Concealed weapons. Yes or No ???

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Well I agree with you that guns for self-defense is re-active not proactive and will not result in deterrence. I have heard many gun proponents say that gun ownership by ordinary citizens will lead to a decrease in crime, and I find that idea to be ludicrous.

I have also read several times that many (perhaps a majority but I am not sure) of crimes committed where a gun was involved that the gun was stolen. So again, having more guns in circulation is going to help how?

Certainly there are some responsible people such as yourself who would only use a gun if really, really you felt it necessary to protect yourself, wife or other loved ones. I am sure you would use good judgment and if you were to have a gun I would assume you would make sure you knew how to use it.

Do I think the majority of ordinary citizens if they were to have guns would operate in this manner? No I do not. Look at how people use their cell phones while driving (hello a moving vehicle can kill people, I don't think chatting to your friends while driving is a real responsible thing to do).

Even if used responsibly, what are the chances of an ordinary citizen armed with a gun being really able to effectively protect themselves against an armed criminal who knows going in what they are doing and the ordinary citizen is caught off guard? Also, don't armed criminals often work in groups, rather than as one person? I think people watch way too many violent cops and robbers shows and think they can be a hero. I am sure there are some wonderful exceptions to this.

As to putting quotes around predatory, I think I was off put by the whole innocent citizen thing so probably that was just unnecessary of me. There are armed violent criminals who are predatory. I think having more and more people armed with guns and more guns in circulation will just produce more of them.

My first step is make guns really, really, really, really hard to get. As hard to get as possible. Give armed police officers and any other security or what have you armed personnel lots and lots of training of when they should and shouldn't shoot off their guns (which of course is going to require more than just technical training).

Is this going to wipe out all crime as we know it? No. But I sure as hell think it beats putting more guns into circulation, especially in the hands of people who can't even drive their shopping carts through the grocery store properly.

Your last point was hilarious, and so true. I, too, agree that there are many people who have no business owning a gun, and they scare me often more than armed predators do. When I policed, I was filled with trepidation more when I got a violent crime in progress, "citizen armed" call than just a violent crime in progress. We would have the dispatcher tell the citizen to put their gun down and away as soon as we pulled into the driveway or parking lot. I had a citizen one time holding his handgun and use it as a pointer to show me the direction in which his house burglar had run. You can bet I had a few choice words and actions for him.

I seriously think on one point someone made that most people have enough common sense to know that you have no hope of drawing your gun if you're already drawn upon. If I were armed and got caught with a gun in my face demanding my wallet, you best believe I'd hand my wallet over. No mention of nor movement toward my gun would I make, because I have no chance of prevailing. After the gun is out of my face, I can decide then what I'm going to do. And, you're so right, that predators more often than not are not acting alone. They have at least one and sometimes more compatriots in the near vicinity watching it all go down, ready to react if something goes wrong.

If we can't rid our culture of predatory gun violence, and people continue to be allowed to arm themselves with handguns, they should absolutely have to go through extensive training and safety courses that involve multiple simulated encounters.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Stearns

Your last point was hilarious, and so true. I, too, agree that there are many people who have no business owning a gun, and they scare me often more than armed predators do. When I policed, I was filled with trepidation more when I got a violent crime in progress, "citizen armed" call than just a violent crime in progress. We would have the dispatcher tell the citizen to put their gun down and away as soon as we pulled into the driveway or parking lot. I had a citizen one time holding his handgun and use it as a pointer to show me the direction in which his house burglar had run. You can bet I had a few choice words and actions for him.

I seriously think on one point someone made that most people have enough common sense to know that you have no hope of drawing your gun if you're already drawn upon. If I were armed and got caught with a gun in my face demanding my wallet, you best believe I'd hand my wallet over. No mention of nor movement toward my gun would I make, because I have no chance of prevailing. After the gun is out of my face, I can decide then what I'm going to do. And, you're so right, that predators more often than not are not acting alone. They have at least one and sometimes more compatriots in the near vicinity watching it all go down, ready to react if something goes wrong.

If we can't rid our culture of predatory gun violence, and people continue to be allowed to arm themselves with handguns, they should absolutely have to go through extensive training and safety courses that involve multiple simulated encounters.

Well it seems we mostly agree! I am just wondering under what scenarios you do think it's a good idea. I guess ordinary citizens who are put through the rigors to really prove they know what they are doing? I am honestly not sure how this helps us overall, perhaps a lucky few who are willing to really hone their skills? Even then the gun will almost always be pulled on them first and there is a good chance they will be outnumbered. I am honestly not seeing many scenarios where a citizen being armed (even those who really know what they are doing and are ultra responsible) is going to actually help.

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by Zora77

After continuing to read this discussion I have moments where I feel proud to be German - which is a first!

Where to start - or continue? It makes shiver to read "growing up around guns". Every year there are thousands of children and teenagers who get killed as a result accidents involving guns. Apparently those law-abiding citizens do not all come with good parenting skills or the little bit of imagination it takes to figure out what could happen when your five year old gets his or her hands on the gun under mum's bed.

Zora, when people in the U.S. talk about growing up around guns, they don't just mean that their family had one in the house, stuck up in the closet somewhere or in a nightstand drawer. They mean that guns were essentially a part of life - used regularly for hunting, for shooting poisonous snakes in the yard or on the farm, for shooting predators of their livestock, etc. The children have been taught a healthy fear of and respect for the power of guns. They're not viewed as toys and we were not allowed to use or treat them as such. You were taught how to shoot them, under what circumstances you could shoot, and how to clean and take care of them. The worst mistake a parent can make is to have a gun in the house and think they're hiding it from their kids and, as a result, never teach their kids about it. Children know what's hiding in their parents' closets and drawers and they will be fascinated by and drawn to a gun. If the family is open and instructional, it takes away the fascination away and, therefore, the temptation to get it out to 'see how it works' and feels in one's hands.

[Cowboi]

Just because someone has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, does not mean thay have a "get out of jail free" card. You can't just shoot someone for stealing, or trespassing. Your life has to be endanger.

[Bard]

As a Law enforcement officer and a supervisor I know very well the responsiblity that comes with having my weapon on me on or off duty. I tae it very seriously and yes there are some cops that are Abusing the responsinblity they are trusted with there are bad in all professions and to be honest you will hear more of the bad apples then the good ones. No I have not drawen my weapon and my father who is a retired cop once told me there are many that have never had to draw thier weapon. I do remember well the feeling I had having that weapon pointed at me even if it was only in training and I knew it was clear and safe I was chilled. I just would ask that you not judge us all in law enforcement by those who DISGRACE the uniform and the oath we take.. It my sound simplistc but I became a cop to make a diffrence and my carrying a firearm and knowing full well how to use it is part of that duty I wish it was not how it had to be but..I am glad to see all sides of this issue well spoken and that we all can respect each others opnions

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Well it seems we mostly agree! I am just wondering under what scenarios you do think it's a good idea. I guess ordinary citizens who are put through the rigors to really prove they know what they are doing? I am honestly not sure how this helps us overall, perhaps a lucky few who are willing to really hone their skills? Even then the gun will almost always be pulled on them first and there is a good chance they will be outnumbered. I am honestly not seeing many scenarios where a citizen being armed (even those who really know what they are doing and are ultra responsible) is going to actually help.

Yes, we do agree more than we disagree. The scenarios I have in my head have more to do with homeowners protecting themselves than with carry and carry concealed, actually. The carry scenarios are along the lines of if I knew Soon or I was being targeted, such as a stalker, I would want a firearm to have some chance at leveling the playing field, and armed citizens being able to intervene in protecting someone else who is being attacked. I think there are very few incidences of armed citizens out in public being able to successfully defend themselves against an armed perp for the very reasons you mentioned. But, I still wouldn't want people to not be able to arm themselves. I see much more value in having them pass an extensive training course than to just wait 3 days and pass a background check.

[Turtle]

So, of course it becomes apparent that the situation matters a great deal.

NYC is so jam packed with tense people hardly anybody gets to carry and there's mandatory jail time for a crime with an unpermitted handgun.

And out in the countryside it's a very different story.

And in Hawaii, who needs a gun??

I've been thinking about this in terms of handguns in glove compartments of vehicles.

[MysticOceansFL]

Originally Posted by betenoire

There's a reason that 70% of murders in the USA are done with guns, while only 30% of murders in Canada are done with guns.

That's all I have to say about that.

Thats very true

[iamkeri1]

No gun(s) No way.

The right to bear arms was enshrined in the consitution at the same time that the phrase all men are equal. We all know that phrase was and is, hooey!
Women were not equal, blacks were not equal, gays were so unequal we were pretty much being killed/ostracized when outed. The interpretations of these elements of our constitution have, and are still being changed as we become more modern in our thought. When the constitution was written, people needed guns to hunt, to survive. In most cases this is no longer true, though I do not have any problem with people owning single action rifles for hunting if they need them, Automatic weapons of any kind are scary, and very much not necessary for hunting. The point is, we are growing and changing as a society, and the right to bear arms is, to me, no more sacrosanct that any other part of the consitution.

The text of the Second Amendment is, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 2008, The (US Supreme) court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "...

Well regulated meant regulated by government, not by vigilantis, no matter how organized they were. Most State militias have been subsumed in to the National Guard, and The Federal militia exists under the names of the army. navy, marines, and air force. The folks in theses military organizations clearly have the right to bear arms. Other people - this is my opinion folks - another right protected by the bill of rights - do not have the same clearly defined right to bear arms.

Because of the limitations placed on the right to bears arms by the writers of the constitution, I believe that the ability to limit this right is clearly constitutional - and a damn good idea besides!!!
Smooches,
Keri

[Corkey]

No, I don't own a weapon any longer. Yes, I am a sharp shooter, military Law Enforcement training. I fought for the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to bare arms being one of them. Though I support the 2nd amendment, I also support not limiting, but regulating the gun industry, the people who apply for gun ownership and federal laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If we take away the rights of legal gun ownership, then the only people who will have guns are the police, the militias, and yes criminals. The way these last few years have been going, I support legal gun ownership, combined with training on legal usage of the fire arm as well as training for every one in the house hold. I also support the ATF in eradicating criminal guns from the US.
My.02

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

No gun(s) No way.

The right to bear arms was enshrined in the consitution at the same time that the phrase all men are equal. We all know that phrase was and is, hooey!
Women were not equal, blacks were not equal, gays were so unequal we were pretty much being killed/ostracized when outed. The interpretations of these elements of our constitution have, and are still being changed as we become more modern in our thought. When the constitution was written, people needed guns to hunt, to survive. In most cases this is no longer true, though I do not have any problem with people owning single action rifles for hunting if they need them, Automatic weapons of any kind are scary, and very much not necessary for hunting. The point is, we are growing and changing as a society, and the right to bear arms is, to me, no more sacrosanct that any other part of the consitution.

The text of the Second Amendment is, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 2008, The (US Supreme) court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "...

Well regulated meant regulated by government, not by vigilantis, no matter how organized they were. Most State militias have been subsumed in to the National Guard, and The Federal militia exists under the names of the army. navy, marines, and air force. The folks in theses military organizations clearly have the right to bear arms. Other people - this is my opinion folks - another right protected by the bill of rights - do not have the same clearly defined right to bear arms.

Because of the limitations placed on the right to bears arms by the writers of the constitution, I believe that the ability to limit this right is clearly constitutional - and a damn good idea besides!!!
Smooches,
Keri

Keri,

I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't written so people could hunt their food, but rather for the people to be able to defend themselves against and regain their rights against a tyrannical government, should one develop. The framers had already experienced tyrannical rule from a government - England's attempts at taxation without representation - so, they wanted to make sure should another develop, that govt wasn't the only entity with guns.

Your other point that militias were intended to be govt controlled is completely contrary to the purpose of the Amendment - that of the people being able to overthrow an oppressive regime. Why would the framers have wanted a tyrannical govt organizing and regulating the very citizens who would attempt to overthrow it? That's akin to having the fox guard the hen house. Militia referred to every able-bodied man in the state - Jefferson's own papers bore that out. The "well-regulated" was for people within their own groups (militias) to organize and train so that there would be a better chance of success.

[Jess]

Out of all the concealed carry arguments that go on, the one that really freaks me out is the debate as to whether CCW's can be taken into bars. THIS really does not make me feel safe at all.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2...31601-ar-8602/

[Cowboi]

Originally Posted by Jess

Out of all the concealed carry arguments that go on, the one that really freaks me out is the debate as to whether CCW's can be taken into bars. THIS really does not make me feel safe at all.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2...31601-ar-8602/

I know in Louisiana is is illegal to carry a weapon into a bar.

[Bard]

Jut my 2 cents I would never carry in a bar if your drinking you judgement is impaired me I just ain't taking a chance. firearm ownership carrys with it a lot of responsiblity.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Cowboi

I know in Louisiana is is illegal to carry a weapon into a bar.

It was illegal here until this year. I know the debate is going on in a few other states.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Bard

Jut my 2 cents I would never carry in a bar if your drinking you judgement is impaired me I just ain't taking a chance. firearm ownership carrys with it a lot of responsiblity.

I totally agree, Bard. Alcohol and guns don't mix. Kinda like my thoughts on off shore drilling. No matter how ya slice it, oil and water do not mix.

[paposeco]

Gun ownership, I believe it's a huge responsibility, as it should be. Too many folks out there just don't have the smarts God gave a goat to carry water let alone a gun, especially into a bar..really? are these law makers that stupid? YES! Here where I live, they're going for the "you don't need a permit to carry a concealed weapon/gun", walk into the gun store, lay your money down buy the gun and out into the world you go...just like that..."cash n carry".. OK give me a drink, a stiff one!. Someone said that 70% (?) of murders are commited by guns...noo they're commited by morons with guns, that's their mentality..these same folks, if no guns were available, would kill just the same..of course it's much easier to kill using a gun rather than a knife..or a baseball bat etc...just this week here in my hometown no less than 5 murders, and 4 out of the 5 were commited by one or more gang members. These weaklings that think they're men, or women, because they pull a gun a kill people. One thing that I despise with a fire hot passion, is gangbangers, and anybody that thinks it's a cool life style is in serious need of good ol'fashion lobotomy. But I digress. I think gun ownership should be a 'privilege, not necessarly a right..judging by the madness and violence in this country that seems to be getting worse by the hour. I'm not one to have big brother all up in my bis but, in this case I think that for the safety of us all, some common sense and intelligent laws should be passed about responsible gun ownership. Too many places have a "blanc check" attitude, and a blanc head, when it comes to this all important issue. (please excuse the typos...)

[SuperFemme]

Part 6: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W79Zn_V2JUk"]YouTube- Bowling for Columbine [Part 6 of 12][/nomedia]

Part 7: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NjEoHXEb-s"]YouTube- Bowling for Columbine [Part 7 of 12][/nomedia]

Part 8: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyYCK-q6mxU"]YouTube- Bowling for Columbine [Part 8 of 12][/nomedia]

Part 9: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPhnPKV-5GI"]YouTube- Bowling for Columbine [Part 9 of 12][/nomedia]

Part 10: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo3SrRfAJ_M"]YouTube- Bowling for Columbine [Part 10 of 12][/nomedia]

Part 11: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqfiu_oSka0"]YouTube- Bowling for Columbine [Part11 of 12][/nomedia]

Part 12: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-wcqSKse-I"]YouTube- Bowling for Columbine [Part 12 of 12][/nomedia]

[chefhottie25]

i would never personally own a concealed weapon, and in my 20's i was against anyone bearing arms. however, in the last 5 years or so my feelings and opinion about it has changed. it was mostly because my sister came back from the war in iraq with her military issued gun. she is a responsible gun owner and has educated herself about gun safety and maintaince. because of that, i have come to believe that gun owners like my sister do have the right to bear arms. i also believe that we stricter gun laws and a better effort to get illegal weapons out of the wrong hands. there should be an extremely thorough process in place to be able to purchase a weapon. with more safeguards in place maybe potentially criminal minded individuals would not be able to obtain a concealed weapon.

[Corkey]

I'd like to dispel a myth here. The Constitutional amendment for the right to bare arms is the 2 amendment. It isn't up for vote. SCOTUS has made the determination that it is well with in citizens rights to have fire arms. The decision on whether to issue a conceal permit usually resides with law enforcement, Sheriffs, police chiefs, after a background check and the need to carry is documented, in some states, not all, and this is where there is a problem. We need to have all states enforce this so that all weapons are legally acquired and only citizens who are allowed to, have them. Guns and booze obviously a bad idea.