Chicago: Ban All the Guns, Signs Included

[Corlissimo]

http://news.yahoo.com/school-officials-deeply-troubled-over-guns-appearing-signs-044012095.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory



“It is bothersome to have to post a sticker of a gun that says, ‘Hey, folks, leave your guns at home,’” Theresa Nolan, principal of Tinley Park High School, told the SouthtownStar.

Nolan stressed that she is very concerned with “safety and security” and concerned that, somehow, someone could wrongly interpret an image of a gun emblazoned with the universal sign for prohibiting something.

“I think the general public will be alarmed by it and wonder if people have been allowed to bring guns to school in the past,” Nolan also fretted.

She said she would prefer “something more subtle.”

“You can’t look at this (sticker) and not think about Sandy Hook,” the principal added.

Sandy Hook is, of course, a reference to Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where 20-year-old Adam Lanza massacred 20 young children and six adults.

Randy Couwenhoven, an associate principal at Tinley Park High, agreed.

“The intent of the stickers is to inform those with a concealed-carry license that they are not allowed to bring a gun into this location,” told the local paper. “It is a reminder to this particular audience, an audience that should already know this.”

Administrators at other Chicago-area schools take a different view.

“It is not necessarily something you’d want on a school building,” said Paul Enderle, a superintendent in Oak Lawn. “But it correlates with the law, and I think if it ultimately helps to keep schools safe, that’s the objective.”

#SuperFacePalm :banghead:

Typos brought to you by my DROID... and my apathy.

[littlejerry]

http://news.yahoo.com/school-officials-deeply-troubled-over-guns-appearing-signs-044012095.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory
“The intent of the stickers is to inform those with a concealed-carry license that they are not allowed to bring a gun into this location,” told the local paper. “It is a reminder to this particular audience, an audience that should already know this.”


#SuperFacePalm :banghead:

Typos brought to you by my DROID... and my apathy.

Holy shit. So he freely admits that the sign(and law?) is really only for people with carry licenses. After all, who would expect gang bangers and mass shooters to care about the sign?

That almost makes you wonder if the sign/law are even important at all... Unless of course you are afraid that someone with a ccw is going to shoot up the school it they don't know any better but might not do it if you see a sign?

The logic makes my brain explode.

[Nephrology]

is CCW even allowed in CHI?

[joshs]

is CCW even allowed in CHI?

Sort of, there are so many locations in Chicago that are statutorily prohibited places that it would be very difficult to accomplish anything in the city without entering one. However, you are allowed to traverse most prohibited places if you are on a public right-of-way.

[Corey]

I saw this on instapundit the other day and read the linked article. I think it is interesting that many anti gun people say that gun owners and carriers are paranoid or fearful. Yet I read things like this and think what kind of a miserable life one must have if one can be made so fearful and mental preoccupied or upset by a picture of an inanimate object. And these are the people who are charged with shaping the minds of our children!

[John Ralston]

I think it is interesting that many anti gun people say that gun owners and carriers are paranoid or fearful. Yet I read things like this and think what kind of a miserable life one must have if...they are so paranoid AND fearful of lawful gun owners who have ZERO intention of doing bad things with their lawfully owned firearms.


Fixed it...

[Don Gwinn]

Actually, if you're walking or driving in Chicago, it won't be much different than anywhere else in Illinois, legally, except that it has more museums and stadiums and the like. The big problem in Chicago will be the prohibition on public transport. I expect that to be a big fight again, but probably not this session unless we can get legislators over their "it's settled" attitude. The other big problem in Chicago is that the culture there will lead a lot of people to post private property off-limits at first, but I expect that to change faster as people realize the sky isn't falling.

Schools are prohibited places anyway (I teach school in Springfield, the state capitol, and my building has been posted for at least five years.) There's a "safe harbor" provision for people to store firearms locked out of sight in their vehicles in the parking lot (obviously that doesn't apply to me, so I'll be parking off campus.) But this concern over the signs frightening people or driving away customers is apparently widespread in Chicago, and I suspect it's being played up at least partly because someone's feeding story ideas to reporters to try to drum up support for a D.O.A. bill the Governor supposedly wants: Ira Silverstein has a bill in the hopper to flip the signage requirements. If you wanted to allow firearms, under Silverstein's bill, you'd have to post a sign saying so. If you didn't post a sign, the default would be prohibition of carry on private property except for the property owner and designees.
It's not going to go anywhere . . . but the hand-wringing over what the European tourists will think is hilarious. 'Cause European tourists think Chicago is Safety Clean City, apparently.
A New Dilemma: What About Mixing Guns and Arias? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/theater/ct-chicago-cultural-guns-arts,0,7751065.column)

[Corlissimo]

I had to laugh at the emphasized part of the quote... She wants the sign to be "more subtle" than an image of a gun. So what? Replace the image with the words "NO GUNS"? I wonder how many students of the Chicago education system could read that? I'd feel safe betting a month's pay on the fact that any 5 year old would understand the meaning of the existing sign's images, and that's the whole point of using those images isn't it?

Another thing that struck me pretty hard was the fact that there are such divergent opinions of those within the Chicago School Administration. This Nolan person is scared, and apparently, offended by the mere image of a gun and the message that it might send. While the other Administrators referenced think it's good, erroneously believing that the signs will prevent school shootings.

The sheer ignorance of established facts, and the magnitude of "ostrich behavior" is mind boggling to me. But then again, you have to consider where this is happening... in a city that is located in the last state to official approve CC laws, no matter how neutered said laws are. The attitudes and culture have got to be so deeply ingrained that they may never be changed. God only knows what the fallout would be if there ever were a true Columbine/Newtown type shooting anywhere in IL, let alone Chicago.

[Don Gwinn]

Well . . . Michael Z. Williamson contacted Theresa Nolan about the article and had a pretty good exchange with her by email. You should probably RTWT if you're interested, but this stands out:

I appreciate the question…The logo created is to inform those who have undergone the training and licensing protocols to carry a concealed weapon that they are not allowed to carry on this premises. The onus for knowing where you “can” and “can’t” carry is placed upon the individual who has undergone the training. To our general public, who has not undergone the training and is not familiar with the logo or legislation, may associate that we are simply reminding the general public that guns are not allowed in our building, as if that is a necessary reminder.

Anyone who works in a school these days, especially in my role where I am the one responsible for everyone’s safety and security, seeing a “no guns allowed” sticker on our entryways is just awkward. My attempt was to educate the public as to why these stickers will be displayed. I was not passing judgment on the legislation, nor am I ignorant enough to believe it will deter someone with criminal intent.

- See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/#sthash.7OMOnhzd.dpuf

[Corlissimo]

. . . but the hand-wringing over what the European tourists will think is hilarious. 'Cause European tourists think Chicago is Safety Clean City, apparently.
A New Dilemma: What About Mixing Guns and Arias? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/theater/ct-chicago-cultural-guns-arts,0,7751065.column)

That article was good for a chuckle or two.


The conundrum of the stickers also brings up several other issues. If an arts venue explicitly bans guns with these stickers, it arguably (and these things pertaining to the act have yet to be really tested by the courts) creates a liability problem for itself, just by bringing up the issue. If someone were to be shot in the balcony, they would be likely to sue. They would then be likely to argue in a court that the venue, the venue with the "no guns" stickers on the door, had an obligation to protect them against such intrusions. Venues can't say for sure what the courts would do, but their lawyers will worry.

Would, say, the Lyric thus feel a new obligation to install a metal detector? How would that sit with the dressy set on opening night? And will the stickers prove to be enough? Will we be hearing curtain speeches about weapons not being welcome?

There's some good meat there, and it only underscores the argument that GFZ's are typically a bad thing. The next part, where he brings up the Tampa movie theater shooting with the retired cop, really made me laugh though:



When I read that story Wednesday, the moment on Saturday night at Court Theatre when someone's cellphone went off at the most crucial emotional moment of the show snapped into my head.

Hostility flooded into the room with startling force. I don't want to imply anyone at Court was packing at heat or will be packing heat after April, but the situation in Tampa still gives one pause. The arts spark intense emotions. To go to a movie is to have to deal with other people behaving badly. Performers and audiences can share spaces. The blood easily can boil.

Oooh... look out! People might actually have to start behaving with manners because they're concerned that someone with a gun might shoot them. The implication, of course, is "Why should I have to worry about how my actions are percieved by others, especially in a public place? I SHOULD have the RIGHT to be a kittening @$$hole in a public place and disturb/ruin the event for people who have paid money to be there. That's MY RIGHT!!!"

Or maybe they think like this:
"'An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.' Pffft... what the hell did Heinlein know anyway? He's dead after all."


Anyway, nice link to that article! ...Even if it did put me in mini-rant mode. :rolleyes:

[Sal Picante]

I'll be at the opera on the 21st... Maybe they'll have made their decision by then...

[Don Gwinn]

Heh. I liked that, too, Corlini, especially the way he's careful not to imply that anyone in the movie theater would be so awful as to carry a gun . . . . but doesn't seem to notice that he implies that at least some of them are such dangerous psychos that they'd kill someone because her cell phone rang at the movies (and of course, he takes for granted that he knows that's what happened in Florida and there's nothing to that story that he doesn't know.)

[JAD]

. 'Cause European tourists think Chicago is Safety Clean City, apparently.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/02/09/zade2ahu.jpg
Chicago! Bang bang!

[JeffJ]

If you're that concerned what European tourists are going to think about your establishment when they see the stickers, you could - I don't know, not put up the stickers.

[Don Gwinn]

Yeah, but if you do that, the gun nuts win, a phrase which here means, "Carry their firearms into the opera and shoot opera patrons for texting during Die Fledermaus."
It is a quandary.