The law didn't save her

Cindy Bischof thought her breakup with a longtime boyfriend would go smoothly after he agreed to move out of her house. Full Story
First Prev
of 9
Next Last
Harmony

AOL

#182 Apr 8, 2008
tom wrote:
<quoted text>
None of us wins unless we all win.
It means that having to fear for our lives, and needing a gun, is indicative of where we have put our country. Turning up the volume and arming everyone only succeeds in making a lot of noise. There comes a point at which even Beethoven becomes nothing but distortion
As a said in another post, I think we want the same thing, we just differ in the way to it. Just because I am pro-gun does not mean that I want to arm everyone, nor that I don't think we should have any gun laws. But my way doesn't force my beliefs on yours-the opposite is not true. I think that other methods need to be used, gun bans are a fairytale-no more guns equal no more problems. I think that there still will be problems. There are lots of guns ouside of Chicago, Chicago has a gun ban. Chicago has a gun violence problem, outside areas not so much. People point to poverty, urban density etc as the difference. When we figure out that, then we figure it all out. I have my own theories-but they're just that. I suspect part of the problem is biological-recent studies show young men's brains are wired differently. They lack impulse control and can't see long-term effects of immediate actions. Taking guns away from them doesn't solve their violent tendencies. Gun vilence is more pre-dominant in black communities-I wonder if this correlates to rise in unwed mothers and low percentage of military service. At any rate, I don't see an absolute erasure of all guns solving this-young men find a way to do damage, whether it's knives, bombs, bats, cars, etc. Most gun owners don't have a John Wayne mentality-guns are hobby-cleaning them, target, skeet, trap, reloading etc. It's the attitude not the tool. And people have different preferences. I mean you can cut your grass with a gas lawn mower, or an electric one, or a manual one, or xeriscape. You'll find proponents and opponents of each. But almost all will just think of tools. A few will dump their weed killer on someone else lawn. The problem is the person-not the product. The other problem is that say, the person who prefers to brick over lawn, thinks that the only way to go-not just for himself but for everyone.
Idiotic

Elgin, IL

#183 Apr 11, 2008
The gun nuts are people with small brains and private parts who want to be able to pull out guns and blast away. This is not about protection. This is about trying to feel like a man instead of a failure by being armed. Let's not fix the problems of society. Just blast away.
Losers!
Harmony

AOL

#184 Apr 12, 2008
Idiotic wrote:
The gun nuts are people with small brains and private parts who want to be able to pull out guns and blast away. This is not about protection. This is about trying to feel like a man instead of a failure by being armed. Let's not fix the problems of society. Just blast away.
Losers!
Um, er, ok. So, Dr. Freud, because I'm female, I have penis envy? Because I enjoy target and trap shooting, you're going to be Austin Powers and tug on my hair like a wig screaming, "She's a man, baby!"? What I've been trying to explain until my fingers droop is that shooters want society's problems fixed-not take an easy way out saying ,"It's just the guns, baby. Take away those and everything will be just groovy!". Snort. Sorry, feeling decidely underwhelmed by your lack of an arguement.
Idiotic

Elgin, IL

#185 Apr 12, 2008
Nice going clueless. What do trap and skeet shooting have to do with all the wimps out there that want to carry guns and hope they get a shot off before someone shootsa them? You talk about my lack of argument? I hope you aren't the one shot when some wimp pulls out his pistol and shoots you over nothing, which is what I predict will happene if everyone starts packing.
Harmony

AOL

#186 Apr 12, 2008
Idiotic wrote:
Nice going clueless. What do trap and skeet shooting have to do with all the wimps out there that want to carry guns and hope they get a shot off before someone shootsa them? You talk about my lack of argument? I hope you aren't the one shot when some wimp pulls out his pistol and shoots you over nothing, which is what I predict will happene if everyone starts packing.
Hey, now-I said target and trap, not trap and skeet. Point is thugs will be thugs and will do damge with whatever-bats, golf clubs. bombs. It's the thug, not the weapon.
Harmony

AOL

#187 Apr 12, 2008
Thought I should clarify because you don't seem to be a shooter. By target I mean we have several handguns, by trap, I mean we have several shotguns. We also have rifles, reloading supplies, etc, etc. We are what you derisively call gun nuts-but without the attitude you ascribe to them. So, I agree with you-what does my gun entusiasm have to do with "all the wimps out there that want to carry guns and get a shot off before someone shoots them" ? Hmmm? We have our FOIDS, we practice, we study them. What do we have in common. NOTHING! So quit contradictating yourself by denigrating gun nuts and then agreeing with a gun nut.
tom

Skokie, IL

#189 Apr 12, 2008
VP70 Z wrote:
Idiotic:People who carry guns are not wimps maybe if you want to end up dead keep on thinking like that and we dont blast away we aim and hit what we are shooting at! but i am glad you want to thin the IDIOTIC gene pool have at it dont protect yourself!
"Idiotic" was essentially right in his characterization of gun nuts. It does not take much common sense to realize that behavior which was sensible in a rural, largely lawless environment is totally whacko in a modern, urban situation. Nevertheless, this low threshhold is too high for the gun nuts. Look, there are still people who think the Nazis were okay, uncle Joe still has his supporters, there are even those who think that Ronald Reagan was not the personification of evil. Ligght cannot penetrate minds made of composite materials.
I will NOT be free

United States

#190 Apr 12, 2008
Harmony wrote:
Thought I should clarify because you don't seem to be a shooter. By target I mean we have several handguns, by trap, I mean we have several shotguns. We also have rifles, reloading supplies, etc, etc. We are what you derisively call gun nuts-but without the attitude you ascribe to them. So, I agree with you-what does my gun entusiasm have to do with "all the wimps out there that want to carry guns and get a shot off before someone shoots them" ? Hmmm? We have our FOIDS, we practice, we study them. What do we have in common. NOTHING! So quit contradictating yourself by denigrating gun nuts and then agreeing with a gun nut.
The other problem I have is the small gun stores are becoming fewer and fewer, those of us that shoot trap, I am not a good skeet shooter, but do you think they are going to be putting more regulations on powder and shot. I reload my own trap loads also.
I will NOT be free

United States

#191 Apr 12, 2008
tom wrote:
<quoted text>
None of us wins unless we all win.
It means that having to fear for our lives, and needing a gun, is indicative of where we have put our country. Turning up the volume and arming everyone only succeeds in making a lot of noise. There comes a point at which even Beethoven becomes nothing but distortion
You know what's sad in Chicago...we hear a bang and say "was that a gun shot or was it something else?" I believe we should be able to have a hand gun in the city.
Idiotic

Elgin, IL

#192 Apr 12, 2008
VP70 Z wrote:
Idiotic:People who carry guns are not wimps maybe if you want to end up dead keep on thinking like that and we dont blast away we aim and hit what we are shooting at! but i am glad you want to thin the IDIOTIC gene pool have at it dont protect yourself!
Your comments make absolutely no sense. For many years, people in this country have not been allowed to pack and have lived long lives. If you want to be a fearmonger and scare the heck out of people, so be it. When you talk about thinning the gene pool, I can't wait until your packing neighbor shoots you for accidentally walking across his lawn or because your dog barks too loud.
The R

Harvey, IL

#193 Apr 12, 2008
Ms Mia wrote:
I guess she should have gone to the Illinois State Police Website for advice. Maybe she should have barfed on him to protect herself? Unlike the other 48 states that allow the basic human right of self defense, this is the official Illinois stance:
* Telling an attacker that you have VD or AIDS can discourage him.
* It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results.(This method is not often used except as a last resort.)
* Use your imagination and you can think of others.
The above methods are particularly important if your assailant has a gun or knife, or there is more than one attacker.(Fighting would probably be futile.)
If you must fight
* Guns stolen from residences are a primary way of getting guns into the hands of criminals.
* Be aware of those times and places where there is a potential for attack and be prepared to defend yourself.
o parking lots
o walking at night
o waiting for a bus
o elevators
o other you will learn to recognize
Articles common to your handbag that make useful defense weapons.
* nail file
* rat tail comb
* teasing brush
* pens and pencils
* keys
* anything rigid
Think I'm kidding? Here is the link:
http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/saconfronted...
Illinois needs to join the other 48 states in the 21st Century and pass a CCW law to allow woemn to protect themselves.
Even with CCW, you assume that everyone will rush to buy a handgun, when the opposite would be the case. Most people, especially women, wouldn't bother, even if they could.

Plus, taking things from the State Police's POV, wouldn't it look strange if they included "Take out your .22 and blow the SOB away", in their website?
Harmony

AOL

#194 Apr 12, 2008
tom wrote:
<quoted text>
"Idiotic" was essentially right in his characterization of gun nuts. It does not take much common sense to realize that behavior which was sensible in a rural, largely lawless environment is totally whacko in a modern, urban situation. Nevertheless, this low threshhold is too high for the gun nuts. Look, there are still people who think the Nazis were okay, uncle Joe still has his supporters, there are even those who think that Ronald Reagan was not the personification of evil. Ligght cannot penetrate minds made of composite materials.
The truth of the matter is that having a gun or not having a gun doesn't change who you are. If you are basically a calm, law-abiding person, having firearms doesn't turn you into a criminal or shoots at someone who walks across their lawn. Similiarly, not having a gun doesn't make you less mean, aggressive, or someone who is rude enough to call a total stranger "clueless" in a public form for having a different opinion. You are what you are by nature. If the guy in this article didn't have a gun he wouldn't have been magically non-threatening. Stalkers kill women by arson, throwing acid, knives, strangulation, etc, etc. He intended to do her harm. That doesn't mean someone like myself will just by the mere fact that I'm armed.
tom

Skokie, IL

#195 Apr 13, 2008
Harmony wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth of the matter is that having a gun or not having a gun doesn't change who you are. If you are basically a calm, law-abiding person, having firearms doesn't turn you into a criminal or shoots at someone who walks across their lawn. Similiarly, not having a gun doesn't make you less mean, aggressive, or someone who is rude enough to call a total stranger "clueless" in a public form for having a different opinion. You are what you are by nature. If the guy in this article didn't have a gun he wouldn't have been magically non-threatening. Stalkers kill women by arson, throwing acid, knives, strangulation, etc, etc. He intended to do her harm. That doesn't mean someone like myself will just by the mere fact that I'm armed.
Saying a person is one way or another does not mean he is always one way or another. There is always variability in the way people act. A person can be nice and calm 99% of the time. He may not even have any weapon available 99% of the 1% of the time he's not calm. But there's enough people and enough time where 1% of 1% matters. I don't see any reason why anyone should ever be put at any risk because somebody gets off on killing animals as a hobby. If you like target practice, play a video game. If you want to defend yourself, maybe you can use duct tape.
Harmony

AOL

#196 Apr 13, 2008
tom wrote:
<quoted text>
Saying a person is one way or another does not mean he is always one way or another. There is always variability in the way people act. A person can be nice and calm 99% of the time. He may not even have any weapon available 99% of the 1% of the time he's not calm. But there's enough people and enough time where 1% of 1% matters. I don't see any reason why anyone should ever be put at any risk because somebody gets off on killing animals as a hobby. If you like target practice, play a video game. If you want to defend yourself, maybe you can use duct tape.
I kind of understand what you're saying about the 1%. But most homicides are a result of lifestyle choice. For example, the homicide rate in Chicago is usually about 500. About 75% of those involve a firearm. So that's what..475? Of that 475 75% are gang related. That's about 380. Of the remaining 95 most are done in the commission of another crime, usually gang-related narcotics and robbery. Some are domestic violence. And so on-not good people to begin with-I'd have to double check-haven't looked at statistics today. Some have a history of mental illness. But I would be very surprised if the majority of gun crimes are done by FOID card-carrying members of the NRA. I don't know where to find statistics on that though. I suppose you could argue that one is too many and I would agree-but compare other causes of death in Illinois-like car accidents. Get the gangs and the majority of the problem goes away. So even though I have firearms the odds that I, a middle-aged women, would join a gang are pretty low. I fully agree with you about hunting though-don't do it! Sorry, I know I kind of rambled.
TOM SLICK

Chicago, IL

#197 Apr 13, 2008
The law only saves criminals from the death penalty. Piss on us tax payers.
tom

Pleasanton, CA

#198 Apr 13, 2008
Harmony wrote:
<quoted text>
I kind of understand what you're saying about the 1%. But most homicides are a result of lifestyle choice. For example, the homicide rate in Chicago is usually about 500. About 75% of those involve a firearm. So that's what..475? Of that 475 75% are gang related. That's about 380. Of the remaining 95 most are done in the commission of another crime, usually gang-related narcotics and robbery. Some are domestic violence. And so on-not good people to begin with-I'd have to double check-haven't looked at statistics today. Some have a history of mental illness. But I would be very surprised if the majority of gun crimes are done by FOID card-carrying members of the NRA. I don't know where to find statistics on that though. I suppose you could argue that one is too many and I would agree-but compare other causes of death in Illinois-like car accidents. Get the gangs and the majority of the problem goes away. So even though I have firearms the odds that I, a middle-aged women, would join a gang are pretty low. I fully agree with you about hunting though-don't do it! Sorry, I know I kind of rambled.
Middle-aged women are the last untapped potential resource for gang recruiters. Thanks for identifying this growth area. Your breakdown of numbers helps put the question into perspective. You have to be careful of categorization, though. Most of the student killings in Chicago are in one way or another gang related. But they are also often gun related. Addressing the problem piece by piece strikes me as the only rational way to move forward.
Harmony

AOL

#199 Apr 13, 2008
tom wrote:
<quoted text>
Middle-aged women are the last untapped potential resource for gang recruiters. Thanks for identifying this growth area. Your breakdown of numbers helps put the question into perspective. You have to be careful of categorization, though. Most of the student killings in Chicago are in one way or another gang related. But they are also often gun related. Addressing the problem piece by piece strikes me as the only rational way to move forward.
Uh-oh was that a little joke?:-)
Then I think I'll push my luck. I also want to reduce gun violence. But I think people were killing each other long before the gun was invented(and are still finding ways to kill each other without them). As I see the problem, it's the criminal not the gun. There's one organization that also focuses on tough gun laws for criminals, that wants people to use firearms responsibly-the NRA.
tom

Skokie, IL

#200 Apr 14, 2008
Harmony wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-oh was that a little joke?:-)
Then I think I'll push my luck. I also want to reduce gun violence. But I think people were killing each other long before the gun was invented(and are still finding ways to kill each other without them). As I see the problem, it's the criminal not the gun. There's one organization that also focuses on tough gun laws for criminals, that wants people to use firearms responsibly-the NRA.
When there is an organization that elects a maniac to hold up a rifle and proclaim it will only be taken from his cold dead hands to it's members' wild acclaim there is an organization that deserves to be snuffed out. It's promotion of firearm safety and laws opposing criminals merely masks its real purpose and it does not care about the realities of life in a modern society.
It is truly funny how guns and hunting are alive at both ends of the social spectrum. The disaffected, angry poor people who cling to their religion and their guns (Barack is right) and the refined noblemen who hunt for sport. Both are probably seeking an individuality missing in the homogenized middle. This thought has legs.
Harmony

AOL

#201 Apr 14, 2008
tom wrote:
<quoted text>
When there is an organization that elects a maniac to hold up a rifle and proclaim it will only be taken from his cold dead hands to it's members' wild acclaim there is an organization that deserves to be snuffed out. It's promotion of firearm safety and laws opposing criminals merely masks its real purpose and it does not care about the realities of life in a modern society.
It is truly funny how guns and hunting are alive at both ends of the social spectrum. The disaffected, angry poor people who cling to their religion and their guns (Barack is right) and the refined noblemen who hunt for sport. Both are probably seeking an individuality missing in the homogenized middle. This thought has legs.
Except that I think many more people enjoy shooting than you think. Just from personal experience-I know many, many people with firearms and none of them could be described by the social classes you put forth. I'm willing to bet some people you know too.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

River Forest Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What does faggiano mean in Italian? (Jan '14) 3 min Scavo is scum 4
Blood on Scavo's Hands 6 min Scavo is scum 5
Leave Mom Alone 12 min aka the Truth 5
Woman: Maywood cop 'took something from me' 1 hr Taxpayer for years 3
Thillens faced DUI, property destruction charges 1 hr MIKETOUHY 1
Dark Summit Haunt - DO NOT GO 9 hr Dracula60501 1
Terry Serpico and Vito Scavo Sun aka the Truth 11
River Forest Dating
Find my Match

River Forest Jobs

River Forest People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

River Forest News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in River Forest

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]