Why are the gun control fanatics (libs), not complaining about this guy

[WVPATX]

Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square
















1 of


Concealed-carry licensed Uber driver shoots gunman, court says









ADVERTISEMENT

Related Contenthttps://westvirginia.rivals.com/#columnist/p2p-





Geoff Ziezulewicz, Chicago Tribune

8:12 am, April 20, 2015





Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.

A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.

Custodio was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic hospital, where he was treated for gunshot wounds to the shin, thigh and lower back, authorities said.

Custodio, of the 2900 block of North Ridgeway Avenue, was charged with aggravated assault and unlawful use of a weapon charges. He was denied bond during the Sunday court hearing.

The Uber driver, a 47-year-old resident of Little Italy, provided police with a valid concealed-carry permit and a firearm owner's identification card, Quinn said.

Related Contenthttps://westvirginia.rivals.com/#columnist/p2p-



https://westvirginia.rivals.com/#

https://westvirginia.rivals.com/#

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

They should have charged the uber guy. No reason for him to have a gun. The cops are always there when you need them and they provide all the protection we need. Errrrrrrrrrr, except the cops are the enemy if you are black or gay. Errrrrrrrer, why wasn't a cop there to defend the people? We are a nation of laws and the law protects us, errrrrrrrr.

Liberal logic is so hard to understand. It contradicts itself so much.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[WhiteTailEER]

For every one of these ... there's 100 poor examples of gun use

For instance, like the guy's gun going off in church.
Or the guy shooting another guy because popcorn was thrown at him.
Or countless instances of domestic violence (two such instances here in WV recently).
Or people getting in a bar brawl and pulling out a gun.
Or any number of stupid arguments that end up with somebody pulling a gun.
Or any number of road rage incidents.

Or any number of other cases that show that the majority of people are too stupid or too hot headed or reactionary to be trusted to have a gun on them all the time.

Go look at all the stupid mouth breathers walking around Walmart and tell me you'd feel safer knowing that any or all could be carrying a gun.

No rational person can possibly argue that there aren't people out there that simply shouldn't have a gun on them all the time ... or at all.

Having said all of that ... I'm not a huge gun control guy because I haven't seen any good solutions.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Re: For every one of these ... there's 100 poor examples of gun use

I agree with all of that. Same argument could be made for cars, newspapers/media, and voting.

Lot of irresponsible jackasses out there that I don't believe my constitutionally protected right should be infringed upon because of.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[bornaneer]

"I haven't seen any good solutions.".... ever think about enforcing....

the gun laws that we currently have?

Check out this link, I thought Chicago had VERY strict gun laws.



This post was edited on 4/20 1:51 PM by bornaneer

This post was edited on 4/20 3:09 PM by bornaneer

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I have ...

Originally posted by bornaneer:
the gun laws that we currently have?

Check out this link, I thought Chicago had VERY strict gun laws.




This post was edited on 4/20 1:51 PM by bornaneer

But until that's done, we don't know if that's a good solution or not. Part of what needs done, probably, is 2nd party sales. I can go in the bulletin board or Craigslist and have a hand gun within an hour without any kind of background check.

 

[countryroads89]

I'm glad you mentioned cars


to obtain a driver's license you have to demonstrate two things: 1) that you are knowledgeable of the basic laws and 2) that you can safely operate a vehicle.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

You are absolutely right ...

Originally posted by DvlDog4WVU:
I agree with all of that. Same argument could be made for cars, newspapers/media, and voting.

Lot of irresponsible jackasses out there that I don't believe my constitutionally protected right should be infringed upon because of.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

However, misuse of newspaper/media doesn't directly get people killed, nor does voting. Certainly there can be 2nd and 3rd order effects that lead to that, but not directly.

As for cars. A driver's license and car ownership isn't a constitutionally protected right, it is a privilege that can be taken away and is taken away regularly from those that prove they aren't responsible enough to handle it.

Maybe gun ownership should be tied to that as well ... if you've proven so irresponsible that you are no longer allowed to drive a car, then maybe you should have to forfeit gun ownership as well.

However, your overall point I agree with, and that's what I meant by stating I haven't seen any good solutions. If you're responsible then your right to own guns shouldn't be taken away because of those that aren't.

 

[Mntneer]

Not to mention the fact that...

one is a privilege and one is a right.

 

[Mntneer]

Re: You are absolutely right ...

Those 2nd and 3rd order effects can be drastically more disastrous than the 1st order effect of a single gun in the hands of a nut.

There is no panacea of how to handle violence in this country, not just gun violence but violence in general.

 

[countryroads89]

Re: Not to mention the fact that...


But requiring someone to be knowledgeable of the law and to be able to safely handle a deadly weapon, a firearm, before they can legally conceal it, doesn't infringe upon that "right".

It is the same principle for legally obtaining a fully automatic weapon. Certain conditions must be met before one can legally possess a fully automatic weapon.

 

[mneilmont]

Hmmmmm


You would think we have liberals posting on this board with that description/definition.

 

[Mntneer]

Re: Not to mention the fact that...

1) if I have to take a single step to exercise my right, then some infringement is taking place. Not arguing for or against background checks, but the fact that I have to take a class to prove I already know how to properly handle a firearm, and then pay a fee to the county for a permit is a form of infringement, that ultimately doesn't prevent the criminal minded from carrying illegally.

2) again, stepping through extra hoops to obtain a suppressor or an automatic weapon, is a form of infringement.

The Second Amendment is the only right that we allow the government to place such burdens on our ability to exercise. Can you imagine forcing people take classes and prove their ability to properly use he interne or cell phone? Hell, people scream bloody murder if we ask people to show ID before voting.

Originally posted by countryroads89:

But requiring someone to be knowledgeable of the law and to be able to safely handle a deadly weapon, a firearm, before they can legally conceal it, doesn't infringe upon that "right".

It is the same principle for legally obtaining a fully automatic weapon. Certain conditions must be met before one can legally possess a fully automatic weapon.

 

[dave]

Re: Not to mention the fact that...

So you agree that requiring people to show identification to vote doesnt keep anyone from exercising their right?

 

[countryroads89]

When you make it such that the only acceptable


form of identification is a person's driver's license (to vote), then yes, that is an infringement of their right to vote. Many elderly and those that live in the inner cities that utilize public transportation, do not have driver's licenses. Another form of identification should be acceptable. The people that passed the voter suppression laws knew exactly what they were doing.

The second amendment gives you the right to "keep and bear arms". Concealing it and possessing fully automatic weapons are another story. I know we'll never agree on that. Sawed-off shotguns (shorter than a certain length) are illegal. I lean a little more to the right than some of the other posters on this board when it comes to firearms, but I have to say, we should be checking everyone in this country for mental disorders when it comes to firearms. Look at all the mentally-disturbed that have wreaked havoc in just the last few years.

 

[dave]

so you are a hypocrite

I will just assume your dodging the question means you are against it. Typjcal lib hypocrite.