for certainty what choice has been taken. The key is Choice. That choice was denied. That choice was denied by the Governmental Fiat of “gun control”. Therefore it is a “gun control” issue.

It’s rather like the Abortion issue. It is a Choice (and personal-space/privacy) issue. Should that Choice be re-legislated away? Why is it right for the Government to say Choice A is acceptable and Choice B is not? I personally do not like abortion, but it is not my place to tell others (women) what Choice they can or cannot take. Women have the Right to Choose whether or not to keep or terminate their pregnancy/Baby. Why shouldn’t they have the Right to Choose whether to Submit to or Terminate their ATTACKER?

What is silly about that argument? The Supremes seemed to think it was legitimate…

Why the hell is this thread even still around? Because, despite protestations, people are still talking about the topic? The initial crime had nothing to do with guns. The victim probably wouldn't have carried a gun anyways (aside from your paranoia with carrying guns while jogging, I doubt many people would even given the option) Who knows... they aren't ALLOWED the option. and really, she got out of the situation alive in the first place, got help and maybe this time, the creep will get a real jail sentence instead of getting out before he's too infirm to ever do this again. Maybe. If we're really lucky. But that won't help the other women who are denied the Right to Choose before they are attacked...

Hang on, hang on…
…what the hell was a multiply-convicted rapist doing on the streets? Why wasn't he permanently in prison? Sorry if this constitutes borderline threadjacking, but really… guns or no guns, shouldn't he have been locked up/hanged (depending on your view)?

Hang on, hang on…
…what the hell was a multiply-convicted rapist doing on the streets? Why wasn't he permanently in prison? Sorry if this constitutes borderline threadjacking, but really… guns or no guns, shouldn't he have been locked up/hanged (depending on your view)?
Yes. He should not have been out on the streets. But because predators like that ARE out on the streets, for whatever reason, it makes the fact that people are not "granted" the Right to Choose an effective method of self defense all the more criminal.

Sigh

Firstly: The Jackson case can in no way be compared to this one. His (alleged) crime was not one of random violence against which a child may reasonably take precautions. (The parents, however…)

Secondly: Many people on this board make it a part of their debates to posit that violent crime is a consequence of gun ownership. This story demonstrates that firearms are unnecessary to perpetrate violent crime and shows how the weak will always suffer at the hands of the strong without a method of equalization. The most recent victim survived only because the Rapist was better at Raping than slitting throats.

Thirdly: The logical link between this story and the Right to Choose comes from the simple fact that by Government Fiat, these women were not permitted by their masters to be decide for themselves whether or not they carried a particular and effective method of self defense against a physically stronger opponent.

I am expressing a simple truism. All other things being equal, a weaker opponent who is denied the Right to Choose is more likely to be worse off than the person that is allowed to Choose – if for no other reason than the criminal does not know for certainty what choice has been taken. The key is Choice. That choice was denied. That choice was denied by the Governmental Fiat of “gun control”. Therefore it is a “gun control” issue.

It’s rather like the Abortion issue. It is a Choice (and personal-space/privacy) issue. Should that Choice be re-legislated away? Why is it right for the Government to say Choice A is acceptable and Choice B is not? I personally do not like abortion, but it is not my place to tell others (women) what Choice they can or cannot take. Women have the Right to Choose whether or not to keep or terminate their pregnancy/Baby. Why shouldn’t they have the Right to Choose whether to Submit to or Terminate their ATTACKER?

Strange how guns were so prevelant in the old west and people still committed crimes. It is far from a truism, but call it that, if you wish to sound like someone who doesn't understand debate. She might have shot her attacker, or he might have shot her with her own gun, or she might have missed the attacker and shot a passerby, or she might have shot herself in panic, or the gun might have jammed and angered her attacker enough that he finished the job, or she might not have been able to bring herself to shoot someone even if they were attacking her, or about a billion other scenarios. Oversimplification is a weak weapon in this instance.

Do you notice that no one is debating legalized guns with you in this thread? You know why? Because no one can see your specious connection between gun control and this case.

If only abortion had been legal in 19th Century Germany, we'd have no Hitler. That's rather like the case you're making. You can't make up what would happen if the laws were different just because it fits your argument. There is no argument to be had about gun control here because you haven't established any connection between that issue and this article.

"joggable" handguns?

good god.
Aren't I happy to live in a "gun free" (=more guns/population than in USA) society.
Sometimes it's hard to understand the way some people think.

I try to be pro choice on this issue but it's very difficult.

Strange how guns were so prevelant in the old west and people still committed crimes. It is far from a truism, but call it that, if you wish to sound like someone who doesn't understand debate. She might have shot her attacker, or he might have shot her with her own gun, or she might have missed the attacker and shot a passerby, or she might have shot herself in panic, or the gun might have jammed and angered her attacker enough that he finished the job, or she might not have been able to bring herself to shoot someone even if they were attacking her, or about a billion other scenarios. Oversimplification is a weak weapon in this instance.Strange how you failed to adress my three points (second & third in particular) to tangentalize on a fact you wish to ignore.
Do you notice that no one is debating legalized guns with you in this thread? You know why? Because no one can see your specious connection between gun control and this case.Or is trying very hard to ignore the connection between the Article's victims and the Right to Choose...
If only abortion had been legal in 19th Century Germany, we'd have no Hitler. Psst... Godwin...?That's rather like the case you're making. You can't make up what would happen if the laws were different just because it fits your argument. No, it's not. I am not saying the outcome would have been different, I'm saying the victim(s) were denied the opportunity to even attempt to make the outcome(s) different. There is a difference. There is no argument to be had about gun control here because you haven't established any connection between that issue and this article. So there is no connection between the denied Right to Choose a defensive tool and the subsequent lack of that tool when it could have been used? If I am denied the Right to keep a spare tyre in my car and I get a puncture, thus stranding me, should I bemoan the existance of glass on the road, or be annoyed that that I was denied the Right to Choose to carry a Spare? The conditions under which the principles in this case were operating were modified by the external interference of Government. The victims were not armed, not because they didn't want to be (somthing we do not know), but because they were not ALLOWED to be (something we know). Why deny or ignore that fact? That simple fact is a control issue. In this case, it happens to be a "gun (or whatever "illegal" personal weapon) control" issue. The connection is not tenuous at all.

Strange how you failed to adress my three points (second & third in particular) to tangentalize on a fact you wish to ignore.
Or is trying very hard to ignore the connection between the Article's victims and the Right to Choose...
Psst... Godwin...? No, it's not. I am not saying the outcome would have been different, I'm saying the victim(s) were denied the opportunity to even attempt to make the outcome(s) different. There is a difference. So there is no connection between the denied Right to Choose a defensive tool and the subsequent lack of that tool when it could have been used? If I am denied the Right to keep a spare tyre in my car and I get a puncture, thus stranding me, should I bemoan the existance of glass on the road, or be annoyed that that I was denied the Right to Choose to carry a Spare? The conditions under which the principles in this case were operating were modified by the external interference of Government. The victims were not armed, not because they didn't want to be (somthing we do not know), but because they were not ALLOWED to be (something we know). Why deny or ignore that fact? That simple fact is a control issue. In this case, it happens to be a "gun (or whatever "illegal" personal weapon) control" issue. The connection is not tenuous at all.

First, I ignored your points because they aren't points. There is no relation between this article and the right to bear arms. As I said, it is as tenuous as the right to choose (abortion) and Hitler. It's silly.

Second, like you ignored my points about rape and about preventing this event.

I'm done. No one accepts your connection, even people who believe in conceal and carry, as I do. You can't accept that there is no connection. Further discussion is a waste of time. Have a nice day.

Strange how guns were so prevelant in the old west and people still committed crimes.
True, but the rate in places like Dodge City was much much lower than it is in almost any american city today.

First, I ignored your points because they aren't points. There is no relation between this article and the right to bear arms. As I said, it is as tenuous as the right to choose (abortion) and Hitler. It's silly.
Your argument is specious at best. There is a big difference between a theoretical in austria over 100 years ago and something that happened quite recently in an area one is familiar with. I assume abortion was illegal across most of europe, let alone just in austria. The same does not apply with guns to modern-day chicago. There are several towns which allow CC in illinois, let alone across the entire US. However, because of the authoritarian standpoint of Emperor Daley and the surrounding tin-pot dictatorships no civilian is allowed to carry a tool to defend ones life or liberty.

Your argument is specious at best. There is a big difference between a theoretical in austria over 100 years ago and something that happened quite recently in an area one is familiar with. I assume abortion was illegal across most of europe, let alone just in austria. The same does not apply with guns to modern-day chicago. There are several towns which allow CC in illinois, let alone across the entire US. However, because of the authoritarian standpoint of Emperor Daley and the surrounding tin-pot dictatorships no civilian is allowed to carry a tool to defend ones life or liberty.

K, how about Usama Bin Laden? Is that better? The point wasn't that abortion was illegal. The point was the legality of abortion had nothing to do with the existence of Hitler. There is no relation between Bin Laden and abortion and there is no relation between gun control and this event.

True, but the rate in places like Dodge City was much much lower than it is in almost any american city today.

And you think that can be attributed to gun control? Seriously? I think you'd have a hard time establishing that even to the addled brain of Charleton Heston.

That's a pretty loose connnection guys. I'm against that ban as much as the next person, but seriously.

a) There is no indication the girl WANTED a gun at all
b) The attacker got her from behind, she would have had no chance at all to pull the gun, her arms were pinned in a bear hug. At worst, he would have taken her gun and killed her with it!
c) The law is brand new, if she wanted a gun she would have had it already.
d) Why the hell was this repeat offender let out EARLY in the first place!


Hand guns have been effectively illegal in Chicago since 1982, it is NOT a new law. Even before 1982, there was no allowance for concealed carry.

How about pepper spray?

She could only get pepper spray in Illinois if she already had a Firearm Owners Identification card. Even if she did, the posesstion of pepper spray, chemical mace, stung guns, or tazers is illegal in Chicago and carries the same penalties as being caught with a pistol. Thanks King Daley...

And if it was legal, she would automatically be packing? That's a tough one to prove...

If it was legal theres a good chance that Mr. Rapist would have caught a slug by now. If this is his fourth arrest for rape, theres likely a dozen or so more out there he never got caught for.

Um... if gun laws are laxed, then what would have kept this rapist from having a gun as well?

Being a violent fellon he cannot own a gun in the United States, he would fail the NICS when he tried to buy a firearm and a warrant would be issued for his arrest.

I still don't get your point. Unless you propose forcing all women to carry guns, there is no way that you are going to convince someone capable of rape that they won't be able to find a victim. Plenty of women are still not going to carry guns, and will still be raped. Not having a gun is NOT the reason they are raped...and the rapist is not raping because of guns or lack thereof. These issues are not linked the way you seem to be saying they are.

The issue is that the rapist isn't going to know who does and doesn't have a gun. I'm 6'2", and 250 pounds, its unlikely that I'm going to get mugged. My wife is less than half my size. Shes a better victim. If we were in a state with concealed carry, she would be every bit as potentially dangerous as I am. The criminal doesn't know if you're armed, but you might be.

I don't see how wrestling with a gun is easier than wrestling with pepper spray.

The mere sight of a gun is enough to scare off most attackers. Furthermore, its alot easier to deliver a single slug to someone than a continuous spray to the eyes.

yeah, and in fact no violent fellow has ever had a gun in the US, what? please

listen, in Europe we have strict gun laws, and the crime rate is far lower than in the US
because not everyone tries to rob a supermarket with a knife, while every idiot can try it with a gun

Just for fun, I'd like to point out that this woman lived in Libertyville, which is also where the attack occurred -- not Chicago. Libertyville is nearly an hour away from Chicago, and resides in a separate county, having nothing to do with the laws and ordinances of Chicago.

But hey let's not get bogged down in details if we only want to start an argument.

Ok, so she could have had a gun in her home. She still couldn't carry.

BTW: Libertyville is only an hour from Chicago if you start at the lake and have Miss Daisy as a passenger ;)

yeah, and in fact no violent fellow has ever had a gun in the US, what? please

listen, in Europe we have strict gun laws, and the crime rate is far lower than in the US
because not everyone tries to rob a supermarket with a knife, while every idiot can try it with a gun Yep. I second that. If the rapist had a gun, then what? She'd have had to do whatever he told her to do… and we're back to step one again.

I still think the premise as posed was spurious. Taking 'their cue' from Chicago is their choice. They are under no legal obligation to do so. Perhaps they take their fashion cues from there as well.

I just think it was disingenious to allow folks to believe that this girl was under the purview of Chicago law. A case in any other city/state/country that 'takes its cue' from larger municipalities like Chicago could have been cited, or the clarification should have been made.

Everyone within an hour of Chicago behaves the way Chicago tells them. Why? Because daily and his cronies have ALOT of influence. If you're not in Chicago but in Cook County, you might as well just assume the laws are the same as Chicago. Once you're out of Cook but in one of the closer counties (Lake, Will, Kane, etc) you still have to assume that the laws are almost the same. Small town behave because if they don't they get screwed when cash is being handed out from Springfield.

Its not disingenuous to tell people that the girl was under the purview of Chicago law. Most of the state wants concealed carry. They had the votes to pass a concealed carry law through both the Illinois House and the Illinois Senate. We don't have it right now because the Governor is Dick Mell's son in law and Dick Mell is part of the Democratic Machine, which means they both answer to Daley. Daley tells Gov. Blagojevich to veto concealed carry, he vetoes it. When it looks like it might pass with a Veto-proof margin, Chicago Democrats hold the bill up in the rules committe until the Spring Session ends. Meanwhile, highschoolers in Libertyville get raped by repeat offenders and they don't even have the CHOICE to try to defend themselves.

I could of told you that. There might be one or two exceptions(Knollwood possibly, mainly because it's unincorporated) but other than those exceptions the entire North Shore doesn't allow CC.

Nope, concealed carry is illegal in the entire state. Thanks to North Shore schmucks.

It's interesting to note that on other laws (some employment laws for example) there are variances between these localities that would impact "commuters" far more.

You may be spot on that firearms regs appear to follow Chicago's lead. One has to wonder, though, if Chicago's Benevolent Dictator were to allow CC if these communities would again follow Chicago. I would guess not, but have no idea. I can't imagination such a scenario actually happening, though.

Ok, Home Rule Units CANNOT allow concealed carry, even if they want to. It is a State issue. it is Illegal under State law and every attempt to legalize it has to be at the State level.

Do Americans ever shut up about guns?

Nice name, considering the statement ;)

I don't know... Technically, even with my Indiana CCW Permit I cannot (legally) travel through Illinois without disassembling/boxing/locking and/or otherwise disabling my sidearm.

Not quite anymore. All you have to do now is keep it unloaded, I believe.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2104&GAID=8&GA=94&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=20565&SessionID=50

On pepper spray, a direct hit in the face is quite a bit more debilitaing, than a miss. But the result of a miss, isn't a pleasent floral experience. It's going to force everyone in the area to deal with it until it disipates. And that irritation is going to divide attention and provoke mistakes, which create more opportunities for the attacker to fail.

Ever been hit with pepper spray? It sucks, but its not really that debilitating. A miss isn't much more than obnoxious.

This shows your complete and utter lack of understanding of how a rapist thinks and what their motivation is. How is a porno going to meet his need to objectify and control a woman? Rape is about sex as much as anorexia is about preventing obesity.


Exactly. Theres only two ways to fix a rapist. The way you'd fix a dog or the way you fix a cow thats gonna be dinner.

Exactly. Theres only two ways to fix a rapist. The way you'd fix a dog or the way you fix a cow thats gonna be dinner. No, that's a bit sick… execution maybe. He really shouldn't have been on the streets in the first place though… maybe life sentence for the first offence would be a good idea?

Yep. I second that. If the rapist had a gun, then what? She'd have had to do whatever he told her to do… and we're back to step one again.

Unlikely. Sadly, using a gun during a rape would probably net him more time in jail than killing her with a knife...

So, in effect, what you're saying is that you want to increase a number of crimes rates by allowing guns to decrease the crime rate of rape?

Because that's what I foresee if the law change. Yes there will be less rape, but the amount of robberies, assault, theft, violent death will increase. I guess it's a choice of society. Which is right? I don't know. I haven't statistical data to tell me which is better.

No, that's a bit sick… execution maybe. He really shouldn't have been on the streets in the first place though… maybe life sentence for the first offence would be a good idea?

I meant castration or a bullet to the forebrain. As for the idea of a life sentance, why waste money keeping filth like that alive? Spend $.50 on a good slug and use the quarter million we would have spent on him over the rest of his worthless life on education.

So, in effect, what you're saying is that you want to increase a number of crimes rates by allowing guns to decrease the crime rate of rape?

Because that's what I foresee if the law change. Yes there will be less rape, but the amount of robberies, assault, theft, violent death will increase. I guess it's a choice of society. Which is right? I don't know. I haven't statistical data to tell me which is better.

But according to the FBI, regardless of income, race, geography, or population density violent crime of all types goes down when concealed carry laws are passed.

But according to the FBI, regardless of income, race, geography, or population density violent crime of all types goes down when concealed carry laws are passed.
As opposed to what? Open carry or flat-out ban?

As opposed to what? Open carry or flat-out ban?

Either. And were not talking about marginal decreses, either. Were talking about statistiaclly significant decreases, in some cases with an alpha level as low as .001.

Either. And were not talking about margial decreses, either. Were talking about statistiaclly significant decreases, in some cases with an alpha level as low as .001.
Interesting...

Can you link me up?

She lives in Chicago. As a resident of Chicago she is prevented from arming herself. That she was a minor is immaterial. The result would have been the same if she were over 21 and could, in more reasonable locales, own a firearm to defend herself.

She can't even purchase a stun gun. To do that you need to get a Firearms Identification Card (about a 3 month wait and not available to persons under 18) then wait an additional 24 hours before you can even take one home from the store. Without an FOID you cannot even legally possess a stun gun.

By Law and Fiat she was preventd from carrying the most effective form of defense against a physically superior oponent - as are all but the most Privileged (or criminal) Chicagoans who can afford bodyguards.

The result would have been the same if she had a gun or not. She was attacked from behind by a more powerful assailant. If she had a gun she wouldn't have been able to reach it. It would have been the first thing he'd have gone for, then instead of stabbing her, he'd probably have shot her, with her own gun.

I'm in favor of the right to own fire-arms mind you, just that this is a lousy argument.

As for the "if this were my loved one he'd already be dead" line someone else wrote, do you really want armed posses prowling the streets for people who look like they're probably the people who attacked them?

Interesting...

Can you link me up?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226493644/qid=1118344753/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-8402543-5007143?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

John Lott took raw FBI crime data and compared it statistically over time, law changes, county, population desnity, etc. The book has taken alot of flak from anti-gun types, but the STATISTICS themselves hold. Its kinda of a dense read if you don't have a background in statistical analysis, but you can still understand it if you sit down and Google the terms/tests you don't recognize.

I enjoy hearing arguments like "well, if there were laws allowing CCW, [the rapist] would have a gun too..."

Thats not how it works. Criminals cannot legally aquire or handle a firearm, anywhere. CCW legistlation only applies to LACs, this guy wasn't one, was he? Gun control is and always was about keeping firearms out of the hands of LACs. Criminals will get them anyway if they want them, that is a fact and everyone knows it.

Ever been hit with pepper spray? It sucks, but its not really that debilitating. A miss isn't much more than obnoxious.

Ya, I knew a guy in high school who was very aggressive and violent by nature, unfortunatly for him he was also a wimp and a coward. He would always buy new weapons to show off and brag about, but when it came time to use them (with the slightest provocation) things never went according to plan.

His experiment with a key chain of pepper spray was one of his more successful in that it was only a complete failure, not complete disaster.

He whipped it out at a guy who was just taunting him (the situation probably would have ended with both parties walking away posturing if it were anyone else) and sprayed right in the other guy's face. Upwind. A small cloud formed in front of his "assailant's" face and the only look to cross his face was recognition rather than pain or surprise. The pepper sprayer turned tail and ran. He was lucky the other guy was a big fatso and gave up after a block or so. He was mad though.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226493644/qid=1118344753/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-8402543-5007143?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

John Lott took raw FBI crime data and compared it statistically over time, law changes, county, population desnity, etc. The book has taken alot of flak from anti-gun types, but the STATISTICS themselves hold. Its kinda of a dense read if you don't have a background in statistical analysis, but you can still understand it if you sit down and Google the terms/tests you don't recognize.
Will check it out.

However, you were misleading when you said :

"But according to the FBI, regardless of income, race, geography, or population density violent crime of all types goes down when concealed carry laws are passed."

It's not the FBI who says this. It's someone who uses the FBI as a source of data. I thought the FBI said it. You naughty, naughty boy. ;)

Exactly. Theres only two ways to fix a rapist. The way you'd fix a dog or the way you fix a cow thats gonna be dinner.

I don't remember where I read it, but I read somewhere that castrated rapist keep on raping, but instead of using their penis, they'll sodomize people with objects.

If it was legal theres a good chance that Mr. Rapist would have caught a slug by now. If this is his fourth arrest for rape, theres likely a dozen or so more out there he never got caught for.

Good chance? On what evidence do you base this? None.

The result would have been the same if she had a gun or not. She was attacked from behind by a more powerful assailant. If she had a gun she wouldn't have been able to reach it. It would have been the first thing he'd have gone for, then instead of stabbing her, he'd probably have shot her, with her own gun.Ignoring for the moment that he released her to "allow" her to disrobe, your description of her inability to reach a carried firearm assumes that she were wearing it small-of-back or behind the hip rather than, equally probably, in a forward-carry/belt-pack configuration.

But really, the individual carry condition is less important than the fact that she was denied the Choice to do it at all...I'm in favor of the right to own fire-arms mind you, just that this is a lousy argument. <snip>The Right to Choose is a lousy argument?

I don't remember where I read it, but I read somewhere that castrated rapist keep on raping, but instead of using their penis, they'll sodomize people with objects.

Well, I've got a shotgun and a shovel.

Will check it out.

However, you were misleading when you said :

"But according to the FBI, regardless of income, race, geography, or population density violent crime of all types goes down when concealed carry laws are passed."

It's not the FBI who says this. It's someone who uses the FBI as a source of data. I thought the FBI said it. You naughty, naughty boy. ;)

Not much of a difference between the two when it comes to an ANOVA. Still, I appologize for the confusion.

Good chance? On what evidence do you base this? None.

Well there, Mr. Conservative Christian, lets look at the numbers. Only about a third of all rapes ever get reported. Only about half of all rapes ever end in an arrest. Now if this guy has been arrested four times, it is likely that hes committed more than two dozen rapes. Rape is not a single instance offense, nor is it an offense of oppritunity. Rape is generally an abberant sexual compulsion. If this guy commited twenty rapes in an area with even 5% of women taking advantage of a concealed carry statute, he would likely get shot. Thats ignoring the chance of witness, bystanders, or (in the case of aquaintance rape) family members. Is it absolute that he would have gotten shot? No, but it is likely.

On a side note, I find it funny that someone so big on the Old Testament, defending the 10 commandments, would be so hostile towards the idea of vengance.

Lemme be a little more specific, just so theres no room for misunderstanding. I'm in favor of conealed carry because I feel that a woman having a chance is better than not. I'm in favor of good people being able to kill those who prey upon them. I'm in favor of society having an expediant way in which to seperate those of abberant appetites. I don't care if a rapist dies, in fact, I relish it. I don't keep buckshot in my home defense shotgun, I keep razors. There is evil in this world, we don't have to look to some supernatural boogeyman to find it, all we have to do is turn on our evening news. There is NOTHING WRONG with good people defending themselves against bad people. There is NOTHING WRONG with that self defense being reflexively lethal. If you would prefer to be prey, that is your buisness, but do not stand in my way of becoming something other than a freshly shorn sheep.

Well there, Mr. Conservative Christian, lets look at the numbers. Only about a third of all rapes ever get reported. Only about half of all rapes ever end in an arrest. Now if this guy has been arrested four times, it is likely that hes committed more than two dozen rapes. Rape is not a single instance offense, nor is it an offense of oppritunity. Rape is generally an abberant sexual compulsion. If this guy commited twenty rapes in an area with even 5% of women taking advantage of a concealed carry statute, he would likely get shot. Thats ignoring the chance of witness, bystanders, or (in the case of aquaintance rape) family members. Is it absolute that he would have gotten shot? No, but it is likely.

On a side note, I find it funny that someone so big on the Old Testament, defending the 10 commandments, would be so hostile towards the idea of vengance.

Um, where am I defending the ten commandments? I am a big proponent of the separation of church and state. You should probably read more carefully. Also, I'm not against vengeance. I think rapists should be castrated. I agree with ccw.

I disagree with any argument about the likelihood that a change in the law would have changed this event. I have no crystal ball, nor do you. I doubt 5% of women will ever carry a gun jogging, so your 5% doesn't really hold up. Having a gun is not the same as using a gun. And this guy committed all of the rapes he was caught for in the same place. It's very likely that if he committed more there would be ample evidence to link him to them, if not convict him. None of your points trying to strengthen the tenuous link between this link and gun control hold up.

Ignoring for the moment that he released her to "allow" her to disrobe, your description of her inability to reach a carried firearm assumes that she were wearing it small-of-back or behind the hip rather than, equally probably, in a forward-carry/belt-pack configuration.

But really, the individual carry condition is less important than the fact that she was denied the Choice to do it at all...The Right to Choose is a lousy argument?

The news story is a lousy argument. A case where the presence of a gun foiled a crime is a good argument a case where a crime was commited in the absense of a gun is a lousy argument. You've got no cause and effect, just an undisprovable negative.

Not to mention it's questionable relevance. I could just as easily argue that the high cost of car insurance is attributable to strict gun control because fewer people would talk on their cell phones or drive drunk if I were allowed to threaten lousy drivers with my gun.

Well there, Mr. Conservative Christian, lets look at the numbers. Only about a third of all rapes ever get reported. Only about half of all rapes ever end in an arrest. Now if this guy has been arrested four times, it is likely that hes committed more than two dozen rapes. Rape is not a single instance offense, nor is it an offense of oppritunity. Rape is generally an abberant sexual compulsion. If this guy commited twenty rapes in an area with even 5% of women taking advantage of a concealed carry statute, he would likely get shot. Thats ignoring the chance of witness, bystanders, or (in the case of aquaintance rape) family members. Is it absolute that he would have gotten shot? No, but it is likely.

I don't know about USA but around here only 1/6 of all rapes get reported. And in more than 90% of the cases the victim knows the rapist. Most of the attacks made by a stranger are reported. The ones made by boyfriend, uncle or exhusband are the ones not reported. So there could be more victims, 1 or 2, but not more. Certainly not 24+.

How many would be ready to shoot their rapist, if he's her relative, boyfriend or a date? Would they be prepared for that?

Ignoring for the moment that he released her to "allow" her to disrobe, your description of her inability to reach a carried firearm assumes that she were wearing it small-of-back or behind the hip rather than, equally probably, in a forward-carry/belt-pack configuration.

And you think that he would have released her if she would've been carrying a gun?

I think this is pointless. We can't know what would have happened if she'd had a gun with her.

This is why people pair-up to jog normally (amongst other reasons but every person I see jogging is either in a pair or doing it in a public place at an active hour). A far cheaper and more effective defence.

Wha that sod was doing out of jail I don't know, crime is bad so they let people out of jail early. Counterproductive or what.

Making this about guns is silly. if you want to defend yourself against a rapist like that a knife would be as good (I see his 3" and raise him a hunting knife) but of course, we must scream about guns at every opportunity.


In most states, it's illegal to carry a knife over 3 or 3.5 inches, on your person, unless you're actively hunting, fishing, or camping.

Anyway, the skill needed to properly use a knife is such that it requires a great deal of practice, while most people can be taught to properly and accurately use a pistol in a matter of a few hours.

Then there is the entire part where a knife requires physical strength, and you have to be right up close.

I'd rather not let an attacker get that close to me, I'd prefer to shoot them before they get close enough to knife me, cause if I can knife them, they must be close enough that they could knife me, too.

If we're just making spurious connections then I'm gonna say, THANK GOODNESS IT WAS CHICAGO!! Because if this had been anywhere else he may have shot her and killed her instead of only stabbing her and allowing her to live. You could argue this both ways. This case had NOTHING to do with gun control.


So gun laws prevented him from using a gun to attack her, you say?

What about the laws against rape and assault, those didn't seem to stop him.

Perhaps he just didn't bring his gun along that day, for whatever reason.

The question we need to ask, why was a man like that constantly being let out for "Good behavior" even after being a repeat offender. Why was he even still alive?

Who carries a gun jogging?

Generally, when you're jogging, you want as little as possible on you, usually keys, id and a waterbottle. Who the hell would go jogging with a gun smacking them at every pace?

That's horribly impractical and really quite stupid that this attack was even made into a gun issue. Also, were two articles used in the initial quote? They repeated his crimed twice.


http://www.impactguns.com/store/640832000450.html


How is that for a small gun, it won't be "smacking them at every pace"

maybe this time, the creep will get a real jail sentence instead of getting out before he's too infirm to ever do this again.

Or more likely he'll get a joke sentence as that seems to be the theme in his life and the theme in the American justice system overall.

Hang on, hang on…
…what the hell was a multiply-convicted rapist doing on the streets? Why wasn't he permanently in prison? Sorry if this constitutes borderline threadjacking, but really… guns or no guns, shouldn't he have been locked up/hanged (depending on your view)?


"He's a victim of society" (liberal argument) (yawns and makes a loud sigh) so it'd be horrible to give him anything even approaching being a real sentence.

Being a violent fellon he cannot own a gun in the United States, he would fail the NICS when he tried to buy a firearm and a warrant would be issued for his arrest.


In 1999, the Clinton regime declared, "The NICS has stopped 500,000 convicted felons from purchasing weapons!" and they called it a victory, yet they failed to mention, fewer than 5,000 of them were arrested, since it is indeed a crime to attempt to obtain a firearm if you're not legally allowed to own one.

yeah, and in fact no violent fellow has ever had a gun in the US, what? please

listen, in Europe we have strict gun laws, and the crime rate is far lower than in the US
because not everyone tries to rob a supermarket with a knife, while every idiot can try it with a gun

That is just a commonly told lie, UK has about 4-5 times the rapes that the USA has, Sweden and Norway are plagued by Burglaries, as is the United Kingdom.



Check this out.

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html

Yep. I second that. If the rapist had a gun, then what? She'd have had to do whatever he told her to do… and we're back to step one again.


Studies show even if they have their gun out and trained on you, if a citizen is packing, he/she has a 50% chance of drawing and firing, killing or seriously wounding the criminal, without the criminal ever getting one shot off.

So, in effect, what you're saying is that you want to increase a number of crimes rates by allowing guns to decrease the crime rate of rape?

Because that's what I foresee if the law change. Yes there will be less rape, but the amount of robberies, assault, theft, violent death will increase. I guess it's a choice of society. Which is right? I don't know. I haven't statistical data to tell me which is better.


Why not put people in prison for a long, very long time, if they use guns to commit crimes?

Why not execute rapists and murderers? Crime will then go down, most of these people are repeat offenders.

Crime is high because of this almost corporation of criminals, that we routinely arrest and routinely allow back on the streets. It's the same faces, the same folks, stop releasing them!

do you really want armed posses prowling the streets for people who look like they're probably the people who attacked them?


Why not, justice is justice.

undisprovable




Bushism!

That is just a commonly told lie, UK has about 4-5 times the rapes that the USA has, Sweden and Norway are plagued by Burglaries, as is the United Kingdom.



Check this out.

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html
hmmmm....
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap
rapes per capita...
It's true that e.g. burglaries and car thefts are more common in most European countries. However USA ranks higher on the assault and murder stats. Eastern European countries rank high in almost all stats.

Why not, justice is justice.

And killing someone because they "look like" someone that attacked you is .... murder.

You have an odd definition of justice. An un-American view.

That is just a commonly told lie, UK has about 4-5 times the rapes that the USA has, Sweden and Norway are plagued by Burglaries, as is the United Kingdom.

Bullshit.

I challenge you to prove it.

The numbers certainly aren't higher, so you must mean percentages.

Look up the actual statistics for the UK, Sweden, Norway, and the US.

And post the links.

Check this out.

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html

Um.

This is just a blog. With no credibility. :rolleyes:

And it doesn't even support your assertions above. :rolleyes:

And you think that he would have released her if she would've been carrying a gun?

I think this is pointless. We can't know what would have happened if she'd had a gun with her.
I am not saying we would know what would have happened had she been "allowed" to Choose to carry a defensive weapon.

The point is, none of the victims were allowed the Choice. Choice is only an issue when it is denied to you. The only time you can argue about the freedom of Choice is when someone has, or is trying to, take it away.

We know hat happend in this case will happen in every other case like it in the area because the Government has taken away the victim's Right to Choose - thus, as as the title of the thread suggests, a woman is not ALLOWED to shoot the Rapist - no matter what he is attempting to do to her body.

A woman is not allowed, because she is not allowed to Choose. OSHA for Rapists. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Why not put people in prison for a long, very long time, if they use guns to commit crimes?

Why not put rapist in prison for a very long time? The argument was about guns, not jail sentences. If you go through the thread, you'll see that it's pretty unanimous that he got a sentence that was too lenient.

Why not execute rapists and murderers? Crime will then go down, most of these people are repeat offenders.

The death penalty has never been shown to be a detterent. There is no correlation between crime rate and capital punishment.

Gun comes out when clothing is coming off.
I wager the the rapist was watching her closely and in point blank distance, as is indicated by him tearing her cloth off. Thus the situation is: attacker within reaching distance, stronger and armed with a close combat weapon and victim having a gun somewhere concealed in her clothes. Not something i would be my life on, especially considering that she is most likely shocked, under stress and on an adrenaline rush, thus not being coldblooded enough to bluff her way into making drawing a weapon and aiming seem like a normal disrobing move.
A gun might have helped her, but i find that highly unlikely.

I wager the the rapist was watching her closely and in point blank distance, as is indicated by him tearing her cloth off. Thus the situation is: attacker within reaching distance, stronger and armed with a close combat weapon and victim having a gun somewhere concealed in her clothes. Not something i would be my life on, especially considering that she is most likely shocked, under stress and on an adrenaline rush, thus not being coldblooded enough to bluff her way into making drawing a weapon and aiming seem like a normal disrobing move. A gun might have helped her, but i find that highly unlikely.
Good points... but we will never know because she (and each woman before her) was denied the right to decide that for herself.... denied the Right to Choose.

So gun laws prevented him from using a gun to attack her, you say?

What about the laws against rape and assault, those didn't seem to stop him.

Perhaps he just didn't bring his gun along that day, for whatever reason.

The question we need to ask, why was a man like that constantly being let out for "Good behavior" even after being a repeat offender. Why was he even still alive?

I agree with your last question.

I was exaggerating Syniks position that this is a case about gun law. It isn't. At all. My point was it could just as easily be argued that if guns were legal in Chicago it would be easier to supply the black market (more legal guns stolen, etc), thus the guns would be cheaper, etc. The point is we don't know what would have happened if concealed-carry were legal in Chicago. Why don't we? Because it's not. End of story.