10 Things Everyone Should Know About Concealed Weapons Permit Holders

[GreenStormCloud]

A person who is too new to DU to start his own thread posted the following in another thread. He stated that he would have started a thread with it if he could. I feel that it deserves its own thread too. So here is the post by Hummm

I wanted to post this as it's own topic but as a newbie I can't.

10 Things Everyone Should Know About Concealed Weapons Permit Holders

1. We don’t carry firearms so that we can ignore other basics of personal safety. Every permit holder that I know realizes that almost all dangerous situations can be avoided by vigilance, alertness and by simply making wise choices about where one goes and what one does. We don’t walk down dark alleys. We lock our cars. We don’t get intoxicated in public or hang out around people who do. We park our cars in well lighted spots and don’t hang out in bad parts of town where we have no business. A gun is our last resort, not our first.

2. We don’t think we are cops, spies, or superheros. We aren’t hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don’t take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness. We don’t believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren't here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We'll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety. Except for extraordinary circumstances your business is your business, don't expect us to help you out of situations you could have avoided.

3. We are LESS likely, not more likely, to be involved in fights or “rage” incidents than the general public. We recognize, better than many unarmed citizens, that we are responsible for our actions. We take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously. We know that loss of temper, getting into fights or angrily confronting someone after a traffic incident could easily escalate into a dangerous situation. We are more likely to go out of our way to avoid these situations. We don’t pull our guns to settle arguments or to attempt to threaten people into doing what we want.

4. We are responsible gun owners. We secure our firearms so that children and other unauthorized people cannot access them. Most of us have invested in safes, cases and lock boxes as well as other security measures to keep our firearms secure. Many of us belong to various organizations that promote firearms safety and ownership.

5. Guns are not unsafe or unpredictable. Modern firearms are well made precision instruments. Pieces do not simply break off causing them to fire. A hot day will not set them off. Most modern firearms will not discharge even if dropped. There is no reason to be afraid of a gun simply lying on a table or in a holster. It is not going to discharge on its own.

6. We do not believe in the concept of “accidental discharges”. There are no accidental discharges only negligent discharges or intentional discharges. We take responsibility for our actions and have learned how to safely handle firearms. Any case you have ever heard of about a gun “going off” was the result of negligence on somebody’s part. Our recognition of our responsibility and familiarity with firearms makes us among the safest firearms owners in America.

7. Permit holders do their best to keep our concealed weapons exactly that: concealed. However, there are times with an observant fellow citizen may spot our firearm or the print of our firearm under our clothes. We are very cognizant that concerns about terrorism and crime are in the forefront of the minds of most citizens. We also realize that our society does much to condition our fellow citizens to have sometimes irrational fears about firearms. We would encourage citizens who do happen to spot someone carrying a firearm to use good judgment and clear thinking if they feel to need to take action. Please recognize that it’s very uncommon for a criminal to use a holster. However, if you feel the need to report having spotted a firearm we would ask that you please be specific and detailed in your call to the police or in your report to a store manager or private security. Please don’t generalize or sensationalize what you observed. Comments like “there’s a guy running around in the store with a gun” or even simply “I saw a man with a gun in the store” could possibly cause a misunderstanding as to the true nature of the incident.

8. The fact that we carry a firearm to any given place does not mean that we believe that place to be inherently unsafe. If we believe a place to be unsafe, most of us would avoid that place all together if possible. However, we recognize that trouble could occur at any place and at any time. Criminals do not observe “gun free zones”. If trouble does come, we do not want the only armed persons to be perpetrators. Therefore, we don't usually make a determination about whether or not to carry at any given time based on "how safe" we think a location is.

9. Concealed weapon permit holders are an asset to the public in times of trouble. The fact that most permit holders have the good judgment to stay out of situations better handled by a 911 call or by simply being a careful and vigilant witness does not mean that we would fail to act in situations where the use of deadly force is appropriate to save lives. Review of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases.

10. The fact that criminals know that some of the population may be armed at any given time helps to deter violence against all citizens. Permit holders don’t believe that every person should necessarily be armed. We recognize that some people may not be temperamentally suited to carry a firearm or simply may wish not to for personal reasons. However we do encourage you to respect our right to arm ourselves. Even if you choose not to carry a firearm yourself please oppose measures to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to be armed. As mentioned before: criminals do not observe “gun free zones”. Help by not supporting laws that require citizens to be unarmed victims.

Needless to say, I agree completely with our newest member.

[noamnety]

1. I'd love to see citations for some of these claims.

(unless they are just opinions, not facts supported by data.)

Some of the stats I've seen imply these aren't all true - especially the one about concealed weapons carriers being more level-headed, less prone to violence.

"From January 1, 1996 to October 9, 1997 Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 946 crimes. Of these, 263 were felony arrests, including: six charges of murder or attempted murder involving at least four deaths; two charges of kidnapping; 18 charges of sexual assault; 66 charges of assault, including 48 cases of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; and, 42 weapon-related charges. Six-hundred eighty-three were misdemeanor arrests, including: 194 weapon-related charges and 215 instances of driving while intoxicated. In the first six months of 1997 (the most recent complete data set available), the weapon-related arrest rate among Texas concealed handgun license holders was more than twice as high as that of the general population of Texas aged 21 and older." http://www.vpc.org/studies/wherown.htm

and the one about appropriate storage: "Factors associated with an increased likelihood of storing guns loaded and unlocked included owning a gun for protection, owning a handgun, and having received firearms training."

[slackmaster]

7. NEWSFLASH: Arrests don't count

Only convictions do.

The Texas Department of Public Safety keeps detailed records on the behavior of CHL holders.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demoreportsfy08.htm

[jody]

195. TX stats: 314,574 active CHL & 348 revoked in 07-08. Apparently CHL are law-abiding. n/t

[cowman]

8. You really

think that the VPC is really unbiased? This is the group that wants to ban all handguns so they are not credible at all and they have been debunked several times.

Try a more unbiased source and we might believe you

[jazzhound]

17. Our pro-control friends are typically so uneducated on the gun control

issue that they're completely unaware of the long history of dishonest presentation of facts on the part of the VPC, Brady Bunch, CDC, David Hemenway, Arthur Kellerman etc. etc. etc.

[cowman]

19. Yeah

but you'll never get them to admit to it, the various reports that the dishonest gun control groups put out are like the bible to them

[yodoobo]

220. Just because they want to ban handguns

Doesn't mean they are not credible.

And how do you debunk a group?

VPC is certainly no less biased than the NRA.

Fact is, if you remove all sources that have biases in the gun debate, you have virtually no sources at all.

[GreenStormCloud]

120. Try more recent data that isn't 13 years old.

Texas posts their data for all years online. That data shows the we who have CHLs are much safer and more law-abiding than the general public.

[noamnety]

127. I didn't see that you disproved anything in my post

or showed any statistics that countered those claims, but rather attacked the messenger.

I was asking for citations for the claims in the OP. If you don't wish to provide any, that's fine.

[X_Digger]

129. Here's another link..

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[spin]

135. Here's a Florida link ...

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Note that out of 1,723,590 licenses issued between 10/1/87 - 02/28/10 and with 701,088 current valid permits, only 167 have been revoked for a crime involving a firearm after the license was issued.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

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

[tburnsten]

199. Yes, FBI, Texas Department of Public Safety, and Florida State laws are all phoney

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

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

[oneshooter]

208. Then show us the "true"stats, If you can. n/t

[Euromutt]

143. The elevated weapon-related arrest rate is readily explicable

These arrests occurred relatively soon after Texas state laws on concealed carry were changed, and many law enforcement agencies were not fully up to speed on the new law. The arrest were made for actions that would have been illegal prior to the 1995 change in the law, but were not following it. This is part of why, as slackmaster points out, it's criminal convictions that matter, not arrests.

Note, moreover, that your source does not compare overall arrest rates of CHL holders to those of the general population. You can't say "Texas CHL holders are more likely to be arrested for DUIs (or violent crimes, or whatnot)" if you don't know how often members of the general population get arrested for such offenses. Given that the VPC researcher evidently went to the trouble of comparing arrest rates for weapon-related offenses, it's hard to credit that she didn't bother to compare other arrest rates, so why aren't those comparisons presented? The most likely explanation is that they didn't support the argument the VPC was interested in making (i.e. CHL holders were statistically no more likely to be arrested than non-CHL holders).

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[cowman]

156. Hey everyone

cabluedem is back to give us all her enlightened view of guns and gun owners so enlighten away

[cabluedem]

198. just pointing out your fabrications if you continue to post info with no backup to prove it.

[cowman]

203. ????????

[cowman]

204. That's rich

coming from someone who has zero clue of what she is talking about or when confronted by facts resorts to insults and then leaves. Have you ever had an honest thought?

[MineralMan]

2. Interesting, but like most general things, your 10 points

apply to some, but not all CCW permitees. You need some qualification in your title. The words "many" and "most" come to mind.

[onehandle]

3. 11. Guns are cool.

You know what I mean.

[cowman]

9. Yeah

most of us here know what you mean now try having a meaningful debate without all your crap

[onehandle]

12. Guns make you psychic.

And come in handy if you are psychotic.

[PavePusher]

77. Apparently, being against the exercise of the Civil Right of bearing arms...

makes one psychic.

After all, those folks are the ones always telling us we don't need firearms here or there or hither.

They seem to assume knowledge I do not have access to. I wonder where they get it from...

[jazzhound]

71. onehandle has no handle on the facts relating to gun control

and concealed carry, and no handle on how childish he appears with his sniping.

[onehandle]

74. 13. Guns make you awesome.

Welcome to DU. You are an awesome addition to our clan.

[tburnsten]

144. What else would they do?

[cowman]

78. Yeah thats about

all he does is post some really asnine comments but refuses to have honest debates so most of us just ignore him after awhile

[socialist_n_TN]

4. Sounds very reasonable.................

I just don't think that most concealed carry permits are applied for by people who take these 10 items that seriously. I'm a Grandmaster in a style of Wing Chun Kung Fu and as such I know MANY ways to do serious to deadly damage to the human body. I've also been training for 30 years and EVERY week for those 30 years I've been talked to or thought about the APPROPRIATENESS of using deadly force. It's ingrained after all that time. I don't think a four hour gun course, 3 of which is taken up by actually USING the gun for target shooting is enough for most people.

Even after all of my training in the appropriateness of deadly force, I would still feel uncomfortable IF I had to make that decision. I just don't think a brief course is enough.

[rrneck]

6. +1

That's the difference between a product and a practice.

[The Doctor.]

48. You know...

There's only one Wing-Chun Grandmaster in TN.

[socialist_n_TN]

147. Sorry I know at least 4.................

Of course they're all in the family style I've been learning for 30 years. There IS only one founder, but my last certificate showed 7th Level which, for us, is Grandmaster Level. Who were you thinking of?

[The Doctor.]

149. Eddie... of course.

I studied under Ting Fong Wong. Hun Gar.

[socialist_n_TN]

154. I'm not familar with an Eddie................

but that doesn't mean a lot. I'm not one for tourneyments and things like that. Too old. I train under Sijo Rusty Gray in Nashville.

[The Doctor.]

160. Oh, so you're Ng school.

The Golden Dragons stopped doing tournaments a few decades ago too.

[socialist_n_TN]

193. Yep. Ng San Lung Fa.................

Although we've morphed, wing chun wise, into a hybrid Pan Nam system too. It's fun and good exercise.

[Pavulon]

112. BCT and ATC is not 30 years.

An 18 year old can leave Benning and land in Iraq in less than 6 months. He can be making the call behind a mk17 or firing 105mm into crowded spaces. He is a grandmaster of drinking beers and jerking off and is making life or death calls as he sees fit and his training supports.

[socialist_n_TN]

148. Yes he can. Ain't it sad?..............

I'm sick of wars. As long as I've been alive probably at least 60%-75% of that time we've been involved in a hot war. REALLY sad.

[tburnsten]

162. Occasionally war is a neccessary evil

often it is just the result of two groups that can't bring themselves to admit their differences aren't worth the lives of their young men, and if we're talking older wars, true warfare, then their non-combatant population as well. In war the only true non-combatants are those geographically safe from any fighting.

I am of the opinion that people are generally good, with notable exceptions, but sometimes otherwise decent people can get swept up into committing more horrific acts than anyone has ever conceived.

See Germany & Japan, many unfortunate but brave young men on all sides of WW I and II, and basically all of Russia early-mid 20th Century.

And let's not leave out the Chinese under Chairman Mao.

I don't know what to think about things like Rwanda and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, those cultures are too far removed from anything I can accurately understand for me to even hazard a guess.

[GreenStormCloud]

126. There are also handgun champions who have been shooting for over 30 years.

Nor is 30 years required to make a decision on when to defend yourself. Notice that in the statistics that are kept on CCWers by TX, FL, and even our enemy the VPC, with rare exception all of us are actualy making the shoot/no-shoot decision quite well.

[socialist_n_TN]

155. True. And I don't mind anybody defending...............

themselves when they need to. A gun COULD be the best defense. I'm a BIG believer in graduated response though and a gun is not graduated enough for my tastes. BTW, I own two handguns and I know how to use them, so it's not like I'm totally anti gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

185. I also carry pepper spray and a stun-gun.

When I am taking an exercise walk, I carry bear-spray for hostile dogs. I too believe in a graduated response, for several reasons. If it works and the threat is removed at one of the lesser levels, well and good. If I have tried a lesser level and still have to shoot, it should look better before the law.

[socialist_n_TN]

194. Your last sentence says it all...............

nfm

[GreenStormCloud]

216. Please expound on that. N/T

[jazzhound]

5. The author of this great piece posted it on a 1911 forum

Here's the source:

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=176240

And yes, I agree with the points also.

Edited to add some words from the author:

"I was thinking the other day, not about the rabidly anti-gun forces and how to reach them (they are pretty much a lost cause) but about how much could possibly be done if the more or less apathetic non-gun crowd could be reached and educated. So I came up with 10 things I’d like non-gun people to know about most CWP holders.

Tell me what you think and add your own points too if you like.

There’s a lot of misinformation out there these days about people who have chosen to exercise their right to carry a concealed weapon according to the provisions made by state governments.

Here are a few things that CWP holders want people to know about them. Now of course there are exceptions to these general rules but I think you’ll find these things to be true about the vast majority of your legally carrying neighbors."

I believe this to be an outstanding piece of writing. And with regard to citations -- I've been a member of this discussion board for a very brief time, and already I've seen a number of citations for claims listed here, which only goes to prove that many pro-control folks
really aren't that interested in learning the facts.

[rrneck]

10. They are not sufficient as statements of fact,

but should be necessary conditions for firearms ownership.

As such, they are ideals to which we might aspire, and good ones at that.

[jazzhound]

12. This is of course true,

since many of the points are based on the way CC permit holders feel -- and feelings can neither be affirmed or denied. Nevertheless, the statistics which demonstrate the low incidence of violence among CC permit holders would support the claims.

[rrneck]

29. Yep.

Generally speaking, CCW holders work and play well with others. They are able to do this not because they are inherently better people, but because they are a slice of the population that has opted to be bound by a given set of responsibilities codified by our culture.

If CCW holders seem to be better citizens it's not because they're better people, it's because the laws to which they are voluntarily bound are good laws.

[jazzhound]

46. I'll see your yep and raise you a yep

One of the things that has always amazed me about the manner in which *some* members of the pro-control group argue their case is the brazen lack of self-awareness with which they do so.

We, they say, are DESPERATELY afraid of having our guns taken away. O.K. Well if that's the case, we're not likely to misbehave with them are we? Can't have it both ways, anti-gunners.

[paulsby]

49. my 20+ yrs experience as a LEO and experience with CCW'ers and non-CCW'ers

supports these 10 pts.

fwiw, when i started as a LEO , i was PRO gun control

experience, study and robust discussion with both pro and anti RKBA advocates helped me change my mind

[Hoyt]

11. I've heard it before.

I've known plenty of concealed weapon permit holders and everyone of them is dang near in love with that cold steel and I get tired of hearing them talk about their latest acquisition. I live in a red state, and don't really want so-called "law abiding tea-baggers" carrying concealed weapons.

I can see circumstances where a few folks "need" to carry a weapon. But, it's not 24 hours a day, or even a majority of the day. Permits should be issued only to those who clearly need it and who have passed all the current tests and training requirements, and an extended mental health exam.

I think we'd be better off without the presence of so many people with concealed permits. When I hear/read these discussions I think of the SOB that walked into a restaurant in Alabama with dual shoulder holsters in plain sight. I don't think we need to return to the wild west days.

I also think about 10 concealed permit holders drawing down on some perceived threat in a public place -- school, church, bar, public street, etc. -- and wounding/killing a lot of innocent folks in the crossfire.

Very few people need a weapon in a restaurant, church, bar, school, etc., except law enforcement.

Protecting one's home is a different story (as long as precautions are followed).

[cowman]

14. Well

apparently most states don't agree with you and BTW I have been a CCW holder for several years and I sure as hell don't remember being in love with my gun and most CCW holders view their guns as just a tool for self defense. Either you are lying or you happen to know very few CCW holders but don't judge the rest of us by the very few

[Hoyt]

18. I can see why you need to carry.

If you run around calling people "liars" so easily, I suspect you need to pat that cold steel several times a day to feel secure.

I don't think most citizens need to pack a gun. Sorry you don't like that.

[cowman]

22. Well

what you "think" doesn't really count does it? You are lying if you state that CCW holders are in love with their guns. Try learning something here or just go away

Oh BTW you got me, I sit around when I'm off duty and polish my "gun hoping it will go off so I can get a thrill":sarcasm: :rofl:

[tburnsten]

25. Dude, when I "polish my gun"

I KNOW it will go off.

[tburnsten]

23. Sorry "need" has nothing to do with it

And sorry your false premises and daydreams about people with carry permits gunning down everyone on the street "in self defense" got called out for what they are.

And FYI, a concealed weapon quickly becomes "warm steel".

[jazzhound]

31. If you don't want to be called out for lying

then don't lie. It's really very simple.

[tburnsten]

36. The funny thing is

He didn't even call the poster a liar! He just stated that the poster was either lying or uninformed/had an incredibly insignificant and unusual sample.

I guess in that poster's world that is perfectly reasonable grounds to deny someone their civil rights.

[paulsby]

53. need canard

and most citizens don't NEED most civil rights

i don't NEED to know CPR or carry fire insurance (at least not on the house i owned outright)

i CHOSE to

[YllwFvr]

246. Its too bad "need" has nothing to do with it

Its more of a "right" kinda thing unless you noticed. Just as you have a right to voice your opinion I have the right to strap up before I leave the house. Ive known people who do it for just that reason, though the number is few (two).

So I can carry whether you like it or not. As a matter of fact one in 10 people in my state has a permit, and if only half of them carry that means there are a whole mess of people in a crowd carrying.

Sorry you dont like that. You should try to rewrite the constitution. But good luck with that as the trend around the country has been to loosen gun laws, not tighten them. McDonald seems to be going well, and Cali's open carry ban that is going through will be struck down just like hundreds of laws around the country.

Ive personally fought and had two local laws struck down regulating guns. Your welcome :)

[jazzhound]

15. And we've heard this before

"Very few people need a weapon in a restaurant, church, bar, school, etc., except law enforcement.

Protecting one's home is a different story (as long as precautions are followed)."

As if you have some divinely endowed power to determine where and when violence will be directed at you.

Edit: Just as a personal example, I regularly argued with a family member about her lack of vigilance in failing to keep her cell phone on -- pointing out that we can't decide when an emergency will choose to occur. Wouldn't you know it -- the morning our father died
she was asleep at the wheel, and it wasn't until two hours later that she arrived at the care facility where I had been waiting and wondering if/when she was going to check her messages. Even after that experience she didn't learn, and now four years later has only recently started to improve.

Just because you choose to gamble on whether or not an assault will be visited on you, don't demand that everyone else share your laid-back attitude.

[tburnsten]

16. You "also think about", more like you often fantasize about

So that you could finally have a valid talking point.

By the way, did "that SOB" in Atlanta do anything besides wearing shoulder holsters, or is that all it takes to be "an SOB"?

[Hoyt]

21. Anyone who walks into a FAMILY restaurant with dual shoulder holsters in plain sight is a SOB.

What would you call them?

The SOB should have removed them. Seems simple enough to me.

[tburnsten]

24. Why?

Why is a restaraunt (scream "family" all you want it's a restaraunt not a courthouse or Post Office) any different from any other place he is legally allowed to carry?

Can you elaborate on what makes a restaraunt so special?

[cowman]

27. What would I call them?

Law abiding citizens exercising their 2nd amend rights rather you like it or not

[PavePusher]

50. I generally Oen Carry everywhere I go.

Does that make me a SOB?

Do you apply that same criteria to all other Civil Rights exercised in public?

[east texas lib]

141. Actually it makes you an armed SOB...

Ahem...Just sayin...:hide:

[PavePusher]

177. From you...

I'll consider that a compliment!

:toast:

[Caliman73]

175. What did he do?

Did he use them for something illegal? Did he threaten anyone? Was he menacing? or were you just scared and wanted the bad man to go away. Could he have been a police officer getting something to eat?

Do you have any context other than your own experience, prejudice, and opinion?

[tburnsten]

20. What was the name of that lady who stopped a mass murder at her church again?

You know, the CC licensed private citizen who singlehandedly rescued her entire church from being slaughtered by a man with a rifle?

There was a case some time back where a group of people eating late at a restaraunt were taken into the walk-in during a robbery, and one of the patrons recognized that they were most likely about to all be murdered, and he drew and fired at the two SOBs who were committing the robbery and probable mass murder, saving the lives of everyone in that restaraunt.

At the School of the Appalachians a disgruntled student attempted a mass shooting and was stopped by a pair of students who ran to their vehicles and retrieved weapons, they stopped him from continuing his attack without shooting him, themselves, each other, or any innocent bystanders. How is that possible?

So I'd say you are full of something smelly. Or maybe you are just uninformed, and have zero faith in your fellow humans. I guess there are two schools of thought, people are basically good, and people are basically bad. I'm in the first group. Apparently you are not.

[jazzhound]

26. This happened in Colorado

but I don't recall the name of the Church.

[tburnsten]

32. AHA! Jean Assam, at the New Life Church!

I don't know what's wrong, but the link is showing up all fucky on my Compy 386 right now. Here we go-

http://volokh.com/posts/1197328436.shtml


Yeah, for some reason news reports frequently called her a "security guard" when in fact she was just a member of the church who agreed to go to an extra service a week while carrying. A security guard would be paid, possibly full time, and be carrying a pistol for his job. Yet another example of media bias against private concealed carry, they can't even bring themselves to call a duck a duck.

[Hoyt]

28. Yea, if I were inclined I'd post many cases where CWP holders used their permitted gun to murder.

But, why waste my time.

[cowman]

33. Post away

but don't bother with false stats from groups like the VPC or the Brady Bunch who are so biased they can't see straight. You made the claim you could post a bunch of stories about CCW holders committing murders so go ahead

[Hoyt]

39. "Google it" and tell me how many come up.

Try this and see what you get:

"Concealed Gun Permit Holder Arrested for Murder"

Then compare the number to the times a CWP holder "saved" someone's life.

[PavePusher]

42. You are making the assertion/innuendo...

You provide the evidence to support your statements.

That is how honest debate is done.

[cowman]

43. Most times a CCW holder uses his gun for self defense

they are arrested but not convicted because when the investigation is concluded the DA refuses to prosecute, try being more honest and if you look at one of the threads here there are at least 3 examples that show the use of a gun for self defense so I guess the score is 3 to 1
You lose

[paulsby]

58. do you have evidence that

MOST times they are arrested?

i know of numerous recent cases of self defense by CCW'ers (two of which i investigated myself as primary) and in NONE were they arrested.

at least where i live, generally speaking, they are NOT arrested when there is a reasonable belief (iow evidence) that the shooting was in self defense

[cowman]

68. Here in NV they

are generally placed in custody until things are sorted out, I mispoke when I said they were arrested, however usually those that are arrested after a shooting, usually the charges are dropped after the investigation and if it goes to trial are usually found not guilty although there are a small number of CCW holders that do stupid things and pay the price for them but for the poster to claim without any evidence that there are many CCW holders that commit murder is just plain lying or misinformed

[paulsby]

76. ok, that's a bit different

when most people think 'arrested' they think placed in handcuffs and taken to the police station against their will

merely detained AT THE SCENE, usually briefly , while technically an arrest in the sense that freedom of movement is signficantly detained, etc. is not what most people mean when they think "arrest"

as an example, in many search warrants we execute we briefly handcuff EVERYbODY present until we 'make the scene safe'

this is upheld by case law.

however, this is not an 'arrest' in the sense that no charges are brought, no booking is made (fingerprints, handcuffs, etc.)

the word has many meanings. in FBI crime stat parlance, if i write a guy a criminal citation, without even CONTACTING him, let alone putting handcuffs on him, that's an "arrest" and counts as such in statistics.

my point is that ime, most CCW'ers who use their firearms in self defense are NOT arrested - iow placed in handcuffs and involuntarily transported for booking.

you claim that most ARE.

i would say your claim is very suspect. i have no stats, but i have 20+ yrs of police experience, and ime nowhere NEAR "most" are custodially arrested.

contrary to popular belief police do not handcuff and take people to the station MERELY because they shot somebody or pulled a gun in self defense. there is this pesky thing called probable cause.

the most clear examples, like of burglars breaking in, and getting shot are almost NEVER going to result in a custodial arrest. in fact, in 20+ yrs, i've never seen ONE example of somebody arrested in that circumstance

[cowman]

81. Ok let me clarify what I meant

Most CCW holders who use their guns defensivly are placed in temporary custody at the scene until the police sort out what happened and then, if circumstances warrant it, are released pending rather the DA will file charges. I hope this clears up what I meant

[paulsby]

88. i'm, still not confident that's true

because i've responded to numerous scenes of this sort and in nowhere near MOST of them did this happen.

but it did happen in a few.

in most defensive shootings ime, there is a call in BY the shooter or a roommate/friend, etc. and the CCw'er has put the gun down by police arrival, and a mere pat down is done (like it would be done at any shooting) and that's about it.

regardless, my point is that in regards to "arrest", it's incorrect for people to assume from your post that defensive shooting means you will likely get cuffed and stuffed.

it is possible, and maybe likely that you will be briefly handcuffed until the scene can get sorted out, but fwiw, that's not at all unusual at ANY shooting scene, even for witnesses and VICTIMS until the scene is sorted out.

if the cops arrive, there is blood everywhere, and they don't know who did what to whom, the PRIMARY concern is protection of life. the medics aint going to come in (nor should) they until the scene is made safe. if the guy is bleeding out on the ground, the cops most likely are going to cuff up EVERYBODY so the medics can come in safely and get the injured under care right away

regardless of whether it was a CCW self defenseshooting, or whatever.

[cowman]

91. That is

exactly what I meant. I glad you could put it in better words. I have responded to many defensive shootings and usually when we arrive to check out the "victim" the shooter is either in cuffs being questioned or already released because of the evidence, I once asked a Metro officer why they automatically cuffed the shooter upon arrival and was told that this is for officer safety and EMS safety until they sort things out, and my daughter told me, look dad what do you think is going through our minds as we roll to the scene and all we know is that a shooting has happened? I said that it was probably a good thing to cuff the shooter until you know what had happened

[paulsby]

93. ok, i think we basically agree

i just don't want others to get the impression that if they get involved in a defensive shooting, they will get cuffed and transported and booked. they MAY be. it depends on how clear cut the shooting is.

in home defense shootings, it's very unlikely.

in "public" shootings, it's MORE likely, but still hardly close to a certainty.

if it's unwitnessed by any disinterested parties, and the facts are pretty unclear, you probably will get arrested.

i recall one shooting, for example, that happened in the U district. pizza delivery driver was on the ave and some guy comes running up to his car, arms flailing (acting pretty wild) and rips open his driver's door. the driver promptly shot the guy.

the cops investigated and there were metric assloads of witnesses and it was obvious he reasonably thought he was going to be carjacked and he acted properly.

it turned out the guy who got shot was a student at the U, no criminal record whatsoever who had been given some acid by his friends and had never tripped before. he was basically flipping out, and god knows what his "intent" was, as much as a guy flipping out on acid can be said to have "intent". maybe he just really wanted a pizza. but if you run up to a car stopped in traffic, especialy a delivery driver (carrying cash etc.) and rip open their door, you very well may get shot, and you have nobody to blame but yourself.

it was tragic,and we'll never know what WOULD have happened if the driver didn't shoot the guy, but it was clearly justified from a "facts and circumstances as reasonably perceived by the shooter" situation.

i shoudl also note that "retreat" is not necessary, but he was stuck in traffic iirc, so that wasn't really an option

[cowman]

94. I put it very badly

your right, I don't want people thinking that if they use their gun in a legal defensive way they will be arrested, I guess I need to polish up on my language skills

Long night last night, didn't get much sleep. The city kept us busy last night what with all the tourists and such

[paulsby]

96. no problem

like i said, we both think the same things, it's just a matter of stating them so that people don't get teh wrong impression

cheers

[tburnsten]

44. Many, some studies indicate the vast bulk, of defensive gun uses

never make it to the news, do you know why?

Because the incident is resolved without shots being fired and the crime is stopped before the criminal succeeds in creating a newsworthy incident.

I just googled it, using your exact search terms, and got 87,400 results, many of which are doubtless duplicates from different news sources. I'm not combing through over 87 thousand websites to check.

Using your search terms, minus "concealed gun permit holder", yielded 25,400,000 results. That's quite a difference. Also, when someone with a carry permit commits a murder, it is noteworthy and newsworthy. A "regular" murder is not, and in many parts of the country will only make local news. A murder in my state, Maine, will dominate ALL the local papers for the entire state all the way through the trial, for weeks at the time it is discovered sometimes, while a murder in Yonkers might make the police blotter section, if they even bother with those.

[paulsby]

57. and also note that homicide =/= murder

many antis post homicide stats and assume that means unlawful killings

CCW'ers commit many more homicides than murders

[tburnsten]

37. No you wouldn't

Because there aren't "many cases" of that happening. If all of the cases of that happening over the last twenty years were condensed into a six month period, with no other murders occuring during that time, it would still result in a massive decrease in the murder rate for the year.

[PavePusher]

38. Please do so.

The percentage of CCW's who commit crimes is much smaller than the percentage of the general population that commits crimes. And no-one here defends those who do. (We may, on occasion, disagree on whether their action should constitute a crime, or the severity there-of.)

[Pavulon]

114. Or police officers, of electricians who kill clients with shit work.

dead is dead.

[GreenStormCloud]

128. And your average would be much lower than the general public.

TX and FL post their statistics online. VPC keeps a running tab. The numbers are pretty low when you remember that there are about six million CCWers.

[PavePusher]

34. Point by point...

1. "everyone of them is dang near in love with that cold steel" Assertion not supported by evidence. Being enthusiastic about a subject or hobby does not equate to "love".

2. "don't really want so-called "law abiding tea-baggers" carrying concealed weapons." "So-called"? Do you have evidence they have broken any laws? If so, have yo reported it? Secondly, what you "want" is irrelevant if they are obeying the laws, as they probably are.

3. "But, it's not 24 hours a day, or even a majority of the day. Permits should be issued only to those who clearly need it..." There is no Department of Needs to determine when people may exercise their Civil Rights. But since it seems you are very confident in your precognition ability, maybe you can tell us when we will need to be able to defend ourselves? Please, make a list.

4. "...and an extended mental health exam." You pay for it, and I will insist that it applies to being able to exercise ALL Civil Rights; voting, speaking, searches, etc. How does that sound?

5. "I think we'd be better off without the presence of so many people with concealed permits." Well, some evidence for your assertion would be helpful. Until then... well, you know what they say about opinions.

6. "When I hear/read these discussions I think of the SOB that walked into a restaurant in Alabama with dual shoulder holsters in plain sight." What is wrong with exercising a Civil Right in public? And what incident are you alluding to?

7. "I don't think we need to return to the wild west days." Ah, you are getting your ideas of history from Hollywood movies and fictional literature. You would fail any history class on the subject.

8. "I also think about 10 concealed permit holders drawing down on some perceived threat in a public place -- school, church, bar, public street, etc. -- and wounding/killing a lot of innocent folks in the crossfire." Again, evidence that this is a problem, else you are merely engaging in idle speculation.

9. "Very few people need a weapon in a restaurant, church, bar, school, etc., except law enforcement." Really? Is your precognition that good? Does crime not occur at restaurants? Churches? Schools? And what are the "etc.'s"? Are LEO's going to be on-scene before/during the commision of a crime? Always?

[Hoyt]

45. That's a lot of work to justify carrying a gun into a church, bar, restaurant, etc.

I feel like I'm on a tea-bagger forum.

Don't worry, I really don't support taking your guns away.

[PavePusher]

47. A lot of work?

Took me 5 minutes. Half of that was drinking coffee and shaking my head at the obtuseness.

Don't worry, I won't let you.

Cheers!

[jazzhound]

89. HA HA HA.........A lot of work!

Sure explains why the pro-control folks remain in a state of blissful ignorance. Why actually investigate the issue when nodding your head to gun control talking points will suffice? :eyes:

It really is such a painful process to put your ego in a harness, isn't it?

[cowman]

52. Nobody accused you of

wanting to take our guns away, our problem is your misconceptions of CCW holders and your broad brush claiming that we are in love with our guns and statements that we shouldn't be allowed to conceal carry

[jazzhound]

55. There is a challenge pending, Hoyt

You made an assertion/innuendo and are dodging the invitation to back it up.

[Hoyt]

67. Apparently you cannot do an internet search. So here's a few for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/barack-obama-i-am-not-in_b_170033.html


What's funny is that either you or some another of your gotta carry a gun buddies said I couldn't use sites such as VPC or Brady . . . . . .

I guess Huffington isn't allowed either. You'll probably ban me from using "Google" too if I start posting other examples.

[cowman]

70. What a crock

HuffPo gets most of their stats from VPC or the Brady Bunch.
Nice try but fail

[Hoyt]

80. You're killing me. I have a "RIGHT" to use those sources, but you say I can't . . . . .

I can't quit laughing. Do you take exceptions to any of the examples in the link? Or are you just telling me that any example I post is off limits?

Obviously -- even on DU -- it is off limits to express an opinion that people ought not carry a gun to an Easter Egg Hunt without the gun carrying folks going ballistic.

My friend, you have the right to carry your gun wherever the law allows -- even the shower if you want.

When I return, I will post my opinions of assault weapons. And await the inevitable -- "define and assault weapon" responses.

[PavePusher]

85. No-one is saying you don't have that right.

They are advising you that those sources have been proven erroneous multiple times, and you will look quite silly for using them.

But feel free to do whatever you want.

I look forward to your exposition on "assault weapons". I predict it will be factually incorrect, emotionally laden, and a trite repetition of everything we've seen before.

Good luck with it.

[cowman]

86. I never said that you don't have a right to them

All I'm saying is that the sources you are citing are suspect because they come from very anti-gun sources and have been debunked several times.

Look, no one here is saying that all CCW holders are law abiding, what we're saying is that the vast majority of CCW holders are much more inclined to obey the laws because of the awesome responsibility we have for carrying concealed

[Euromutt]

137. Stuff from the HuffPo *is* from the VPC and the Brady Campaign

See the author on that article to which you linked? Paul Helmke, who (not coincidentally) happens to be the president of the Brady Campaign. HuffPo also gives a column to Josh Sugarmann, executive director (and founder) of the VPC.

And given that both the VPC and the Brady Campaign are anti-gun advocacy organizations, they are not unbiased sources of information. Both outfits also have a proven track record of dishonesty through misrepresentation, cherry-picking, "bait-and-switch" tactics, etc. which makes any "information" gleaned from them highly suspect.

The reason cowman told you not to bother posting material from either organization is because the regulars on this forum have seen this stuff before and debunked it repeatedly, and it gets more than a little tedious to have to re-debunk it every time some new arrival posts it again.

Also, don't think we're incapable of performing internet searches. To debunk the source of your claims, we need to what that specific source is. There are at least a couple of gun "control" proponents on this board who make a habit of making claims of "research shows that..." without specifying the research, and when one study that supports that claim gets shot down, respond by saying "well, that wasn't the research I meant, so my argument stands" (again, never actually committing to which piece of research they do mean).

You have an opinion you've formed on the basis of reading some piece of material, so you know what that particular material is, and you get to cite it. We're not interested in trying to guess what it is.

[Hoyt]

139. Haven't seen anyone -- including you -- debunk any of the examples.

All you do is tell me it's been debunked. Where, besides a tea-bagger Web site?

I do not think anything good will come of folks carrying guns into bars, schools, etc.

[X_Digger]

150. All you had to do was search..

Direct refutation of VPC / BB claims:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x239856#240370
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=304374
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=294892&mesg_id=294892

Refutation of things the VPC / BB crows as gospel:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=258435
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=256837#256846
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=221485

That was 2-3 minutes of searching (granted, I remembered a few of the post titles..)

[Euromutt]

172. What's to debunk?

The examples cited by Helmke are anecdotal evidence in that--while they may have actually occurred--they are not demonstrably representative of the big picture. Yes, some CCW permit holders behave irresponsibly and break the law, but the available evidence indicates that they do so to a far smaller extent than the general population. Helmke's piece is on a par with citing a comparative handful of examples of alcohol-related motor vehicle collisions and arguing on that basis that licensing drivers creates a public health and safety hazard, while ignoring the fact that an overwhelming majority of licensed drivers do not drive under the influence, and that a number even use their licenses to do things that are socially desirable. (And FYI, based on the VPC's reported numbers of deaths caused by CCW permit holders, the rate at which this happens is markedly lower than the rate at which licensed drivers kill people.)

From Helmke's piece:

A Georgia permit-holder was arrested in Florida and charged with driving while intoxicated, racing and possession of a firearm while intoxicated, after allegedly driving drunk at 90-mph with two semi-automatic pistols on his lap.

If you're going to assert that it's outrageous that this guy was issued a CCW permit, surely it's at least as outrageous that he was issued a driver's license. Operating a motor vehicle at illegally high speeds while drunk forms a significantly more acute threat to innocent life and limb than the fact he had one or more firearms on his person while doing so.

Then there's the fact that a fair number of the incidents listed by Helmke of permit holders shooting themselves. How you put others at risk by shooting yourself is beyond me, but hey, when it's in a good cause, I guess it's permissible to blatantly pad your examples.

[tburnsten]

146. Paul Helmke, head of the Brady Campaign, is hardly any more legitimate

just because he happens to be hosted on Huffington Post.

[Hoyt]

165. He's hardly "illegitimate" because he's been quoted there, either.

[tburnsten]

168. I didn't say he was

What I said was, the president of the Brady Campaign, a group that has the sole purpose of fighting to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens as it relates to firearms and has been caught repeatedly falsifying the "data" they use for their "arguments" and intentionally misrepresents everything else, as well as using absurdist fearmonger tactics, is NOT a valid source of information on ANYTHING firearm related.

That's like asking a Rabbi the best way to smoke a pork butt. He might be able to give you some input, but it isn't going to be very helpful in getting that pork cooked properly.

[Euromutt]

176. Perhaps a better analogy would be...

... asking a member of PETA how to smoke a pork butt (which reminds me, I need to clean my smoker). Or asking a Roman Catholic priest for unbiased information about contraceptives.

[tburnsten]

187. Good call

A Rabbi isn't going to berate you for your diet or lifestyle the way the other two will.

[YllwFvr]

247. Nice one

Which is what it is. Try looking up the Armed Citizen. You will see -Thousand- of people lawfully defending themselves with firearms. More than you will find of people with gun permits committing murder. Ive seen a few in the news too. But I personally know dozens who have used them to save themselves.

That and its an inalienable right.

[PavePusher]

188. Any answers to my questions? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

244. Mosques, Synagouges, Churches, even Unitarian (liberal) churches have been targeted by scumbags.

So going unarmed might not be the best plan, since scumbags ignore the legal and social stigmas against carrying a gun in church, since after all, they are there to kill innocent people.

You should be happy that there is some percentage of the population (more than there are police officers) that are willing to should increased personal risk, and personal inconvienience, to prepare to stop a situation in which your life might be at risk.

[paulsby]

51. this is america. and i (nor anybody else) does not need to demonstrate a "need"

before i exercise my civil rights.

black people didn't NEED to ride in the front of the bus, either

we don't NEED free speech

innocent people don't NEED to refuse consent searches. after all, they have nothing to hide

nobody, and i mean NOBODY is obligated to demonstrate a NEED to you or anybody else

that's not how rights work

hth

[Hoyt]

62. We are talking about carrying guns in public.

Not about free speech, minority rights, etc.

It is still my opinion that people should not carry guns in public except in very few cases.

I never said a CWP holder does not have the "right" to do so. Obviously, they do.

Again, I question their "need" to, whether they should, and why in the hell they'd even want to walk around with a friggin gun. It's really that dang simple.

I have the right to walk into a restaurant or church with my weapon of choice -- a machete -- but I really don't don't "need" or "want" to do that.

[paulsby]

64. and carrying guns in public

which is what "bear arms" means is a RIGHT i don't need to justify to you or anybody else (fwiw, it doesn't affect ME. i can carry either way because i am a LEO. i am advocating for OTHER's rights)

you can have that opinion about carrying guns in public just like many people have opinions about the rights of blacks, or the rights of people to refuse consent searches or the rights of arrested people to get attorneys free of charge (note: that was decided by case law gideon vs. wainright and is not explicit in the constitution)

and again, it doesn't matter if you don't NEED to exercise your civil rights. they are there for people to CHOOSE to exercise and NOBODY needs to justify to anybody else a NEED before they do so

that's the point

[PavePusher]

65. Your opinion does not apply....

where the law states it is legal, or where the subject is ignored by the law (thus making it default legal).

And again, "need" is not a qualifier for Civil Rights.

Devolving to profanity does not boost your argument.

Use your Rights as you see fit under the law, and I will do the same. If our choices are different, well, that is the beauty of freedom and liberty.

Cheers!

[Hoyt]

69. If it makes you feel better -- you have my permission to carry a gun to an Easter Egg hunt.

I hope others choose not to do so.

[PavePusher]

72. Ah, that's the awesomeness of Civil Rights...

I don't need your permission.

Have a happy Easter.

[cowman]

73. Why the hell

do I need your permission to exercise a civil right? That's rather arrogant of you

[YllwFvr]

248. Never gone to an easter egg hunt

Maybe I will try that next year. I have gone to fairs and carnivals though. My gun leaped out of its holster and mowed down crowds of crippled children. The streets ran red! It did it all by itself too. They do that y'know. Pretty common.

[tburnsten]

56. OK, so what you are saying is

You think that political opposition should be disarmed?

You think that it is acceptable for U.S. citizens who have done nothing illegal to be denied civil rights that are extended to other citizens?


How can you possibly call yourself a progressive? Isn't a hallmark of being a liberal or progressive that you are for equal rights for all? Or is someone "less equal" just because they hold a differing political viewpoint than you or I? Sounds an awful lot like the playbook that resulted in Jim Crow laws and the active denial of the civil rights of black Americans and the current denial of civil rights to homosexuals.

No worries though, that is a civil right that not everyone here agrees on, so you won't be called out as the authoritarian fascist you clearly are. You just happen to be decent for the most part.

Sorry but I don't believe in demonizing political opposition for short-term gains, especially while they are falling all over themselves to show how out there they already are.

[PavePusher]

59. "especially while they are falling all over themselves to show how out there they already are"

Paraphrasing Sun Tzu:

Never stop an enemy/rival from making a mistake.


Unfortunately, it always applies to both sides....

[oneshooter]

84. Lets see this another way

"I can see circumstances where a few folks "need" to carry a weapon. But, it's not 24 hours a day, or even a majority of the day. Permits should be issued only to those who clearly need it and who have passed all the current tests and training requirements, and an extended mental health exam.

Change to: I can see circumstances where a few folks "need" to vote. But, it's not in all elections, or even a majority of the elections. Permits to vote should be issued only to those who clearly need it and who have passed all the current tests and training requirements, and an extended mental health exam.

"Very few people need a weapon in a restaurant, church, bar, school, etc., except law enforcement."

Change to:
Nobody needs a weapon in a restaurant, church, bar, school, etc., even law enforcement.

"I also think about 10 concealed permit holders drawing down on some perceived threat in a public place -- school, church, bar, public street, etc. -- and wounding/killing a lot of innocent folks in the crossfire.

Change to:I also think about 10 uniformed cops drawing down on some perceived threat in a public place -- school, church, bar, public street, etc. -- and wounding/killing a lot of innocent folks in the crossfire.

There thats better!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Mike K]

115. With very few exceptions -

"I've known plenty of concealed weapon permit holders and everyone of them is dang near in love with that cold steel and I get tired of hearing them talk about their latest acquisition."

<...>

- that is a temporary honeymoon enthusiasm which soon diminishes as the new permit holder becomes increasingly familiar with the experience. It is similar to the new car experience or, in some cases, the new spouse experience. The shine soon wears off and what once was unique and exciting becomes routine and commonplace.

Unless one has a well defined requirement it's a bad idea to buy a big, heavy hand-cannon, which some new CCW holders are inclined to do. Because lugging around those extra pounds of metal, which is difficult to conceal -- especially in summer, soon becomes tiresome.

For ordinary self-defense purposes a small-frame, lightweight, hammerless .38 caliber revolver (or a derringer) is recommended.

[cowman]

124. I would wholeheartedly

agree with you. I carry a compact Firestar .45 carries 6 in the mag and I carry 2 xtra mags with me. I've become so used to it that I hardly ever think of it when carrying, it's just become like my wallet, it's just there

[Euromutt]

133. You seem to have failed to read point #8

Very few people need a weapon in a restaurant, church, bar, school, etc., except law enforcement.

From the OP:

8. The fact that we carry a firearm to any given place does not mean that we believe that place to be inherently unsafe. If we believe a place to be unsafe, most of us would avoid that place all together if possible. However, we recognize that trouble could occur at any place and at any time. Criminals do not observe “gun free zones”. If trouble does come, we do not want the only armed persons to be perpetrators. Therefore, we don't usually make a determination about whether or not to carry at any given time based on "how safe" we think a location is.

The very fact that you assert that law enforcement needs to carry weapons in the places you list is an acknowledgment that nasty stuff can happen in those places, which law enforcement needs to be equipped to deal with on the spot (rather than having to run back to the patrol car to retrieve their gear), and that in turn means that there is a legitimate reason for private citizens to carry in such places as well.

The firearms carried by law enforcement personnel aren't a badge of office; they have actual badges for that. Their firearms are tools they use to perform certain aspects of their jobs, and if they knew precisely when they were going to need to use those tools, they wouldn't need to carry them all the time. The same applies to private citizens, which is exactly the point Hummm was making above.

[Hoyt]

138. That's kind of a stretch, but if it makes you feel good about packing in Chuck E Cheese -- OK.

If you guys really want to be prepared -- carry a defibrillator.

Studies show it is much more likely to be needed.

[cowman]

145. Being a Firefighter/Paramedic

I wont argue that point about a defibrillator, and here's where you fuck up again, it doesn't make me feel good about carrying a gun, hell half the time I forget that I'm carrying it because it has become so natural to me, I hope to hell I never ever have to use it but if I do, through no fault of mine, at least I will have a chance to defend myself if some asshole of a criminal leaves me absolutely no choice whatsoever

[Hoyt]

157. Being a paramedic, ever been to a site where "normal" citizens got into a violent fight?

I don't think we need guns in a church, bar, school, etc., when that happens. People flip -- probably more often than you are going to run into a problem where your gun helps you.

But, you seem to think we need guns when we go to an Easter Egg Hunt or something. I don't, and I think the presence of guns is a bigger threat than secondhand smoke and the like.

I would like carry permits restricted to a much greater degree than they are. It's one thing to be lenient about guns in one's home. It's another to issue permits to folks -- many of whom could barely stay awake for a few videos. BTW -- I am not as concerned about folks on DU who "carry", but man there are a lot of folks out there with a permit and a leather-bound copy of "The Turner Diaries" sitting proudly on their coffee table.

[cowman]

159. But one the posters

gave an example where a CCW holder at a church stopped a potential massacre.

Yes there are a minority who should not be issued a CCW and usually the permit process will get them and those CCW holders that do something illegal do usually have their permits revoked.

I've been to many a violent scene where normal citizens get in fights, but it usually involves alcohol or drugs.

The permit process consists of much more than watching a few videos, you have to be fingerprinted, FBI background check, class on gun safety and the use of force in the state you live in and then you have to prove your proffeciency with the handgun you will be carrying. I don't know where you got the idea that it's easy to get a CHL and I trust most citizens who have gone to all that trouble with a CHL.

You'll also find that most street cops support citizens being allowed to CCW, I know, my daughter is a police officer with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept and she wholeheartedly supports it, most to the cops that oppose it are the cop-o-crats, that is the political cops who have to answer to the mayors or other elected officials

I hope I have gave you a little more info

[Hoyt]

163. Got any citations that most police support CCW . . . . . . in a bar?

[tburnsten]

167. Got any citations that most police understand and follow the CC debate?

What exactly makes them experts?

Especially since it is already illegal in every state I can think of to be drunk while carrying a firearm. And in many states, there is no distinction between a traditional "bar" and a restaraunt that serves alcohol, meaning that a restriction on people carrying in "bars" also prevents them from carrying while going out to eat.

What about that makes sense exactly? If they can't drink a significant amount while carrying, and they can carry while they are out and about everywhere else, why should they have to leave their firearm where it is much more likely to be stolen, unattended in a vehicle, while they go into a restaraunt to eat?

[cowman]

183. Yeah

my daughter and all her cop friends as long as the CCW holder is not drinking, but here in NV its not legal to carry in a bar yet

[YllwFvr]

249. I can get you one if you really want. Two actually. n/t

[tburnsten]

164. I have never in my life witnessed a violent confrontation

that didn't start and escalate without some SERIOUS misbehavior by one of the actors, and even then I can't remember witnessing a fight at all in the last five years.

And I drink a ton. If it were so common that people just "flip" in everyday life and attack each other, I would have seen it several times over during my own merrymaking.

It just doesn't work like that in real life.

[Hoyt]

166. If it is not common, why the need for you and others to pack?

[tburnsten]

169. I don't even carry currently, actually

Doesn't mean I don't support the right of others to, provided they are of sound mind and non-violent tendencies.

You are missing so many of these points I don't even know what to say, except to just repeat and repeat that no one carries a gun for self-defense because they expect to need it, except gang members and drug dealers, people carry guns for self defense so that in the one in a hundred chance they are put in a situation that year where it will be needed to protect oneself or others, they have it.

I once nearly had to shoot a neighbor's extremely aggressive, very large dog. It had a history of charging people trying to leave my second story apartment and trapping them in my house. It was regularly unsecured. I could often hear it fighting other dogs in the neighbor's back yard. One night it circled my car as I was getting out of it in the dark parking lot and tried to attack me from behind. It was very unhappy that I saw it and was facing it when it emerged. I was also fed up with that animal at this point and was not about to try to wrestle it up the stairs to my apartment and safety. It backed off after staring me down for a minute and bellowing at me as it retreated.

But I had a pistol aimed between its eyes or shoulderblades, depending on the position of its head. I'm glad I didn't shoot it, but you have to wonder why that dog was never finally taken off the owners hands any of the many times I called the police about it. Dogs can and do kill people. Not often, but that is because people are generally good and generally raise good dogs. This one was not a good dog.

So yeah, even though I don't have situations like that every day, week, month, or year, I have been in a situation where I was very relieved to have the option to fire a small chunk of lead and copper at near-supersonic velocities into a much stronger and more fierce creature that had issues with me.

[Euromutt]

179. tburnsten said it's not common for people to just "flip"

And in this he is entirely correct. It is practically unheard of for anyone to "just snap"; there are almost invariably what Gavin de Becker (in his book The Gift of Fear, which I thoroughly recommend) calls "pre-incident indicators." The overwhelming majority of "intimate partner" homicides occur after the victim has left or has started to leave the perpetrator, usually following a pre-existing pattern of abuse, controlling behavior, and the like.

But the fact that it is uncommon for violence to occur entirely without warning (including to the person(s) committing it) does not mean that the violence itself is uncommon.

[Hoyt]

182. You are correct about the post. I made the mistake of replying to the subject/title.

As to victims of domestic violence -- maybe they should carry. They actually have a rational reason to pack -- the violence is likely to occur again (and again). Of course, I'd recommend turning to law enforcement and victim support groups to get out of those situations first.

[GreenStormCloud]

186. Mostly, we are concerned about violent crime, not about bar fights. N/T

[Pavulon]

202. Same reason you need a seatbelt, helmet, or rubber in your wallet

because it never hurts to have it there.

[Euromutt]

174. Well, I wouldn't carry in a Chuck E Cheese...

... because there's no way you can get me to set foot inside one at all. (And why is it that opponents of private citizens carrying so very frequently cite Chuck E. Cheese?)

As for carrying a defibrillator, would you settle for a CPR mask and the training to use both it and an AED? While AEDs are undoubtedly very useful, they're rather bulky to lug around.

Studies show it is much more likely to be needed.

I tend to be skeptical of any claim that "studies show," especially when the claim is vaguely worded. What numbers are you comparing? Sudden cardiac arrest claims many more victims (~325,000/year) than homicide (~16,000/year in recent years), certainly, but by no means more than serious violent crime overall (homicide, robbery, rape and aggravated assault; ~1.3 million/year combined). And research indicates (I prefer "indicates" to "shows" in this type of context) that private citizens use firearms in self-defense between 900,000 and 1.5 million times a year (though it should be noted that that research was performed in the early to mid-1990s, when the violent crime rate was around double the current level).

[Hoyt]

181. "CECheeze" is used to indicate how bad things have gotten that folks feel they have to pack.

I wouldn't go there either, but I'm sure there are some here who are concerned they might be attacked by a kid gone mad (well more likely, a parent).

As to studies/research, you could be right. You could be wrong too in your conclusions. For example, I doubt that the victims packing a gun would have prevented most of those violent crimes cited.

In any event, I don't plan on carrying a gun into such places because it is highly unlikely something will occur, and even more unlikely citizens having a gun are going to make it any better. But, I could be wrong.

[cowman]

184. Thats the

point, you could be wrong about citizens being able to stop violent crimes in progress that they just happen to be put in the situation where they can stop a violent crime, case in point, the Luby's massacre in TX, becacuse then Gov. Ann Richards refused to sign the conceal carry legislation into law, nobody that day had a gun on them so noone could stop the shooter, if just one citizen had been armed that day the outcome probably would have been far different

[GreenStormCloud]

213. That means that you will also be unarmed in the parking lot..

Inside a place, I feel very secure. Most crime that would involve me would be likely to happen in the parking lot on the way in or out. The only way that I can be ready in the parking lot is to also carry in the place. Why are you afraid of me also having my gun on me in a restaurant?

[Euromutt]

217. And possibly leaving your carry piece in the car

I carry a PacSafe "travelsafe" (http://www.pacsafe.com/www/index.php?_room=3&_action=detail&id=117) in my car, so that I can stow my carry piece and spare mags when I have to go into a place where I can't legally carry, stow the bag out of sight and lock it to a metal fixture, but even so, I'm uncomfortable about the possibility of my getting broken into and the weapon being stolen. At least when it's in the retention holster on my hip, it can't be taken without my knowing about it.

[Mike K]

242. Most will recall that great scene in the movie, -

- Pulp Fiction, in which Samuel Jackson and John Travolta were in a diner when a pair of wild meth-heads pulled guns and proceeded to rob everyone in the place. They were doing just fine until the male of the guy/gal stickup team came to Samuel Jackson -- who unexpectedly produced a chrome .45 auto, stuck it in the guy's face and instantly reversed the balance of power.

Anti-gun folks should go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707779/posts and read about two situations that could have turned out differently if one or more decent people had been armed.

[old mark]

13. Welcome to DU, new guy - Rec'd and thanks for the post.

I have been licensed to carry for over 15 years, and I am still appalled by the garbage anti-gun people spew about those of us who choose to have guns. They remind me more and more of the current GOP...Lie, repeat, repeat it louder ant more often, and slur the character of those you oppose. Don't worry about the truth, anti's as long as you make your points.


mark

[scrabblequeen40]

30. can anyon think of a example

when someone carrying a conceaed weapon actually saved the day?

[cowman]

35. Look up thread

[PavePusher]

40. Google. Your friend in the digital age.

You can start here:

http://www.guncite.com/

Many instances tracked here:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

[jazzhound]

41. You'll likely be getting many responses soon,

but allow me to say that "saving the day" isn't the point. Did you actually read the original post? Concealed carry permit holders don't see themselves as police officers. They carry to protects themselves and their families, and yes -- defensive gun uses occur frequently.
Up until the NSDS study nobody really knew how frequently, because they went unreported. While some defensive gun uses are reported by savvy gun owners to protect themselves from unfair prosecution, many are not.

This is not to say that a permit holder won't (or hasn't) "saved the day". This scenario has occured. I don't recall the incident, but I recall a story wherein it was pointed out that a civilian (or was it two?) stopped a gunman's rampage. What readers of the article did NOT
learn was that the citizens who halted the attack were armed. Was this an accidental ommision? Possibly. But given the one-sided fashion the media has historically portrayed guns and gun owners I have my suspicions.

[paulsby]

60. i can. it happened to an officer i know pretty well

she was arresting a guy for armed robbery and he turned on her and had her on the ground, and managed to get her gun out of the holster and they were wrestling for control of it.

a man with a handgun ran up and center punched the guy in the head with a shot from his handgun.

of course, the best part was all the interviews in the newspapers with the dead robber's family (and i am not going to call him an "alleged" robber. he was on frigging videotape and did it in front of several witnesses) and of course "he was turning his life around" etc. lol . they ALWAYS say that

[jazzhound]

92. Glad that things turned out well for your fellow officer, paulsby

Not that I like the fact that the criminal had to be taken out to protect the officer, but my respect for LEO's makes this a feel-good story for me. Even though I don't live in the area where you serve/served (?) allow me to thank you for that service. One of the happiest checks I write every year is the one to my local officers association. (I also consider it to be a small penance for being someone that law enforcement had to deal with in my irresponsible youth.)

It should come as no surprise to anyone that LEO's know the score on the concealed-carry issue. It is they, after all, who'd have to deal with the problem of "blood on the streets" if that were to be a consequence of concealed carry. It also comes as no surprise that the anti-gun crowd lacks the integrity to stop and listen to what officers have to say.

[paulsby]

95. thank you for your kind words

fwiw, i was PRO gun control, when i started in law enforcement. it was my personal experience, as well as discussion with proRKBA types and study that changed my mind.

iirc, the guy who shot this robber had had a CCW for years and had never had occasion to use it, but this officer was VERY grateful he did so, on this occasion

we had another incident where an officer was shot and killed and two people (that i personally interviewed) had guns on them.

neither used them. one said she was "unsure of her backstop" which i think was a bit of a hedge, but regardless a guy was shooting a cop in the head in front of her and there was an apartment building 1/4 mile away. the shot was justified.

the 2nd guy by the time he got his gun OUT, the shooting was over and he could see the suspect's slide locked back, so he didn't shoot. he could have ordered the guy to stop, and if the guy didn't legally shot him. the guy just executed a cop in front of him (stood over the guy and emptied the gun into his head) and was CLEARLY a continuing danger, slide locked back or not

both used lots of restraint

one thing that irks me is that when antis try to claim that cops are anti-CCW and they cite org's like IACP as "proof" of same.

why would an organization of police chiefs (who are almost always political appointees and beholden to mayors/city councils) possibly represent the views of "real" iow LINE cops.

it would be like quoting a bunch of auto company CEO's as alleged evidence as to what assembly line workers think

again, thank you for your kind words.

[jazzhound]

121. You're more than welcome.

This story is heartbreaking, but certainly instructive. Certainly a locked slide could have been the result of a jam, quickly corrected by a practiced shooter. You are obviously correct in asserting that the perp was still a threat. Sigh.

[paulsby]

161. right and thank you

and even IF his gun was empty. he just executed a person in front of you. do you let him retreat to a position of cover, take a hostage, etc?

all he had to do was lock the slide forward and bust into the door of the first apartment he got to (or even just knock) and hold that person at gunpoint and possibly arm himself.

while CCw'ers are not the police and expected to apprehend fleeing felons, in a CLEAR situation like this he would be both legally and morally justified.

the illustration goes to show that imo CCW'er are quite restrained,. that's been my experience

[tburnsten]

63. Check this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=307236&mesg_id=307261

For a post you apparently missed. Follow the short sub-thread where it goes into some good detail.

And you really did miss the point about people with carry permits NOT being police officers. If they end up using their carry weapon to defend themself or others successfully, fantastic, but carry permits are not and were never meant to be an auxiliary law enforcement mechanism.

Crime prevention isn't the gain of carry permits, though it may have ancillary benefits on crime anyway, as it did dramatically in Florida the year after carry permits were established. Crime mitigation is what carry permits are for. Reducing the damage or even preventing it from progressing to a point where permanent harm is caused is what a carry permit plus the training to know when not to shoot and how to effectively use it if that's what it comes down to offers.

[Hummm]

66. When you leave the house...

When you leave the house do you wear your seatbelt?

How about at home..do you have a fire extinguisher ready?

Do you or your children wear a bicycle helmet?

Why do you do or have these things...are you expecting to get in a crash or have a fire?

I do not carry a gun expecting or looking for trouble..but if it happens I have the means to defend my life. Otherwise my gun stays concealed, it is my burden to carry and no one else ever knows I have it. How exactly does that harm or hinder anyone else around me in public?

I am 41 years old and have a spinal condition to where I run like a snail. If trouble comes my way I am doing everything I can to avoid it. I will talk, apologize or back my way out of it is possible. BUT I am not going to just roll over and be a victim hoping I am not killed or seriously injured if faced with a younger, stronger and/or armed attacker.

[onehandle]

79. There are many Obama hating sites throughout the Internet that post these tales constantly.

The links to these Obama hating sites are linked to in this forum all of the time.

The tales are quite entertaining.

[PavePusher]

82. Are the incidents any less true...

simply because of political leanings of the posters?

Especially since most such posts link through to the actual news report or occasionally, legal documents, that address the incident?

According to you, if a certain website or person says 2+2=4, it is false because of the source.

Logic fail.

[onehandle]

83. Did I say they were false?

Are they?

[PavePusher]

87. You appeared to be attempting to imply just that.

And your innuendo that because they mostly come from sites that are politically opposed to the current President undermines their veracity is quite disingenuous as well.

Own your issues.

[onehandle]

90. 'mostly come from sites that are politically opposed to the current President'

No innuendo necessary.

[YllwFvr]

250. Whats wrong with being opposed to the president?

Bush was a saint, and Obama seems to be doing quite well
/sarcasm

Even a perfect president wont have 100% support from the American public. The last two have far less than that.

[Euromutt]

119. Then what is the purpose of bringing it up?

There's no discernable purpose to your post #79 other than to either suggest that these stories are fabricated (or at least heavily embellished), or to suggest that posters on this board who refer to these stories read the kind of sites you describe with approval. Either way, it's an ad hominem, because you're trying to discount somebody's argument based on a characteristic of the person making it.

Why don't you come out and explicitly say what you mean? Unless, of course, you're trying to slip a violation of the spirit of the forum rules under the radar.

[jazzhound]

123. Euromutt nailed it

"Why don't you come out and explicitly say what you mean? Unless, of course, you're trying to slip a violation of the spirit of the forum rules under the radar."

That is precisely what onehandle is up to. His handlers have trained him well.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted sub-thread

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

[onehandle]

134. Footnote... footnote.

Geez, back in school it was all about the footnotes.

Just trying to help.

[tburnsten]

170. You seem to have a couple in mind, care to name them?

I'm just curious about the sites linked to from DU that are Obama hating.

[Hummm]

54. Nope but thanks

BTW I am not the same guy who repeated this post over on the 1911 forums.

I would encourage everyone to look up an read an essay by Jeff Snyder called A Nation of Cowards.

http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

A small excerpt:

Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.

[jazzhound]

61. Actually, the post on the 1911 forum (that I linked to)

contains the original posting by the author of the piece.

Until you re-posted I had not seen it though -- and again, many thanks. This is the type of material that richly deserves to be circulated widely.

[Hummm]

75. Arrest rates

Arrest rate of Washington, DC police officers: 19 per 1000
Arrest rate of St. Louis police officers: 13 per 1000
Arrest rate of New York City police officers: 3 per 1000
Arrest rate of Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000

(Source: "D.C. Police Paying for Hiring Binge" Washington Post 8/28/94; Memorandum by James T. Moore, Commissioner of Florida's Department of Law Enforcement, to office of the Governor, dated 3/15/95.)

CCW/CHL holders are statistically LESS violent than the rest of the population. They are arrested for violent crimes at a rate
five times lower than non-license holders (even lower than police officers in many states).

*Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report,” 1998
*Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September 2000
*FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 2004 - excludes Hawaii and Rhode Island - small populations and geographic isolation create other determinants to violent crime.
* William E. Sturdevant, “An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population,” September 1, 2000
*"D.C. Police Paying for Hiring Binge," Washington Post, 8/28/94
*Memorandum by James T. Moore, Commissioner of Florida's Department of Law Enforcement, to the Office of the Governor, dated 3/15/95

[Warren Stupidity]

97. A society where everyone is walking around armed and dangerous

is a society that is losing its grip on what it means to be civilized.

I'm truly sorry that you feel so threatened and insecure that you need to go out and about with a gun.

[jazzhound]

101. Equating calm and practiced preparedness and fear is genuine stupidity.

Sorry. Wish I could be more gentle.

[Warren Stupidity]

104. it is what it is.

If you are going about your daily affairs with a gun, and your daily affairs are not law enforcement, money transfer, or other actually dangerous jobs, you are a fearful and insecure person.

[jazzhound]

106. It is what it is?

Uh......no, It is what's in your judgemental mind, since as has been pointed out over and over again you don't know any of the people that you are maligning.

[PavePusher]

107. Does crime happen?

Does it happen only in very specific locations?

Is self-defense a reasonable action?

Is self-defense with tools a reasonable action?

Are you willing to assume responsibility for my personal security? If not, why? If so, HOW?

[cowman]

108. Let me ask you something

do you know this person or are you some kind of armchair psychiatrist?

If not, how the fuck do you know what he feels? your post is on of the dumbest posts I have read in a while, you have no clue about how we feel but keep on analyzing us if you must, all you do is make yourself look even more dumb

[Warren Stupidity]

110. see upthread. skeered of the crimes.

either you are gun infatuated or scared. So far nobody has come up with another explanation.

[cowman]

113. Oh we've

enumerated lots of other reasons, you just want to believe what you want to believe so go ahead, and as my 8 yo granddaughter would say "whatever dude"

[PavePusher]

158. Avoiding my questions? n/t

[cowman]

103. who says, except you,

that we feel threatened and insecure. I just love you antis who think you know how we feel when you don't have a fucking clue about what you are trying to allude to

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

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

[Pavulon]

206. Well you just earned a Medal of Freedom for having the courage

to point that out. What an insightful and content rich post.

[cowman]

207. Wow

I feel insulted, I guess I have to go sell all my guns now because you think we are all c-o-w-a-r-d-s. Quick someone give me a hug to assauge my hurt feelings:sarcasm: :rofl:

[oneshooter]

209. These are for you cowman!

:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :spank:


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[cowman]

215. Thank You

I feel better now, I guess I don't have to sell my guns now:fistbump:

[oneshooter]

231. If it happens again I want first dibs!! n/t

[cowman]

234. You definitely

get first dibs on my guns if she makes me feel bad again

[Pavulon]

116. Here is a political FACT

if the party fucks with gun control they are done, just like 95. Now in that time the have realized gun control is ineffective bullshit that punishes people who follow the laws. Leave it alone, move on, and find an issue where real effort is needed. This goose is cooked.

[Warren Stupidity]

117. 96 election

House: democratic gains
Senate: republican gains
President: democrat wins.

I missing the cooked goose part. Then again '95 was not an election year.

[Pavulon]

122. NEWT used that AWB to pick up seats, for NOTHING, its all a trick

scurry black guns were and still are statistically insignificant.. That law cost seats period. Now the facts of that law pretty much back up the reality of the bamboozle.

Gun control is a false response to real problem. Mental health care and drug laws. Poverty is crucial. See places like greenwich ct, or other high income communities dont have lots of gun crime. See a beach or golf course from your house, you are ok.

See a inner city project, yea gun violence may be a problem.

Places where impoverished people live (regardless of race, but blacks are overrepresented in the system) are areas where gun crime happens as part of the intertwined cycle of drugs, violence, and poverty.

Capping a magazine at 10 rounds, and banning rifles that are used less than knives will no longer fool people who live in those communities that "we are helping you".

Gun control is a lie to the people who really suffer from gun violence and a pain in the ass I can buy my way around.

[Warren Stupidity]

151. We picked up seats in the house, lost two in the senate, Clinton won.

Your facts don't support your thesis

[X_Digger]

153. Methinks he means 1994.. -54 in the house -8 in the senate.

The "ban" was signed two months before that election.

[Warren Stupidity]

192. He would have to indicate that.

However blaming that on 'antis' is stupid.

[cowman]

196. Well

Bill Clinton seemed to blame the antis and if I remember right a poll taken right after the election showed that the repub party really came out to vote because of the AWB so yes I do blame the antis

[Pavulon]

201. Yeah my error, we lost, so did the real victims

people who suffer from violence, drugs, and poverty. See people with money can buy around the laws, violence motivated by drug laws is still here.

2 part failure. Pisses off legal owners like me, and does nothing to help true victims. But hey, look, we are doing something to help. Gun control is a bamboozle.

[X_Digger]

212. I remember it well..

I was living in Virginia at the time, and many many rep pols made hay over it.

I remember Leslie Byrne (Burne?) getting trounced over it, and she was a damned fine democratic politician otherwise.

[Pavulon]

125. Quoting bill clinton...

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

[GreenStormCloud]

190. 95 was the year they took office from the 94 election.

Democrats got slaughtered in 94. After the AWB passed the NRA targeted for defeat a list of congresspersons and 85% of them were not re-elected. After that, only extremely safe seats dared make the NRA mad.

[spin]

130. The "threatened and insecure" accusation ...

seems to be the current talking point of those who oppose concealed or open carry.

But the assertion fails because it paints with a very broad brush. I've known some people who did carry because they felt threatened and in most cases they had good reason for their fear as they had been attacked in the past or in one case had their life threatened by an individual with a record of violent crime.

I've also known many people who obtained a carry permit because if you have one in Florida, you can bypass the three day waiting period when you buy a firearm from a dealer. Many people who enjoy shooting buy and trade firearms frequently and if they find a good deal on a firearm in a city thirty to fifty miles from where they live, they avoid the hassle of having to return to the store to pick their new purchase up.

Many carry because they are the type of self reliant individual who likes to plan for any situation. Such people in Florida are likely to have prepared for hurricanes far in advance and don't have to make a mad dash to the store to buy batteries, food and water at the last minute. They wear seat belts; have fire alarms and fire extinguishers in their home and an emergency tool kit in their car. They don't expect to ever have to use their firearm for self defense, but in case they do find themselves in a situation that justifies the use of lethal force they want the ability and the tool for the task.

My daughter had a concealed permit and was glad she had one when she attracted the attention of a stalker. She filed a restraining order, but the character was wise to the fact that police often are reluctant to enforce such orders. He had a passion for intimidating women and often when she walked outside she would see him driving by leering at her. When she drove somewhere, he would follow or suddenly show up. Fortunately, he did realize that she did carry and never overstepped the limits far enough for her to justify pulling her firearm. Eventually he did violate the order once too often and I witnessed his actions. He was arrested and after a trial, spend several weekends in jail with the threat that he might face a year in prison for the next incident. My daughter still sees him occasionally, but it looks like he learned a lesson and has given up on harassing her. If he is just biding his time, she still carries.

My daughter learned that you can never know when you might have a reason to get a concealed carry permit and it's better to have one than to have to go through the lengthy process to get one which can take up to longer than three months.

I got my carry permit many years ago for entirely different reasons. I carried a firearm in my glove box when I drove to work as I lived in a questionable neighborhood and had a thirty mile drive to work on the late night shift. (It is legal to carry a loaded firearm in your car in Florida without a license.) One of my co-workers suggested I get a carry permit as he knew I had a lead foot and would eventually be stopped by the police for speeding. He mentioned that it would save a lot of time and effort if I could show the officer concealed weapons permit if pulled over and asked if I had a weapon in the car.

For a while I never bothered to carry the firearm concealed, but the range master at the pistol range I shot at, suggested that since Florida had granted me a permit, I should carry. He asked, "How would you feel if you actually had a situation where you might save your life or another person’s life and you didn't have your weapon with you?" He mentioned that the state felt that people on the street with legally concealed weapons serve as a deterrent to crime. He basically chewed my ass and I did see some wisdom in his argument. I started to carry my firearm.

People often have different motivations for their actions and you stereotype when you make an armchair psychiatrist's opinion on a large group of people.

Realize that I could also paint those who dislike concealed carry with a number of derogatory terms or insinuations about their personality. I choose not to because it I believe that it would indicate that I lack knowledge and education and am merely a fool.

Your decision to own a firearm and to get a carry permit, if such activities are legal where you live, is a choice you have to make for yourself. Your life experiences, motivations and personality are unique and I will not criticize or insult you for your choice. Chances are that you will never have a situation where your life is threatened and a firearm might save it. I doubt and hope that it never will, just as I doubt and hope I never will have a reason to draw my concealed weapon. I have had fire extinguishers in my home for 40 years and only one time did I have to use one to put out an electrical fire on a pool filter for an outdoor pool. Still, I'm damn glad I did have a fire extinguisher.


Attempting to get at truth means rejecting stereotypes and cliches.
Harold Evans

[AtheistCrusader]

245. Sorry that you feel so threatened and insecure that you have to slag on CPL holders.

What did I ever do to you?

[YllwFvr]

251. Gun ownership has gone down

When our country was founded it was quite common to see guns everywhere in hands. Kids even brought rifles to school. Even my grandfather said it was common to see people walk down the street with guns, or bring one to school to show it.
This isnt in a hick town either, Elmira NY, nice sized city.

Now guns are taboo, and you are judged for having one. What happened in the last 40 years? Crime rates increased, gangs have grown. A friend of mine was attacked at a public swimming pool in Lancaster by a group of kids who called there dads when the friend asked them to stop swearing. But nah, guns arent needed anymore.

See the two recent Chicago shootings where the illegally armed citizens defended there homes and arent being charged for it. Daley knows better.

[truedelphi]

98. Here's a tip I learned from a girl friend who was also a construction worker

She had to commute between her construction job in Boulder and where she lived in Denver. Sometimes there were unsavory characters who were lurking around, both on public transit and the streets.

One night, she needed her crowbar from work to fix something at her apartment. She carried it home with her, briskly swinging it from her right side...

That night she didn't see any thug-gy people looking at her while salivating at the possibility of jumping her. Instead, they all looked at her with respect.

So she decided that perhaps it was best to carry her crowbar with her any time she worked late.

Before this night, she had thought about getting a gun - but wasn't sure she'd be able to use it quickly enough if she was ever attacked. Nor was she comfortable about the idea of packing that much deadly force.

So in the end, she became a very safe person - simply due to the fact that while she still appeared young, attractive and toned in the right places, she was now viewed as a formidable, crowbar- carrying type of person, seen as a menace to the safety of any perps who tried to harm her.

PS I don't mean this as an attack on people who do choose to have a gun. But as a possibility for someone who for whatever reason is not going that route.

[PavePusher]

99. A crow-bar is every bit as deadly a weapon as a firearm...

just with a shorter range. And is no more a guarantee of safety than a firearm. Possibly less-so, unless she has extensive hand-to-hand combat training.

If someone is in crow-bar range, things have a strong possiblity of going badly.

[truedelphi]

100. In the situation that she was in, I think it was an excellent choice.

She was dealing with small time thugs, who were basically out for easy pickings.

Now had she been coming home every night and being watched by a crowd of fully trained dark entity ninjas, then I would agree with you about her choice.

But I used to get rid of perps just by saying "Hi!" very cheerfully. Like they were my long lost cousin, or something. And I think her method was quite a bit safer than mine. She wasn't concerned about GANGS of thugs, but mere slime ball individuals.

And let's face it - if someone is really out to get someone, it is pretty hard to defend oneself.

I carry a gun, you pack an automatic weapon. You pack an automatic weapon, I pack a grenade and after surveilling you for a week, I manage to come at you from behind.

I think part of what our discussion is about is gender based. Women who are trying to be safe are in a very different category than men are.

Ex: back when I was much much younger, I wore mini skirts to work. My 6 ft 2, Vietnam war trained husband would say things like, "Honey, I never have guys following me the way you do."

But when he did have a guy following him, it was because he had unconsciously done something that triggered the other guy's subconscious concerning the issue of "okay, buddy, I'm the top dog, aren't I?"

And in that realm, then sometimes you do have to out-weapons the person, and out fight the person - which means you need to have the right weapons, and the right training.

In my life, I have hung out with big burly men, medium guys and very short guys. What has struck me as odd is that in bad neighborhoods, there is often someone so drunk as to be STOOPID, and to try and pick on a guy three times bigger than they are.

And of course, in that case, it usually isn't even about body size, training or weapons - but sobriety.

[jazzhound]

102. Thanks for the reasoned dialogue, truedelphi

One thing I'll point out, and crime statistics support, is that the more lethal the defensive tool -- the better the outcome. Not in all cases -- but in *more* cases. And when *women* use guns to defend themselves they fare better than men in terms of the percentage of favorable outcomes. You said........

"I carry a gun, you pack an automatic weapon. You pack an automatic weapon, I pack a grenade and after surveilling you for a week, I manage to come at you from behind."

Two points here -- while some folks may choose to open-carry, many (perhaps most) gunnies on this board feel that concealed-carry is the way to go from both a tactical standpoint and a "I'd rather not make others uncomfortable if I don't have to" standpoint.
Therefore the criminal would never know for sure that the honorable citizen is armed. With regard to an attack from behind -- that's where vigilance and situational awareness comes in. If an attacker has the opportunity to come at you from behind, more than likely you've *given* him that opportunity.

For the record -- I live in a "may issue" state........which is to say "no issue" since I'm not a celebrity and have no connections. I obey the law and remained unarmed in public. I have a friend with a prosthetic leg who doesn't have the option of running, and by virtue of his limp has a target painted on his back. He obeys the law too ---- except when he's in his truck, at which time he has a pistol at the ready. Is he paranoid? Of course not. He simply realizes that by virtue of his handicapp he is not only a target, but is less able to fight back if/when he is attacked. Quite honestly, if I were in his position I'd probably carry in violation of the law. It's really easy to do. Here's where the immorality of "may issue" comes in. The state I live in is essentially saying to my friend "FUCK YOU!! We know that you're a natural target for predators, and we know that you have a diminished ability to fight back.........but FUCK YOU ANYWAY. We know that the chances of a cop being around to save you in the chance of an attack is almost zilch --- but FUCK YOU!!! There is no inalienable
right to self-preservation, even though you are firearm trained, honest as the day is long and emotionally perfectly adjusted. FUCK YOU anyway. We've got politics to play, and uneducated pro-controllers to appease, so FUCK YOU!!!" And you could apply this to a very large percentage of the U.S. population given the fact that most are at a physical disadvantage to the criminals that pursue them.

Does this seem a little over-the-top? Not when you've studied the issue.

[PavePusher]

105. Thanks for the reasoned reply.

You bring up some valid points. Gotta go run some errands, and do some thinking.

[jazzhound]

118. One of the first things you learn in defensive firearm training

is that distance is your friend.

[truedelphi]

210. And that is what my friend had noted -

When she carried a crowbar - the people she was normally troubled by kept their distance.

That wouldn't work in all situations, but in this particular one, it worked.

[tburnsten]

211. Generally being alert and aware of your surroundings has a major impact

on whether or not someone who is unsure about attacking you or not chooses to.

That is a really twisty sentence, sorry, what I mean is that your run of the mill hoodlum open to the possibility of picking up a target of opportunity is more likely to walk on by someone who knows where they are and appears capable of putting up a good fight.

A fit young woman with a crowbar in hand certainly fits that description.

[Xenotime]

240. Agreed.

[spin]

131. Actually good advise ...

and I own firearms and have a carry permit.

Guns are not for everyone and handguns are difficult to become proficient with.

A crowbar is a good self defense weapon as is a sturdy cane or a can of police grade pepper spray.

[PavePusher]

142. A point of disagreement...

Handguns are fairly simple tools, and it is quite easy to become profficient enough for common self-defense. With a maximum of 5-6 buttons or levers, only 2-3 of which will come into play in common defense-usage, they are much easier to learn to use than, say, a car, or cell phones, or the latest camera.

Strategy and tactics can, of course, take a lifetime, but they are not the tool itself.

[spin]

171. I actually prefer a revolver because of the simplicity ...

but it took a while to master the double action trigger pull at longer ranges. I had shot for a number of years clocking the hammer and firing single action at 25 yards, but when I got my first concealed carry permit I shifted to primarily double action at 45 feet or less.

I remember a regular shooter at the range who enjoyed target shooting and was firing his weapon at twenty five yards. A police officer who had stopped by the range was observing him. After a while he walked up and asked my friend, "You think you're a pretty good shooter, right." My friend said he felt he was adequate.

The cop said, "I'll give you a challenge." Place your handgun on the table and move the target to 21 feet. When I say, pick your weapon up and fire two shots into the target as fast as you can."

My friend tried and missed with both shots. He has a concealed carry permit and learned a valuable lesson that day.

He had always held the opinion that if he could hit the black of a bulls eye target consistently at 25 yards, he could easily shoot at closer ranges. He told me, "I've watched you practice at closer ranges and never seen the value, but now I do."

I always used the small silhouette target and my objective was to rapid fire my carry weapon, an Airweight S&W snub nosed 38+P revolver, and stay inside the kill zone at 10 to 21 feet. I worked on point shooting rather than using the sights. With practice I was able to achieve my goal constantly. It was much easier with a full sized .45 auto or my 3" model 60, but the Airweight Model 642 was my prime carry piece. The snubbie is very light and with 38+P loads has a stiff recoil and the trigger pull in double action is hard and long.

Often shooters would come to the range for a day of shooting and after a couple of boxes of ammo would show their target to the range master with pride. The range master would suggest they come back more often and practice a lot more.

Of course, shooting on the range is a lot different from real life self defense shooting. It's a different environment and under pressure and adrenaline flow you lose a lot of your skill.

You are definitely right to mention strategy and tactics. Very important in a real life gun fight.

Many people are unwilling to take the time necessary to truly master a handgun. Some people realize that a firearm is a bad choice for them. There are alternatives such as pepper spray or a cane as I suggested. They do offer a measure of protection, but have drawbacks. For example, it may not be wise to pepper spray a bad guy who has a gun pointed at you.

A lot depends on what you consider enough proficiency to use a firearm for self defense. At very close ranges it's not real difficult to shove a snub nosed revolver into an attackers stomach and pull the trigger. That's why they are often called a "belly gun".

Since most defensive shootings do occur at very close ranges, I will concede that you have a valid point.

[jazzhound]

173. Lots of great info. in this post, spin

Sounds like we have something in common based on this (and another) post. I've got a small frame S&W .357 Airlight bug with a titanium cylinder and scalloped hammer. I recall that your revolver is hammerless. Yeah --- I've dry-fired one of those and the trigger pull
is significantly harder than mine -- though the same length. I have to admit that it's been so long since I've fired it I undoubtedly would shoot horribly with it. After my next trip to the range to get back in shape with the FN Hi-Power, I'll have to take the bug.

Good advice about practice with the revolver.

[spin]

189. I've considered buying an Airlight .357 ...

but I would probably load it with 38+P rounds for self defense which means that it would be no more effective than my Airweight 642.

My 642 was made before the safety lock and with the recoil of the .357 I've heard of some problems with the lock affecting the trigger pull of the Airlight on gun forums. I also own a 3" Model 60 .357 with the lock and have fired a lot of full power rounds through it without any problem. The Model 60's additional weight allows me to shoot .357 magnum rounds comfortably. While I find it easier to shoot accurately, it's not a pocket revolver as it has a hammer. When I carry it, I used an inside the waistband holster, but I find I carry the hammerless Model 642 more often because of its weight and the fact that I can just drop it in my pocket holster and go.

I would imagine that the recoil of a full powered .357 round in the Airlight would be intimidating.

[jazzhound]

218. Yes, you guessed right

The recoil using .357 ammo puts a *serious* wallup on the hand. Pretty unpleasant, really. On the relatively rare occasions I shoot it, I don't put many of the .357's through it before shifting to 38. You've obviously made the right call with the 38+P ammo.

[spin]

228. I recently went shooting with a fellow with a Ruger Redhawk .44 mag ...

He was firing some .44 mag reloads and when we traded handguns, he mentioned that my Model 642 had a recoil as stiff as his .44 magnum. I felt the reloads he was using were mid range loads, not full power. Still the greater weight of the much larger .44 mag dampened the recoil down to compare with the much lighter snubbie using 38+P.

[PavePusher]

178. And you raise some good points as well.

As with any endevour, practice, while perhaps not making perfect, certainly makes better.

Which reminds me, I've really got to get to the range next weekend...

[spin]

191. When I lived in the Tampa Bay area ...

I had access to several ranges, but since I've moved to North Florida and live inside city limits, it has been harder to find a good place to shoot.

We hope to sell this old hotel we live in and move to the country with enough land so that I can set up my own range. I plan to take up reloading again and shoot a little every day. It's a nice dream, but the economy has to improve a little.

[paulsby]

233. we teach instinctive shooting now

a lot more, for this reason.

for example, i've reviewed video of many cop and non-cop firefights. i have NEVER seen anybody use weaver, modified or otherwise, so why practice that way? for example

also, with rare exceptions (like LA bank robbery shooting), people in real firefights never really engage the full sight picture, etc. thing. basically you instinctually point the front sight and go. so, that's the kind of shooting imo that is more practical

i also strongly suggest people try shooting after doing a set of pushups, etc.

get your heart rate up etc. and that MUCH more closely simulates a real firefight

[jazzhound]

238. With regard to getting the heart rate up

one of my tenant/roomies was testing for a security job that required profiency in both rifle and handgun. After going through the paces with an AR15 they were required to run briskly to another range and immediately start firing a pistol. That part of the test alone weeded out a lot of applicants.

[paulsby]

239. that's excellent

i wish more police agencies were that progressive in their requirements. whatever that security job was, they clearly took training seriously

most cop shootings take place in low light (darkness outside or in building) and we can go YEARS without ever getting to practice in low light

[GreenStormCloud]

241. I know a guy that has been in six gunfights - legally.

He says that in none of them did he use any of the holds or stances that are taught.

[Euromutt]

180. Didn't she know the bad guy would just take the crowbar away and turn it against her?

To clarify, I'm being facetious. That's what outfits like the Brady Campaign claim will "easily" happen to any woman who carries a firearm for self-defense.

Hey, if the crowbar worked for your friend in the situation she was in, it worked, and that's all that matters.

[spin]

132. Your points are well made and do describe ...

the attitude and actions of the people I know who carry concealed.

[Big Al Mac]

136. Request for permission to repost this

I'd like to have permission from Hummm to repost this to another concealed carry forum.
This is great!

[GreenStormCloud]

214. Here is the permission.

The original author posted in this thread as the OP: http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=176240

In post # 7 he gives permission for its general use as long as it is used to promote gun-rights and the second amendment.

"I've had a couple of requests by forum members to use this list for various purposes.

So long as it is used to promote our second amendment rights I gladly give permission for it to be used, reprinted or otherwise published.

I would request that if you do post it or submit it to a newspaper for publication that you let me know. I don't need any credit for it as it is merely a compilation of things that I've learned from many websites, my CWP instructor and other's I respect but I would like to know how and when it's used, if it indeed is.

This list is only a codifying of things that most of us here know. It belongs to anyone who loves freedom. Use it as you will and let freedom ring. "

[yodoobo]

219. There's alot of "WE's" in that manifesto

I'll take it on faith that author believes every word of what he wrote and personally believes these things.

But CC holders are not a hive mind.

Some CC holders DO think they are cops and superheroes. ( Have you seen those "CCW badges"?)

Some CC holders are more likely to be in fights or "rage" events.


There are real life counter part examples of nearly every point made in that list.

A perusal of any gun forum will reveal plenty of examples.


So. Good for the author. But he is only one data point.

[jazzhound]

221. "So. Good for the author. But he is only one data point."

Absolutely correct --- which is why the fair-minded person looks at the big picture. And what we know from the big picture is that CC permit holders are many times less likely than members of the general population to commit violent crime.

"A perusal of any gun forum will reveal plenty of examples."

How people *speak* on internet forums is not an honest or accurate way of predicting how they will *act* in public. There are plenty of braggadocio males -- in and out of gun forums.

[Euromutt]

222. The fact that a product is made doesn't mean it sells

By which I mean those "CCW permit holder" badges. In every gun forum where I've seen those discussed, the consensus has been that those things are a singularly bad idea, and an invitation to get slapped with a charge of impersonating a police officer.

[GreenStormCloud]

224. CCW badge? Never heard of them. Sounds like a really bad idea N/T.

[yodoobo]

226. here ya go

http://www.popguns.com/badge/concealedcarry.htm

[paulsby]

232. i've never seen anybody with one

and i deal with people with CCW's and (real) badges all the time

[tburnsten]

223. I can't think of a single friend or acquiantance

In "real life" or online, that has bought one of those ridiculuous things, or of anyone who thinks they are anything but completely idiotic.

I'm sure some dumb shit has bought one, but I've never heard about it.


How are some carry permit holders "more likely" to become involved in fights or "rage events", whatever those are?

[yodoobo]

225. you've never met a short tempered person?

I know I have. I would assume we all have.

[cowman]

227. Sure it happens

But very few CHL holders are involved because of all the steps we had to take to get our permit. I've got an idea, why don't you go thru the process and then come back and talk to us when you have a better understanding of what it takes to obtain a CHL,

When I am out and about and I get angry about something, I don't think about drawing my gun and blasting away, I'll just walk away from whatever is drawing my ire. The vast majority of CHL holders will react in the same way because of the awesome responsibility we bear

[GreenStormCloud]

229. Usually such a hot-tempered biolent person will also get a police record.

If he does not have control of himself and lets his temper control him, then he will do illegal things, get arrested and convicted, lose jobs, and not have the ability to get a Concealed Handgun License. Not only would his conviction record be a bar, but it would be likely that his finances would also be a bar. Getting a CHL isn't cheap. It takes money to buy the ammunition to practice to be good enough to pass the test, and there are fees to pay.

The process of getting a CHL strongly tends to screen out the hotheads.

[tburnsten]

230. I never said I have never met a hothead

I said

In response to you saying

Some CC holders are more likely to be in fights or "rage" events.

Which seems to imply that somehow being a carry permit holder means you are in some way more likely to be involved in a "rage event", which you never did bother to give a definition of. I have never heard of a "rage event" myself.

Maybe you are mixing up my earlier statement with this other statement I made in the same post

I can't think of a single friend or acquiantance in "real life" or online, that has bought one of those ridiculuous things, or of anyone who thinks they are anything but completely idiotic.

I'm sure some dumb shit has bought one, but I've never heard about it.

When I was talking about the carry permit holder badges that you brought up as "evidence" that some significant number of people with carry permits view themselves as auxiliary police officers or something. Like I said last time, I have never met or heard of anyone buying one of those. If anyone in the select few online firearms communities I am a member of knew anyone who bought one of those, they would have started a thread to rag on them mercilessly, and it would have been great fun.

I will humor you and take some time to go search for threads about carry badges and see if any of the other posters know about anyone who bought one.

[cowman]

235. Shit

I would never buy one of those ridiculous "badges", if you ever flashed it you would probably be detained by police so they could get a hell of a good laugh and call you a fucking idiot for even buying one

[ManiacJoe]

236. The frequent response by police

is to arrest the "badge" holder for impersonating a cop.

[jazzhound]

237. Here's an alternative to the badges that I stumbled across

http://legallyarmed.com/resources/reflectorsystem.htm

[old mark]

243. Thanks, OP for posting this and for putting up with the nonsense from the ignorant anti-gun crowd.nt