Concealed carriers are the Good Guys

[rl6214]

I am a member of the most law-abiding group of U.S. citizens in the history of our country. I have a concealed carry permit. This means I have never behaved badly enough to get convicted of a felony. I have never acted bizarre enough to be diagnosed with a dangerous mental illness.

The United States government could find no reason why I should not have the choice to carry a gun. I am one of the good guys. And the record proves it.


http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20110615/OPINION03/306150008/Concealed-carriers-good-guys?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFrontpage%7Cs

Well Written piece.

[PavePusher]

1. Yeah, but you'll probably "snap" any moment now...

and we're waiting to crow about it.

:evilgrin: :sarcasm: ...if I must...

[wtmusic]

2. Some CCWers who behaved rather badly

[rl6214]

4. Pretty small numbers considering the millions of CCH out there

Care to cite where this came from?

[DonP]

6. Couldn't possibly be the Brady group - could it?

Naw, no one would be dumb enough to treat their oft debunked numbers as if they were actually valid.

Everybody knows they cooked those and included actual self defense shootings as "murders", the same way they decided "children" included 24 year old gang members and drug dealers.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Those are VPC numbers. They have been cooked way past well done. N/T

[ileus]

7. concealed carry killers...applies to anyone with a CHP I assume.

[ileus]

9. ultra-dangerous "junk" guns with "killer clips"

[DonP]

27. Probably includes "pocket rockets" and "vest busters" with "assault clips"

One of these days we need to put together a glossary of the silly terms that VPC/Brady have invented over the years trying to win support and garner contributions by scaring little old ladies.

[ManiacJoe]

12. Given that the Brady/VPC tends to have problems with basic math

those numbers are highly suspect without cites to their source.

[wtmusic]

13. Here you go

Links to sources on graphic

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

Stats only reflect published news reports - actual numbers likely higher.

[rl6214]

14. Of course, the Brady bunches manipulated numbers

Like to try to find a legitimate unbiased source like the FBI?

[wtmusic]

15. If you can demonstrate they're manipulated

I'm all ears. Otherwise you have nothing.

Are there more than one Brady Bunch? :)

[GreenStormCloud]

23. That is easy to demonstrate.

All of my following information is from VPC own web site.

As I have already noted that number is a total since May of 2007, not an annual rate. By never resetting a number and not reffering to the start date it can be made to sound more alarming. Most violence stats use an annual rate.

They include as CCWers people in constitution-carry states. In such states one does not need a permit to carry. So if a person in such a state commits a gun-killing they include him as a CCWer in the total. They include Loughner as a CCWer when he had no special permit.

They include cases that are pending. With VPC it is GUILTY unless proven innocent.

As you go through their viginettes you will even see some labeled "No Charges Filed". I guess VPC thinks that charges should have been filed even if the local prosecutor rules self-defense.

This, from page 67 of their vigenettes is very telling of their numbers cooking:

Date: Between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009
People Killed: 1
Circumstances: Between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009, Michigan State Police report
that 28 Michigan concealed handgun permit holders took their own lives. This is one of
these incidents. In their annual report, the Michigan State Police do not release the
victim’s name, the exact date of the suicide, nor the type of weapon used in the suicide.

For 2007 to 2008 the total is 29.

And here is something from page 102
Date: June 30, 2010
People Killed: 1
Circumstances: On June 30, 2010, concealed handgun permit holder Brock McCarthy,
33, was found by his wife in their home dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Now with this evidence from VPC's own site, do you still believe their totals as being an accurate representation of the danger to the public of people with CCWs. Remember there are about 10 million of us.

Further, THE VPC COMPLETELY IGNORES THE HUNDRED PER YEAR CASES OF JUSTIFIED HOMICIDE BY CCW HOLDERS. In VPCland, self-defense doesn't exist.

[TheWraith]

24. Those have been debunked here multiple times.

They include a number of cases of what the police determined was legitimate self defense, a CCW holder defending themselves from assault.

Includes a few cases where the shooter was a criminal who did not have a concealed carry license.

Includes a couple cases where concealed carry did not mix in at all, shootings that occurred in a home.

And even so, even if you take their numbers at face value: 300 "murders" divided among an estimated 8 million people in the US with concealed carry permits gives you a "crime rate" of vastly lower than the general public.

[wtmusic]

30. Tip of the iceberg

The NRA has pushed through legislation that keeps permit holders' identities secret in most states, so it's difficult to determine whether perps have a permit. As intended.

These stats represent only published news reports.

Debunked? Link please.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Unpublished is not secret. Police can easily check if an individual has a permit.

All the reporter has to do is ask the police.

You are speculating and are asking us to take your speculations as proof.

It is interesting to notice that you have not answered any of our specific allegations about those numbers. I demonstrated, using VPC's own website that the number are extremely manupilated. You seem to be ignoring that proof.

[X_Digger]

75. Yet states like TX do report on CHL convictions.. you won't like them..

[eqfan592]

76. But those numbers don't count!

Because they are so devastating to their argument! Even if Texas is like that, they just MUST be the exception to the rule! I mean, it's common sense that all permit holders are blood thirsty homicidal maniacs just itching to blow somebody away!!!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

Serious note, thanks for posting the data. :)

[eqfan592]

37. OMG, thank you for finding that site again!

I had lost it when my computer crashed some time ago. It's the best source available that underscores just how unlikely it is for a person with a concealed carry permit to just randomly start killing folks. The real irony is that they (and you) were actually attempting to use to them to make the opposite point, failing to realize that people may actually do the math and see that so few people harmed by so many over such a long period of time leads to solid evidence of how law abiding CCW permit holders are compared to the general populace.

And this doesn't take into account the fact that many of the stories they included were stories that were either not yet gone to trial or were actual self defense cases they just lumped in there. Given that, it is actually unlikely the numbers are higher.

[wtmusic]

39. Blah blah blah

We won't know until CCW data about perps is made public, will we?

What is the NRA trying to hide? Hmm?

[rl6214]

58. Try looking up the info on FL and TX, both of which release data

You can get a pretty good feel from those two states how concealed carry goes, then you will know.

[X_Digger]

87. You mean data like this?

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

You want to be able to shame people with permits- just admit it.

Rather, reports like the ones listed above suffice a hell of a lot better than some shill gun ban org's trolling of newspapers.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. They started counting in May of 2007.

So they have been adding for four years. Divide it by for to get the annual rate.

They also include suidides. Do you really believe that the CCW holder would not have killed himself if he didn't have a CCW?

They also include non-gun deaths. What does having a CCW have to do with a death by stabbing? Did having a CCW enable the use of a knife?

They also include guns used at home. CCW enable carrying a gun in public and has nothing to do with guns at home.

They include cases that have not yet been judged.

IOW, they do everything possible to inflate the numbers.

Even if every single killing were CCW-enabled and a separate CCWer did each killing and each one was a murder, that would still be a far lower annual rate than the general population's annural rate. It comes out to about 77/310 million or .02 pr 100,000. The U.S. murder rate is 9.4 per 100,000. So CCWers, using you own data supplied by VPC are over 470 times safer with guns than the general populace.

[lawodevolution]

18. These numbers were used to show that a person with a CCW much less likely to actually

kill someone via suicide, accident or murder than a non-permited person.

[gejohnston]

21. what is the context?

How many were guns are used? I saw this Brady stunt before. Those include CCW holders that use other means like strangling. In a couple of articles they cite, the suspect was charged with concealed carry, which means he did not have a CCW. How many were justifiable homicide? I do know that one of the law enforcement officers was one such case. IIRC, an off duty border patrol agent was doing a bit of road rage and attacked a CCW holder unprovoked. It was ruled justifiable homicide.
Here is another context. Compare those to the number of CCW holders in the US which are about 4-10 million. Then there are places like Vermont, Arizona, Montana, and Alaska. Based on your 309 number at face value, that comes out to 0.0000309 of such homicides.

MAIG on the other hand says there are 552 mayors in their membership. Eight are convicted felons. That comes to 0.014492754.

[ileus]

3. Was there ever any doubt? we volunteer for background checks, fingerprints, fees, training

how much gooder of a guy can one get...

[nonperson]

5. I've never seen a bullet with anyone's name on it there good guy

Ultimately no need for guns is better than everyone needing a gun.

[petronius]

10. I don't thin anyone really disagrees with that - unfortunately, no need for guns isn't

one of the options ("everyone needing a gun" isn't either, at least I've never heard it suggested). And if it were, if absolutely all possible need for guns was eliminated, then there'd be no need for no guns either, right?

Really, need isn't part of the equation - individuals have the right to choose for themselves whether to own/carry firearms or not. 'Need' isn't required or necessarily relevant in making that choice...

[nonperson]

19. If someone else is carrying then I have the right to carry too

And I don't need any certificate. If the government is going to permit people to carry firearms then I and everyone else must have the same right to level the playing field, so to speak. I don't want you walking around with a loaded weapon when all I have are my car keys in my pocket.

I don't subscribe to the notion that people who have been permitted to carry are somehow super-citizens with more rights than me based on some background check or whatever incursion the government deems necessary to permit people to carry.

You carry. I carry. We all carry. What kind of outcome should be expect? Not good, IMO, because I don't trust the average American these days with a cell phone no less a loaded weapon.

[rrneck]

31. S'okay. We don't trust you either. nt

[nonperson]

36. Good. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Because people simply cannot be trusted.

[rrneck]

41. If that's the case

how do we maintain a civilized society?

[nonperson]

49. Haven't you noticed?

We aren't maintaining a civilized society.

[rrneck]

54. Actually

No, I hadn't noticed. I don't have to carry where I live. Generally speaking this is a pretty civilized country to live in. What makes you think otherwise?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

64. Sooooo,

You got that firearm free self defense solution yet?

[PavePusher]

45. That's a Progressive attitude....

:sarcasm: , if I must...

[nonperson]

50. I'm not a "progressive"

I'm still proud to call myself a liberal.

And that has nothing to do with not trusting anyone. America isn't that country anymore.

[PavePusher]

53. How so? n/t

[nonperson]

60. The term "progressive" was invented for people who are ashamed to call themselves liberals. n/t

[PavePusher]

63. My "How so?" was in reference to:

"America isn't that country anymore."

[nonperson]

68. Patriotic Act, dangerous far-right rulings from the US Supreme Court

Failure to prosecute or (even report in the MSM) war crimes, bank fraud, investment fraud, Wall St. fraud, outright criminal activity in government where votes are for sale for donations from corporations that are now "persons" who hire lobbyists who are nothing more than bag men while the rich get richer and the rest of us are told to go off and die somewhere because health care reform wasn't and health care is expensive so we're a drain on society, as if this is any approximation of a society by modern standards.

Meanwhile, and I mean this literally, the craziest, stupidest, most fucked up shitheads on the planet who in the largest part caused the economic collapse of this nation are running the news cycle and therefore controlling the debate while the clear majority of the nation is against their draconian economic "recover" measures.

You know. Little shit like that.

[gejohnston]

72. I think we all agree with you on all of that stuff

but I fail to see what it has to do with guns.

[PavePusher]

81. Not all bad decisions have come from the Right....

and not all good ones have come from the Left.

We've had 230+ years of mix'n'match, had only one Civil War, we're still here. Could be a lot worse. The basic structure is still there, and we can peel back to it at any time. There is certainly work to be done, but it's by no time to capitulate to gloom'n'doom yet.

[petronius]

33. I understand the argument behind permit-free carry, but I honestly don't think that

a shall-issue barrier-less permitting process is an undue infringment, and I see some value to it. I do think permit-free is more desirable than may-issue or no-issue, since both of those tend to morph into arbitrary some-issue with, as you say, an uneven distribution of rights.

I don't see that in either of the first two situations you'd have any fewer rights than anyone else, or any obligation to carry. If you chose to get a permit (in the shall-issue scenario) for any reason at all, or if you chose not to, would be up to you...

[spin]

35. What kind of outcome should be expected if we allow licensed concealed carry?

The VPC statistics mentioned in the above posts actually show that very few incidents have involved people who are licensed to carry concealed. I personally feel licensing people who carry concealed is a good idea as the background check, the training and the fact that you have to demonstrate that you can safely handle a firearm on the range, eliminates some people who shouldn't be allowed to carry in public.

Now obviously, some people who carry concealed will abuse the privilege. For example 168 people in Florida have had their licenses revoked for committing a crime involving a firearm after the permit was issued. This doesn't mean that they all shot anyone or even threatened anyone. For example, some licenses were revoked because the bearer carried a firearm into a restricted area.

And the 168 people with revoked Florida Concealed Weapons Permits is a total that occurred over almost 24 years from 10/1/87 to 05/31//11. During that period of time Florida has issued 1,992,296 carry permits and 819,135 are currently valid.

Source for above info is the monthly Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report published by the State of Florida.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Even if all 168 licenses had been revoked because someone accidentally killed or murdered someone, the chances of a person dying because they had been shot by a person with a Florida concealed weapons permit would be much less than their chance of getting killed by lightning in Florida.

The highest death rates from lightning in the United States are in Florida, which is known as the lightning capital of the country. According to the service, from 1959 to 2003 lightning killed 3,696 people in the United States. Of those, 425 were in the Sunshine State. (The only state that did not record a lightning death in the period was Alaska).
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0522_030522_lightning.html

Therefore 8.5 people die from lightning each year on the average in Florida which would mean that approximately 204 Floridians have been killed by lightning in the same time frame that the concealed weapons program has been in effect.

But let's just look at just recent data on Florida concealed carry:

Not only has Florida now issued over 1.95 million permits since October 1, 1987, but as of the March 31 of this year there were 801,219 active permit holders. Since January 1, 2008, only 4 permit holders have had their permits revoked for a firearms violation (“utilized” is very broad here, including such things as accidentally carrying a gun into a gun-free zone). That comes to an annual revocation rate of about 0.0002%. That is two ten-thousandths of one percent. How much smaller could that revocation rate be?emphasis added
http://island-adv.com/2011/04/florida-now-has-over-800000-concealed-carry-permit-holders/

When the "shall issue" concealed carry program began in Florida, most Floridians expected blood in the streets but the program has been far more successful than anyone could have imagined. Other states with "shall issue" concealed carry report the similar success. Honest people who have passed a background check and have received training are just not a problem when they carry concealed firearms.

On the growing trend of states allowing unlicensed concealed or open carry, I will withhold my judgment until more statistics are in. Vermont has had unrestricted carry for years without major problems and more recently Alaska and Arizona have passed unrestricted carry.

[PavePusher]

44. Oddly, you seem unreasonably fearful of lawful carriers....

without evidencing the slightest concern about actual criminals.

Baffling....

[nonperson]

51. Nothing to do with fear

I just demand a level playing field.

[PavePusher]

52. Arm yourself or not, as you chose. Freedom and Liberty.

But if you are making your decision based on people who are armed legally, your "logic" has some flaws.

[nonperson]

57. Freedom and liberty aren't here anymore

Freedom and liberty are dead if they ever existed at all.

I arm myself because you arm yourself.

[PavePusher]

62. Ri-i-i-i-ight.....

:tinfoilhat:

[ileus]

77. Sounds like you're a proponent of Constitutional Carry.

[lawodevolution]

20. under what situation will we not need guns?

Imagine you have a society of several thousand people, and you manage to remove all the guns as far as you know. You will still have knives to deal with but at least no guns. Let's say that 2% of any population have antisocial personality disorder and at least 10-20 people are inherently evil and power hungry. Is that society vulnerable to a total takover if those individuals band together and scare others to join them and find a way to get access to guns? Yes. The way I see it is we will always need to allow law abiding citizens to own effective means of self defense because you cannot delete modern technology.

[nonperson]

61. Under the situation where no one has guns.

Insecure much???

Your post contains the type of reasoning that leads me to believe no one should be permitted to own or carry.

Danger! Evil enemies and antisocial psychopaths everywhere. Who to shoot first?

Take for instance the Giffords shooting. If some freedom and liberty loving gun toting true American had tried to take matters into his or her own hands that day they probably would have wound up sending a few more people to the hospital and/or the morgue.

If guns weren't so easy to get here in the land of the free and home of the brave *lol* then it would all have been a moot point.

[lawodevolution]

73. A disarmed society today is at risk that a few members with bad intentions will find a way

To get or make guns. A disarmed society is vulnerable.

You don't think I should own guns? It's a good thing I don't have to ask your permission.

[spin]

74. And how do eliminate all 300,000,000 firearms in our nation? ...

do you have a magic wand that will simply make them all disappear.

[X_Digger]

89. How about run of the mill criminals?

Strongarm is the most often used tactic in robberies and rapes.

Being gun free does nothing to deter that.

[safeinOhio]

8. I also have a CCW, however

I'm a member of a larger group of law abiding citizens. All of those that are "eligible" to get a CCW, whether they have one or not. Having a CCW makes one no more law abiding than anyone else that may or may not have one. I'll bet law abiding citizens over the age of 90 commit fewer crimes than 20 to 40 year old CCW holders. In other words, we are not that special.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. The CCW doesn't MAKE us special. It is proof that we ARE special.

We went through the permitting process and were found to be clean. The CCW is proof of our clean record, it does not cause a clean record.

[safeinOhio]

38. Being a law abiding noncriminal is not special.

It is normal. Being a felon is abnormal.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. Semantics. N/T

[damntexdem]

11. No, it means that a state or local government doesn't know whether the author has ...

committed a felony or been diagnosed, especially whether the author actually has been or is mentally ill.

[gejohnston]

22. Nor do the feds know because they use

federal databases.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Are you saying that everybody is an unconvicted felon who just hasn't been caught? N/T

[gejohnston]

29. You sound like an Edmund Burke conservative

that people are basically bad and you need the heavy hand of the Crown and the church to keep the unwashed masses in line. Other wise, society would fall apart. Even though he was the originator of modern conservatism, Palin and the crew would seem radical for all of their talk of individual freedom.

[PavePusher]

46. Guilty until proven innocent? Really...? n/t

[jpak]

28. No they are not

yup

[eqfan592]

40. Yes, they are.

You can close your eyes, cover your ears and scream "nononononononono" to try and block out the realities, but even by the VPC's own numbers, CCW permit holders as a group are far less likely to commit a crime than the public at large.

[ileus]

47. Yes we are...

[eqfan592]

69. I can't say "we" yet as I don't have my permit yet.

I just recently moved out of Wisconsin to Indiana, and as you know Wisconsin has not had concealed carry legislation on the books, though that as about to change. ;)

I do intend on getting my Indiana permit in about 2 months when I will have the available cash for both the permit and the firearm.

[Logical]

43. Wow, as usual Jpak, you never post any useful information in your replies. n-t

[ileus]

34. maybe it should have read legal CC and OCer's instead.

[Logical]

42. +1

[Hoyt]

48. And the 85% who don't carry, but could get a permit if they felt the need, are just as law abiding.

Plus, they give a chit about society, and are rational about the odds of encountering a situation where a gun is the only answer (which ain't often).

[GreenStormCloud]

56. That is their choice and I respect it. I choose to carry. N/T

[Hoyt]

65. That's just not a good choice for society.

[GreenStormCloud]

66. Citizens being able to defend themselves against violent crime IS good for society.

Amazing that you want people to be defenseless against those who would do them harm.

[DWC]

82. RKBA is a personal, not social, right

It is called SELF-Defense, not Civil-Defense or Social-Defense.

If defending myself against violent crime is bad for "society" then "society" has a problem. I, and millions like me, will never be a willing victim.

Semper Fi,

[philly_bob]

67. Then why don't I want you in my house, my meeting, my church?

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Because you don't understand.

I isn't the weapon that is to be feared but the will of the person with the weapon. By itself the weapon is nothing. It is only when it is wielded that it can do harm, or good. We who have CCW have voluntarily submitted ourselves to a detailed background investigation, supplied fingerprints and photos, taken a training course, and demonstrated competency with the weapon. We have shown that our will is good.

The one you need to fear is the criminals who carries in violation of all laws.

Sadly, you seem to think that all gun carriers are criminals.

[eqfan592]

71. Because you have an irrational fear...

...of concealed carry permit holders? It's one possible explanation.

[philly_bob]

78. Especially NOT the bar where I'm drinking.

I might add that in most situations, someone who came strapped to a public meeting or a bar or a picnic or a party would not be welcome. Only because you conceal your weapon, perhaps, you may not be aware of it.

You tell each other that you're the good guys because you have a government permit to carry a gun. I don't know you, I don't know what government process you went through.

My position is that guns in the home are okay, but not in public except by police officers.

[eqfan592]

79. Actually...

...it has nothing to do with a government permit and everything to do with the fact that the evidence supports the position that CCW holders tend to come from the most law abiding segment of society and have a lower crime rate than the general population.

The police cannot protect you effective in most circumstances and you are responsible for your own safety and security both inside and outside of your home. Given all of these facts, the only thing that remains to explain your position is the aforementioned irrational fear.

[philly_bob]

84. Your name-calling -- "you have an irrational fear" -- bores me.

Goodbye.

[eqfan592]

85. We all have irrational fears.

I have an irrational fear of spiders and bees. It's nothing to be ashamed of in and of itself. But addressing it and facing it is generally a healthy thing to do. And really, the only time I have a problem with somebodies irrational fears is when they try to dictate law based on them.

[gejohnston]

80. What about a lady that put a restraining order on the abusive husband

that just got out of prison? I say she is every bit OK having one.
The process varies with each state, but they all include fingerprinting and FBI background check.

[philly_bob]

83. I agree with you on that one.

[eqfan592]

86. So you don't have a fear of that person carrying..

...but somebody else not in that specific situation is something to be feared?

[philly_bob]

88. Look man, this is not about about my "fear."

This is about making social policy that causes the least amount of damage.

Three times in this discussion, you've talked about my fear.

You're the one that needs to carry a fucking gun wherever you go. What are you afraid of?

[eqfan592]

90. I don't have a concealed carry permit.

I do plan on getting one, but it's not at the top of my priority list right now. And even if I did, it would not be an indication of fear in and of itself. I carry a shovel in my car during the winter so that I may dig myself out of the snow should the need arise, but I don't live in fear of getting stuck in the snow.

And if this were about making social policy that causes the least amount of damage, then why ignore the body of evidence available that shows that, at worst, no negative or positive impact on the crime rate and accidental death rates related to concealed carry? Given that, is it not better to give people the right to choose to carry or not than to deny it outright? Especially given the fact that the police have no responsibility to insure your personal safety?

For one to conclude that concealed carry has some sort of major (or even minor) negative impact on society that person must first ignore the statistical evidence available that points to the contrary and rely instead on some other emotional reaction to base their opinion on, and I believe that emotion is most likely fear for many people.

[slackmaster]

92. Now you are talking about something that can actually be measured.

This is about making social policy that causes the least amount of damage.

What damage has been caused by the implementation of objective criteria for issuing CCW permits in other states?

You're the one that needs to carry a fucking gun wherever you go.

That is a fallacious argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[gejohnston]

97. In may issue places like New York or California, she won't get one unless

she is white and connected. On the other hand, celebraties with histories of violence and drug abuse like Sean Penn and Don Imus, no problem.

[slackmaster]

91. I'll go ahead and hazard a guess that you have an irrational or unfounded fear of permit holders

How did I do?

[philly_bob]

93. I do not want to see public gatherings with a high % of CCW holders.

Imagine a bar or condo board meeting or football game in which 90% of those present have concealed weapons.

Yes, I am afraid of that. Is that irrational? I don't think so.

Anyway, all gun-forum references to my "fear" gives your comments a hint of the swaggering macho bully.

Now I'll leave you to your own business and exit this thread.

I will continue to support policies that severely limit -- but do not remove all -- CCW permits.

[eqfan592]

94. lol, it has nothing to do with "swaggering macho bully" crap.

If you can't back up your fears with evidence that support a reason to be afraid, it makes the fear irrational. And you yourself just admitted to having such a fear, though you deny it being irrational.

[slackmaster]

95. That kind of thing happens every day, and there are never any problems as a result

Why do you think that is the case?

[gejohnston]

96. how getting on an airplane

eating in cafeteria with people where everyone were carrying assault rifles (the real ones, not the Josh Sugarmann/Frank Luntz created ones) and machine guns? They were loaded in the eating establishment. You think some guy with a .38 is going to bother me?

[ManiacJoe]

98. You need to finish your thought.

> Imagine a bar or condo board meeting or football game in which 90% of those present have concealed weapons.

Then, what?

The reality is that virtually all the time is ends in "And everyone went on with their lives after the meeting/game ended."