MSNBC: 22 minutes for a concealed-weapon permit(Washington State)

[RamboLiberal]

-----

Curious if it would really be that easy, I decided to go through the process of obtaining a concealed-carry permit of my own.

The King County Sheriff’s Office in downtown Seattle accommodated me with brisk efficiency. I filled out a single-page application with my vital stats, address, phone number and driver’s license number.

I then answered eight questions, seven concerning whether or not I’d been convicted of any crimes or had any other run-ins with the law and one that asked if I had “ever been confined in a mental health facility for more than fourteen days.” The answers to all were “No.”

Moments later, I presented my photo ID and $55.25 in cash for the application and fingerprinting fees and was soon ushered into a back office to be electronically fingerprinted.

Twenty-two minutes after parking my car, I was back behind the wheel. Less than one month later, as required by the law, I received my Washington State Concealed Pistol License. It is good for five years. Thanks to reciprocal agreements, it is also good in 21 other states.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839541/ns/us_news-life/

Guess it's gun week at MSNBC website. BTW, my home state of PA - very similar in concealed carry permit to Washington state - no training requirement, $25, apply at county sheriff's office or online, but no fingerprints required.

[no limit]

1. Whew...good thing I only spent 13 days in a mental home!

[TheWraith]

10. Two weeks is a standard evaluation period. That's why they ask that.

For them to keep you longer than two weeks, you have to be mentally ill.

[LynneSin]

2. Seriously - let's just give out drivers licenses to anyone who can fill out a form

That's the scariest thing is there are people out there walking around, carrying a gun - AND THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT THE HELL TO DO WITH THIS.

This isn't a toy pistol. If you make a mistake there is a good chance "Oopsies" isn't going to solve it.

I couldn't get a drivers license without taking a drivers test to show not only could I handle a car but I understood the rules of the road.

If we're going to let peole carry guns then they need to have the same exact testing. They need to show that they know how to handle the weapon and understand when and when NOT to use a gun.

[MineralMan]

5. They did a records search before issuing the actual permit.

That's why the 30 days delay.

[county worker]

7. I think for most people gun training happens before you purchase the gun.

In CA there is some kind of gun training needed. For me my army training was sufficient. The carry permit has nothing to do with buying a gun.

[RamboLiberal]

8. I don't think training is required in most states to buy a gun

For instance in PA I didn't have to have any training to buy. Now I did decide for myself to take the NRA's basic course. I also on my own took several classes on Legal use of a firearm and tactical handgun courses.

I think the majority of states that passed laws allowing concealed carry since the nineties have mandated training course to get the license.

[Euromutt]

85. It's hard to see how that would be workable

Most firearms instructors require you to bring your own firearm to the class. If you need a gun to take the class, but you need to have taken the class to buy the gun, well, that's a perfect example of a Catch-22.

But even if the instructor can provide the weapons, there's a very real possibility that the firearms will not be the model you intend to buy (unless you plan on buying a Glock, I suppose). That creates something of an issue, because is it really productive to require someone to become familiarized with a firearm that isn't one they're going to be possessing, and may have quite a different manual of arms?

[PavePusher]

11. Did you have to wait 30 days to get your licence?

Please show me your First Amendment test results.

I'd also like to see your tax returns before you are allowed to vote.

[LynneSin]

34. No but I had to drive in a car with some official dude to prove I knew what I was doing

and then take a test PLUS check my eye sight for accuracy.

And btw, yes I wanted about 6 months after I got my drivers permit until I was able to take the drivers test.

SO what's that you were saying?

:crazy:

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. The problem with your argument - is that there are so few problems with the permit process

Demonstrably so, as the permit holders are remarkably law abiding, and as a group they manage to kill far less people
than the "gun-free" inhabitants of Chicago or Washington, DC.

I can't see any reason to make the process more difficult.

[PavePusher]

88. Driving is not a Constitutionaly protected Civil Right.

Just checked. Not in there. You were saying?

[tburnsten]

120. He didn't ask how long it took you after your permit

He asked about your license.

There is no equivalent to the permit in the carry permit analogy. Nothing you can get with a ten minute test and a few bucks will allow you to carry concealed while accompanied by another carry permitee.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. The permit process works well enough, no need for the angst.

Being as the permit holders in the US have a minicule crime rate, wherein lies the problem for you?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Washington State Gun Owners Rights and Responsibilities

by Dave Workman. Should be handed out with every permit. It's much more comprehensive than the orange pamphlet they give you when you get the permit.

10 bux. http://openlibrary.org/b/OL8556115M/Washington_State_gun_rights_and_responsibilities

I'm not comfortable with a training requirement. Too close to a poll tax to me. The 11 day class we took for Hunter Safety Education eliminated half the class simply by virtue of people not being able to show up all 11 days. Same for Community Emergency Response Team training. Yeah, it's good info, but it's a huge barrier to entry.

Willing to work on some sort of compromise though.

[eqfan592]

29. I'm with you.

I'd be OK with a training program requirement only if the program offered VERY flexible schedules, accomodating those that work full time any given shift of the day. It also should be offered free of charge, though a nominal fee would likely be more realistic unfortunately.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. We pay 'nominal fees' already

11% federal excise tax on all ammo, for instance.

I agree it should be free to the participants, just like the police-offered citizens academys, etc, but there's plenty of funding out there to support it. It's just currently being dumped into unrelated things.

[LynneSin]

38. Don't they have programs already setup like that with learning to drive a car?

Let's face it - more people in this country will learn to drive a car than own a gun and yet MILLIONS of people across the nation find a way to learn how to drive it and take a few basic tests to demostrate their knowledge of owning a car.

And people need to drive cars.

Would you allow someone to fly an airplane that didn't have a license or knowledge of handling a plane? No, because if the person fucks up there could be some serious damage. And yet you have no problem giving some nut job that may not have a criminal history but is hyped up on hours of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck & Faux News the right to carry a gun simply because they can pay a fee? And now you have Sarah Palin making suggestions we need to "Reload & Aim" at certain democrats using a poser with cross-hairs on those democrat's district.

I think showing the basic knowledge of safe gun ownership is not that much of a stretch for anyone.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. You are arguing process, instead of results. And suggesting a political test for rights

The process as it is works (not perfectly, of course). But some small number of permit holders will still do wrong,
as will some drivers and pilots. But we have empirical evidence that concealed handgun permitting is not a threat to
public safety.

And no, I don't have any problem with some Limbaugh-watching, Beck-loving teabagger getting a pistol permit, because
it's a CIVIL RIGHT. I don't have to like them, but they do have the same rights as the rest of us.
And as long as someone meets the requirements, they should get the permit. God willing and the crick don't rise,
the Supremes will do away with that "may-issue" horseshit sometime this summer.


I seem to recall the same argument being used against people with the wrong amount of melanin who wanted to arm themselves

Fred Phelps and Larry Flynt have the same rights under the First Amendment as you and I do.

A suspected serial killer and the oft-convicted burglar who took your flat screen has the same rights under
the Fourth and Fifth amendments as you and I do.

There is no "character clause" in the Constitution.

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. Hmm, where *did* she go?

n/t

[PavePusher]

89. Are there states that mandate training for drivers licences?

I honestly don't know, its been some 24 years since I got mine... In Vermont.

[eqfan592]

90. actually, come to think of it....

...i don't think there's a mandate for any training in Wisconsin, either. It's highly recommended, but you can take the tests without the training.

[ManiacJoe]

91. The quality of Seattle drivers would suggest not.

Some days I question whether a test was required....

[Euromutt]

92. There's no training requirement for a Washington state driver's license, no

You have to pass the written test, and then the practical, but that's it.

And speaking as someone who married into a family that's scattered along the west coast, it's been the experience of both my in-laws and myself that the quality of driving actually progressively deteriorates as you head south from Washington. Oregonian drivers are a bit worse than Washingtonians, NorCal drivers a bit worse than that, and SoCal drivers worse than that. I also understand that drivers in the greater Vancouver BC area are pretty awful, on average.

[tburnsten]

134. Maine doesn't.

Just have to have a learner's permit, if you are 21 or older there is no required number of hours to drive, so long as you are competent.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gorfle]

52. It's not just filling out a form.

The author of the article omits the most important detail: In addition to filling out the form, YOU MUST PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK!

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faconcealreq.html

[Euromutt]

93. Correct; of course, that doesn't require any active effort on the applicant's part

...so it's easy to overlook that. But I'm guessing that it'd come home to you if your prints turn out to match some lifted off a crime scene.

[paulsby]

100. driving is a PRIVILEGE

we don't require tests for firearms or voting in WA state.

as the constitution requires imo, not to mention WA state constitution

[Callisto32]

104. The problem with testing is:

You don't know what the test actually measures, often. The test you have to pass to drive obviously doesn't show who will be a decent driver, as the amount of asshole, idiot drivers that don't know basic right of way rules is far too large to be only those driving without a license.

Second point, licensure prevents whom from doing things? The very people that don't need to be stopped from it in the first place. A person who is going to break the law doesn't say "oh, I can't drive, I don't have a license!" The same holds true with weapons. Criminals don't care if they have a license or not. We have a saying in my Podunk town, "locks only keep your friends out."

[GreenStormCloud]

115. So true. A few months ago I was in an accident with a wanted felon with a warrant for his arrest.

The police told me that he was "to be considered armed and dangerous". He was arrested that night, so something good came of the accident. He did not have a driver's license, the car wasn't his, and there was no insurance. Criminals don't have respect for any laws.

BTW - He caused the accident by trying to make a U-turn on the interstate. He was on the right shoulder, trying to give aid to a stranded car. (Driver of stranded car was a fairly attractive young woman.) Everybody was facing with the traffic. He decided that she needed a jump-start so he needed to be bumper to bumper with her car. He pulled out crossways to traffic in trying to get turned around. He was driving a black car, at night, in a light rain. I got on the brakes and slid into the side of his car. CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE ANY THOUGHT TO ANY LAWS, including traffic laws.

[slackmaster]

3. Sounds about right for issuing a document that the law says must be issued to qualified people

A reasonable fee as well.

[PavePusher]

12. I have to disagree.

There is no "reasonable fee" for permission to exercise Civil Rights.

[slackmaster]

27. I see a permit to carry a concealed weapon as similar to getting a license to drive on public roads

The biggest difference is that operating a motor vehicle is much more complex and presents much more risk to the general public than someone carrying a loaded firearm does.

[PavePusher]

87. And bearing arms is a Civil Right, while operating a motor vehicle...

on publicly funded roads is a privilege.

But we've been down this road around here a few times. So to speak...

[Euromutt]

111. You always have the option of carrying openly

I really don't have a problem with requiring a permit/license to carry concealed, provided there is no restriction on open carry. Or vice-versa. And Washington is an open carry state.

[Endangered Specie]

94. Except driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right

Keep and bearing arms... is.

NC costs $200 when you get done paying for the fees, class, and fingerprints.

[jaksavage]

4. I took the class in Oregon

Mostly about shooting stance and scary videos of cops getting shot.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. If only we could get the ATF's NFA branch to work that efficiently!

[X_Digger]

9. 22 minutes + a month..

Kind of sensational headline there, but hey, the rest is accurate.

[Glassunion]

37. I love PA...

Took me 15 minutes. Walked out with the card in hand.

Full FBI background check, took my picture and printed it out. I still had another 45 minutes left on my lunch hour.

[RamboLiberal]

112. I think that depends on county in PA

In my county Allegheny the sheriff will still take a couple of weeks to approve the application then sends a card if approved. So far no problem other than having to take an extended lunch to go into Pittsburgh to pick it up. At least on my next renewal 2011 I can do the application online so I don't have to do 2 trips.

I heard Westmoreland County is doing the instant approval but only to their residents.

[Glassunion]

113. It does depend on the sherriff department's access to the FBI database.

I live in Bucks and they are setup for the instant check.

My boss is in Lehigh and it was all done through the mail. Funding and systems that the counties have does depend on how fast they can get it done.

Nice thing about it is that I live in the county seat. I live about 3 minutes from the sherriff's office.

[ManiacJoe]

40. That caught my eye, too.

I think the only worse agency to go through is the Seattle PD. They seem to try to take the whole 30 days allowed by law.

[county worker]

13. For me this is disturbing. The fact that so many people feel the need to carry a concealed weapon

tells me something is wrong in this country. It is a form of de-evolution in my opinion. First if there really is a need to carry a concealed weapon because life has gotten more dangerous that in itself is de-evolution. Second if it is only imagined danger that is causing people to want to carry a concealed weapon that is de-evolution. Third if people just feel good about carrying a concealed weapon because it makes them tough that is de-evolution.

[PavePusher]

15. Or maybe it's a Civil Right, and crime is actually falling.

Pesky things, those facts.

[county worker]

16. Like I said de-evolution either way you look at it.

Civil right does not change the fact that it is disturbing that so many people are walking around with concealed weapons. It is just plain de-evolution. In a community making progress there would not be the need to do that.

And as far as crime going down, there is no way to make a connection like that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Are you Jerry Casale or Mark Mothersbaugh?

If not, please don't try to explain de-evolution to us..

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

19. Now you're catching on.

Things would be so much more ... orderly... if we just ignored that Thirteenth Amendment...

Trump!

[county worker]

21. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people

to keep and bear Arms (under their clothes), shall not be infringed.


When was that added?

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Do you have a *reason* for opposing concealed carry, aside from a dislike of it?

Being a free country n' all, something more than "I'm against it" should be required to disallow something.

[county worker]

42. Yes,

In my opinion the "crazies" are going around armed and dangerous.

[Glassunion]

44. That's Me!!!

Cuuuurrrrrrraaaazzzeeeee!!!!

:tinfoilhat:

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Your opinion isn't supported by evidence

In my book, empirical evidence tops prejudice

[county worker]

59. No in you book anecdotal evidence is everything

We have not had any more need to carry guns the last few years as we have the whole of my 63 years on this earth. I was in Vietnam for one of those years and that was where I needed to be armed but no where else to be safe.

It us just the rise of pro gun groups that is the only difference today. I have fired all kinds of small arms in the military. I have owned rifles and pistols. I am not unfamiliar with guns. I don't now and except for my time in Vietnam did I ever feel the need to carry a weapon to be safe and I use to travel to Watts quite a bit in the 80's and lived in Highland Park in Los Angles at the time.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Well, some people in California have felt the need to carry. Like the Black Panthers.

And I think they had every right and reason to do so.


Attracting new members through their high visibility, the Panthers sprang to national attention in 1967. Antagonism toward the party by law enforcement officials had prompted California lawmakers to consider gun control. In May 1967, legislators met in Sacramento, the state capital, to discuss a bill that would criminalize the carrying of loaded weapons within city limits. To Seale and Newton, chairman and minister of defense of the BPP, respectively, the proposed law was unjust. Governor Ronald Reagan was on the lawn of the state legislature as thirty armed Black Panthers arrived and entered the building. TV cameras followed the group's progress to the legislative chambers, where they were stopped by police officers, Seale shouting, "Is this the way the racist government works — won't let a man exercise his constitutional rights?" He then read a prepared statement:

The Black Panther Party calls upon American people in general and black people in particular to take full note of the racist California legislature which is now considering legislation aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless, at the very same time that racist police agencies throughout the country are intensifying the terror, brutality, murder and repression of black people.

The Panthers kept their guns, left the building, and were subsequently disarmed by the police.

No sooner had the demonstration ended than the national media denounced the Panthers as antiwhite radicals. For many white U.S. citizens, the Panthers symbolized terror. The party denied being antiwhite, but a new political focus now superseded its original goal of self-defense. In a ten-point program, the Panthers called for full employment, better housing and education, and juries composed of African Americans. It denounced the war in Vietnam and the military draft. Some of its demands went further. Point 3 said the group wanted an end to the robbing of the black community by the whites. Another point called for the release of all African American men from prison. The group's major political objective was self-determination. It demanded United Nations-supervised elections in the black community, which it dubbed the black colony, for blacks only, so that "black colonials" could determine their own national destiny.

[eqfan592]

73. Because you choose to remain unprepared, that's your prerogative.

Where it becomes a problem is when you try to force your choice onto others. Nothing gives you that right, pure and simple.

[paulsby]

102. need canard

fwiw, we have MORE people carrying guns and less crime

whatever the "need is", what we are doing (more people carrying, and crime going down) is pretty good

[cowman]

46. The crazies already do

they're called criminals if they do it illegally. Those of us that do legally carry concealed are called law abiding citizens

[gorfle]

54. Then you are after the wrong people.

In my opinion the "crazies" are going around armed and dangerous.

People with concealed carry permits have passed background checks that indicate that they have no criminal or mental health issues that would prevent them from owning a firearm.

Moreover, CCW permit holders have been shown to be many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than non-CCW permit holders.

The simple fact is, CCW permit holders are not "crazies", and tend to be extremely law-abiding. The rate of revocation of CCW permit holders seems to be less than 2%.

[Callisto32]

107. Also, English doesn't really work like that.

"In my opinion" should be followed by something like "black is not a very attractive color for X," not "2+2=4," or "2+2=5."

[Callisto32]

106. And licensure requriements don't stop them.

Your "solution"=non sequitur.

[tvoss]

23. bear arms (under their clothes)

I don't understand what you mean. Would you prefer people just wear them openly?

[AtheistCrusader]

31. It is implied.

As is open carry. Which is also legal and practiced in Washington State.

I prefer to carry concealed, because if I'm at the local stop n' rob getting gas, standing in line to pay, I don't want some goblin coming in the door behind me and deciding that I am designated target 0 because I have a gun on my hip. Initiative is worth it's weight in gold.

[Hoopla Phil]

32. Right to bear arms. You started off good but stumbled a bit.

Is it an absolute right or is some restriction OK? I say some (very little) restrictions are OK. One of those restrictions is not to allow blanket carry (bearing of arms). I see the background check and licensing to be a reasonable restriction on the bearing of arms.

[PavePusher]

82. Funny thing that.

The First Amendment doesn't specify methods either.

I've got a copy of the Constitution 18 inches away, and all night to do this. You're in for a long haul...

[PavePusher]

83. Well, I open carry normally anyway.

I suppose you probably don't like that either...

If I let you restrict my Civil Rights, are you willing to let me pick one of yours to restrict?

[cabluedem]

97. packing a gun isn't a civil right.

[PavePusher]

98. Pull the other one, it's got bells on... n/t

[Euromutt]

99. It's a constitutional right in Washington

Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution (http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx):

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Emphasis in bold mine.

[cabluedem]

116. civil rights are universal. owning a gun is not a right in most countries so you have a privilege.

[Euromutt]

118. There are plenty of countries where the governments deny certain rights to their citizens

Try exercising your freedom of speech (or any of various other human rights) in China, North Korea, Burma, Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea... the list goes on. Does the fact that governments deny their citizens those rights in those countries mean that these rights are not, in fact, rights at all, but are merely privileges?

Also, let us not kid ourselves for an instant: the overwhelming majority of governments that have adopted restrictions on the private ownership of firearms have done so not in the interest of public safety, but in the interest of their own safety. Most western European countries imposed their first substantial gun control measures in 1919-1920; it wasn't like there was some massive crime wave sweeping Europe at the time, but in the wake of the Russian and German revolutions, those governments were afraid they might go the same way. At least Mussolini was forthright that he wanted to prevent the Italian left from arming themselves against the Fascists.

[PavePusher]

119. Whadafook?!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaahhoooooooo........ GASP....

Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahheeeeeeeeeee....... pant... pant... pant....

:rofl:

Dude, what the hell are you drinking? Fer Christ's sake, share that bottle, woodjya?!

[hack89]

122. What kind of rights do you think are in the Bill of Rights? nt

[cabluedem]

124. constitution is federal law. you can't pack a gun into a post office even.

[hack89]

126. The Constitution is not federal law.

If it was, why do laws get smacked down all the time as being un-Constitutional?

[cabluedem]

127. follow my logic: SCOTUS are judges which are lawyers who practice law. therfore the constitution is

A legal document. Your turn to refute me if you dare.

[hack89]

129. Never said it wasn't a legal document.

that doesn't make it federal law. It is the touchstone document for our system of government and legal system. It's purpose is to clearly delineate which powers belong to the government and which are retained by the people. It is as much a limit on government as anything else - the BOR are not laws by which the government grants rights to the people. The BOR is a declaration that certain rights are universal rights that no government can infringe.

I think your knowledge of the Constitution is sorely lacking. By your standard there is no such thing as a civil right as far as I can see - just laws by those governments willing to allow their people to do certain things.

[PavePusher]

128. Actually, you can.

But you probably be arrested for it and would have to go through a very expensive legal process to prove it. So far, no-one has wanted to be bothered with that (can you blame them), and people who carry, do so concealed in P.O.'s. And the courts have ruled wrongly on the subject so far.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Concealed-carry-in-a-post-office-may-lead-to-rude-awakening


"(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

Self-defense is a lawful purpose.

[cabluedem]

130. self defence yes. defending yourself with a gun can land you in jail or worse.

And since you choose to pack a gun on postal service grounds you get.too spend time in a federal prison. Not much fun.

[cowman]

131. Can land you in jail,

can being the operative word, if a gun is used legally in the course of protecting yourself of someone else, the chances of ending up in jail are next to none except of course in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia.

You really should learn the laws associated with self defense, but then again that would destroy your pre determined view of guns and their use for defense

[cabluedem]

132. If you are attacked in a post office and you use a gun, you will be prosecuted. I dont

understand why you people dont get that.

The signs are all over the postal buildings. No weapons allowed!

Not hard to see them at all.

[PavePusher]

133. Can I borrow a million dollars?

So I can take that to court and get the stupid and Unconstitutional law overturned?

[Euromutt]

86. Wrong constitution; try Article I, Section 24 of the Washington state constitution

Which reads:

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx

The Second Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion.

[tburnsten]

123. I'm sorry, does "bear" or "not be infringed" imply ANY right

of the government to control how an individual bears their arms?

Don't think it does bub.

[eqfan592]

24. De-evolution my ass.

The de-evolution is people such as yourself who have apparently forgotten the basic survival instincts that allowed our species to survive and flourish.

You seem to confuse "making progress" with "is already at a perfect safe level for everybody." The two are NOT one in the same. And to be perfectly frank, a world where nobody will ever have to defend themselves from somebody wishing to do them harm is a pipe dream. It's something to strive for, to be sure, but it's an unattainable goal in the long run. People will always have a need to be able to defend themselves.

[Callisto32]

108. Funny story.

Just last night I started writing an essay about how the people who believe that self-defense and defense of others is wrong are basically a failed sub-species and that natural selection will pick them off. It's more of an opinion piece than anything else, of course. :evilgrin:

[AtheistCrusader]

30. It's disturbing to YOU.

Think of it another way, if more and more people are armed, AND crime is falling (including negligent shootings and homicide) doesn't that say something positive about the attitude and motive of the general public?

[eqfan592]

35. Well said! (nt)

[county worker]

43. If we all have to have shoot outs to reduce crime it is de-evolution!

If the way we live in this country is all of us armed and dangerous to be save we are a sick nation!

And IMHO if you feel you have to carry a gun to feel safe, there is something wrong with you. If you carry a gun to feel strong then there is something wrong with you.

I get this from living in a gang neighborhood in Los Angeles where you had to shoot someone for initiation.

[eqfan592]

47. Thank you for demonstrating just how far into the sand you've stuck your head.

You've failed to listen to reason on this issue, and instead are relying on a purely emotional and irrational response to the topic at hand.

De-evolution indeed. You, sir, are a fine demonstration of that.

[county worker]

60. You sir have your head up your ...

Reason? Give me a fucking break!

[cowman]

48. I've been

carrying concealed for several years now and I have never felt strong by carrying it, I've felt that I would have a better chance of defending myself if some asshole of a criminal left me absolutly no choice but to defend myself. You not liking the idea of open or concealed carry is your right but you are in the minority. More and more states are becoming Shall Issue states and in my opinion when more law abiding citizens are allowed to legally carry that is a good thing.
Despite the howling shrill cries from the gun control crowds like the Brady Bunch and the VPC that if concealed carry were allowed there would be gunfights in the streets and blood would flow down the streets, it hasn't happened.

Your arguments just hold no water

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. They are not arguments, they are flat-out denials of reality.

Easier to deny than to acknowledge stuff you wholeheartedly believed was wrong.

The notion that crime and murder rates are declining simutaneously with an increase in the number of gun owners
is just too much to bear for some of the more delicate flowers here.

[county worker]

62. That is not logic.

Because two things move in the same direction means nothing about the relationship of them. Calling people names doesn't support what you are saying but is sure helps my statement of de-evolution.

[county worker]

61. I am not arguing anything. I'm merely stating that I think it is de-evolution that

so many people in this country are going after concealed weapons permits.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. So you're saying that at some point in the past we had comprehensive permits for concealed carry

and that we had moved beyond that for a period of time in a progressive manner, and that this is a relapse or retrograde development?

Because I am unaware of this former time where everyone carried lawfully, with licensed concealed weapons.

[cowman]

70. I disagree

I see as evolution of the 2nd amend Right To Keep And Bear Arms and, apparently so do the vast majority of states and americans

[GreenStormCloud]

76. I don't think that you understand evolution. I can suggest some good books. N/T

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. "The crime rate IS TOO going up, you big poopyheads"!

We're sullying his faith-promoting rumors with grubby reality, we are...

[Glassunion]

56. The meadia would not have anything to do with that?

Would they??? :wow:

[gorfle]

55. Why?

And IMHO if you feel you have to carry a gun to feel safe, there is something wrong with you. If you carry a gun to feel strong then there is something wrong with you.

Why? Seriously, why, exactly, do you feel something is wrong with a person who takes precautions to secure their personal safety?

Do you feel there is something wrong with people who have smoke detectors or fire extinguishers? Do you think there is something wrong with people who have insurance? Spare tires? First aid kits?

[county worker]

63. Because the fear you have is all in your head!

[AtheistCrusader]

68. If I am ever attacked by some scumbag, I will tell him he is all in my head.

If that doesn't work, then I'll shoot him.

I'll report back which method produces results.

[cowman]

71. so now

your a Psychiatrist? How the hell do you know what is in our heads? I conceal carry because I refuse to be a potential victim and if you think that's fear, well, that's your problem not mine and I really don't give a damn what you think of us conceal carry citizens

[gorfle]

72. Being prepared does not equal to fear.

Being prepared does not equal to being afraid.

The risk of a house fire is pretty rare. I have never experienced one my entire life. I don't fear house fires, yet I have smoke detectors in every bedroom and the living room of my house. I have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen. I have insurance that pays for my property in case of fire.

You could say that I do all of this out of "fear" of fire, but I don't actually feel "afraid" as I acquire and keep any of these tools to use in case of fire. It's just a tool that as a modern human I can afford to buy and keep for my protection.

The risk of flat tires is pretty rare. I've never experienced one my entire life. But I still carry a spare tire and an air compressor in my vehicles. I'm not afraid of flat tires, in that I don't actually experience any sensation of fear concerning them, but I still take the prudent action of carrying the tools necessary to deal with that problem should the need arise.

A person who carries a firearm could be much the same way. Being robbed or assaulted is actually a pretty rare occurrence, so people who carry concealed weapons probably aren't actually feeling any sensation of fear as they carry their weapons. They are simply being prudent and carrying the tools with them to deal with such an emergency should it arise.

[GreenStormCloud]

78. No flats! Let me give you some of mine, I've had dozens.

That "dozens of flats" is stretched out over the course of my life and I am a senior citizen now. I have had to use my car fire extinquisher twice, and saved a baby's life with it once.

I have been a direct victim of violent crime several times, but not in the last few decades.

I haven't had a DGU, but my wife has saved her life with her gun, and would be furious if I allowed our CHLs to expire.

Funny how probability distributions work, isn't it? You are right. We can't predict them so we have to be prepared. So I carry two spares (A real sized tire and the mini-spare)two fire extinquishers in the house and one in each car, and I carry two guns on me. If the gun-controllers want to say that I am living in fear, oh well. I like to think that I am prepared.

[eqfan592]

74. First of all, you imply that wishing to be prepared for a situation equates to....

...fear of that situation. This is simply not true.

Second, even if you WERE right, the only way your statement could possibly be true is if there were absolutely NO crime what so ever that a person would ever feel the need to protect themselves from. This is ALSO entirely not true. Having been a victim of such a crime myself in the past, I have every reason to believe that there is NOTHING insane or "de-evolved" with somebody who would take steps to protect themselves. In fact, willfully ignoring this reality would be a much better example of "de-evolution" as I stated earlier.

I was lucky in that the scumbag that shot at me was a bad shot. A person should not have to rely entirely on luck in such situations. Eventually the state of Wisconsin will wake up and realize that (though it looks like my job will require me to leave Wisconsin, so that won't be a problem for me much longer at least).

[PavePusher]

84. Proof, please? n/t

[shadowrider]

58. If we all have to have shoot outs to reduce crime it is de-evolution!

Please point me to statistics, or articles, proving LEGAL CCW holders engage in random shoot 'em ups at the drop of a hat.

I'll wait.

LEGAL CCW holders engage in shootouts with BAD GUYS who have been doing BAD SHIT since humans have been able to stand on two legs. If the BAD GUYS wouldn't commit the crime, there would be no reason for a LEGAL CCW holder to fire his/her weapon except at the range.

[county worker]

64. You are saying we need to carry guns to be safe. I'm saying to be safe

by carrying a gun means you intend to use it for safety. That is a shoot out.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Is it a shoot out if someone attacks you with a knife and you shoot him once in the head?

Moral hazards aside, if someone were to attack you with a knife, would you rather have a gun or not?

There was a 'mass stabbing' in New York not too long ago, halted by an off-duty officer with a gun. If more people in New York lawfully carried, fewer people may have been stabbed.

[Caliman73]

80. A shoot out is when multiple people with firearms discharge them at each other.

You are projecting your own thoughts onto others. If I carry an emergency kit in my car, it means that I acknowledge that there is a chance that some emergency may befall me on the road and that I may have to use the kit. I do not want to use it, and would prefer it went to waste having never had to experience said emergency. The same thought goes into carrying a firearm. If I chose to carry a firearm it would be with the intention to be prepared to meet aggression with force, not to provoke any confrontation. If I never have to use a firearm for self defense, that is a positive thing.

You seem to be stuck into thinking that the only reason one would be armed would be to actively engage in violence. Again, it seems to me you are projecting your own inclinations rather than understanding reasons why people would make the decision to carry.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Yes I am weak.

I cannot guarantee the safety of people under my care without a weapon.
I cannot guarantee the well-being of people under my care without my first aid equipment.

I am mere flesh and blood. If some miscreant tries to harm me or my family with fists or feet, I can probably stop it. If said miscreant uses a knife, a bat, a gun, whatever, as a tool using mammal, I want a force equalizer, because I am weak. I am not bulletproof. I am not knifeproof. I am mortal.


There is nothing morally wrong with being armed, or by your nature, dangerous. It is only a moral hazard if you INFLICT harm, or terror on innocent people.

[eqfan592]

75. Here here! (nt)

[Glassunion]

79. Amen Brother!

Oh wait... Your name... Um...

Way to go brother!

[NewMoonTherian]

109. But what you asserted...

is that increased concealed carry is a mark of societal deterioration(de-evolution). But the de-evolving society is becoming safer. Fewer murders are taking place. That's what is going to frustrate a lot of the pragmatists and logical thinkers who read your post. We can't wrap our heads around the idea that society is de-evolving unless you provide us with some basis for that statement, beyond the fact that you find guns unsavory.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. I carry a gun for the same reason I carry a Ambu+ CPR shield.

'in case'.

Almost 10 years now and I've never needed the gun or the face shield. Still carry them. In case.

[gorfle]

53. On de-evolution.

The simple fact is, humanity is not as evolved as you seem to think it is.

Man is a savage animal, and the fabric of civilization is thin at best. Carrying a concealed weapon simply means that a person has chosen to equip themselves with the tools available to improve their odds of survival if attacked.

I have smoke detectors and fire insurance even though I have never been the victim of a fire. Is this de-evolution? I carry a spare tire and lug wrench even though I have never had a flat tire. Is this de-evolution?

Man is, by nature, a frail being. Through the use of intellect, we have equipped ourselves with the tools to overcome hardship and adversity. It is not de-evolution to do this.

[Glassunion]

77. Couple of questions to your points...

"The fact that so many people feel the need to carry a concealed weapon tells me something is wrong in this country."
Is it the person legally carrying the gun that is the problem with this country, or the reason they carry it the problem?

"First if there really is a need to carry a concealed weapon because life has gotten more dangerous that in itself is de-evolution."
What would you suggest that we do about this? Should law abiding people lay down their tools for self defense in the hopes that the bad guys will just stop being bad guys?

"Second if it is only imagined danger that is causing people to want to carry a concealed weapon that is de-evolution."
What if it is not imagined danger? I can speak from first hand experience that there are bad people out there that for nothing more want to harm others. As you stated in another post, you come from an area where individuals have to shoot someone to join a gang. Should my wife lay down her life so some thug could get a merit badge on his colors? Or should she have an oportunity to defend herself?

"Third if people just feel good about carrying a concealed weapon because it makes them tough that is de-evolution."
What if our firearms do not make us feel tough? What if our firearms do nothing more than sit on our hips, our pockets or purses until they are needed? What if they do not cause us to emote any more or less than we already do? You stated in another post about your service to your country during Vietnam. Did the gun you carried make you feel tough? Or did it just sit there as a tool waiting to be used when a situation called for it to be used?

[Euromutt]

96. Excellent points

As you rightly allude, Glassunion, if the fact that an increased number of people feel a need to acquire a CCW permit and carry a firearm is indicative that "something is wrong in this country," then surely it would be more productive to address whatever it is that is prompting them to do so, rather than the fact that they are doing so. Part of the reason I carry OC spray and a handgun is because, while taking walks around my neighborhood with my toddler, we've encountered loose dogs, a few of whom have behaved threateningly toward my child. So is the problem that I'm carrying, or that some idiots let their nasty dogs run loose? Incidentally, the solution is not to prohibit letting your dog run loose, because it already is illegal to do so.

It's by no means a given that everyone who acquires a CCW permit actually takes the next step of carrying, by the way. I didn't carry for the first year that I had my CPL, but when I moved from Thurston County (mostly rural apart from greater Olympia, which is a conurbation with a population of ~100,000) to urbanized western King County (wall-to-wall built-up area from Puget Sound to the Cascade foothills), I started to feel more inclined to carry, especially on late-night trips to the grocery store.

I might add that I don't think carrying a firearm "keeps me safe." I have taken to heart Massad Ayoob's urging that a gun is not a magic talisman, that will in and of itself ward off danger. If the situation were to arise that I would need to draw my carry weapon, it would mean that I had already failed to remain safe; at this juncture, judicious and skillful use of the firearm may protect me from being harmed, but it has not kept me safe.

[paulsby]

101. need canard

boring.

[Callisto32]

105. Really?

I think trying to control people is more of a sign of social decay (what I think you mean by de-evolution, because otherwise you are saying gun owners are becoming something less than human) than this. Here are a couple of reasons.

It shows that society is ready to recognize that people and the decisions they make, not things, are the source of our troubles.

Willingness to trust more people with what is unarguably the means of high violence, and that those people are subsequently shown to be far safer than we thought, coupled with a falling violent crime rate; shows that society is progressing.

It shows that more people realize that they need to stand on their own two feet, rather than wait for other people to protect them from the harsh realities of the world. Do I expect to be in a car crash today? No. But I know it is a possibility so I prepare. Same thing. The more self-reliant we make people, the less of a burden upon society they are. This opens up resources for further development not previously possible.

[Dappleganger]

125. It's more like something is wrong with my city of Jacksonville.

It's a freaking war-zone at times. We live in a nice area and the zombies are encroaching as never before. Too bad I can't carry a chain-saw in my back pocket but it's hard to conceal that, so a .380 will have to do. Momma's got children to feed and a husband to order around so it helps to stay alive. ;)

[PavePusher]

14. I can no longer tell who's the bigger drama queen...

MSNBC or FoxNews.

Edit: "At this point, even though I had an introductory handgun lesson and fired a number of pistols under close supervision in the course of reporting this article, I still don’t really know how to load one."

Why is this man (presumably) allowed to drive a car, if he is this inept?

[eqfan592]

25. I've never seen nor heard of a firearms training class....

...that didn't first teach you how to safely load and unload the firearm before using it. The only way for the reporter to not be full of shit is to be shockingly inept, as you said.

[gorfle]

51. COMPLETELY MISLEADING ARTICLE MISSING IMPORTANT DATA.

The article misses one important detail:

In addition to all of the things the author listed, YOU MUST ALSO PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faconcealreq.html

The author makes it sound like all they had to do was lie on the form and they could get a CCW permit. This is incorrect. The author also had to pass a background check, probably NICS, to determine if they had any past disqualifying criminal or mental health issues.

The article is fearmongering bullshit.

[shadowrider]

57. An anti-gun article leaving out

Pertinent facts to push an agenda of how easy it is to get a CCW. Say it isn't so. Be still my heart.

[Euromutt]

81. That's 22 minutes to *submit the application*

I am a Washington state CPL holder, and I've been through this process, and I can't help noticing the details that Mr. Stuckey is blithely glossing over. Yes, it doesn't take a whole lot of time to submit the application, but that's not counting the time you spent at home filling out the form, nor the amount of time it takes to process the application, which can be up to 30 days.

Very simply, the legwork starts only after you have submitted the application, and it's performed not by the applicant, but by the relevant local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.

I applied for a CPL the day I was naturalized as a U.S. citizen; I stopped off at my local police department on my way home from the Citizenship and Immigration Service building. I didn't spend very much time applying either, because I'd done all my paperwork at home prior to walking into the police station; what took most time was getting my fingerprints taken. These days, that gets done electronically, so there's no need to send a physical copy of the fingerprint card to the Washington State Patrol and the FBI; it can simply be transmitted electronically, i.e. almost instantaneously.

But after I'd submitted the application, it still took 30 days (the maximum time allowed) until my CPL arrived in the mail. Stuff happens during those 30 days; the WSP and the FBI ran full background checks on me, checking that I didn't have any disqualifying criminal convictions, and also checking my fingerprints against state and federal databases to make sure my prints didn't match any unidentified prints recovered from crime scenes. But all this happens "behind the scenes," so to speak; if your background's clean, you don't even notice it. All you know is that "less than one month later," the CPL arrives in the mail.

This article is more than a little tendentiously written.

[jazzhound]

95. gorfle said.........

"The author of the article omits the most important detail: In addition to filling out the form, YOU MUST PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK!"

Very good observation here, particularly since I don't believe for a moment that this was accidental. Perhaps you've read Dave Kopel's dissection of Michael Moore's "Bowling for Colombine". Moore isn't guilty of outright lies (IIRC) but cunningly misleads through omission
and various sly methods of deceit. The reader of this article may deduce that a background check was in progress while the applicant waited for his permit, or that no background check whatsoever was needed -- since it wasn't explicitly stated. And the author likely knew that many readers would deduce the latter by virtue of the lack of knowledge on the part of Joe and Irene Public on the process.

With regard to CC and demonstration of proficiency, here in CA we are a "may issue" state -- which of course translates to "no issue" unless you are connected or have an extremely strong demonstrable need to carry. I had fired my revolver, 12 gauge and semi-auto at the local range when I decided to purchase another semi-auto from that range. Despite the fact that they knew me, when the pistol arrived I was still required to demonstrate proficiency in safe handling with a dummy round. I'm still not sure if this is required by law, or just range policy, as I don't recall if I had to demonstrate proficiency when I made my very first purchase. I vaguely recall that there was some type of coaching involved.

[paulsby]

114. it SHOULD take only 22 minutes, but the article IS misleading

since it took just under a month.

[Callisto32]

103. Let's change it up a little.

Curious if it would really be that easy, I decided to go through the process of voting on my own.

The King County pollsters in downtown Seattle accommodated me with brisk efficiency. They asked me my name and checked me off of the rolls.

I then voted in eight different races, 4 concerning the people who would be appointed to make the decisions regarding the use of force on people all across the U.S., and even the world.

Moments later, I dropped my ballot into the box and was told to have a nice day.

Eight minutes later, I was back in my car and in a few short months, as required by law, the winners of these elections would be sworn into their various offices. They will stay there for different amounts of time, depending on which office they fill. The ones going to national offices will be able to influence the policy that affects all 50 states.


........................................................

[Euromutt]

110. Except King County went to postal ballots only last year

And people around here still cringe when we remember the godawful cock-up that was the 2004 governor's election.

But in principle, you're spot on.

[tburnsten]

117. Huh. My state had eight pages of redundant questions

Seems like Wahington State went and condensed some repeat questions that every other state makes you answer forty times.

Less waste of time for the same damn questions.