Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Don't Shoot conceal and carry

I will personally be taking every young man in my family (all of whom are "law abiding") to get a FOID card and I will be purchasing them the gun of their choice. You can read the website of the local newspaper on any given day and see comments from people who are filled with hate and want guns so they can "protect themselves, their families and their property

When crap like this starts happening (see article below), I want my people to be ready to "protect themselves, their families and their property."

It's a Matter of Time before this happens in Peoria, Illinois
Local gun advocates celebrate concealed carry victory
Tuesday a federal appeals court struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois. Illinois is the last state where carrying weapons is entirely illegal.

The ruling is a victory for gun rights advocates such as Peoria mayor Jim Ardis, who argues that the prohibition against concealed weapons violates rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Ardis:
"We deserve our 2nd Amendment right to carry as law-abiding citizens of the United States. I am confident that this ruling will permit us to continue our crime prevention efforts in Peoria with additional support from our citizens who want to carry to protect themselves, their families and their property."
In 2009, Ardis proposed that Peoria serve as a pilot city for a concealed carry law, saying it could answer whether gun ownership prevents crime.

Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard said he has been a long-time supporter of Ardis' pilot program, so long as the law is written correctly.

"Assuming the court ruling stands, the important thing now will be to ensure that the law is written so that concealed carry can be implemented safely and that the infrastructure can be built to provide any necessary training, testing, or other certifications," he wrote in an email response.

State lawmakers have 180 days to write a new law that legalizes concealed carry. Tazewell State's Attorney Stewart Umholtz said he doesn't want to comment on the issue until the document has been reviewed.

"I think it is important that people focus on both the fact that there is a right, and with every right there are awesome responsibilities for exercising those rights," he said. "I think too much of the discussion focuses on rights and not responsibilities."

But John Meek, owner of Midwest Firearms in East Peoria, said the right to bear arms is both constitutional and a personal necessity for him, as gun stores are normally targeted for theft. He and the other store employee both carry a Glock pistol for protection, he said.

"We have a right to protect ourselves as citizens, and it is highly unconstitutional to prevent," he said. "I am totally in favor of law-abiding citizens that want to carry guns." Source

6 comments:

Emerge Peoria said...

Interesting - this effort is going to enable citizens to offer "support" to the police:

"... permit us to continue our crime prevention efforts in Peoria with additional support from our citizens who want to carry to protect themselves, their families and their property."

Hmmm, is this a prelude to stand your ground? I guess it's cheaper than putting more cops on the street.

Greg Hansen said...

Don't run so fast. Wait til the state get's their 180 days behind them, so they don't discredit anything that happens beforehand

Eye in the Sky said...

For personal defense I would recomend the Tauras Judge in 45/410 with PDX-1 ammunition. This will be the gun I will be using for concealed carry. It's basicly a shotgun in pistol size. You can put a lot of lead downrange FAST. Would be very effective when dealing with large groups. You can check it out at BassPro you can only hold it if you have a FOID.

Anonymous said...

I have posted the following comments elsewhere. They seem appropriate to re-post here.


Concealed carry

The effects of concealed carry laws are inconsistent and in many cases downright ambiguous. With very few exceptions, the research on such laws indicates that, in some states, concealed carry laws have little or no overall effect on violent crime, while in other states some crime goes down and other crimes increase. Lott and Mustard’s oft-cited 1997 study showing deterrent effects of concealed carry has since been lacking in consistent support. For example, Plessman and Tideman in a 2001 Journal of Law and Economics study found that, while some states showed decreases in murder, robbery and rapes (FL, MT, & OR), other states (MS & VA) showed general increases in crime. Plessman and Tideman also reported that Idaho showed decreases in murders and robberies, but increases in rapes. Later, Hepburn, et al (2004), in the Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care found no effect on homicide (increase OR decrease) in states where CC laws were enacted between 1985 and 1995 compared to all other states. Similarly, Kovandzic and Marvell’s 2002 study of Florida’s CC law (a model for other states) found no effect on reducing or increasing violent crime.
In 2004 in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Stephen Levett analyzed why crime fell so precipitously in the 1990’s and found that neither gun control laws nor concealed carry laws accounted for the that decade’s crime decrease. What did seem to matter? Levitt cites four causes, among them increases in the number of police and in the prison population.

This brings me to my central point. Go ahead and pass a concealed carry law, but do it for the right reasons. I own several firearms and would be happy to carry if I could do so legally, and for my own reasons. But I don’t want the mayor and other politicians pushing for concealed carry, touting crime reduction, while at the same time cutting back one of the only research-supported factors known to affect violent crime, number of police. So far what the literature seems to be telling us is this: if you feel more secure carrying a concealed firearm, fine. Pass a law, get a gun and get trained on how to use it. If you want to *be* more secure, hire more police and send the bad guys to prison.

I withhold judgment on planned social change programs like Don’t Shoot. It remains to be seen whether programs like these will withstand peer-reviewed scientific inquiry as to their efficacy.

Eye in the Sky said...

"I withhold judgment on planned social change programs like Don’t Shoot. It remains to be seen whether programs like these will withstand peer-reviewed scientific inquiry as to their efficacy."

How will they be able to reveiw anything if all the meetings are CLOSED. We have no idea what they are telling these CRIMINALS. This will just disapear like ALL the other programs. You are correct on the more police on the street being the best way to get the bad guys. The saying that comes to mind is" When seconds count the police are minutes away." or in the case of Peoria they will get there eventually to take pictures of your dead body and gather shell casing.

Anonymous said...

Exactly Eye in th Sky-

One person says that the "gang members'" were shocked. Uhhhhh, huh? That's it? One person, a "community leader" is now a mind-reader and spokeperson for all criminals. Great. I guess the progam is working.