Every time another woman gets assaulted in Chicago they never mention concealed carry

[CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER]

Every time another woman gets assaulted in Chicago they never mention concealed carry as a option for women to defend themselves. What lady in her right mind would walk the streets of Chicago at night alone and unarmed with all the predators walking around? How many times will this have to happen until women get smarter? It would be nice to see a woman who was assaulted to say on camera that she wish she had a gotten a concealed carry permit and encourage other women to do so.

 

https://abc7chicago.com/photo-of-suspect-in-millennium-park-sex-assault-cell-phone-robbery-released/5385476/

[mauserme]

Lot's a people, men and women both, work a late shift or need to run to the drug store in the middle of the night. That's not gender specific.

 

Also not gender specific is the fact that concealed carry licensees, and those who adopt a pro-carry attitude after the fact, are a small percentage of the population. The likelihood of any of them being interviewed is statistically small, and made smaller by their message not reinforcing the media's message in most cases.

[springfield shooter]

…….and made smaller by their message not reinforcing the media's message in most cases.

 

My friend, right there is a lot of reality in a small space.

[Smallbore]

Why are women not knocking down their legislators office doors demanding the Illinois UUW statute be changed as Texas just changed theirs?

Why does the media not reveal how the onerous UUW prevents the weak from being able to possess an effective self defense tool other then a very costly and time consuming CCL?

In my humble unsolicited opinion every purse should contain brass knuckles (which are now legal in Texas). A hard upper cut can be more effective than spitting lead.

[Quiet Observer]

The woman exercised very poor judgement in chasing the thief and following him into a secluded area. Still, she did not deserve what happened to her.

If the article is accurate in stating that he grabbed the phone and ran, I think that a lawyer could argue that there was no threat to her personal safety.

 

She had just gotten off the Red Line on which CC is legally, but foolishly, prohibited. Would she have had the opportunity to change from FOID carry to CC before the incident?

I do not know.

 

Does she have the right to carry? Yes.

Gun or no gun, prudence is still the best guide.

[Hatchet]

Maybe they do, maybe they just cut it out.

[ChicagoRonin70]

Here's an interesting fact:

 

I would estimate that 90 percent of the female people who I have taught to shoot, who then went on to get concealed carry licenses in this state, ignore the CTA Unarmed Victim Predation Zone carry prohibition if they take public transportation. Fortunately, it also appears that the fact that they are carrying also makes them much more situationally aware, self-reported by them to me.

 

I think that is a viable form of civil disobedience, because female and other protected class sorts who carry firearms have, in light of incidents such as this one, a very compelling reason to ignore the idiotic prohibition-caused threats to their safety by doing so.

[GWBH]

Here's an interesting fact:

 

I would estimate that 90 percent of the female people who I have taught to shoot, who then went on to get concealed carry licenses in this state, ignore the CTA Unarmed Victim Predation Zone carry prohibition if they take public transportation. Fortunately, it also appears that the fact that they are carrying also makes them much more situationally aware, self-reported by them to me.

 

I think that is a viable form of civil disobedience, because female and other protected class sorts who carry firearms have, in light of incidents such as this one, a very compelling reason to ignore the idiotic prohibition-caused threats to their safety by doing so.

I'd say that is correct - and who could blame them.

If a woman was charged violating that law and I was on the jury - Not Guilty by reason of an unConstitutional basis.

The city has no right telling people where they can exercise their Constitutional Rights. To make that illegal violates the "intent" of the Second Amendment and possible the first part of the Fourth Amendment. (I am not an attorney so take it for what it is...)

If a LEO has no obligation to protect a private citizen, then how do they protect themselves?

[Tango7]

Here's an interesting fact:

 

I would estimate that 90 percent of the female people who I have taught to shoot, who then went on to get concealed carry licenses in this state, ignore the CTA Unarmed Victim Predation Zone carry prohibition if they take public transportation. Fortunately, it also appears that the fact that they are carrying also makes them much more situationally aware, self-reported by them to me.

 

I think that is a viable form of civil disobedience, because female and other protected class sorts who carry firearms have, in light of incidents such as this one, a very compelling reason to ignore the idiotic prohibition-caused threats to their safety by doing so.

As I may have mentioned to students -

 

Many choices you make are an analysis of risk and benefit. Donuts are yummy, but fattening. Gas/food is easy to get where I am, but cheaper across town, if I have enough to get there. Do I go to the show with my friends, and risk running late to work in the morning? Do I apply for that dream job in another town, even though my family is here?

 

In the arena of self defense, some risks are physical, some are legal.

 

Starting with deciding to get trained to use a firearm, then to use it in self-defense (potentially taking a life), then to carry a firearm.

 

Then where you go to get training, what kind of firearm you purchase, what kind of holster, and where you carry it.

 

On a daily basis - will you carry today? Will you venture into that area, will you avoid that group of people or person? Will you choose to risk being caught disobeying the law?

 

If you face a threat, is it one of death or great bodily harm? Is the threat armed? Alone? Can you use presence and the implied threat of defensive force to counter the threat? Will presenting the firearm without using it (but being prepared to) work? Is the area behind your threat clear of innocents?

 

The threat is still active - do I use deadly force?

 

Almost every choice we make regarding this topic is potentially one of life and death, and one that the student will ultimately have to answer for.

 

I cannot knowingly advise my students to violate the law, either as an instructor or as a law enforcement officer. What I can suggest is that they use their knowledge, skills, training and experience to weigh their options, consider risks and benefits and make the decision they need to at that moment.

[Quiet Observer]

Well said, Tango 7.

[vito]

Much of the public has been totally brainwashed into believing that "guns are bad", period. I have often used the line, especially to my anti gun relatives in NYC, "why do some people think it is better for a woman to be found raped, beaten and left for dead in a roadside ditch than to allow her to legally carry a gun?" and all I get as an answer is "guns are bad" or words to that effect. Its the same as trying to tell a Leftist about what positive things President Trump has accomplished since becoming President, and the response will be some variation of just "Orange man bad". The media doesn't ever suggest that maybe a woman could have protected herself by carrying a gun because the reporters and their editors don't think past "guns are bad". I have no doubt that if a reporter inserted into the article a comment about how the woman might have been safe had she had a gun, the editor would strike it out of the article for being "irresponsibly encouraging women to be in even more danger by having an evil gun in their purse" or something like that.