crime scene tape police line
Bigstock
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

Gun-ban groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and cynical politicians like President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris want Americans to believe that there are no positive uses for firearms. They even claim that guns are very seldom used in self-defense situations, despite reams of evidence to the contrary.

Those anti-gun zealots will have a hard time convincing one Illinois man to give up his guns after a road-rage incident on July 30 in Schiller Park, Illinois, a western suburb of Chicago.

According to a report at cbsnews.com, at about 5:30 p.m. a driver began harassing the man, who was also driving, in an apparent road-rage incident, following him until he had to stop at a traffic signal. When the vehicles stopped at the stoplight, the aggressor jumped out of his vehicle and ran toward the other vehicle, while drawing a handgun and firing shots.

Seeing the threat, the other man pulled out his handgun and shot the aggressor. Miraculously the second man wasn’t hit in the exchange of shots, nor were his passengers.

Malachi N. Johnson, 19, of Streamwood, Illinois, was transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced deceased a short time later. After reviewing all evidence, it was decided that the man who defended himself acted in self-defense.

“After reviewing all evidence, along with interviews of involved individuals and witnesses, it was decided, along with the State’s Attorney’s Office, that no charges would be brought against the second individual involved as it was determined that he acted in self-defense and possessed a valid FOID and CCL,” said a statement from the Schiller Park Police Department.

While we can chalk another one up for the good guys, one aspect of the shooting that you’ll never hear in the mainstream media is the death of the attacker will be counted as another “child killed with a gun.” Since he was 19, he’ll almost certainly be counted among the child gun death statistics that liberal groups use to lie that more kids are killed by guns than by any other way.

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

62 COMMENTS

        • RE: “he acted in self-defense and possessed a valid FOID and CCL,” said a statement from the Schiller Park Police Department.”

          If you don’t have a foid and ccl because you could not afford the luxury and you are shot by a criminal can you or your family hold the state liable for your injuries, rehab or murder? If not then the hundreds of thousands of citizens disarmed and unarmed by IL Foid need a compensation fund written into law…crickets.

      • Oops, looks like it was you who drew her ire. Unlike a gun that only fires in the direction you are pointing it, a lunatic woman like Debbie can fire in any random direction. Recommend avoiding. I wouldn’t even wish on a bear to be stuck in the woods alone with Debbie.

  3. Wait ….wait…Chicago….Illinois one of the gun safe rustbelt states and the gun safe city…A 19 year old…Nineteen…as in oh 2 years less than 21….had a GUN??/WHAAAT? but I thought ‘utes weren’t supposed to have guns….how does this happen? HMMM

  5. This is a reminder that, in the real world, people sometimes actually have to defend themselves while inside their cars.

    I now keep a 6-shot revolver with a 3-inch barrel readily available in my car. If someone suddenly ambushes me, I am unlikely to be able to draw my everyday-carry handgun soon enough from my holster while wearing my seat belt.

    While that 6-shot revolver is obviously limited to 6 shots which could be lacking, I believe the additional safety of the required double-action trigger pull outweighs the potential downside of limited ammunition capacity.

    And another reason why I keep a 6-shot revolver in my car rather than a semi-auto pistol with 15+ round magazine capacity: it is far less expensive to replace if someone breaks into my car and steals it. (One or more thieves just went through my neighborhood last night breaking into unlocked cars and stealing easy-access / high-value items. Fortunately I locked my car and my revolver was still in there this morning.)

      • +1. The thought of leaving a firearm unattended in a vehicle scares me to no end. In Dan Francisco, there are organized gangs on the lookout for out of town vehicles or vehicles with brief cases or backpacks. Smash and grab, and off they go.

        • I hear you, depends on where you live. My 19x lives in my console, but I park outside my window at my office, and at home I live a half-mile off the road in the woods. My Dogo Argentinos outside lay right by my truck, and the chihuahuas inside keep an eye on the Dogos.

      • Especially if you live where you would be criminally charged if it was stolen and later discovered to have been used in a crime.

      • Don’t park anywhere it’s likely to be broken into. I have a revolver that I specifically call my truck gun. If it was stolen, I wouldn’t be out much and it wouldn’t break my heart to lose it. As such it’s just a cheap ruger. I’d never leave my smith’s though.

      • Gadsden Flag,

        I live in a semi-rural-ish area. My neighborhood has 63 homes all on one-acre lots with a mix of sporadic homes, farms, woods, and fields all around. I keep my revolver in a location that no one can see from the outside or even the inside of my car. I am thinking that the odds of someone breaking my car window hoping to find something of value in a non-visible location is pretty low. I am not saying that it never happens. I am just saying that it is very unlikely in my neighborhood. (My neighborhood is 47 years old and no one has ever broken a car window to steal items from inside a car.)

      • Been doing it for 20 years without an issue.
        Sometimes it is the only legal way as certain buildings and facilities, such as gov’t operated ones, disallow the carrying of a firearm.
        Simply minding where you park is usually more than sufficient to avoid theft. For years I’ve carried an AR in a rack mounted to my roof. I’d rather have and not need than need and not have.

    • A simple solution. Don’t wear the seatbelt. Yada yada everyone says they save lives yea yea I’ve heard it all before. And I call that with the last accident my wife was in, it was determined that had she been WEARING her seatbelt she would have been killed instantly. Instead, she walked away with a bruise on her butt from being tossed to the passenger side after a drivers door impact from a red light runner left the driver’s seat about the size of a can of coke.
      It can always go both ways with safety devices. I personally don’t wear one as I feel like between the 600 air bags in the car and the fact that I’ve got a wheel to hold onto I’ll be just fine. Now, as a passenger I take a different view.

      • Yep. People win the lottery every so often as well…
        (BTW, I’m someone who has used extrication tools to get people out of vehicles in the past..)

    • “…it is far less expensive to replace if someone breaks into my car and steals it.”

      Please, bring it in anyways, I used to do that, but the thought of it being stolen, even a cheapie, changed my ways…

      • Geoff PR,

        I appreciate the sentiment.

        If someone is willing to smash a window and rummage around my car for an unknown/unseen firearm, they are equally willing to do the same to my home. Do we direct everyone to take all of their firearms with them out of their home when they leave home? After all, a thief could smash a window, enter a home, rummage around, find firearm/s, and steal them. (Needless to say this actually happens.)

        I realize that the home example isn’t quite an apples-to-apples comparison: it would typically take much longer to rummage around a home and most thieves do not want to linger that long, although some do of course. Nevertheless, I know someone who kept a handgun in a small handgun safe inside their home: a thief broke in, promptly found the handgun safe, and walked out the door with said handgun safe. (It was much more practical and lower risk to simply take the entire small handgun safe away to a different location where the thief could slowly and carefully break it open.)

        Just how far do we go to prevent theft? As it stands, my hands are already full when I walk out my door and go to my car (and vice versa). I carry a small satchel of sorts with emergency medicine (fast-acting antihistamine and “epi-pens”), a prescription glasses case, water bottle, and quite often one or more additional item/s. Plus I already have my everyday carry handgun (and spare magazines) along with a folding knife on my hip. And then my pockets are often full with a backup gun, spare magazine for that, money, identification, small flashlight, lip and lip balm. And I have not even started carrying a trauma kit yet. In other words I am already overloaded as it is.

  7. …no charges would be brought against the second individual involved as it was determined that he acted in self-defense and possessed a valid FOID and CCL

    Well, sure is a good thing he had his permission slips from the state.

    • Yeah permission($)not granted until 2014 under SCOTUS. Next door in Indiana NOTHING to carry save being a lawful gat owner. I hate ILLannoy🙄

    • Was gonna post the same thing. He acted in self defense. Period, full stop. Requiring government approval to act in self-defense is wrong.

  10. One incident neither proves of disapproves a bloody thing and you know it . Such incidences of a GUN OWNER actually defending themselves successfully are very damned rare indeed and even the ARTICLE recognizes that the person under attack was very very lucky to have come o out of the situation unharmed. Just a LUCKY shot or a more skilled attacker and the outcome would have been very different.

    • Good thing there are thousands even with underreporting. Also why do you care? You can be safely robbed by machete point and not have to worry about fighting back as the king intended.

    • “Such incidences of a GUN OWNER actually defending themselves successfully are very damned rare indeed”

      That is a lie.

      There are ~4,800 (or more) successful valid legal defensive gun uses daily across the United States, there are thousand of police reports about them even if they do not get reported in the news. And sure, a lot of them are ‘brandish and the bad guy runs’ (brandishing to repel is a valid defensive gun use) and no shots are fired (so they definitely do not make the news) but a lot aren’t like that either. Plus there are web sites that dig for these and present hundreds of the more notable of them on their web pages annually with the obscure news stories for the ones that do make the news. Even the federal government in their own studies, promoted by Clinton and Obama, found the variable number to be between 1.5 million and 3.2 million annually (the studies were removed from the CDC web site when the caved to pressure of anti-gun interest that didn’t like facts), and every major study since by reputable independent researchers has found its not rare at all.

      There is one place where a lot of people do not successfully defend them selves with firearms – that’s in the ‘gun control/ban’ U.K. where the bad guys very successfully simply knife their victims or beat them to death or rape them there in the ‘rape capital of Europe’. Even you have admitted (unknowingly) in the past to beating up defenseless women when you get drunk.

      Why don’t you stay over there in the U.K. and leave our country to us. The British had their butts kicked out of here once before, partially because they thought it would be rare for us to defend our selves from them – yeah, they were as delusional then as you are now.

    • If, at minimum, 1.7 million defensive gun uses per annum in the US equals “very damned rare” to you, what would “common” mean?

    • You need to lay of the liberal koolade snowflake. It’s rotting your last brain cell. Ignorance can be cured with proper education. Nothing can cure your liberal/progressive indoctrination.

    • Smells like the same tired old load of horsesh#t that dacian used to spout.

      ‘Don’t try to use a gun. You’ll just make it worse.’

    • “Such incidences of a GUN OWNER actually defending themselves successfully are very damned rare indeed”
      A clear illustration of a delusional mind for A Hall must be speaking of his Great Britain where the subjects aren’t permitted to defend themselves.
      Albert your time would be better spent criticizing the Crown assuming you have freedom of speech.

    • What? You’re back? The Royal Air Force Armorer who was also some kind of reserve Infantry POG? I thought you had finally stopped pestering us with your unsolicited views on American firearms laws and your love of the Browning Hi Power( a fine firearm, not that you ever fired it).

    • Aren’t you the British guy who trained SAS and MI5 people, and are expert on all manner of small arms and crew served weapons? I’ve been away for a bit, but I remember Albert Hamshite, or something like that. Actually, if I remember right, you founded both the SAS and MI5, and personally trained most of the RAF Infantry. A guy would think that you had plenty to do right there on your little islands, and didn’t need to worry about a continent on the other side of the ocean.

      • according to him in his past posts, and using the information he gave for his claimed firearms expertise: he served in the british army, navy, air force, cadet corp …. enlisted in the british military to fight in WWI when he was ~14 years old … and after WWI, almost 30 years later, trained british military troops on the use of their issued rifle that was only issued to the british military during WWI when he was 14 years of age … and then he served in the british special forces and became expert with a rifle that was not issued in the british military or to their special forces until after he retired from the military after 20 years of service… and taking all this into account, with his more recent post in another article comments section, he is 106 years old.

        https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/court-rules-no-financial-monitor-needed-for-nra/#comment-7137673

        • Anyone who enlisted at 14 to fight in WW1 (ended 1918) was born NLT 1904 and is at least 120. I’m not sure if anyone that old is still alive; if he is, he’d be quite famous / easy to find, especially with that ponderous string of names.

          • well, its ‘variable’ with him.. with debunking one of his more recent posts (the link I posted) it places him at ~106 years old (if he was 85 years old last year as he claimed), but yeah, 120 years old is good too in your context.

  11. EVIL BAD GUY , LIKE A TALKING ORANGE TURD GUY , DON’T MISS NEXT TIME WAS A MISS .
    PRAY GOOD LORD WILL TALK WITH SATIN AND SEND HIM TO HELL .

  14. Two drivers are dead after an apparent case of road rage in Highland which led to a gunfight – even as one had two young children in his car.

    … “When they arrived in that parking lot, the man in the sedan began yelling at the motorcyclist,” said Rodriguez. “They became confrontational. They were both armed, and a shooting occurred, and the two of them both ended up deceased at the end of the night.”

      • uncommon the point is if you had put your bet on the double kill bonus square you would have won the pot ×2.
        doesn’t hit very often but usually a good pay out

    • and… the point is that sometimes bad things happen?

      Ok, lets introduce you to this thing called ‘life’ where things beyond your control just happen… and where there are there are evil people, stupid people, smart people, good people, bad people all mixed together in this thing in life we call ‘society’.

      One of the key tricks to to surviving ‘life’ is to either 100% avoid the evil people, stupid people, bad people …but some times ya can’t do that so when they show up be prepared to defend yourself against them. If you are not prepared, congratulations… you discovered your role in life as a member of the ‘stupid people’ group.

      Now, among these groups of people in life are those in the stupid group, a special subset group of people, which is composed of a special mixture of evil and bad and stupid people. The mission of this group is to make sure they make inane points, or make the good and smart in the other groups feel guilty or be responsible for the acts of the other evil or stupid or bad people. And this special subset of people are those who do not want the others to survive a violent encounter with the very evil, stupid, bad people this special subset of people facilitate and nurture – we call these collectively ‘left wing’, ‘liberals’, ‘anti-gun’, ‘democrats’ and ‘democrat politicians’ and ‘progressives’ and (the broad term) ‘trolls’.

      There ya go, welcome to ‘life’.

      Now go post your inane trolling nonsense elsewhere.

    • If the Mobile Reviews creators thought this was a good way to market their website, they are clearly idiots. Thanks for letting us know to steer clear of that site.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here