23 replies to this topic

[ChicagoRonin70]

So, I have some contacts in academia (economists and social statisticians) who are former clients of mine. They've been running ongoing studies that track and measure firearm ownership, carrying, and use since the courts forced Illinois to allow concealed carry.

 

There are approximately 325,000 concealed carry licenses in Illinois active, and somewhere around 345,000 have been issued (including revoked, expired and not renewed, cancelled due to move out of state, and invalidated due to death of holder, et cetera). These numbers are for earlier this year, so they might not be perfectly accurate presently.

 

That's actually well above the early projections of the number of licenses, which was targeted at about 250,000 before it hit a plateau due to license renewal and application balancing out with deaths and move-outs of state of holders. So, that's excellent news!

 

However, the very important, and very chilling, figure is that it appears that due to the licensing scheme that Illinois has in place, with its costs, its dissuasive application gauntlet (such as being Darted), the extensive limitations on where legal carry is allowed, et cetera, somewhere in the neighborhood of approximately 500,000 applicants who would have sought a CCL in this state have decided that the financial, legal, or administrative burdens of doing so outweigh the benefit of being able to carry a firearm for self-protection. 

 

Half a million people . . . HALF A MILLION residents of Illinois have been dissuaded from exercising a Constitutional right due to the hurdles and hoops and prohibitively expensive obstacles that the legislature has set up to make it as hard as possible to do so.

 

This is, as we all know, by design.

 

Additionally, somewhere in the range of 2,500 to 3,000 crime victims just this year were prevented from obtaining a concealed carry license, which may very well have allowed them to avoid being victimized. As well, since the beginning of 2014, when concealed carry licenses began being issued, approximately 12,000–15,000 total crime victims were prevented from getting a CCL, again, which may have allowed them to carry a firearm and protect themselves from being helpless victims of crime.

 

Furthermore, the demographics of those helpless victims are overwhelmingly (more than 95 percent) non-white, non-males, a large percentage of whom are below middle class.

 

So, to put it bluntly, the Illinois CCL is most likely to disarm the poor, minorities, non-straight, and non-male people, almost 20-to-1 times more than it will disarm a heterosexual, white, non-poor male. Incidentally, those populations are just about as more likely to be victims of crimes than straight, white, non-poor males.

 

Great law, ain't it?

 

I really am looking forward to these studies being published in the next several years, because that sort of information needs to be utilized as a weapon against the idiotic strictures that this state has imposed on its most law-abiding citizens with the express intent of infringing on their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Edited by ChicagoRonin70, 15 November 2019 - 11:03 PM.

[borgranta]

So, I have some contacts in academia (economists and social statisticians) who are former clients of mine. They've been running ongoing studies that track and measure firearm ownership, carrying, and use since the courts forced Illinois to allow concealed carry.

 

There are approximately 325,000 concealed carry licenses in Illinois active, and somewhere around 345,000 have been issued (including revoked, expired and not renewed, cancelled due to move out of state, and invalidated due to death of holder, et cetera). These numbers are for earlier this year, so they might not be perfectly accurate presently.

 

That's actually well above the early projections of the number of licenses, which was targeted at about 250,000 before it hit a plateau due to license renewal and application balancing out with deaths and move-outs of state of holders. So, that's excellent news!

 

However, the very important, and very chilling, figure is that it appears that due to the licensing scheme that Illinois has in place, with its costs, its dissuasive application gauntlet (such as being Darted), the extensive limitations on where legal carry is allowed, et cetera, somewhere in the neighborhood of approximately 500,000 applicants who would have sought a CCL in this state have decided that the financial, legal, or administrative burdens of doing so outweigh the benefit of being able to carry a firearm for self-protection. 

 

Half a million people . . . HALF A MILLION residents of Illinois have been dissuaded from exercising a Constitutional right due to the hurdles and hoops and prohibitively expensive obstacles that the legislature has set up to make it as hard as possible to do so.

 

This is, as we all know, by design.

 

Additionally, somewhere in the range of 2,500 to 3,000 crime victims just this year were prevented from obtaining a concealed carry license, which may very well have allowed them to avoid being victimized. As well, since the beginning of 2014, when concealed carry licenses began being issued, approximately 12,000–15,000 total crime victims were prevented from getting a CCL, again, which may have allowed them to carry a firearm and protect themselves from being helpless victims of crime.

 

Furthermore, the demographics of those helpless victims are overwhelmingly (more than 95 percent) non-white, non-males, a large percentage of whom are below middle class.

 

So, to put it bluntly, the Illinois CCL is most likely to disarm the poor, minorities, non-straight, and non-male people, almost 20-to-1 times more than it will disarm a heterosexual, white, non-poor male. Incidentally, those populations are just about as more likely to be victims of crimes than straight, white, non-poor males.

 

Great law, ain't it?

 

I really am looking forward to these studies being published in the next several years, because that sort of information needs to be utilized as a weapon against the idiotic strictures that this state has imposed on its most law-abiding citizens with the express intent of infringing on their Constitutional right to bear arms.

I bet among the 500,000 people that minorities are disproportionately impacted by this oppressive law.  Especially since all women are considered minorities.  I hope someone uses these statistics in court to demonstrate that the legal requirements are designed to discriminate against minorities.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

So, I have some contacts in academia (economists and social statisticians) who are former clients of mine. They've been running ongoing studies that track and measure firearm ownership, carrying, and use since the courts forced Illinois to allow concealed carry.

 

There are approximately 325,000 concealed carry licenses in Illinois active, and somewhere around 345,000 have been issued (including revoked, expired and not renewed, cancelled due to move out of state, and invalidated due to death of holder, et cetera). These numbers are for earlier this year, so they might not be perfectly accurate presently.

 

That's actually well above the early projections of the number of licenses, which was targeted at about 250,000 before it hit a plateau due to license renewal and application balancing out with deaths and move-outs of state of holders. So, that's excellent news!

 

However, the very important, and very chilling, figure is that it appears that due to the licensing scheme that Illinois has in place, with its costs, its dissuasive application gauntlet (such as being Darted), the extensive limitations on where legal carry is allowed, et cetera, somewhere in the neighborhood of approximately 500,000 applicants who would have sought a CCL in this state have decided that the financial, legal, or administrative burdens of doing so outweigh the benefit of being able to carry a firearm for self-protection. 

 

Half a million people . . . HALF A MILLION residents of Illinois have been dissuaded from exercising a Constitutional right due to the hurdles and hoops and prohibitively expensive obstacles that the legislature has set up to make it as hard as possible to do so.

 

This is, as we all know, by design.

 

Additionally, somewhere in the range of 2,500 to 3,000 crime victims just this year were prevented from obtaining a concealed carry license, which may very well have allowed them to avoid being victimized. As well, since the beginning of 2014, when concealed carry licenses began being issued, approximately 12,000–15,000 total crime victims were prevented from getting a CCL, again, which may have allowed them to carry a firearm and protect themselves from being helpless victims of crime.

 

Furthermore, the demographics of those helpless victims are overwhelmingly (more than 95 percent) non-white, non-males, a large percentage of whom are below middle class.

 

So, to put it bluntly, the Illinois CCL is most likely to disarm the poor, minorities, non-straight, and non-male people, almost 20-to-1 times more than it will disarm a heterosexual, white, non-poor male. Incidentally, those populations are just about as more likely to be victims of crimes than straight, white, non-poor males.

 

Great law, ain't it?

 

I really am looking forward to these studies being published in the next several years, because that sort of information needs to be utilized as a weapon against the idiotic strictures that this state has imposed on its most law-abiding citizens with the express intent of infringing on their Constitutional right to bear arms.

I bet among the 500,000 people that minorities are disproportionately impacted by this oppressive law.  Especially since all women are considered minorities.  I hope someone uses these statistics in court to demonstrate that the legal requirements are designed to discriminate against minorities.

 

 

That's pretty much the gist of it. More than 95 percent of those crime victims who decided not to get a CCL and carry a firearm were minorities, or at least not straight, white, non-poor men.

[wolfcreek]

I'm glad to see that someone has finally said that this is all by "DESIGN". Not some BS about."OH WERE SO BUSY" .WERE DOING OUR BEST WITH LIMITED RESOURCES. "All Lies"  

[RandyP]

I'm curious how they were able to assign a potential number (500,000) to a non-recorded inaction? In other words, how did they arrive at that presumption? Is the study published online?

 

Did they do a State-wide survey of all FOID holders, or potential FOID holders to garner their opinions on the CCW process? Or survey some specific demographic?

 

I do suspect that our numbers would vastly increase if we went to the very simplified Indiana model, but again have no real data to back up that suspicion.

[BigJim]

Most liberals believe it's better to be a victim than to possibly injure/kill a criminal.

[VannDaddy]

I'm curious how they were able to assign a potential number (500,000) to a non-recorded inaction? In other words, how did they arrive at that presumption? Is the study published online?
 
Did they do a State-wide survey of all FOID holders, or potential FOID holders to garner their opinions on the CCW process? Or survey some specific demographic?
 
I do suspect that our numbers would vastly increase if we went to the very simplified Indiana model, but again have no real data to back up that suspicion.

It’s an estimate. There are statisticians and economists that do this type of work all of the time. Bean counters, paper pushers, number crunchers, all pretty much describe the same basic job: how does this decision effect the bottom line? Are they acute? To a degree. Anyone with eyes, a brain, and a little bit of life experience can rationalize that when you tax something you get less of it and when you subsidize something you get more of it. Tax things like rights guaranteed by the constitution and labor and society gets less of those activities. Subsidize not working and having children you can’t afford and society will get more of it.

[ChicagoRonin70]

I'm curious how they were able to assign a potential number (500,000) to a non-recorded inaction? In other words, how did they arrive at that presumption? Is the study published online?

 

Did they do a State-wide survey of all FOID holders, or potential FOID holders to garner their opinions on the CCW process? Or survey some specific demographic?

 

I do suspect that our numbers would vastly increase if we went to the very simplified Indiana model, but again have no real data to back up that suspicion.

 

The studies are ongoing research, and so have not been published yet. I have access to them because back when I was still doing research verification work, I helped these researchers set up the protocols for vetting and verifying their research in preparation for when they might ultimately decide to publish for peer review.

 

As to how they are arriving at their results, that's presently embargoed information to the studies, which means I can't reveal that. However, based on how statistical models are created based on gathered data, as it's done in most studies that track trends of activities among populations, it's a pretty common thing that is done in research.

 

I am pretty sure that these studies are at least 7–10 year models, so the earliest that the publication would be is probably 2021 for peer review. Until then, whenever I get information such as this that is cleared to be shared, I'll definitely do so on here.

[ChicagoRonin70]

Interestingly, AmmoLand has an article just published a couple days ago that includes numbers which almost exactly track with the ones I have seen:

 

Gun Control Adds to the Death Toll in Illinois

 

We can put numbers to the body count. The state of Illinois has over 300 thousand licensed concealed carry holders. That number should be closer to 800 thousand if Illinois had a concealed carry rate that matched the rest of the United States. Illinois isn’t like the rest of the US. An Illinois permit costs more and takes longer than almost any other state. Half-a-million people gave up on getting their permit because of the difficult process in Illinois.

 

Those law-abiding citizens were disarmed in public by Illinois laws and regulations. Disarming half a million law-abiding citizens has real consequences. Based on FBI statistics, about 2700 of the victims of violent crime in Illinois this year were disarmed because of the extremely burdensome requirements that stopped them from going armed in public. We’ve made it hard on the law-abiding citizens, but criminals don’t bother to follow those firearms restrictions.

I would be very curious to see where they got their information from; perhaps they have contact with some of the researchers that I know who are working on this.

[RandyP]

To be clear, I'm NOT disputing their findings - just wunderin' how they arrived at them

 

I imagine it would be possible to use the % of carry licenses among known numbers of gun owners in sane States and extrapolate them to an Illinois with a rational carry program. 

[Bitter Clinger]

I personally know 8 people who never got a carry license due to the onerous "training" requirements and high cost.

These people are not minorities, but they do work for a living and don't have the time to blow two whole days on a weekend to go through the unnecesarily long class.

Then there are the huge fees.

 

And in the end, there is no guarantee that you'll even get the license with all the other roadblocks (Darted, have a speeding ticket, were convicted of a misdemenor 35 years ago, saw a shrink once 20 years ago, etc).  Then when you do have an issue, there is nobody to contact to correct it since the ISP never answers e-mails or answers their phone.

 

The whole thing is absurd (by design)

[BigJim]

As to how they are arriving at their results, that's presently embargoed information to the studies, which means I can't reveal that. However, based on how statistical models are created based on gathered data, as it's done in most studies that track trends of activities among populations, it's a pretty common thing that is done in research.

In other words it's a WAG (Wild Arse Guess).

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

As to how they are arriving at their results, that's presently embargoed information to the studies, which means I can't reveal that. However, based on how statistical models are created based on gathered data, as it's done in most studies that track trends of activities among populations, it's a pretty common thing that is done in research.

In other words it's a WAG (Wild Arse Guess).

 

 

I would say that 5 years of data collection and analysis constitute more than a wild-@ss guess. Although, you can't have analysis without splitting some @sses.

[wolfcreek]

Just askin ! I just recived a call from my brother-inlaw in Illinois.I have recently departed.He claims he went in for his yearly health physical,and was required.I say "REQUIRED" to take a depression test.That is not covered by medi-care.Cost him $60. He's never been on meds or had any trace of depression,anxiety,etc.Any one know if this is a new tactic by our wonderful Illinois (your wonderful Illinois) politicians ?

[RandyP]

Can't say I've ever heard of any mandatory health screenings that were not a part of an employment requirement?

[Tango7]

There's no requirement for a physical or psychological examination in the Act.

[BigJim]

As the patient you have the final say on everything done to you as long as you are deemed of sound mind.  You have the right to refuse meds and procedures.  You can not be forced to submit to a test or exam against your wishes.  Not saying an employer can't make something a condition for employment, just that they can't make you do it against your will.

[seanc]

I have the same questions as RandyP:  "Averaging" the numbers of CCW licenses with other states should also take into account that IL is as blue as it gets, other than CA and NY.  What's our CCW % compared to those 2 states?  

 

I like where the OP is going, I just want to make sure we have "good" numbers to work with when we make our argument.  I think the other part of the equation here is how the restricted areas put another onerous burden on the minority, underprivileged communities.  In particular, restrictions on CCW on public transportation.  That's a HUGE issue to me and I think that also goes to why the CCW numbers aren't where they should be.  If people are deprived of one of the primary needs for a CCW, then why bother going through that process and expense?

Edited by seanc, 18 November 2019 - 11:14 AM.

[Rich]

Just askin ! I just recived a call from my brother-inlaw in Illinois.I have recently departed.He claims he went in for his yearly health physical,and was required.I say "REQUIRED" to take a depression test.That is not covered by medi-care.Cost him $60. He's never been on meds or had any trace of depression,anxiety,etc.Any one know if this is a new tactic by our wonderful Illinois (your wonderful Illinois) politicians ?

Just sayin!!

Does your BIL know that "required" on a voluntary physical is an oxymoron? You don't HAVE to pay for ANYTHING if you don't want it. My opinion it's a wonderful example of modern "managed medicine". 

 

Try getting onto this website in the Carle Clinic facilities and the Carle hospital in Champaign County. Verboten.  Blocked. Not accessible. While the politicians may suck, the medical establishment is rabid.

[CILhunter]

I have the same questions as RandyP:  "Averaging" the numbers of CCW licenses with other states should also take into account that IL is as blue as it gets, other than CA and NY.  What's our CCW % compared to those 2 states?  

 

I like where the OP is going, I just want to make sure we have "good" numbers to work with when we make our argument.  I think the other part of the equation here is how the restricted areas put another onerous burden on the minority, underprivileged communities.  In particular, restrictions on CCW on public transportation.  That's a HUGE issue to me and I think that also goes to why the CCW numbers aren't where they should be.  If people are deprived of one of the primary needs for a CCW, then why bother going through that process and expense?

Kind of Apples and Oranges. Both CA and NY are May-Issue, by county, with some counties (NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.) being impossible, for all intents and purposes, to get a license.  Illinois, for all of it's warts and failures, is at least Shall-Issue.  We *might* be one of the only really blue states with a Shall-Issue CCW law.  Makes it hard to get a really good comparison. Statistical analysis is really the only way to get a somewhat accurate result here.

[CILhunter]

 

Just askin ! I just recived a call from my brother-inlaw in Illinois.I have recently departed.He claims he went in for his yearly health physical,and was required.I say "REQUIRED" to take a depression test.That is not covered by medi-care.Cost him $60. He's never been on meds or had any trace of depression,anxiety,etc.Any one know if this is a new tactic by our wonderful Illinois (your wonderful Illinois) politicians ?

Just sayin!!

Does your BIL know that "required" on a voluntary physical is an oxymoron? You don't HAVE to pay for ANYTHING if you don't want it. My opinion it's a wonderful example of modern "managed medicine". 

 

Try getting onto this website in the Carle Clinic facilities and the Carle hospital in Champaign County. Verboten.  Blocked. Not accessible. While the politicians may suck, the medical establishment is rabid.

 

True about Carle.  My father was in for surgery a few months ago.  I took a stack of gun and hunting magazines with me to the waiting room.  I took great pleasure in tearing off my address and leaving the magazines in the stacks for others to run across and possibly read.  Probably triggered someone, but I give zero _____ about that.

[carry]

Just askin ! I just recived a call from my brother-inlaw in Illinois.I have recently departed.He claims he went in for his yearly health physical,and was required.I say "REQUIRED" to take a depression test.That is not covered by medi-care.Cost him $60. He's never been on meds or had any trace of depression,anxiety,etc.Any one know if this is a new tactic by our wonderful Illinois (your wonderful Illinois) politicians ?

Sounds like someone “required” and extra $60 for their pocket book and robbed your BIL.

They usually just ask about depression and abusive relationships prefaced with, “sorry, I’m required to ask these questions”.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

Just askin ! I just recived a call from my brother-inlaw in Illinois.I have recently departed.He claims he went in for his yearly health physical,and was required.I say "REQUIRED" to take a depression test.That is not covered by medi-care.Cost him $60. He's never been on meds or had any trace of depression,anxiety,etc.Any one know if this is a new tactic by our wonderful Illinois (your wonderful Illinois) politicians ?

Sounds like someone “required” and extra $60 for their pocket book and robbed your BIL.

They usually just ask about depression and abusive relationships prefaced with, “sorry, I’m required to ask these questions”.

 

 

Medicare Part B does cover one depression screening per year if your doctor accepts assignment from Medicare.

 

See also, for the CMS decision.

[cybermgk]

So, I have some contacts in academia (economists and social statisticians) who are former clients of mine. They've been running ongoing studies that track and measure firearm ownership, carrying, and use since the courts forced Illinois to allow concealed carry.

 

There are approximately 325,000 concealed carry licenses in Illinois active, and somewhere around 345,000 have been issued (including revoked, expired and not renewed, cancelled due to move out of state, and invalidated due to death of holder, et cetera). These numbers are for earlier this year, so they might not be perfectly accurate presently.

 

That's actually well above the early projections of the number of licenses, which was targeted at about 250,000 before it hit a plateau due to license renewal and application balancing out with deaths and move-outs of state of holders. So, that's excellent news!

 

However, the very important, and very chilling, figure is that it appears that due to the licensing scheme that Illinois has in place, with its costs, its dissuasive application gauntlet (such as being Darted), the extensive limitations on where legal carry is allowed, et cetera, somewhere in the neighborhood of approximately 500,000 applicants who would have sought a CCL in this state have decided that the financial, legal, or administrative burdens of doing so outweigh the benefit of being able to carry a firearm for self-protection. 

 

Half a million people . . . HALF A MILLION residents of Illinois have been dissuaded from exercising a Constitutional right due to the hurdles and hoops and prohibitively expensive obstacles that the legislature has set up to make it as hard as possible to do so.

 

This is, as we all know, by design.

 

Additionally, somewhere in the range of 2,500 to 3,000 crime victims just this year were prevented from obtaining a concealed carry license, which may very well have allowed them to avoid being victimized. As well, since the beginning of 2014, when concealed carry licenses began being issued, approximately 12,000–15,000 total crime victims were prevented from getting a CCL, again, which may have allowed them to carry a firearm and protect themselves from being helpless victims of crime.

 

Furthermore, the demographics of those helpless victims are overwhelmingly (more than 95 percent) non-white, non-males, a large percentage of whom are below middle class.

 

So, to put it bluntly, the Illinois CCL is most likely to disarm the poor, minorities, non-straight, and non-male people, almost 20-to-1 times more than it will disarm a heterosexual, white, non-poor male. Incidentally, those populations are just about as more likely to be victims of crimes than straight, white, non-poor males.

 

Great law, ain't it?

 

I really am looking forward to these studies being published in the next several years, because that sort of information needs to be utilized as a weapon against the idiotic strictures that this state has imposed on its most law-abiding citizens with the express intent of infringing on their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Seems like ideal research to start a Class Action suit.