LJWorld.com weblogs Stop Me If You've Heard This One
Posted
by Roedapple
February 4, 2010 at 8:37 a.m.
Concealed Carry: Still Waiting For Those Wild West Shootouts!
onceuponatime2.jpg
In the early 1990's, when the push began in most states to allow citizens to be allowed to carry concealed weapons, those who opposed were fearful of a new wave of bloodbaths in the streets if this were to happen. To nearly everyone's surprise, except for those who were behind the effort, and with only two states still not offering any sort of private concealed carry, violent crime statistics per capita have slowed and in some cases reversed. Proponents of CCW point to the increase in concealed carry as the major reason, while others will say it is because of increased law enforcement, public awareness and general trends.
2006.gif
I think that anyone who has had a proper background check, attended classes and has been tested on knowledge and proficiency, and is willing to shoulder the great responsibility of being armed, should be able to do so. After taking the class myself, scoring near perfect scores on the written exam and very high marks on shooting ability, I chose not to follow through and get the CCW permit for myself. I made a no-nonsense judgment on my personal situation and determined there wasn't sufficient need for me to carry. Kansas being an "open carry" state, that will cover most any scenario where I would see myself armed. I see CCW as a personal choice each individual has to make for him or herself. Many law enforcement agencies have been quoted as being for or against private concealed carry, but in many of those cases the local sheriff or police chief were speaking for their officers based on their own preferences.
http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e...
So what are your thoughts on concealed carry, pro or con? Do you see any scenario where you might think it would be a good plan? I have heard it said by some they would rather risk dying themselves than be responsible for taking the life of another. How do you respond to that? Should your own self protection extend to family members, total strangers and personal property?
(images from web sources)
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Sound off: Are stop signs in grocery store parking lots legally enforceable? February 12, 2012 · 11 comments
- Public financing is a must February 12, 2012 · 19 comments
- Not broken February 12, 2012 · 9 comments
- Go Green: Tips for observing snowy owls and other wildlife February 6, 2012 · 5 comments
- Flory dairy farm selling equipment, taking on different work after 60 years February 12, 2012 · 5 comments
- Kansas Senate leader rejects bill to allow guns on college campuses February 10, 2012 · 112 comments
- On the street: Do you ever watch or listen to public broadcasting? February 10, 2012 · 66 comments
- Blog: Hcg Hormone Intakes For Quick Weight Loss February 11, 2012 · 3 comments
- Sound Off: I heard that postage went up recently. Are the “forever” stamps that were purchased in 20 February 11, 2012 · 56 comments
- On the street: What does ‘feminism’ mean today? February 8, 2012 · 95 comments
- Flory dairy farm selling equipment, taking on different work after 60 years February 12, 2012
- 80-year-old Utah man hurt in accident, car fire on I-70 February 12, 2012
- Bill Self: Celebration of ’52 title team ‘cool’ February 12, 2012
- Chamber of Commerce names interim vice president of economic development February 9, 2012
- Not broken February 12, 2012
- KU trying to get more Missouri students to enroll at Edwards Campus February 12, 2012
- Whole lotta love: Clyde Lovellette gushes over Jayhawks February 12, 2012
- KU big man gets votes of confidence February 12, 2012
- Budding artist December 22, 2011
- Behind the Lens: Incorrect shutter speeds cause blurry photos February 12, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
Thank you everyone who posted and pm'd on the Trophy Hunting blog. Some I agreed with, some not, but I value all opinions expressed.
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…
i have a friend who lives in detroit and she and her husband both carry! kind of scary but i guess, given her surrounding, maybe its kinda sorta warranted. it still is a bit weird to me to think of this mom of 3 kids driving her kid to activities and sporting events and all the while, packing heat! :/
autie (anonymous) says…
Oh jee, I don't Roe. I carry that sawed down 870 on a sling openly, so no permit needed. Everybody generally leaves me alone.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
Do I need a permit for my meat thermometer?
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
I feel safe in my surroundings 99.9% of the time, and don't feel the need to carry a gun for that .01%. And I am not convinced that carrying a gun would make a difference in the situation where my life would be in danger. And when I see someone carry a gun, I am not sure if they are carrying it to protect themselves or going to use against someone. It's a little disconcerting, because we don't live in an area where violence is more prevalent.
More power to those who feel they can handle the responsibility.Just my honest opinion.
As far as my house goes, I have a loaded baseball bat, and an ankle biter/house alarm. When i was growing up, in the era of BTK, both of my parents had shotguns in their homes, and as a 9 year old, was told where it was, but not to touch it. I never did.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
m_o_t,
How often do you see someone carrying a concealed weapon?
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
Good post, Roe
"And when I see someone carry a gun, I am not sure if they are carrying it to protect themselves or going to use against someone. "
Where do you hang out that you see people carrying guns?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Concealed carry means that you won't see a firearm.
autie (anonymous) says…
That's just great. Now I'll have to figure a way to make a nice, neat holster for my meat thermometer.
Have thermometer.
Will travel.
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
It doesn't matter if you have a license or not. If you get into a situation that you decide calls for shooting someone, you may still get your chance to explain to twelve jury members a good reason why you did, instead of the one above or below why you didn't.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"I think that anyone who has had a proper background check, attended classes and has been tested on knowledge and proficiency, and is willing to shoulder the great responsibility of being armed, should be able to do so."
___________________________________________________
And there's your biggest problem: common sense!
Guns are a very polarizing issue, and the logical approach you nicely summarized above will boil the blood of:
A) Extremists on one side of the issue, who think there are too many guns, period.
and
B) Extremists on the other side of the issue, who seem to think that full-automatic military assault rifles, RPGs, and tanks should have no more purchasing and ownership restrictions on them than Barbie dolls, cowboy boots, or deli-sliced provolone cheese.
It's worth noting, however, that even though your so-called "Wild West Shootouts" haven't become commonplace... during this same time period--let's say "since 1995"--there has been no shortage of mass killings, shooting sprees, and sniper attacks. To name just a few:
* Columbine
* Paducah, Kentucky
* The Beltway Sniper
* Virginia Tech
* Fort Hood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_s...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_ki...
Concealed carry didn't cause any of these things--but neither was it a help to anyone caught in these situations, as I recall... except for Fort Hood, I think.
I still believe it's time to re-amend the Second Amendmen. This is the best idea I've seen yett:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constto...
I still think GCA 1968 needs to be fully implemented, and adhered to. Gun-rights advocates often say, "We don't need more laws--we just need to enforce the laws we already have!" This has been around more than 40 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Cont...
I think the current background check and waiting period are slow, and mostly worthless. Virgina Tech is one glaring example of this.
[more]
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Think about it: If I go into Best Buy right now and plunk down my Visa card to buy a $2,000 plasma TV, that retail clerk is going to swipe my card. My bank or credit card company will be informed how much money/credit I want to spend... they'll look at how much money/credit I have access to ... how well I've been keeping up with my recent payments... how likely I am to "default" on this big purchase I'm about to make. Several other factors will probably be considered... and then the clerk will be informed whether or not I can take the TV home.
This doesn't take a week--this takes a few seconds.
Similar financial "background checks" happen millions of times every *hour* at shoe stores, gas pumps, restaurants, and even hospitals.
None of my personal information is shared. The clerks and sales people never find out my bank balance, payment history, or credit score. There merely receive either a "yes" or a "no."
This kind of system has been around for about 20 years, maybe a little longer.
Why can't we have a similar system in place... that in a matter of seconds, or minutes, will allow a gun retailer to "check" a person's criminal and medical records, and get back a "yes" or "no" on that Glock 19 or Walther P22? Perhaps a voluntary system, at least, for gun enthusiasts and collectors who might make several purchases and trades a year?
I don't feel like I'm being an extremist here. I'm trying to take a logical approach to this... a path that will give the most freedom to people willing to take responsibility for it, and minimizing the risk to innocent people by restricting access to dangerous weapons, from those who pose a serious security risk.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…
i think if i lived out in the country i would want a gun. for pretty much all of the reasons tom listed-- i have thought about that before when someone posed the "wouldn't you like to live out in the middle of nowhere" question.
concealed tho? i don't know... jury's still out on that one... there are just too many variables that come up in different case scenarios.
BorderRuffian (anonymous) says…
I'd rather have the right, if I so choose, to take the training and obtain the right to carry a concealed weapon, should the need arise, than simply be given a blanket denial of that right. The right to choose one's defence - whether running and hiding or arming one's self with a stick or concealed firearm - ought to be up to the individual. I know law enforcement generally hates the idea of armed citizens. That takes some of the power of control law enforcement officers like to have over everyone. But if the situation warrants, the citizen ought to have the right to protect him/herself, particularly since few citizens are fortunate enough to have an armed police escort wherever they go.
I agree with Roe in that there ought to be a considerable amount of self-reflection before one actually goes out armed. The responsibility is enormous, and there is often the temptation to take one's stand when other avenues of retreat should be carefully considered before the decision is made that the only recourse is to take a person's life.
Ultimately, the decision ought to be ours. though, and the recourse to use deadly force, if that is our only way out, should be available to any responsible, law-abiding, trained, non-felon citizen.
I for one have been glad to see that, with more and more citizens excercising their right to carry, there have not been OK Coral style gunfights, and very few criminal shootings as a result. The cowboy fever apparently has not infected the armed masses, and in fact, it seems crime has actually gone down. Isn't it amazing that criminals are less willing to commit violent acts when there is the possibility that their victim might be armed?
Of course, there may be some here who themselves violently object to armed citizens taking away from oppresed, disadvantaged, impoverished members of our fine society the opportunity to express their Second Amendment rights to self-expression by committing violent acts upon others. But then, that's Larryville.
autie (anonymous) says…
Nobody likes to shoot people. Nobody. The other shooters hurt you, sometimes very badly. First you shoot people because your father wants you to. Then you shoot people to get the girls. If you keep on shooting people, you do it for the scholarships and to get the girls. Then you shoot people for money and the girls. Then you get to just watch others shoot people, and that's fun. But nobody like to shoot people. Nobody.
infidel (anonymous) says…
I took my class because a friend wanted me to go along, and received my my concealed carry mostly because I carry a weapon in my vehicle. I have carried a few times in town however it is not because of some preconceived notion that I will be attacked, it is because I can.
What I find most annoying is the places I can not carry a firearm are the places that a mass shooting are more likely to occur, Ie; schools, university's, church's, military installations and bars.
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…
well said, border ruff.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
RI: "Do I need a permit for my meat thermometer?"
No. You are free to, um, "conceal" and carry.
I favor the C&C laws, and the thing I like about them is that they require someone to get at least some training on the proper use and handling of a firearm, something I believe should be required of all gun owners. Out here in AZ, where our economy has completely tanked and the state is looking at a huge deficit for the coming years, our Republican legislators are busy proposing laws that would allow anyone to conceal and carry at any time (no training, no permit) -- despite the local law enforcement agencies being strongly against the plan. Talk about having your priorities out of whack.
So, mark this radical liberal down as being pro C&C. Further, if we required C&C type training of all gun owners, then I'd be in favor of lifting most of the restrictions on where and when people can carry. It is not the trained C&C people who concern me when it comes to guns in this country.
I don't believe C&C can be looked upon as the only reason for lower crime rates. What has happened to crime statistics in those places that don't allow C&C? Have they remained at the same levels or have they dropped too? If anything, I can imagine criminals being quicker to shoot victims out of fear that they might be carrying. That, however, is just my imagination. I have no idea if there are cases of this actually happening.
Not sure where Tom lives, but it sounds like a rough neighborhood. He should consider moving, especially with the big, big money he regularly tells us Mrs. Tom brings home. They can afford it.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"... that in a matter of seconds, or minutes, will allow a gun retailer to “check” a person's criminal and medical records..."
There's a law called HIPAA that stands in the way of that business.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
I like my taurus judge but I don't carry it all the time.
that is why god invented the 1911
Mariposa (anonymous) says…
The London Times has a very interesting article on how scientists are playing gunfighter with toy guns to learn about how reflex works in an effort to find a cure for Parkinson's disease.
In essence they found that the person who draws first loses because a reflexive action is faster than a planned one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
"Concealed carry didn't cause any of these things—but neither was it a help to anyone caught in these situations, as I recall… except for Fort Hood, I think."
Each of your examples were places that specifically prohibits guns. Columbine and Paducah, both public schools, allowed no weapons. The Beltway Sniper committed his killing spree in D.C. which has the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation. Virginia Tech had a no weapons policy. The Fort Hood massacre occurred in an area of the base where weapons were prohibited. Had there been only one lawfully concealed weapon licensee at any of those locations, the murders may have been stopped.
"Why can't we have a similar system in place… that in a matter of seconds, or minutes, will allow a gun retailer to “check” a person's criminal and medical records, and get back a “yes” or “no” on that Glock 19 or Walther P22? Perhaps a voluntary system, at least, for gun enthusiasts and collectors who might make several purchases and trades a year?"
Ag - I may be reading this wrong. With the exception of the medical check this is already mandated for any Federal Firearms Licensee to individual transfer. An NCIS check is performed by the FBI and a proceed or deny is given.
However, if the system were voluntary, meaning a person would not have to comply, then it would allow criminals, that are currently prevented by the system, to obtain a weapon through retail outlets.
Finally, the gun enthusiast, that makes several trades a year should not be the focus of background checks; in fact, it would save time and money to allow them an exemption. That is time and money that could better be used to prevent actual criminals from obtaining weapons.
Mariposa (anonymous) says…
Autie, really funny post. I am printing it out to put on the fridge and e-mailing it to friends and family.
Shooting people because your father wants you to! I am trying to think of who my Dad would want me to shoot.
Besides, Mom.
:-)
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
concealed carry means you are not supposed to see it, but that doesn't mean that people can't tell or that people hide it very well. Also, as Roe pointed out, Kansas is also an "open carry" state.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
you know, it's easier to conceal in the winter than in the summer, and in the summer, its a little harder to hide if you are carrying it on your person. And not everyone is very good at it, for whatever reason.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Course some people just keep it in their vehicle, which is perfectly fine for me. I still just don't understand the need. I know the reasons,but its strange to me how some people think they need it and their neighbors, in the same district, neighborhood, friends, etc., feel that they don't.
lindseydoyle (anonymous) says…
What's wrong with open carry? I remember George Kimball who ran for sheriff in 1970 with his long hair, cowboy boots and cowboy hat with six-shooters at his side. He came close to beating Rex Johnson, too. And re meat thermometers: you can have my meat thermometer when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
Boarder says "I know law enforcement generally hates the idea of armed citizens." Really? I know an officer who encourages citizens to be armed. Makes his job much easier to solve a break in. :) He not only encouraged me personally to have a firearm in our home, but also said that the most important thing to remember is that if I were ever shot, to not give up and assume that I'm dead. He said to keep fighting no matter what, *most* gunshot wounds are only lethal in the movies.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Tom, so you are saying you are an isolationist, huh?
No, just kidding. If I lived in the "sticks" near hillbilly neighbors and experienced problems of theft from meth heads, even I might agree to having a gun in the house at that point. However, I live in a big city with lots of people everywhere, so it is safer and thus we don't need one.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Remember the tailgate theft ring?
That was just plain weird.
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…
^^^ not only do i remember it, i participated in it! :D
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
http://www.ksag.org/files/2009_Annual...
As of 01/01/2010, there have been 25,693 applications for concealed carry permits in Kansas since 07/01/2006, when applications began being accepted.Of these, 23,748 have been approved. 237 were denied, 85 revoked, 25 suspended, 83 surrendered, 9 applications withdrawn, 3 approvals withdrawn and 1500 being processed.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Okay, I guess I'm behind the times on this issue. I was under the impression that there was a mandatory seven-day waiting period until the purchase could be made. Perhaps technology has outmoded that...?
This idea of having a sort of "gun check database" that has criminal and/or medical information is something I've brought up in the past, and it's always been shouted down by foiks worried about their privacy; surprisingly, that hasn't happened today (yet). So when I referred to a "voluntary" system, I was envisioning something a system that people could voluntarily submit information to, sign a release form etc. that would allow them to forego the waiting period.
Did_I_say_that: Yes, I understand that those are places where guns typically aren't allowed. And you're absolutely correct when you say "may have been stopped." Seems like there are always (and I'm not saying this is necessarily you) "superheroes" in the wake of these incidents... "If *only* I had been there with my gun... I might've saved everyone!" Yeah, you might've also gotten a case of "yellow heels" or "full britches," as my mom used to say. You may also have gotten yourself hurt, or worse, shot up a couple of innocent bystanders in the ensuing crossfire.
We can minimize risks... but there are no guarantees.
Overall, I err on the side of "2A" with reasonable restrictions. I'd like to think that that medical/mental health side of things has been significantly tightened up, after the State of Virgina bungled things so badly.
--Ag
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
Ag -
Regarding releasing medical info... Snap had the right answer. HIPPA trumps all. However, if one consented to releasing medical info, then the info could be released. However, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind releasing their health history. I trust the healthcare industry to keep that info confidential, but I would never release that info to the government. I would hate for that info to be available to the death panels.
/Adjusts tin-foil hat.
//Guzzles a bottle of Night Train
///Cleans semi-auto rifle.
////As I warm up a MRE.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
TOB, enjoy that MRE. Be glad you don't have a can of ham & lima beans from a C-Rat package.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
Lima beans make me want to puke blood. Black blood.
MyName (anonymous) says…
I really don't have much of an opinion on CWC as it seems like the sort of people who apply for the permits aren't the people you worry about: namely morons who shouldn't be allowed near a gun under any circumstances.
There's still not a legal filter out there for those kinds of people, however.
gl0ck0wn3r (anonymous) says…
I got my license several years ago and I carry virtually every day. I've yet to have a problem and it's been a positive experience.
JimMacklin (anonymous) says…
The Kansas, and most states, CCH/CCW law requires the applicant to waive medical/mental privacy protection laws. AS for purchasing a gun, teh Brady Law requires all Federally licensed dealers make a call to teh FBI for a background check.
I worked for nearly 30 years to get CCH in Kansas. In the 3 years I have been licensed I havwe carried my gun about 20,000 hours. I don't go places where I expect trouble, I don't go to those pl;aces.
I carry a gun because I can never be sure that danger won't come to my "safe places" and I'd prefer to be able to do more than hide under a desk.
If teh soldiers at Ft. Hood had been allowed to be armed with the same standards as 25,000 Kansans are now, it would not have been 4 minutes before someone fired back at the Ft. Hood shooter. Lives are saved when guns are in the hands of good people.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
Good work, Jim.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
Thank you JimMacklin, for you post, your hard work and your devotion to this issue. "Carry On" (pun intended)
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
I have a license and also want to thank Jim.
I don't carry very often but I am glad I can especially since I now work at night.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Thanks, Jim.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
Good blog Roe, and good posts. I do not yet have my CC license, but I plan on getting one. I doubt I will ever carry my glock on my person....it is too big to properly conceal. I would like to be able to keep it in the car for those instances when I make a wrong turn and find myself in the wrong side of town (especially in KCK and KCMO).
Agnostik- Everytime I have bought a firearm, I have filled out the form and had an answer within 15 minutes.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…
"Carry On”
Good one.
Thanks Jim.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
A lot of good ideas being sent my way for future blogs! Watch for "What Is The Best Concealed Weapon?" in the not too distant future!
Satirical (anonymous) says…
I don't think I would ever apply for a concealed carry permit, but I wouldn't want to deny that right to others who legitimately feel it is necessary for their protection or peace of mind in some instances.
Statistics show that most of the time when a gun is used as a deterrent to crime it is never fired. This is a good approach by gun users, and proof that more guns don't always equal more violence and death.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Good post RoeD. Not sure if CC makes a city or state "safer", that's a hard fact to prove, but there is a definite link between crime ridden cities and strict anti-firearm laws.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Sati: "Statistics show that most of the time when a gun is used as a deterrent to crime it is never fired. This is a good approach by gun users, and proof that more guns don't always equal more violence and death."
Statistics will also show that most of the time when guns are used in the committing of a crime they are never fired. That isn't proof against violence and death. There are more guns in the U.S. than in other industrialized nations, and there are more deaths by guns here, too. A lot more. That is proof that more guns actually do mean more violence and death. Those numbers don't lie. So lets not get too carried away with the warm and fuzzy wonderfulness of guns here.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
bea, more guns = more gun deaths is kind of a logical conclusion. Interesting to note that stricter gun laws do NOT equate in fewer gun deaths. I don't know gun laws in Brazil (#2), but Mexico (#3) has strict anti gun laws & their gun-related death was 12.69 per 100,000, while the US was at 14.24. Japan in last place (strict anti gun laws too) at .05 per 100,000.
Maybe it's the effectiveness with which they are enforced?
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
lol....I said "Japan in LAST place" with the fewest gun deaths. Maybe that should be first place?
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
Even so, 635.5 deaths per year seems rather high where personal gun ownership in your home is so heavily restricted. Assuming only a tiny fraction of guns in the general population of Japan are ever used in the commission of a crime, how many illegal guns are there in Japan? 100,000? 1,000,000?....
127,036,000 (approx. pop. of Japan)?... of course not...
Also, are the reported crimes solely against others or are some the crime of using a gun to defend oneself against an attacker?
Anyone have statistics to show what sort of gun crimes are committed in Japan?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
People defending themselves against giant robots?
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
Well done Jim. I don't like the idea of having to get permission from the state to carry a weapon. But I went ahead and did it anyway just to save myself the headache if I ever actually had to use it.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
On Japanese gun control...
http://www.conservapedia.com/Gun_Cont...
Interesting reading...
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Beatrice…
Haven't talked to you in a while, good to hear from you. You are one of the few people on here who knows how to disagree respectfully.
---------------------
“Statistics will also show that most of the time when guns are used in the committing of a crime they are never fired. That isn't proof against violence and death.” - beatrice
Umm…if the gun is never fired, and there is no violence in the crime, and no one dies…doesn’t that mean there was no violence and death? Perhaps you thought I meant "criminal violence."
---------------------
“There are more guns in the U.S. than in other industrialized nations, and there are more deaths by guns here, too. A lot more. That is proof that more guns actually do mean more violence and death.” - beatrice
No, (if true) it proves more guns = more gun violence and gun death; NOT more guns = more violence and death (which is what you needed to establish in order to counter my argument)
You should look up the statistics of violent crimes (unrelated to guns) in the developed nations. There isn’t a significant difference between the U.S., which allows more guns, and other developed nations.
--------------------
Also, I don’t think “guns” are wonderful, but I do think it is wonderful citizens have a right to protect themselves with guns.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
That was interesting. So, it's more social attitudes of the Japanese than anything else.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
@ davy - Actually, the increase in gun sales can be more directly linked to the last Presidential campaign and election. Although there is no exact information on sales, there is records of background (NCIS) checks:
http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2009...
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
I like the idea of good citizens having concealed weapons. I'd like to see more.
I'd also like to see a push for more good citizens owning semi automatic military style rifles. You can pick up an SKS for as little as $200-$250 and 1000rds of ammo for around $250. That is a $500 investment in liberty. Most people can afford this. If you need cheaper check out the Mosin Nagant rifle. It is a bolt gun but you can't beat the price. I got one for $120. The ammo is also cheap, I think it was 640rds for around $100. On the more expensive side if you have the means pick up a old M1 Garand from the CMP or a new M1A from Springfield.
Most people enjoy learning how to shoot a rifle. So you can have fun and be a protector of freedom at the same time. There is a series of shooting clinics designed for the beginner going on around the country including a few here in Kansas. If you're interested check out http://appleseedinfo.org/
autie (anonymous) says…
I thought concealed carry meant hand grenades. damn it.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
This is one of the better discussions I've seen on this blog in a while. Well done folks.
Guns are like condoms: best to have one and not need it, than need one and not have it. It's instructive to follow the violent crime rates in countries following the ban of gun ownership. Their citizens have learned that when seconds count, the police are usually only minutes away.
I'm presently residing in Kabul, Afghanistan where I travel the streets almost daily visiting this or that ministry or agency all day. Nearly everyone of the 4-6 million residents own several and routinely carry at least one weapon. Given over 30 years of constant warfare, there's at least one assault rife per person, not to mention God-knows what else. If there is a more well-armed citizenry on Earth, I'd like someone to point it out.
Beatrice; I'm curious. If more guns really do mean more violence and death, then how is it that in a city where virtually everyone is armed, the crime rate is virtually nil? The only people doing any shooting are the occasional terrorists who - consequently - rarely survive long enough to get off more than a couple rounds. Could the reverse be true?
misterjake (anonymous) says…
beatrice wrote: "Statistics will also show that most of the time when guns are used in the committing of a crime they are never fired. That isn't proof against violence and death. There are more guns in the U.S. than in other industrialized nations, and there are more deaths by guns here, too. A lot more. That is proof that more guns actually do mean more violence and death. Those numbers don't lie. So lets not get too carried away with the warm and fuzzy wonderfulness of guns here"
Actually your information is incorrect. There is more to why lots of Americans die. Let me ask you, if guns were banned and we did not have them (cops, criminals and citizens) would people still die? Yes, but not to guns....guns don't make people violent. If they do, then cars make people drive drunk and pencils mispell words.
I highly suggest you read this article published by Harvard, Yes...that Harvard. It asks would society be more safe if guns were banned?
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/o...
Here are some exerpts from it:
"For example,
Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership
of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times
higher than Germany in 2002." pg.652.
"In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004,
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation
from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to
identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide,
or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in
2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of thenextant
studies." pg.654
"In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a
complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns.
Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those
owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.
Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffectiveness
was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased
that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent
crime rate, far surpassing even the United States."
Be careful what you say, you ban guns, murderers will find another weapon to kill somebody, a gun is just as easy to take a life away as it is to save a life. Of a nation of over 60 million firearms, more lives are saved than taken. Otherwise millions of people would be killed in the US by your logic.
Please read the review and educate yourself. I used to think like you, but the deeper I've dug, the more I read the more of the truth comes out and it is NOT reported in the media
misterjake (anonymous) says…
Here is your evidence that shows the US was lax on gun laws while Britain created more gun control laws. Did Britain become more peaceful than the US?
"The results discussed earlier contradict those expectations. On
the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun
ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions
in criminal violence in the 1990s. On the other hand, the
same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and
dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response
was ever‐more drastic gun control including, eventually, banning
and confiscating all handguns and many types of long guns.
Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by
2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the
developed world’s most violence‐ridden nations." pg.656
NOPE! Actually the reverse. The US crime rate dropped while Britains increased.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
It would be nice to see mandatory gun ownership among those who can legally own firearms in cities like Washington, Chicago & New York, just to see what would happen to the crime rate. I don't think it could get any worse. The downside might be that criminals might just shoot first knowing you might be armed.
But as beatrice pointed out, in most crimes involving a firearm the firearm is not used, so the perps are willing to rob, but don't want to step up to murder.
Kennesaw, Georgia made it "mandatory" to own a firearm in 1982 and the crime rate dropped 71% in one year and continued to drop years thereafter. I don't think that people were forced to buy firearms, but the publicity associated with this unusual law caused criminals to migrate to greener pastures. Did the general media pick up on this unusual story? No, because they want everyone to believe that guns are evil.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Only in Arizona autie, only in Arizona.
kj, "last place." Funny.
I agree that "some" restrictions on guns do not work, and I feel there are way too many liberal backed, band-aid like, feel-good type gun laws on the books that have no barring on reality. However, what about real restrictions. How many gun deaths in Australia last few years?
I'm not saying America should try to become Australia. We have missed our chances at that even if we wanted it. I'm saying that with more guns we really do have more gun deaths. I believe you and I have had this exchange before. I asked the question of if the number of gun deaths in America is a resonable or fair trade-off for having liberal access to guns. I believe you wrote that you felt it was a fair trade-off. Okay, but it is a trade-off.
Sati: "You are one of the few people on here who knows how to disagree respectfully."
Now what did I just say about not getting carried away with the warm and fuzzy wonderfullness?
Actually, you are correct. I do know "how" to disagree respectfully. I just don't always choose to, as I'm sure you can attest based on past exchanges. : )
A gun need not be fired in a crime for it to still be a violent crime (point gun, beat victim without also shooting them). As I stated to kj, we have more guns and we have more gun deaths. That is a fact. Yes, there may be violent crimes committed in countries where the criminals don't have access to guns. I'm not stating otherwise. I'm say, we have more gun deaths.
My big argument against guns is just that those who choose to own should be required to have some training, hence my support of C&C. (That is my attempt to bring it back to C&C and not just discussing statistics and general violence, gun deaths and such.)
Nice talking with both you and kj.
misterjake (anonymous) says…
beatrice wrote: "A gun need not be fired in a crime for it to still be a violent crime (point gun, beat victim without also shooting them). As I stated to kj, we have more guns and we have more gun deaths. That is a fact. Yes, there may be violent crimes committed in countries where the criminals don't have access to guns. I'm not stating otherwise. I'm say, we have more gun deaths."
A gun is a tool, an equalizer for a 46 year old woman to a 23 year old 250lb ex-con.
Required to train them to use them? People do, there are laws that if I kill an intruder but my bullet kills my neighbor then I am responsible for that.
So, I must ask you beatrice, what do we do if guns do kill people? Get rid of them? Well, that will not work read my previous comments. Make them more restrictive? Well, again that won't work, read my previous comments.
I think you want to make society safer, what can we do about that? How can we make society safer? Why are thousands of people in the United States killed each year to guns?
It's not the honest citizens, but those who deal drugs and have violent criminal pasts. We already have laws that do not allow them to purchase guns, yet they have them.
This mirror's Prohabition from the 1920's, Volstead Act. You make alcohol illegal in order to make society safer. All it did was give millions to organized crime and bootleggers, Speak-easy's and other places people had to hide to get a drink were not safe, criminals loved those areas because if they committed a crime to a honest citizen (honest meaning they only went to drink of which at the time was illegal) the honest citizen would not report it. It make normal people criminals.
If you really want to stop the gun violence and violence in the United States, then you need to make illecit drugs legal..marijuana, cocaine etc...
The drug trade is what fuels gangs, cartels, addicts to do things for money/control.
Like prohabition of the 20s, makeing drugs illegal only creates a criminal element.
If people could buy marijuana at a local 7-11 instead from Ray Ray down the dark street corner, which do you think the people would choose? Of course the 7-11.
Why dont gang bangers and criminals sell alcohol?
Same rules apply to the war on drugs.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
In Dodge City, back in the peak of the Old West cattle days there were something like 4 people killed in one year. That seemed like not much for everyone walking around armed until we compared it to today's NYC crime rates per capita......Dodge was double the murder rate.
Ya jes neveh know.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
No mandatory or required crap. This is supposed to be a free country.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
gogo....you mean like paying taxes? driving the speed limit? car insurance? There's already plenty of mandatory crap (as you put it). If mandatory means fewer rapes, burglaries & murders, significantly fewer, what's to lose?
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
I'm against paying income taxes, speed limits, and required car insurance. Freedom is what you lose. I choose freedom over security and safety. I'll take the risk that goes with more freedom.
misterjake (anonymous) says…
gogo, can you pull out the cliche Benjamin Franklin quote about safety and liberty? =)
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"People defending themselves against giant robots?" Snap
That is why I buy robot insurance from Old Glory.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/2340/saturd...
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
There you go. I've seen different versions. This is one.
I'm not sure I'd be as bold to say that people don't deserve liberty and safety. I think God created people to be free and most people like to be left alone. Live and let live.
misterjake (anonymous) says…
I agree gogoplata.
But we're outnumbered by stupid people.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
That's right mister, outnumbered by stupid people. Let the stupid people do what they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want.
You want to live in total anarchy? A state of complete lawlessness & political disorder?
You'd both last an hour.
misterjake (anonymous) says…
Hehe, actually, when gogo said people want to be left alone, i agreed with that.
Don't associate being left alone with our lives with anarchy.
I'm more of a golden rule kind of guy, treat people how you want to be treated.
...I'd last at least an hour and a half. =)
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Well, I'm for what you said, but there are a lot of a-holes in this world that don't see it that way. As far as I'm concerned it's other people that need the rules, not me (or maybe you), but I don't think it'd work that way.
EXks (anonymous) says…
I wish Scott Roeder could have been introduced to someone's 'concealed' weapon
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
There is a place for government. I'm not for Anarchy. Government can be used to enforce essential laws against things like violence and theft. Government is also needed to enforce legal contracts. Other than a few things I'd prefer government just stay out of the way.
misterjake (anonymous) says…
I'm a high school teacher, i'm surrounded by rules. =)
Stupid to me are those who impose their will on others.
Stupid is also those who choose not to learn the truth.
Too much of one or the other is dangerous.
I think honest people will always remain honest, rules or laws will not make them honest.
I dont rob banks, steal cars or do drugs because it's illegal. I choose not to commit crimes because it will harm others and in the case of drugs myself.
tmkatt (Tom Miller) says…
...not original, but I like it..."I carry a weapon because I just can't seem to fit a cop into a holster."...
tmkatt (Tom Miller) says…
"...a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide police protection to any particular individual citizen."
(Warren v. District of Columbia; U.S.Supreme Court) ...and remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away...
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
In case of emergency dial 1911
Keep them coming.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
EXks (Anonymous) says…
"I wish Scott Roeder could have been introduced to someone's 'concealed' weapon"
No, it couldn't have happened. Churches are one of the places that a CCH licensee is prohibited from carrying.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
If he walked into my Church to shoot someone there is a chance he'd get shot.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
gogoplata-
Nagants are on sale at Cabela's for $99 right now.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
misterjake, while I do not care for guns, I have offered at least a partial solution to the problem of guns -- that is too many who have them don't actually know how to properly use them. They don't take responsibility for their guns. Training is the key (I know, I sound like the NRA!).
As to guns killing people, you write, "It's not the honest citizens, but those who deal drugs and have violent criminal pasts."
Wow. Are you sure that is the argument you want to take, that really it is only drug dealers and criminals who get killed?
Okay then, if that is true, then why do honest citizens even need guns in the first place? Honest citizens apparently aren't in any real danger, right, just the druggie types. Time to give up your guns, folks, because misterjake doesn't think any of you are in real danger. (don't blame me for you guns being taken away, blame misterjake)
"So, I must ask you beatrice, what do we do if guns do kill people? Get rid of them?"
Is it your solution misterjake, to get rid of them? It isn't mine, and I haven't written that here. I'm not that naive to think that it would be possible. My idea would be to have everyone trained who wants to own, and everybody get registered who wants to own (I know you don't like that one, but bare with me).
As you state, honest citizens follow the law, so they would have no problem actually following through with being registered. Caught with a gun and you aren't registered? Five years mandatory. Caught with a gun in the course of a crime? Ten years at least. Fire a gun in the course of committing a crime, a hard twenty. Put the real bad people away, since they won't get training and get registered, and allow others to carry just about anywhere they choose since they will all have C&C type training.
Instead, we get pro-gun legislators making sure everyone has access to guns with no training at all -- then make sure they work in buildings that require visitors to pass through metal detectors.
Legalizing the sweet leaf? Amen! I'm with you on that one, although I am long past partaking myself, legal or otherwise. Clear up the jails of pot heads so we can put all the bad people with guns in them (not the good people with guns).
Got a better idea? Love to hear it. bea
By the way, when you ask students to do homework, aren't you forcing your will on them? : )
BrianR (anonymous) says…
EXks (Anonymous) says…
“I wish Scott Roeder could have been introduced to someone's 'concealed' weapon”
I think he's going to get the meat thermometer now.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
If you get a 91/30, but sure to also get the bayonet for it. Ya never know when you'll have to fend off mounted Cossacks.
compmd (anonymous) says…
Ag,
There is something called the Class 3 Curio & Relic Federal Firearms License (C&R FFL) that allows individuals to buy guns listed by the ATF on the C&R list (mostly old military weapons and quirky strange or unique designs) and have them shipped directly to their home. To obtain this license, you fill out a form much like an ATF 4473 transfer form, and get it signed by the chief law enforcement officer in your area, and submit a $40 fee. Once you have the FFL, you only need to provide a copy of your FFL to the seller. This does not mean you can only buy black powder dueling pistols though. I have two semi-auto handguns from the C&R list, and one is from 1987 and is perfect for concealed carry.
snap,
The bayonet for my 91/30 is a tight fit, but its such an amazing sight. :)
gogo,
I agree, SKS rifles are a good investment. I'm also a fan of the early HK family; the cetme/hk 91, and HK93. Decently built surplus versions of those rifles built on new receivers are slightly more than the SKS, but are peers with any modern military rifle. There isn't much bigger than 7.62 NATO out there for a semi-auto rifle. Any old military rifle is an interesting conversation piece also if you know the history.
budtugly (anonymous) says…
I have always heard the weapon of choice in Japan is the aluminum baseball bat. Try defending yourself or family against 3 thugs with aluminum baseball bats. Good Luck! I got my conceal and carry permit just recently. I mainly got it for traveling to avoid law enforcement problems while it is in my vehicle. I have seen 3 times in my life that people were condescending towards me for having a pistol along. But when situations got a bit scary they were right next to me asking "uhm...do you still have that gun???" I do not ever want to have to use it. I am thankful that I live in this country where I have the right to carry. I feel I have this right as I spent time in the marines and I do know how to use it. I feel there are plenty others out there who are just as qualified as myself who did not spend time in the military. Thugs think twice because they now have to guess which ones of us are armed and which are not.With drugs around like meth though, they do not think at all.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Bud, maybe you could get one of these: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fus...
budtugly (anonymous) says…
Brian It would be a little bit difficult to conceal.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
Here ya go guys!
http://www.newlaunches.com/entry_imag...
budtugly (anonymous) says…
Got a pretty big unit there already Roe.
CareerCopper (anonymous) says…
". . . in many of those cases the local sheriff or police chief were speaking for their officers based on their own preferences."
Most cops are fine with concealed carry permits. CCW holders almost never commit crimes with their firearms. The sheriff or chief is usually "speaking for" their politician bosses, who are usually liberal gun haters.
budtugly (anonymous) says…
Career..that has been my experience with talking to a few police that I know also. Criminals do not get finger and palm printed under any voluntary circumstances. It is already a felony for them to have a gun any where near them in the first place and that doesn't phase them.I think the law used to be a hard 5 years for them to possess a gun. That didn't seem to do jack$*&t either. Thanks for the info.
drake (anonymous) says…
Sometimes there's justice, sometimes there's just us.
Hobie8 (anonymous) says…
Here's some facts for everybody....The FBI released its annual crime stats last week, violent crime is at a 22 year low, while gun ownership is at a record high. So much for the "more guns more crime" lie. There are roughly 280 million guns owned by about 300 million Americans, yet cars kill nearly three times as many people, and there are FAR fewer cars than guns in the US. I'm a nurse by profession, and the medical industry I'm ashamed to say, KILLS about 100,000 per year due to errors by doctors, roughly FOUR times the number killed by guns. Approximately 54% of gun deaths are suicides. Studies have shown that if someone is truly determined to end their life, they'll find a way, gun or no gun. I live in NW Indiana, where we can carry concealed or open. Indiana isn't even in the top 25 states in gun crime. We are, per capita, the second most heavily armed state in the nation. Chicago on the other hand, has probably the strictest gun laws in the US, they are vying for gun crime capitol of the US along with Washington DC. My town of 18,000 residents has about 1,600 of us that hold a License To Carry a Handgun, we've had ONE shooting in seventeen years, and it was committed by some gangster scum from chicago. The Virginia Tech mess could have been prevented if the psychologist treating the shooter had reported him like she was supposed to do, but didn't. If she had done what she was supposed to do, Cho would have been flagged when they did the NICS check when he purchased his guns. An armed professor could have saved many lives there; the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a GOOD guy with a gun. The Ft. Hood incident was stopped by an ARMED person. WHY do you think police carry guns? When a "shots fired" report is made to a police dept, they respond with "overwhelming force" because it WORKS. When I'm out and about and I encounter police officers, I always try to ask them their feelings on citizens carrying. In the last several years, I've heard nothing but positive responses from them about it. Police Chiefs are endentured servants of the mayors that they work for, and must toe the party line of the mayor, so you're not going to get an honest answer from them. Illnois has 102 County Sheriffs, and 92% of them came out publicly in support of concealed carry. In 1981, the city of Kennesaw, GA had a horrible crime problem; the newly voted in adminsitration put into effect a town ordinance requiring EVERY home to have at least one gun it. The result? The following year, overall crime dropped 89%...yes 89%. If you doubt my claims, here's a great research piece done by Guy Smith, I'll put up the link at the end of my "rant". If Guy Smiths' findings sound unbelievable, pay particular attention to his footnotes/sources of his info. It was a REAL eye opener. Happy Reading!
www.gunfacts.info
beatrice (anonymous) says…
hobie, quite the "rant." Well done.
However, I do have to question when you write: "Approximately 54% of gun deaths are suicides. Studies have shown that if someone is truly determined to end their life, they'll find a way, gun or no gun."
The second part of that statement isn't completely accurate, or is slanted to only look at those who are "truly determined," rather than the many who just make a rather quick decision. Studies I have seen show that when people are thinking about suicide, if the means for making the suicide possible is removed (from bridges being torn down to coal no longer used for cooking in England) there is much less chance people would try an alternate method.
"In the late 1970s, [Richard] Seiden set out to test the notion of inevitability in jumping suicides. Obtaining a Police Department list of all would-be jumpers who were thwarted from leaping off the Golden Gate between 1937 and 1971 — an astonishing 515 individuals in all — he painstakingly culled death-certificate records to see how many had subsequently “completed.” His report, “Where Are They Now?” remains a landmark in the study of suicide, for what he found was that just 6 percent of those pulled off the bridge went on to kill themselves. Even allowing for suicides that might have been mislabeled as accidents only raised the total to 10 percent.
“That’s still a lot higher than the general population, of course,” Seiden, 75, explained to me over lunch in a busy restaurant in downtown San Franciso. “But to me, the more significant fact is that 90 percent of them got past it. They were having an acute temporary crisis, they passed through it and, coming out the other side, they got on with their lives.” " http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/mag...
The real question for me is if we know that x number of people will kill themselves with guns each year, is that a fair trade off to allow the far greater number who won't kill themselves to have access to guns? Personally, I would have to say, yes, it is sad that x number will kill themselves, but it is a fair trade off. (I do think more training who lower the suicide rate, but that is just guessing. I really don't know for sure.)
CC: "The sheriff or chief is usually “speaking for” their politician bosses, who are usually liberal gun haters."
Really? If most politicians really were "liberal gun haters," then why haven't they overturned all gun laws years ago? In your estimation, they obviously have the majority to do so. Time for a reality check. Also, few sheriffs only speak for their politician bosses. Most sheriffs are elected officials who have to watch out for their own careers, so they rarely just say things others want them to.
CareerCopper (anonymous) says…
beatrice
The reason the liberal gun hating politicians haven't successfully banned guns yet (though they continue to try) is that we live in a representative democracy where most of the citizens, and line-doggie cops, support personal gun ownership. That doesn't stop the political types from spouting anti-gun rhetoric. And, while there are roughly 750,000 street cops in America, you only see anti-gun quotes from a few PC talking-head bosses.
You are correct that sheriffs are elected officials. But the people who control their budgets are politicians. And while most rural sheriffs also support personal gun ownership, again, the leftist liberal media only report the quotes from the downtown sheriffs who want to ban guns. Anti-gun quotes work well for the big city types. But they don't represent "most cops" by any means.
I said, "most cops" support personal firearms ownership, and I stand by it. You are ill informed or fooling yourself if you think differently.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
If you really want to conceal:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008...
beatrice (anonymous) says…
CC, where did I write or suggest that most cops don't approve of firearms ownership?
No, what I said was that this notion that most politicians are "liberal gun haters" is nonsense. It is Chicken Little "the sky is falling" silliness that the lobbyists of the NRA use to sell more memberships. My guess is most politicians aren't liberal, and even those who truly are liberals are rare to suggest taking people's guns away today, especially when we look at the national level. The gun-rights folks have won, and now it is just deciding to what degree.
Do you think most cops would support the right for all citizens to conceal and carry without training or registering? You know, just approve of people anywhere and at all times carrying guns in their pockets? Suggesting such a thing is how crazy some of the pro-gun-uber-conservative politicians are. It was just proposed here in Arizona, where I live. Totally insane. (If you haven't heard about this, apparently the "leftist liberal media" hasn't been doing its job!)
Also, why do pro-gun politicians work in buildings with metal detectors?
CareerCopper (anonymous) says…
beatrice
As usual, this "discussion" has degraded into sideshow of linguistic nit picking, rather than an intelligent exchange of ideas.
The point of the article was that an increase in the issuance of concealed carry permits did not result in an increase in violence, despite numerous predictions that it would do so. The author stated his opinion that chiefs and sheriffs, "were speaking for their officers" on the issue.
The premise of my response was that, "Most cops are fine with concealed carry permits." Therefore, any chief or sheriff speaking against CCW permits was not speaking for "most cops." I have been in law enforcement for over thirty years in both police and sheriff's departments (still am). I stated my opinion that chiefs and sheriffs who speak against guns are, "usually speaking for their politician bosses, who are usually liberal gun haters."
I never said that, "most politicians are liberal gun haters.” That was your quote. Go back and check. And please try to be more accurate in the future. These "discussions" are more interesting when they are based on fact, not empty accusations.
The degree to which, "The gun-rights folks have won," is a result of a long serious battle against those who would have happily taken away our guns, and still will if we let them. The battle will never be "won." It will be a constant push and pull between the competing "pro" and "anti" gun philosophies. The pros just happen to have the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court on their side.
Regarding all citizens carrying concealed, I will paraphrase a wise gun rights advocate who once said, "In a perfect world good people would have guns and bad people would not. Since this world is not perfect, it would be better if everyone was armed, since there are so many more good people than bad." I concur.
As to your question, "Also, why do pro-gun politicians work in buildings with metal detectors?" Really. I was trying to have an intelligent exchange.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
CC: "The sheriff or chief is usually “speaking for” their politician bosses, who are usually liberal gun haters."
"usually" and "most" -- what exactly is the difference? I may have paraphrased your statement, but I didn't change the basic meaning.
"The pros just happen to have the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court on their side."
Yes, I agree, hence my statement that the pro-gun side has won. (A while back when the Supreme Court made their most recent ruling on guns in D.C., I also wrote that they had made the correct decision, even if I oppose guns myself. The Constitution is on your side here.)
You, however, apparently don't care for current C&C laws and agree that anybody without a lick of training should be able to walk around with a gun dropped into his shorts if he wants, like Plexico Burress, correct? (If I'm mistaken by your stand, please say so.) I maintain that such actions are irresponsible, and that gun owners should have training.
Finally, what exactly is wrong with the question on the metal detectors? Frequently, politicians pass laws that effect others, just not themselves. In Arizona, the idea of allowing anyone with a concealed gun at any time to walk into other places of business has been proposed, no conceal and carry permit needed. You just can't go in to see the politicians supporting such a law in the same fashion. Why is this? Also, why is this not a legitimate question, in your opinion? Please intelligently address why this question bothers you. I mean no disrespect by it.
CareerCopper (anonymous) says…
beatrice
Apparently you missed the part about a, "sideshow of linguistic nit picking." My original comment had to do with cops, not politicians. In case that wasn't clear in my first post, I made that abundantly clear through follow-up posts. Yet you continue to try to misrepresent "the basic meaning" of my original post.
You said, "I may have paraphrased your statement, but I didn't change the basic meaning." The basic meaning that you have misunderstood from the beginning, and still do. Sorry, I can't help you any more with that.
I also said, "As usual . . ." because misstating and confusing the issue at hand is frequently the comfortable refuge of the wrong. This may not apply to you, but it didn't surprise me that we ended up there almost immediately.
Your bringing up Plaxico Burris is interesting for this conversation in two ways:
First, you throw him out just like your previous metal detectors remark. It seems that you are saying, "Here's an interesting case (that really has nothing to do with the original conversation). How do you explain that? Ha! Gotcha!"
By repeatedly doing this, your position becomes a moving target. It is like the linguistic nit picking. "If I can't win my argument, I'll change the terms. If I can't win it then, I'll change the subject." Personally, I've been wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Should we discuss that now too?
I'll be happy to follow you all over the conversational map discussing "interesting things." But if we decide that we are trying to debate opposing positions "intelligently" (not the intent of my original post), then we should probably complete the "A" conversation first, before moving on to B or C.
My second observation about the Plaxico Burris case is that it proves MY point, not yours. Burris had no legal right to carry his handgun into that Manhattan club. In fact he was committing a felony in doing so (we could debate that law too - later). He has been convicted and sentenced to prison.
The law prohibiting his conduct did not stop his conduct. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. A law requiring training for CCW permit holders would not have applied to him anyway (he had no valid permit), nor would it have stopped him from doing what he did. I suspect that there were few, if any CCW permit holders in the club that night. As I said in my original post, they rarely commit crimes with their firearms.
I am not opposed to firearms training. I support it whole-heartedly. It just has nothing to do with Plaxico Burris. And it has nothing to do with the lack of increase in gun violence in states with liberal (no offense intended) concealed carry laws. It also has nothing to do with "most cops" being "fine with concealed carry permits," which was the simple point of my original post.
CareerCopper (anonymous) says…
beatrice
For the record, I AM capable of engaging in polite discourse without a snarky attitude. My first post was very evenhanded, unless the term "liberal gun hater" hit too close to home for you.
I believe that we got off on the wrong foot when you said that I needed a "reality check." We don't even know each other! :-)
Hobie8 (anonymous) says…
Just read the Gun Facts study. It will answer all of your questions to my comments FAR better than I can. And no, I'm not getting paid to push the thing. He GIVES it away for FREE. Its the best response I've seen to all the anti-gun BS thats been floating around, so I refer people to it.
www.gunfacts.info
SheepDog (anonymous) says…
I have a CCW and carry every day. I sincerely hope that I will never have to use my weapon, but if I ever need to that decision will ultimately be made by Mr. Bad Guy. I truly believe that law abiding citizens who choose to carry are not people looking to get themselves into an encounter in which deadly force is warranted. In other words, they do not go looking for trouble.
No one knows if or when they will encounter a life or death situation, whether it is your own life or the lives of others that is at stake. I chose to be prepared should that scenario ever occur. I am a former peace officer and I shoot most every week at my favorite range as I am an advocate of frequent practice for any gun owner. Again, it all a part of being properly prepared should the need arise to use my firearm in defense of innocent life.
In the unfortunate circumstance in which a life or death encounter unfolds it is going to happen very quickly. As is typically the case in most life and death situations, when every second counts the police are just minutes away.
Enough said!
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
http://volokh.com/2010/02/12/if-you-b...