Concealed carry not the answer [to retired Treasury Agent]

The Southtown Daily's Letters to the Editor ^ | Thursday, January 10, 2002 | Joseph A. De Leon, a retired U.S. Treasury agent

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Concealed carry not the answer

Thursday, January 10, 2002

On Jan. 1, your Public Forum published a letter titled, "Illinois needs concealed-carry law." I would like to respond to that letter because the last thing Illinois or any other state needs is a concealed-carry law.

I realize that some misguided states have enacted conceal-carry laws to satisfy a minority of their citizens. Those states have ignored the right of the rest of their citizens, and visitors to their states, to go about their daily lives without being exposed to the potential danger of bullets fired by people carrying legally concealed firearms.

While I have seen no statistics showing that people are being accidentally shot daily by indiscriminate shooting from people carrying legally concealed firearms, I sincerely doubt that accidental shootings will not occur in the future. One has only to review news reports of the many people killed and injured each year by hunters legally carrying and discharging firearms during the hunting seasons to know that an intended target is not always a proper target, and it is not always the only thing shot. Those wanting concealed-carry laws should be assured that, no matter how well intentioned their actions, they can do more harm than good.

In addition, if they harm some innocent person they will no doubt be sued for every cent they have, or will ever have.

Legal carry proponents contend that crime statistics show a drop in crime in states authorizing legal carry. However, FBI statistics show that crime is down across the country. If concealed carry had even a small effect on crime prevention, I doubt that concealed carry is the answer to further drops in the crime rate. I am a retired U.S. Treasury agent, and I can tell you unequivocally that no law enforcement officer wants to rely on guns in the hands of the general public as a means of enforcing the laws of this country.

In addition, no law enforcement officer, uniformed or in plain clothes, while in the performance of his or her duty, would be happy to be confronted with a situation where a civilian either draws a gun, or is found to be carrying one for any reason. Despite the civilian's good intentions, such people would be in substantial peril.

Proponents of concealed carry say that there is no record of abuse of the right to carry concealed firearms, that an armed society is a polite society. To this I say, "Just wait. It is just a matter of time."

Just because a state has allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons, it has not automatically endowed them with good sense, or complacent tempers.

Lastly, if an armed society is a polite society, Afghanistan must be a country of very polite people. Just the type of society we need. Not!

Joseph A. De Leon
Orland 'Park

[Unbeliever]

This clown overlooks the fact that police are twice as likely to shoot the wrong person as law abiding citizens. Right now there is an investigation into the possibility that police may have killed one of the students at Colombine High School.

[Unbeliever]

Bump

[dasboot]

What do you mean? Do you think I'm an a--hole for promoting RKBA ; or am I an a--hole because you think I don't?

What gives?

[CIB-173RDABN]

Interestingly, with the exception of a Navy, the framers made absolutely no mention of arming any part of the federal government. How does the proliferation of armed federal agencies - to say nothing of the agencies themselves - meet the test of constitutionality ?

---

I don't know, I guess someone will have to ask the supreme court.

Personally, I don't believe the founding fathers would have a problem with an Army that was armed.

You mentioned the Navy, and then said "federal agencies" do you have any in mind?

[Travis McGee]

The kevlar stops at the belly button.

[LJLucido]

For your information there is a police issues bump list on Free Republic called donut watch.

Mmmmmmm. Donuts.........!

[PatrioticAmerican]

Of course...they ain't got no stones to protect!

[PatrioticAmerican]

How about NOAA? They have a SWAT team. Should they?

[TEXASPROUD]

Squantos, tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back.

[Dukie]

Exactly. The Congress is authorized to raise armies for the defense of the nation.

Federal agencies whose authorization to carry arms might be questioned include such as the US Forrest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, IRS, INS, EPA, etc.

[AAABEST]

Lol. I love when you nice people go on a rant. I'm LMAO right now. Hehe.

[AAABEST]

Thanks for the ping Travis, and quit posting that absurd damn picture. It's giving me day-mares and costing me a fortune in solvent and lubircating oil.

[hollywood]

Slow down with the straw-man stuff, partner. Let's turn the tables around on this dolt and tell him we DO want to help enforce the laws of OUR society. What makes an LEO more adept than you or I at spotting a carjacking in progress? Or a mugging? Or whatever? Quite frankly, I think we should start a movement to consider all law-abiding citizens as "deputies", with a responsibility to keep the peace. We should all be armed if we choose. Or am I to simply place a freakin' 911 call while someone I know (or don't know) is having their life threatened. Doesn't my idea fit in with the "citizen's arrest" concept, or do some consider this too vigilante for their delicate psyches? I know; how naive of me.

[Travis McGee]

One thing I know for sure, anything that comes over your wall should spend 20 minutes on the bottom of the pool before the cops get there.

"Officer, I have no idea how he got there."

[CIB-173RDABN]

Actually, I agree with you. But, we are now at the point where the consitution no longer means what it clearly says, but whatever the Supreme Court says it says.

[John Jorsett]

Law enforcement is for the trained and motivated. Since most big cities have Police Reserve programs, anyone wanting to help out in that way can join up and get the proper training. People who simply want to carry concealed aren't generally wanting to do so so that they can apprehend bad guys; they're wanting a means of making themselves safer.

[Squantos]

I'll be nice......sorry !

Stay Safe Friend !

[VRWC_Member428]

BAAAARRRRRRFFFFFF!!! Spit... spit... [flush].....

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!

[flush]

Proponents of concealed carry say that there is no record of abuse of the right to carry concealed firearms, that an armed society is a polite society. To this I say, "Just wait. It is just a matter of time."

How many criminals out there get concealed carry permits before going out to rob a store? How many rapists bother to get concealed carry licenses before they start raping women? Can this idiot answer these questions?

Finally, please remember to put BARF ALERTS on articles like these...

[dhuffman@awod.com]

You're right. I am sensitive to the need for 'barf alerts' on HRC posts, for instance, but didn't think of such a reaction to this one. My personal reaction was angry rather than upset. I'll try to remember.

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

[Dukie]

we are now at the point where the consitution no longer means what it clearly says, but whatever the Supreme Court says it says.

I think that about says it. Dr. Walter Williams suggested that unless the states, either individually or collectively start to force the issue of a return to constitutional federal government, by impounding revenues destined for the federal government, we are left with a situation remeniscent of 1775.