 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Police
and
Gun
Control
and
Gun
Control
Chicago continues to have more murders than any other U.S. city -- a
murder rate greater than any of the 10 largest cities in the country.
Only five states have a higher murder rate than Illinois. Yet Gov.
Blagojevich, who faces a large state budget deficit, threatens to veto a
bill letting retired police officers help patrol neighborhoods for free.
Illinois is one of only four states that do not trust retired police officers
to carry guns. In fact, Illinois is one of only four states that ban every
single citizen from carrying concealed handguns. The state Senate
wants to change this situation, if only for police. By an overwhelming
40-12 vote, the Illinois Senate last week passed such a bill, though it
still contained among the most stringent requirements anywhere. To
get a permit a person must:
*have 10 years of experience as a police officer or as a military police
officer
*have graduated from a police academy or training institute
*hold a valid firearm-owner's card.
But how can anyone oppose letting retired police carry guns? We trust
police when they are on the job. Research, including my own, shows
that police are the single most important factor for reducing crime. But
somehow, an officer we trusted for 10 years is no longer trusted the
day he retires.
Blagojevich's concern? He claims that adopting the bill will lead
''inexorably toward concealed carry laws'' for all Illinois residents.
Obviously, ''slippery slopes'' are not just the concerns of those who
want to keep guns.
Don't worry though. Illinois isn't going to become like its neighbors --
Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri or Iowa -- any time soon. Surely
not another Indiana, where any law-abiding citizen 18 or older who
passes a criminal background check and pays a $25 fee can carry a
concealed handgun. Some 311,000 Indianans have permits, and no
training is required.
One wonders how Blagojevich can sleep at night if he seriously worries
that requiring 10 years as a police officer and graduation from a police
academy is just a short step from letting anyone carry a concealed
handgun with just a criminal background check.
Blagojevich's initial threats to veto any concealed carry bill for police
changed this week to threatening a veto if military police veterans are
allowed to carry guns. It is hard to take this new concern seriously.
Besides the obvious safety record these military police have
demonstrated with guns, probably no more than a thousand military
veterans will even qualify to carry a concealed handgun, and it is safe
to assume that only a fraction of those would bother to apply. Illinois
has 1 million veterans, but only about 100,000 served for at least 10
years and fewer than 1 percent of soldiers would have served as
military police for that whole period.
Exactly what Blagojevich is worried about seems a bit of a mystery, and
his position on guns is changing daily. His flip-flops are not just limited
to allowing police to carry guns. Over the last week, Blagojevich first
supported lowering the age at which gun permits can be obtained,
down to 18. Then -- when gun control advocates got angry -- he said
he will support the bill only if a large number of semi-automatic
handguns, rifles and shotguns were also banned. Of course, this is
nothing new. As a congressman from Chicago, he had one of the most
consistent gun control records in congress, but he ran for governor
distributing camouflage-colored ''Hunters for Blagojevich'' bumper
stickers and promising that he would be sensitive to their views on
guns.
News reports quote gun-control advocates as saying Blagojevich is
purposefully trying to complicate the gun issue so much that nothing
passes, thus allowing Blagojevich ''to blame a do-nothing legislature
and claim to each side that he tried to champion their cause.''
All this is a dangerous game. Today even more than usual is at stake.
Post-Sept. 11, terrorist threats have greatly increased the demands
that states and cities cover all the possible vulnerable targets. The
federal government advises us to be observant and report strange
events to police. But there is not always time to call 911 and wait for
the cavalry to arrive. With 40,000 to 50,000 retired local, state and
federal law enforcement officers living in Illinois, this legislation could
help provide well-trained individuals who may already be at the scene.
Blagojevich may honestly believe that political stalemate serves his
interests, but murders and other violent crimes continue unabated.
Illinois neither allows retired police to serve as unpaid undercover cops
as they travel around town, nor does Illinois let citizens protect
themselves. When will Chicago and the rest of Illinois realize that when
you ban guns, it is the law-abiding citizens, such as these retired cops,
not the criminals, who obey the law?
murder rate greater than any of the 10 largest cities in the country.
Only five states have a higher murder rate than Illinois. Yet Gov.
Blagojevich, who faces a large state budget deficit, threatens to veto a
bill letting retired police officers help patrol neighborhoods for free.
Illinois is one of only four states that do not trust retired police officers
to carry guns. In fact, Illinois is one of only four states that ban every
single citizen from carrying concealed handguns. The state Senate
wants to change this situation, if only for police. By an overwhelming
40-12 vote, the Illinois Senate last week passed such a bill, though it
still contained among the most stringent requirements anywhere. To
get a permit a person must:
*have 10 years of experience as a police officer or as a military police
officer
*have graduated from a police academy or training institute
*hold a valid firearm-owner's card.
But how can anyone oppose letting retired police carry guns? We trust
police when they are on the job. Research, including my own, shows
that police are the single most important factor for reducing crime. But
somehow, an officer we trusted for 10 years is no longer trusted the
day he retires.
Blagojevich's concern? He claims that adopting the bill will lead
''inexorably toward concealed carry laws'' for all Illinois residents.
Obviously, ''slippery slopes'' are not just the concerns of those who
want to keep guns.
Don't worry though. Illinois isn't going to become like its neighbors --
Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri or Iowa -- any time soon. Surely
not another Indiana, where any law-abiding citizen 18 or older who
passes a criminal background check and pays a $25 fee can carry a
concealed handgun. Some 311,000 Indianans have permits, and no
training is required.
One wonders how Blagojevich can sleep at night if he seriously worries
that requiring 10 years as a police officer and graduation from a police
academy is just a short step from letting anyone carry a concealed
handgun with just a criminal background check.
Blagojevich's initial threats to veto any concealed carry bill for police
changed this week to threatening a veto if military police veterans are
allowed to carry guns. It is hard to take this new concern seriously.
Besides the obvious safety record these military police have
demonstrated with guns, probably no more than a thousand military
veterans will even qualify to carry a concealed handgun, and it is safe
to assume that only a fraction of those would bother to apply. Illinois
has 1 million veterans, but only about 100,000 served for at least 10
years and fewer than 1 percent of soldiers would have served as
military police for that whole period.
Exactly what Blagojevich is worried about seems a bit of a mystery, and
his position on guns is changing daily. His flip-flops are not just limited
to allowing police to carry guns. Over the last week, Blagojevich first
supported lowering the age at which gun permits can be obtained,
down to 18. Then -- when gun control advocates got angry -- he said
he will support the bill only if a large number of semi-automatic
handguns, rifles and shotguns were also banned. Of course, this is
nothing new. As a congressman from Chicago, he had one of the most
consistent gun control records in congress, but he ran for governor
distributing camouflage-colored ''Hunters for Blagojevich'' bumper
stickers and promising that he would be sensitive to their views on
guns.
News reports quote gun-control advocates as saying Blagojevich is
purposefully trying to complicate the gun issue so much that nothing
passes, thus allowing Blagojevich ''to blame a do-nothing legislature
and claim to each side that he tried to champion their cause.''
All this is a dangerous game. Today even more than usual is at stake.
Post-Sept. 11, terrorist threats have greatly increased the demands
that states and cities cover all the possible vulnerable targets. The
federal government advises us to be observant and report strange
events to police. But there is not always time to call 911 and wait for
the cavalry to arrive. With 40,000 to 50,000 retired local, state and
federal law enforcement officers living in Illinois, this legislation could
help provide well-trained individuals who may already be at the scene.
Blagojevich may honestly believe that political stalemate serves his
interests, but murders and other violent crimes continue unabated.
Illinois neither allows retired police to serve as unpaid undercover cops
as they travel around town, nor does Illinois let citizens protect
themselves. When will Chicago and the rest of Illinois realize that when
you ban guns, it is the law-abiding citizens, such as these retired cops,
not the criminals, who obey the law?
| Article published Sunday, April 4, 2004, at Chicago Sun-Times. How can anyone oppose letting retired police carry guns? By John R. Lott Jr. |
Not that long ago, if you saw a man or woman walking all alone, waving
their arms, and talking to someone who obviously wasn't there, you'd
think that person was crazy. Today, the sight is more than common. As
long as that cell phone clipped to his or her ear isn't concealed by hair or
head wear, you can quickly distinguish the crazies from the rest of
us…well, maybe. As technology progresses, that cell phone will fit
inside the ear, and the crazies will simply blend in with the rest of us.
It's all about technology, economics, and people. The advocates of gun
control would have you believe that outlawing guns, or even types of
guns, will make us all safer. Personally, I hate cell phones. The ring
tones irritate me, and I find they make normally rude people even
ruder. On the other hand, my concealed handgun doesn't bother
anyone, because no one knows it's there. I have the comfort of
knowing that I'll have the means to defend myself if a real crazy whips
out a gun and starts shooting people.
Of course, the gun controllers would have you believe that their view of
a gun free world, consisting of denying anyone the right to concealed
carry permits and even simple gun possession of any kind, would end
gun violence. However, one must admit that gun control laws are very
effective in ensuring that police, criminals, and crazies remain the most
well armed people in the country. As for police, most gun control
advocates view the arming of police officers as just a necessary evil. It
wasn't that long ago when those same people were appalled when police
departments left the six shot revolver to history, and they began arming
their officers with higher ammunition capacity semi-automatic pistols.
Here's the truth of the matter. Just as I hate cell phones, many people
hate guns. You say, "Apples and oranges." Sure, but people compare
apples and oranges all the time. Just because I don't like the way other
people use cell phones doesn't mean I don't use one. I carry a cell
phone by the same philosophy I carry my gun…I'll only use it when I
need it. If I see a man gunning down people, and I'm not within his line
of fire, I can use my cell phone to call 911. On the other hand, if that
gunman is bearing down on me, and I have a choice between my cell
phone and my gun, I'll choose the gun.
I think gun control advocates are scared to death that without their
efforts, everybody is going to be running around armed and dangerous.
That simply isn't the way things work. While anything can happen at
anytime and anywhere, there are locations and situations much safer
than others……and obviously so. Most people live in the present and
the future. Few look at history and realize that the world has always
been a dangerous place, and it will always continue to be dangerous.
When it comes to concealed carry permits, all the permit holders need
to understand is that if they use their guns under any circumstances
other than the defense of their own lives, they'll experience the reality
of "lawyer" mob violence.
There's a reason why you go through a background check before you
become a police officer. If, by the age of 21, you haven't engaged in
criminal conduct, it's unlikely that you will in the future. Of course,
everything isn't perfect. Too many police departments have liberalized
their views toward past drug use and other "minor" criminal conduct.
So…now you have situations wherein a person with past criminal
behavior can be hired as a police officer while a person with no past
criminal behavior will be denied a concealed carry permit. It doesn't
make a lot of sense, but then, most liberal views don't.
As a police officer, you shouldn't lose any sleep over gun control. You'll
soon learn how rarely criminals are prosecuted for violating gun laws.
When a criminal is prosecuted for a gun violation, it will likely be the
only charge. Even upon conviction, the sentence rarely amounts to
much. When the gun violation is only one of several charges, that gun
charge is usually a throw away card for the prosecution during the deal
making process.
As a police officer, the only kind of gun control that you should care
about is your personal control of your own weapon. Technology is a
wonderful thing. The higher capacity of the semi-automatic pistol
makes the stressful reloading process extremely easier and better
yet…less likely. But…the real advance for your safety has been in
holster technology. In the days of the revolver, the holsters were
terrible. The gun was secured in the holster by a simple leather strap
over the hammer. In those days, there was an unmistakable sound that
you always dreaded hearing. When you got into a physical struggle with
a suspect, you often heard that sound. It didn't matter what kind of
ground you were standing on, for you always recognized the sound of
your revolver hitting the ground. Now you had to worry about
controlling your suspect and look for your gun at the same time.
No…you'll have plenty of real gun control issues to keep your mind
occupied. Fortunately, there are a lot of intelligent and reasonable
people out there to fight the public gun control fight. True, you see a lot
of police chiefs supporting gun control advocates, but most police chiefs
are politicians first and police second.
their arms, and talking to someone who obviously wasn't there, you'd
think that person was crazy. Today, the sight is more than common. As
long as that cell phone clipped to his or her ear isn't concealed by hair or
head wear, you can quickly distinguish the crazies from the rest of
us…well, maybe. As technology progresses, that cell phone will fit
inside the ear, and the crazies will simply blend in with the rest of us.
It's all about technology, economics, and people. The advocates of gun
control would have you believe that outlawing guns, or even types of
guns, will make us all safer. Personally, I hate cell phones. The ring
tones irritate me, and I find they make normally rude people even
ruder. On the other hand, my concealed handgun doesn't bother
anyone, because no one knows it's there. I have the comfort of
knowing that I'll have the means to defend myself if a real crazy whips
out a gun and starts shooting people.
Of course, the gun controllers would have you believe that their view of
a gun free world, consisting of denying anyone the right to concealed
carry permits and even simple gun possession of any kind, would end
gun violence. However, one must admit that gun control laws are very
effective in ensuring that police, criminals, and crazies remain the most
well armed people in the country. As for police, most gun control
advocates view the arming of police officers as just a necessary evil. It
wasn't that long ago when those same people were appalled when police
departments left the six shot revolver to history, and they began arming
their officers with higher ammunition capacity semi-automatic pistols.
Here's the truth of the matter. Just as I hate cell phones, many people
hate guns. You say, "Apples and oranges." Sure, but people compare
apples and oranges all the time. Just because I don't like the way other
people use cell phones doesn't mean I don't use one. I carry a cell
phone by the same philosophy I carry my gun…I'll only use it when I
need it. If I see a man gunning down people, and I'm not within his line
of fire, I can use my cell phone to call 911. On the other hand, if that
gunman is bearing down on me, and I have a choice between my cell
phone and my gun, I'll choose the gun.
I think gun control advocates are scared to death that without their
efforts, everybody is going to be running around armed and dangerous.
That simply isn't the way things work. While anything can happen at
anytime and anywhere, there are locations and situations much safer
than others……and obviously so. Most people live in the present and
the future. Few look at history and realize that the world has always
been a dangerous place, and it will always continue to be dangerous.
When it comes to concealed carry permits, all the permit holders need
to understand is that if they use their guns under any circumstances
other than the defense of their own lives, they'll experience the reality
of "lawyer" mob violence.
There's a reason why you go through a background check before you
become a police officer. If, by the age of 21, you haven't engaged in
criminal conduct, it's unlikely that you will in the future. Of course,
everything isn't perfect. Too many police departments have liberalized
their views toward past drug use and other "minor" criminal conduct.
So…now you have situations wherein a person with past criminal
behavior can be hired as a police officer while a person with no past
criminal behavior will be denied a concealed carry permit. It doesn't
make a lot of sense, but then, most liberal views don't.
As a police officer, you shouldn't lose any sleep over gun control. You'll
soon learn how rarely criminals are prosecuted for violating gun laws.
When a criminal is prosecuted for a gun violation, it will likely be the
only charge. Even upon conviction, the sentence rarely amounts to
much. When the gun violation is only one of several charges, that gun
charge is usually a throw away card for the prosecution during the deal
making process.
As a police officer, the only kind of gun control that you should care
about is your personal control of your own weapon. Technology is a
wonderful thing. The higher capacity of the semi-automatic pistol
makes the stressful reloading process extremely easier and better
yet…less likely. But…the real advance for your safety has been in
holster technology. In the days of the revolver, the holsters were
terrible. The gun was secured in the holster by a simple leather strap
over the hammer. In those days, there was an unmistakable sound that
you always dreaded hearing. When you got into a physical struggle with
a suspect, you often heard that sound. It didn't matter what kind of
ground you were standing on, for you always recognized the sound of
your revolver hitting the ground. Now you had to worry about
controlling your suspect and look for your gun at the same time.
No…you'll have plenty of real gun control issues to keep your mind
occupied. Fortunately, there are a lot of intelligent and reasonable
people out there to fight the public gun control fight. True, you see a lot
of police chiefs supporting gun control advocates, but most police chiefs
are politicians first and police second.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2008 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |