.jpg)
Perhaps a whistle that causes gagging would be the ideal hybrid
solution to street crime in Oak Park?
Photo by Oleg Volk.
Related Articles
-
Open Letter to IL State Police:
your advice will get women killed -
IL self-defense for women: vomit
- IL self-defense for women: scream
"A gunshot typically makes a louder report than any whistle. Whats more, a gunshot will also stop a criminal - if the shot is placed well."
"Pyre400"
Via IllinoisCarry.org
While the Illinois State Police have promised a "comprehensive review" of their website, including its advice that women protect themselves from sexual assault by avoiding gun ownership and vomiting on their assailants, last week brought more news of non-serious, symbolic approaches to self-defense in Illinois as the Chicago Tribune reported that Chicago suburb Oak Park had begun issuing whistles to its citizens. In a move that promises to deter the town's notorious armed robbers as thoroughly as loud car alarms deter car thieves, Oak Park police officers waited for returning commuters on train platforms and gave out small whistles engraved with the name of the program's corporate sponsor. Oak Park officials say the whistles will help residents deal with the increasing incidence of armed robbery and street crime in the handgun-free town by allowing them to summon help, if not actually do anything in their own defense. Certainly a simple canister of pepper spray, a knife, or even a humble flashlight could prove much more useful for self-defense than any whistle even under Illinois and Oak Park law, and the Chicago Gun Rights Examiner heartily recommends any of the three for those of us denied the right to carry a defensive firearm by Illinois law. But the whistles are unlikely to make a bad situation worse, so why are gun owners reacting with derision to Oak Park's newfound dedication to its citizens' safety? To understand, we need to recall the lengths Oak Park has gone to keep its citizens as disarmed as possible for as long as possible.
In the summer of 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, it set off a scramble in Illinois. It took the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association less than two hours to file a new lawsuit, McDonald v. Chicago, asking that the courts find that states and municipalities are bound to respect that individual right because the 14th Amendment "incorporated" the 2nd Amendment against the states. The plaintiffs in that suit had barely begun their fight in the 7th Circuit court before Illinois cities with bans on guns or handguns started throwing up white flags fashioned from handgun ban repeals; Wilmette, Winnetka, Evanston, and even Morton Grove declined to defend their bans on handguns in light of the Heller ruling and the looming challenge in McDonald. Fighting was clearly a pointless waste of time and money with the writing so clearly on the wall. Only Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was determined to fight to the end, but he found allies in Oak Park's municipal government by making a classic Chicago deal: Chicago's taxpayers, he told Oak Park officials, would foot the entire legal bill and seek "no contribution" from Oak Park in the event of defeat. That was an important consideration, since Dick Heller's legal team has asked the court to collect $3.5 million in attorney fees from the losing parties in Heller v. D.C., and given Mayor Daley's startling if unheralded admission that Chicago's citizens do have a constitutional right to keep firearms in the home
Of course, it's not Oak Park Police Chief Rick Tanksley's fault that citizens of Oak Park are not allowed to carry much more effective noise makers--for instance, in a caliber between .380 acp and .44 Magnum--under Illinois state law, at least in public. But a town spending other peoples' money to defend a clearly unconstitutional complete ban on handgun ownership, even in the home, is already sending the message that its citizens can't be trusted with the most effective means of self-defense available. Oak Park only adds insult to injury by offering to replace a serious personal choice on self-defense with a completely non-serious gift from on high. Does that seem harsh? If not, it should be rephrased, because harshness is the right response here. A government that will not allow its citizens to purchase the right tool for the job at hand, but expects them to be grateful for the wrong tool because it's provided by the government for "free," is not taking its citizens seriously.
Comments
Being armed didn't help those four cops near Seattle now did it?
Certainly not, Whistler. That's because weapons are tools, not magic talismans of +5 Defense. If you go out to eat, put all your attention on your friends, and are ambushed by a psychopath who has stalked you carefully and chosen his moment to give him every advantage . . . you're in a lot of trouble. A weapon you never deploy is not going to end an attack.
However, the fact that you can think of a time when being armed did not save the day doesn't serve for your real argument, which is clearly that people should not be armed and Oak Park is right. The people who cherry-pick examples of times when a seat belt didn't save a driver, or a fire extinguisher sat unused while someone perished in a fire, are not cleverly disproving the utility of seat belts or fire extinguishers.
If I'm armed, I have the option of using my weapon to defend myself. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but that is still vastly superior to facing my attacker without that option.
Thanks for commenting.
Whistler is whistling past the graveyard.
Don, remember when the feminists touted "rape whistles" as a deterrent to a woman's getting sexually assaulted? Lot good that did.
So why does Oak Park think this will work? Whistles are as useful at preventing crime, as bazooms on a bull.
The president of the Oak Park city council explained their position as follows:
"If we let Oak Parkers have handguns, that will become the camel's nose under the tent. Next thing we know they will want to be able to carry them concealed, or even to be able to own 'assault weapons.'" [self-loading single shot firearms]. "We can't let that happen."
I for one will be happy when the Supreme Court definitively tells them that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" actually means something.
Carl, I can't tell if you're being funny or not. That's a completely plausible quote, but I haven't read it anywhere. Help me!
Never bring a whistle to a gun fight.
hey whistler,they were in uniform and stood out,dont let that fact get in the way of your d-----s thinking
"hey whistler,they were in uniform and stood out,dont let that fact get in the way of your d-----s thinking "
Yeah, right. Armed professionals trained to protect themselves couldn't. And you expect the average person to. You didn't take logic and reasoning in college, did you? Did you even go to college?
Average people manage to protect themselves by a variety of means every day, and all your scoffing will not change that fact. More importantly, you are still arguing that because you've come up with a situation where a handgun wasn't enough to save someone, you've somehow justified removing the choice of whether to carry that handgun from the individual. It doesn't work like that.
We don't ban seat belts because there are some impacts that will kill a belted person.
We don't ban fire extinguishers because some fires can't be stopped by them, or even because some people are overcome while trying to fight a fire they should have escaped.
We don't disarm our soldiers because their rifles won't stop roadside bombs.
If I'm ever armed in a situation in which my gun is not useful, it's a simple thing to leave it where it is and handle the situation without it. If I'm unarmed in a situation where the gun would be a help, I'm going to miss it. The choice should be mine.
This software just accused me of being a bot. Is anyone else having that problem?
Whistler axed:"Being armed didn't help those four cops near Seattle now did it?"
Whistler, in the short, selfish run being armed didn't help those "cops" (what a respectful way to refer to the dead, allowing us to know in advance that their deaths suit you just fine). In the lives and perceptions of some, though, there exists a long run and nobler ideals.
One of the now-dead policemen was able, by virtue of being armed, to inflict a serious bullet wound on Clemmons. The wound clearly affected the murderer's future actions, leading him to an almost-fated end when in his desperation he faced a policeman from a different jurisdiction who was actively patrolling his beat (oh, I get it, cop = constable on patrol).
That patrolman dropped Clemmons where he stood (largely enabled by the fact that the policemen was armed, which proved most useful.) That brings us to the long run and nobler ideals I brought up earlier.
You might understand by now that Clemmons will not kill again.
It's obvious Whistler that you didn't pass any logic courses if you took them. Are you seriously saying that those cops would have been safer if they had been unarmed? Are you saying if only they weren't armed, they would be less dead?
Anybody can be ambushed if enough time and thought are put into it and the target is not alert. No matter how slim a chance, any is better than none. If you went to college, as you intimate below, get a refund. You didn't learn a damn thing. Regardless of whether you weren't taught to think or are incapable of it, someone should have realized that it was wasted on you and quit letting you waste your time and money.
just the thought of someone to come up with an idea to carry whistles is insane.what if someone was being carjacked.would you double the chances of the police responding by blowing the whistle and honking the horn at the same time.but then you wouldn't be able to dial good old reliable 911. VOTE THEM OUT,AND STOP BEING SLAVES.
the f.b.i says police are not that trained
no whistler,i went to the army.
WHAT, I can't explain it. I still say the whistles won't do any dire harm, other than to give some naive people a born victim's false sense of security, but I have a hard time believing the Oak Park police and officials really think a whistle will achieve what a loud "I'VE BEEN ROBBED! HELP!" will not.
For me, it's more about the insult implied in telling people they'll be fined or worse for owning a weapon (not for hurting anyone, not for endangering anyone, not for threatening anyone--for owning the object) and then pushing a feel-good talisman into their hands and sending them on their ways.
I imagine these whistles must be significantly cheaper than lucky buckeyes or rabbits' feet, because otherwise they'd have just issued those.
I disagee Don, I think the whistles will prove to be harmful. Of course, they will only be harmful to stupid people, you know, the ones who believe them when they say the whistle will make them safer, and therefore rely on the whistle for self defense. So yeah, I think they will be harmful.
There is an argument to be made that cleaning up the stupid end of the gene pool would be beneficial to society at large. Especially when one considers all the uninformed votes that won't be cast when they are all dead, on life support or in a coma from the depredations of the armed thug who isn't afraid of a damn whistle, especially if he has his hands around the throat of the whistler.
As attractive as that proposition sounds and as emotionally ready to accept it as I and others may be to accept it, it is wrong to let even stupid people come to harm if stupidity is all they are guilty of. Some times I despair because of morals and principles I hold dear. [cont]
[cont] So, I guess we can't just sit back and enjoy the demise of the sheep. We still must try to save them, even if only from themselves. Caveat: up to a point/
Will the police offer whistle and barf training on how to do this most effectively?
It would be helpful if they can demonstrate how to effectively use these forms of defense.
Perhaps they should also adopt these techniques for themselves for non lethal use, seeing as how taser use is sometimes deadly.
Will permits be required for this?
Somehow I think they will cling to their less effective sidearms. Call it a guess.
In the letter to the Illinois State Police, I did offer the ISP as many of IllinoisCarry's special tactical self-defense tongue depressors as they'd like. I figured their female troopers would be better off with those than sidearms, because they're currently allowed to store their firearms at home when they're off duty and even carry them with them, and the ISP says both are bad for women folk.
I published their response, so you can look at it. It reads like they didn't notice the offer of tongue depressors.
whistler is proof that retards can go to college
Will the police offer whistle and barf training on how to do this most effectively?
It would be helpful if they can demonstrate how to effectively use these forms of defense.
Perhaps they should also adopt these techniques for themselves for non lethal use, seeing as how taser use is sometimes deadly.
Will permits be required for this?
Will they issue ccw permits for those carrying concealed whistles?
Maybe we could start an IDWA(Intl Defensive Whistle Association). We could have whistle timers. We could even have 3-whistle competitions so you could have the appropriate whistle for different ranges and targets.;)
What a waste! Next, we'll be paying for officers to buy hearing aids so they can more effectively respond to whistlers.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!