Aldermen can carry guns?

[tad73]

What if the intruder is wearing armor or in the case of a .410 a winter coat?

[Bone Saw]

Originally Posted by lenniel

Read in the Trib yesterday that Aldermen and other government officials (whom have nothing to do with police work or crime fighting) can legally own and carry guns in Chicago but it's 'illegal' for John Q Public to do so.

Is this true? What a joke!

This is true. Chicago criminals have always been well-armed.

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by chirack

No I think that people need to have a good reason and fear of crime in general is not a good reason. I would carry one if:

a. There were a specific threat to my life(in the army, death threat, crazy ex)
b. I liked hunting
c. I lived in a rural area where both crime and wild animal are a threat.
d. I owned a store (they get robbed often and can be the target of a riot...although again the one time my family did get robed it would have been useless)
e. My job exposed me to unusual threat from a ticked off person(famous person, politician, police officer, judge)

And in Chicago, if you like hunting, have a specific threat to your life, own a store or are exposed to unusual threats from ticked off people, you still cannot legally own a handgun, although every criminal still has one...

What worries me most are gun nuts who go out buying a gun thinking that they are going to defend their homes. The truth is a burglar is most likely to strike when you are not at home and they can be armed too.

It's "most likely" that your home won't be burglarized at all. Guns aren't owned for the "most likely" scenario. They're owned for the "worst case scenario". If a situation ever arises when you need one, nothing else will do.

The other one is if the could carry a gun they could defend themselves from being robbed(sure if the robber is stupid enough not to carry a gun or you can get to the gun before they hit or stab you).

You do realize how many people get robbed/raped/mugged every year when the robber is completely unarmed, right? Or, armed with something other than a firearm? And even so, if my wife is about to get raped and decides she wants to fight back, I don't care if the bastard has a gun or not. If she wants to make that decision, she ought to be able to. More cities than not would allow her to make that decision, save for fantasy land places like Chicago where the people making the decisions on matters like this are "Second Cousins" to the *******s who would run the highest risk of getting blown away as a result of honest people being permitted effective means to defend themselves.

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by Attrill

If you want something for home protection a .410 will do you just fine (and it is legal in the city), if you want to walk around with a hand gun then become a cop or get yourself elected.

Long guns actually suck for a lot of home defense scenarios.
For example, due to my family arrangement, if something goes "bump" in the night, I have no choice but to venture out and directly confront whatever is there. I have to round corners, go up and down stairs, open doors, shake people awake, guide children to safety, etc. At numerous times between Point A and the various points in between, I will need use of a free hand.

Yes, if I had the luxury of curling up behind a Remington 870 with the bedroom door locked and on the phone to 911, a long gun is fine, but in my situation, they're totally inadequate. There's a reason cops carry sidearms, but 'maintain access' to long guns.