Police say concealed-carry law would deter criminals

[ProgressiveProfessor]

PEORIA — .Talk of bringing concealed-carry legislation to Illinois gives many residents a fear of the unknown.

Several local police chiefs and other personnel said putting fear into the minds of criminals on the streets is also one of the best arguments for allowing concealed carry.

"If you're not sure if a guy has a gun, you may not try to do some things to him that you might otherwise try to get away with," said Peoria police Officer Troy Skaggs, president of the Peoria Police Benevolent Union. "It's the fear of the unknown."

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states without some type of concealed-carry law.

In February, the Illinois Sheriffs' Association passed a resolution supporting a concealed-carry law in Illinois, with several conditions in place.
==================================
more at http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1730895291/Police-say-concealed-carry-law-would-deter-criminals?view=print

To see this out of Illinois is truly amusing. Daley must be melting down again.

[geckosfeet]

1. Right. Just shoot him in the back the head THEN take his wallet - why take a chance.

[Mythsaje]

2. Except that's not the way it works...

Most prefer to steal WITHOUT killing people.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. Please don't advise people to kill or rob innocent people here.

[geckosfeet]

6. It's not advice.

But you know that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Seems like advise to a criminal in my eyes.

[SteveM]

39. Sounds like it to me. You realize many violent crims oppose CCW, too (nt)

[Deadric Damodred]

5. You say that as if the leap from a life of being a robber...

...to killing people in a nonchalant way, just to take their money, is an easy step for even criminals to make. I don't think a majority of criminals that are mere robbers would start instantly premtively executing their victims because they might be armed. If all criminals could go from being theives and robbers to nonchalant killers so easily, then we have a lot more problems in society than the wrong people getting a hold of a gun.

[geckosfeet]

7. I say that tongue in cheek. But people are shot for less than a wallet every day.

on edit: Frankly, I feel people should have the right to carry a gun if they feel safer with it. People who are licensed, trained and qualified to some minimum standard.

But will it deter crime? I am not so sure.

[JonQ]

23. But the people who are willing to kill for less than a wallet

likely would do so whether their victim was armed or not. Or at least attempt to, the armed victim has a chance not to be a victim at all while his gun-free buddy is pretty much at the psychopaths mercy.

Those that are less inclined to kill then would be deterred by an armed citizen.

So it may prevent murders, or at least not make them more likely in the first scenario.

And deter crime in the 2nd.

[SteveM]

40. I hear you on that one...

Even though I favor "shall issue" laws in the state, I am not convinced that passage of these laws will lower violent crimes, a favorable social policy. But concealed-carry is imminently an individual tool for personal self-defense; later, this may result in lower crime rates, but that remains to be seen.

BTW, there seems to be a growing trend among thugs and wannabe thugs to shoot/kill victims to gain "street cred" or to prove they have "juice." This may be the modern-day equivalent to the "spree" or "thrill-kill" types of yester year. When working in a regional jail, one inmate told me that the reason why some thugs rob a convenience store is not for the money (very little is available), but for the opportunity to kill someone. This gives the thug power in his oeuvre.

[Euromutt]

46. Good points, all

Personally, I'm not convinced of the correctness of the argument that armed citizens will act as a deterrent to confrontational crime. But if, as you say, certain types of criminal do murder victims in the course of robberies in order to demonstrate "juice," this presumably occurs whether or not the victim is armed. In other words, the victim being armed does not exacerbate the situation. And that really is the only valid argument against permitting private citizens to be armed in public.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Its not just the victim a thug has to worry about,

its the bystanders who might also be armed. Remember the the shooting at a Subway in Plantation, Florida? The original Sun-Sentinel story is not online, but here is a recap of it: http://mog.com/RGM/blog/91252

Of course the dead thug's family did not feel that way: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july022008/marine_shooting_7-2-08.php

[sharesunited]

4. You can also have it handy at all times to solve any other problems in your life.

On a whim.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Good point. I used a gun to signal once when I was lost in the woods.

[aquart]

10. Well, I'd certainly run toward the sound of shots.

Because it's always so safe when that happens. Bullet landed where, btw?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. The bullet landed where I aimed it to land. 3 successive shots followed by 3 more was the signal...

that was agreed upon when we left camp. Not sure what your problem is with any of this?

David

[safeinOhio]

15. I was hunting one time and got lost

so, I did the 3 shots in the air, followed by 3 more. I had to stop when I ran out of arrows.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Do arrows make more noise when they are shot in the air?

Apparently aquart thinks guns do.

David

[jeepnstein]

21. They do when they come back down...

the screams of pain from a self-inflicted arrow can be quite loud.

[eqfan592]

20. Awww, see what you did there Dave...

...you broke it! You broke his smug little remark! Broke it to bits you did! Because apparently he thought the only way to signal with a gun was to shoot it right into the air! And he also seemed to think that you wouldn't be smart enough to arrange the signal with somebody else before hand!



Ugh, sorry man. I'm just tired, not feeling well, and sick of people assuming you must not be as smart as they are if you are a gun owner.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Nice to have you here.

Just think of it as our civil rights struggle.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. 3 + 3 is the equivalent of SOS

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Why do people excersizing their rights bother you so?

[iverglas]

29. I'm sorry, but

"Why do people excersizing their rights bother you so?"

and

"A world class pendantic academic at his worst"

really just don't work in the same post.

Pedants, in my experience, can spell. Two spelling mistakes in one word? As authorized by the fellowship of world-class pedants, I hereby revoke your membership, although to be honest, I don't recall you ever attending a meeting.


edit - omds - I copied and pasted that sig line without reading it carefully. You will now be brought up before the general assembly of the fellowship on charges of falsely holding yourself out as a member. Good grief.

I mean, unless there really is a fellowship of world-class PENDANTS somewhere. I have a rather nice handblown glass one I got at the craft fair a few years ago. Perhaps it can join.

[proteus_lives]

16. Don't worry.

Most people are more mature and stable then you.

[JonQ]

24. Yep, and that's how most gun owners think

that's why with the millions of guns in this country, literally millions of people are being shot and killed on a whim every year by legal gun owners.

What a nightmarish post-apocalyptic country we live in.

[pipoman]

37. Have any links to your stats?

that's why with the millions of guns in this country, literally millions of people are being shot and killed on a whim every year by legal gun owners.

No, not "literally millions" nor literally hundreds of thousands, the highest numbers are around 30k, over half of which are suicides. Of the other half, the vast, vast majority are at the hands of illegal gun owners, that being previously convicted felons, domestic abusers, etc. who are by definition not 'legal gun owners'...but you already knew all that, just a knee jerk, panic post, huh?

[eqfan592]

38. Actually, I think JonQ was being sarcastic.

Based off his other posts, he seems very pro-RTKBA. What's funny about this is that it's hard for us rational folks to tell the difference between folks being sarcastic and "true believers." :P That very telling indeed!

[JonQ]

43. Yep, sarcasm

if the gun grabbers logic were correct we would, with the amount of guns we have, literally have millions of gun fatalities a year.

That we don't would suggest they are little off their mark.

[pipoman]

44. Sorry,

I read these threads and don't always pay attention to who is posting.

[JonQ]

45. No worries,

I didn't use the sarcasm tag, I sometimes forget.

[SteveM]

41. And we used a shotgun to shoot down a hornet's nest high in a tree (nt)

[proteus_lives]

17. I hope it does pass.

People have the right to defend themselves.

[spin]

18. K&R (n/t)

[Israfel4]

22. I can just see

King Daley :eyes: having a massive coronary should this pass!!!

[Gregorian]

25. Just off the top of my head, it seems we should be addressing reasons for crime.

I mean, sure it may deter crime. But a society where I have to look at granny walking down the street with the possibility of a 44 mag in her bag does not make me feel anything but sad and a bit frightened, and even angry at how low we have stooped. Because at that point I will see every person in my society as a potential killer, not just someone walking down the street.

We aren't going to get rid of crime by holding. And we don't stop logging by spiking trees. You go to the source to stop the problem. But that's not how America works. We're big, we're loud, and we do things with force. Not brains.

We're moving in the wrong direction. I agree that guns would deter some criminals. But I wouldn't want to live where people walk around armed.

[SteveM]

42. How would you know to be "sad" or not "want to live where..."?

If "granny" (or anyone else, for that matter) had a 44 mag in her purse, how would you know to feel sad? This is a peculiar response to concealed carrying of weapons. I am sitting outdoors at a coffee house at this moment, and I'm think maybe one or two people are armed, but I don't really know. So, the only thing bothering me is the 100+ heat, the flies, and for now a poor selection of music coming out the P.A., both of which are readily apparent.

[iverglas]

26. just some details

http://www.ilsheriff.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=l8MKwAlgBrE%3d&tabid=64&mid=387

After much discussion and concerns about the final language of the legislation the sheriffs, present and voting, unanimously approved the resolution. There were sixty of the one hundred and two sheriffs registered for the training conference.

“There are still individual sheriffs who have reservations and concerns about concealed carry in Illinois and do not support the legislation,” according to Greg Sullivan, Executive Director.

Sheriff Gib Cady, 2009 President <see below in this post>, stated, “We are constitutional officers who take an oath to uphold the constitution and we have decided to take a leadership role on this issue. This is the number one issue that our constituents talk to us about.”

... “The ISA has been neutral on this issue for years but the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and the feedback and the experience from the other states has turned that tide. Out of 79 sheriffs responding to our survey, 90% of those sheriffs support concealed carry with the right type of restrictions, training and scrutiny. They also believe that local law enforcement should have the right to object to a permit application with justifiable cause,” said Sullivan.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=64403556421&_fb_noscript=1

Area legislators such as state Rep. Pat Verschoore, D-Milan, and state Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline also support a concealed-carry law with general provisions such as training and screening of individuals.

Not all favor a concealed-carry law. In january, Laimutis Nargelenas, deputy director of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police in Springfield, said his association opposes the proposal.

Moline Police Chief Gary Francque and East Moline Police Chief Victor Moreno also opposed a concealed-carry law. The threat to law enforcement would be enormous with so many people allowed to carry handguns, they said, with Chief Moreno saying a concealed-carry law would alter the way police and public interact.

Probably unlike most people here, I've spent time in Moline. I doubt that things are better in the quad cities now than they were 15 years ago.

Do we imagine that the police themselves are not aware that police have been killed by holders of permits?

The fact that someone has a permit to carry a concealed firearm is not a guarantee of safety for a cop. All that knowing that someone has such a permit tells a cop is that the individual they are dealing with is likely to be carrying a firearm.

Yes, no cop should ever assume that anyone is not carrying a firearm, obviously. The fact is that with concealed carry permits, there are going to be people authorized to carry firearms who should not be. The fact that there plainly have been people issued permits who went on to kill cops, not to mention commit other crimes, is all the evidence needed. Any cop who didn't treat the holder of a permit to carry a concealed firearm as just as much of a potential threat as anyone else with a gun would be nuts.

Obviously if permits are issued there will be more people carrying firearms, and thus police will perfectly reasonably perceive a higher potential level of threat to themselves, not to mention a higher risk of other mayhem among the public.

Police are the ones dealing with the public day to day, I would think. Sheriffs in Illinois are elected, as I understand it.


Snork. Talk about yer shills.

http://illinoischannel.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B0DB128F5CD96151!527.entry

From Sen. Republican Press Office ...

SPRINGFIELD – Assistant Senate Republican Leader Todd Sieben (R-Geneseo) is joining with northwest Illinois officials to take aim at legislation that will hurt Illinois gun manufacturers and the hundreds of people those businesses employ.

Legislation is currently pending in the House of Representatives that would ban the sale and manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons. Some of Illinois’ top gun makers presented their case against House Bill 2414 in a Capitol press conference March 1.

... Also attending the March 1 Capitol press conference were Henry County Sheriff Gilbert Cady; Geneseo Mayor Pat Eberhardt; Mark Westrom, President of Armorlite in Geneseo; Carl Lewis of Lewis Machine and Tool Company in Milan; Les Baer of Les Baer Custom in Hillsdale, Tom and Dennis Reese of Springfield Armory; and representatives of Rock River Arms.

[TPaine7]

27. Pathetic

Do we imagine that the police themselves are not aware that police have been killed by holders of permits?

The fact that someone has a permit to carry a concealed firearm is not a guarantee of safety for a cop. All that knowing that someone has such a permit tells a cop is that the individual they are dealing with is likely to be carrying a firearm.

Yes, no cop should ever assume that anyone is not carrying a firearm, obviously. The fact is that with concealed carry permits, there are going to be people authorized to carry firearms who should not be. The fact that there plainly have been people issued permits who went on to kill cops, not to mention commit other crimes, is all the evidence needed. Any cop who didn't treat the holder of a permit to carry a concealed firearm as just as much of a potential threat as anyone else with a gun would be nuts.

Many people actually have trouble seeing how illogical and silly this argument is. Maybe this will help:

Do we imagine that citizens are not aware that police have killed innocent people?

The fact that someone has a badge is not a guarantee of safety for an innocent person. All that knowing that someone has a badge tells a person is that the individual they are dealing with is authorized to carry a firearm.

Yes, no innocent person should ever assume that anyone is not carrying a firearm, obviously. The fact is that with more police officers hired, there are going to be people authorized to carry firearms who should not be. The fact that there plainly have been people issued badges who went on to kill innocent citizens, not to mention commit other crimes, is all the evidence needed. Any person who didn't treat the holder of a badge as just as much of a potential threat as anyone else with a gun would be nuts.

See how vacuous that is?

There's lot's of other nonsense in there. I just have time for a little of it.

The fact that someone has a permit to carry a concealed firearm is not a guarantee of safety for a cop.

This is stupid to the point of obscenity:

• There is no guarantee of safety for a police officer. Period. Nor will there ever be. He could die in an accident, be stabbed, stomped, fall, or even be shot by his fellow officers. There is no absolute human perfection. Tellingly, you only expect absolute human perfection from concealed carry permit holders.
  
• The fact that someone is on the police force is no guarantee of safety for a driver who is pulled over or stopped for questioning.
  
• Rights do not exist for the safety and convenience of police officers. On the contrary, police officers exist to secure people's rights. It figures that you would have it exactly backwards.
  

The fact is that CCW holders are extremely safe--very unlikely to shoot a police officer, statistically speaking. Statistically speaking police officers are also very safe (though maybe not as safe as CCW holders)--unlikely to shoot an innocent person. That's the best we get on earth, where I and most of the other posters on this site live.

Doesn't this nonsense embarrass even you, iverglas?

[iverglas]

28. hmm

Thre's just something missing here ...

The fact is that CCW holders are extremely safe--very unlikely to shoot a police officer, statistically speaking. Statistically speaking police officers are also very safe (though maybe not as safe as CCW holders)--unlikely to shoot an innocent person.

Now, if we put the word "intentionally" in there somewhere ... as in how likely a police officer is to intentionally shoot someone s/he knows is "innocent" ... well huh.

Amazingly, this might be regarded as the salient point by many people.

So we get:

The fact is that CCW holders are extremely safe--very unlikely to shoot a police officer, statistically speaking. Statistically speaking police officers are also very safe (though maybe not as safe as CCW holders)--unlikely to INTENTIONALLY shoot an innocent person.

Doesn't quite work any more, does it?

To put it simply, are police officers more likely (statistically speaking and all that) than concealed permit holders to commit murder?

Do tell.

[TPaine7]

30. I was responding to drivel about *guaranteed* safety.

If you want to talk about relative safety, make and support your own point.

Police officers shoot innocent unarmed people intentionally. If you doubt that, you can continue to--I won't waste time proving it.

And you can put "intentionally" on either side, both sides, or no side of my statement:

The fact is that CCW holders are extremely safe--very unlikely to shoot a police officer, statistically speaking. Statistically speaking police officers are also very safe (though maybe not as safe as CCW holders)--unlikely to shoot an innocent person.

The fact is that CCW holders are extremely safe--very unlikely to intentionally shoot a police officer, statistically speaking. Statistically speaking police officers are also very safe (though maybe not as safe as CCW holders)--unlikely to shoot an innocent person.

The fact is that CCW holders are extremely safe--very unlikely to shoot a police officer, statistically speaking. Statistically speaking police officers are also very safe (though maybe not as safe as CCW holders)--unlikely to intentionally shoot an innocent person.

The fact is that CCW holders are extremely safe--very unlikely to intentionally shoot a police officer, statistically speaking. Statistically speaking police officers are also very safe (though maybe not as safe as CCW holders)--unlikely to intentionally shoot an innocent person.

All four statements are true, which shows very little besides the fact that I spoke the truth on multiple levels. What else is new?

The bottom line is that you expect absolute, godlike, immaculate statistical perfection out of one and only one group of human beings--concealed carry permit holders.

[iverglas]

31. very amusing

The fact is that CCW holders are extremely safe--very unlikely to intentionally shoot a police officer, statistically speaking. Statistically speaking police officers are also very safe (though maybe not as safe as CCW holders)--unlikely to shoot an innocent person.

Yes, I'll bet there are many instances of holders of permits unintentionally shooting police officers.

:rofl: oops, there doesn't seem to be an idiotfacethingy for :rolf:

And many instances of police officers intentionally killing people whom they knew to be innocent. At least, I'm sure you can name some. I can't, off the top of my head.

The relevance, you see, is that the holders of permits who shot police officers did so with the mens rea for murder (unless any of them were nuts, which I haven't investigated).



All four statements are true, which shows very little besides the fact that I spoke the truth on multiple levels. What else is new?

The earth is spheroid. True statement.

You see how truth and relevance are different?

I'll be you even see how making a true statement that is not relevant, with the intention that it be understood by a reader to be relevant, is not a component of civil discourse.

[TPaine7]

33. Not so nice try

I would say nice try, but that is probably not true. This is bald-faced sophistry, IMO.

My point--the point you're oh-so-carefully avoiding--was that you expect flawless perfection, whether of intent or of action, of ccw permit holders and of no other group on earth.

... instances of police officers intentionally killing people whom they knew to be innocent. At least, I'm sure you can name some. I can't, off the top of my head.

Yes there are instances of police officers intentionally killing people they knew to be innocent. Strangers. Wives and girlfriends. Police have been mafia hit men. What you know off the top of your head is, to put it nicely, irrelevant.

The relevance, you see, is that the holders of permits who shot police officers did so with the mens rea for murder (unless any of them were nuts, which I haven't investigated).

Not really. That would only be relevant if the "officers of the law" convicted of murder didn't act with mens rea for murder, too. Assuming your conclusion and then attempting to hide the fact from others (and possibly from yourself) is poor logic but good sophistry.

You see how truth and relevance are different?

Yes, actually I do. That's why every truth I uttered was relevant.

I'll be you even see how making a true statement that is not relevant, with the intention that it be understood by a reader to be relevant, is not a component of civil discourse.

Civil discourse. Hmm. I guess I'll be civil and ignore your typo, rather than make it the focus of this post while ignoring all of your (non) salient points. I guess I'll be even more civil and give you an example to get you started on your education about police murders:

NEW YORK — Two highly decorated former detectives were convicted Thursday of moonlighting as hitmen for the mob in one of the most sensational cases of police corruption in New York history.

Louis Eppolito, 57, and Steven Caracappa, 64, could get life in prison for their roles in eight murders committed between 1986 and 1990 while they were simultaneously on the payroll of both the NYPD and Luchese crime family underboss Anthony "Gaspipe" Casso.

Federal prosecutor Daniel Wenner described the case as "the bloodiest, most violent betrayal of the badge this city has ever seen."

Prosecutors said the two men carried out two hits themselves — after pulling the victims over in traffic stops — and delivered up some of the other victims to the Mafia to be killed.

Neither defendant showed any emotion during the 10 minutes it took the jury forewoman to reply "proven" 70 times to the racketeering acts they were accused of. The verdict was reached after two days of deliberations.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190875,00.html

Yes the link is to Fox News, but the story is by the Associated Press; that took me a few seconds and I don't care to look for a more legitimate link.

So my points stand; all of them are both true and relevant. A CCW carrier can be a murderer. A police officer can be a murderer. Both are statistical outliers. You only expect statistical, absolute, human perfection out of one group. Par for someone living in the thrall of the gun control reality distortion field, never mind someone who personifies it.

If you want to take up a new subject--the relative frequency of CCW murderers vs police murderers--go ahead. Just don't expect me not to see through--and point out--the ruse if you try to do it surreptitiously.

[iverglas]

32. no comment about the fact

that the Illinois sheriffs in question have elected a Republican Party / firearms industry shill to lead them?

Huh.

[TPaine7]

34. I've noticed that political and organizational affiliations only matter sometimes;

at other times you scrupulously downplay or ignore them. The decision turns on which tactic supports your position.

Huh.

[iverglas]

35. actually

The decision turns on whether the individuals/groups in question are obvious denizens of the right-wing dung heap.

The answer doesn't always correlate perfectly with political affiliation, but it's a factor usually worth checking.

Illinois Democrats, for instance, come in many stripes.

http://www.il-democrats.org/conservativedemocrats.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Illinois#Politics

And then there are northeastern US Republicans.

Hell, there are western members of my own party who I wish would take a long walk off a short pier.

[paulsby]

36. this cop supports CCW as do most cops i work with

many, if not most POLICE CHIEFS and other administrators do not/ realize that sheriffs are politicians (usually elected). chiefs are usually appointed and thus as proxy talking heads for whatever mayor holds their purse strings. chiefs and sheriff's don't represent the viewpoint of line cops any more than the CEO of a company represents the guys on the assembly line.

it's nice to see some chiefs and sheriff's supporting concealed carry, but politics are politics.

very few chiefs and sheriffs deal with CRIME (actual crime, not stuff on their desk) on a daily basis, like line cops. and line cops generally support CCW

we KNOW what the statistics also evidence, that CCW'ers are very law abiding. in 20 years, i have made well over a thousand arrests. that's a pretty fair sample. been shot at, in shootings, responded to shootings, stabbings, etc. i know if i pull over a guy and he tells me he has a CCW and a handgun, that statistically speaking he is about as likely to assault me or try to shoot me as a mormon grandmother. it's simply a very law abiding demographic.

[trumanh59639]

48. I'm against it

I'm not comfortable about having more gun-toting psychos on the streets.