Before I respond - what types of things qualify as tragedies that would fit your request?
Officers of the law are a special case. They are trained to insert themselves into dangerous situations where an exchange of gunfire is necessary. Returned fire is technically ‘defensive’.
My use of the term refers to a private citizen carrying a concealed weapon for personal defense. What scenario would allow the citizen to successively use a concealed weapon in defense?
Crane
DOMA is actually a terrible defense of concealed carry reciprocity, because DOMA just restated the well-accepted public policy exception for the full faith and credit clause. What concealed reciprocity does is OVERTURN the public policy exception for that clause.
I’m not clear – you don’t think there’s a lot of topics that Congress cannot legislate on? Uhm, are you familiar with Art I sec 8?
Oh, Congress’ intent here is crystal clear. Just like when Congress passed a flag burning law or a line item veto. Just because the intent is clear, doesn’t mean the authority exists.
Oh, okay.
Gatopescado.
Obviously, given the right circumstances, you can shoot someone. That is not self defense.
Crane
So, you were completely unfazed by the car crashing through, completely unfazed by the people around you getting shot. You were uninjured by either the car crash of the guy shooting his glock at you, and were able to assess the situation instantly.
Not only that, but you, while still sitting in your seat, are able to clear your holster, draw aim (keep in mind that if you miss, you may be hitting innocent people), and decapitate him with your bullets.
In order to have that kind of presence of mind, you must be expecting this sort of thing to happen all the time. You need to anticipate it. And as the last time it happened was over a quarter of a century ago, you’re going to need to wait in vigilance for a long, long time.
The way I see it playing out is that you are just as startled as everyone else in the establishment by the car crashing in. You, along with everyone else think it is an accident, not an attack. He gets out, and starts shooting, you start to reach for your shoulder holster, and he shoots you in the head. Then picks up your gun, now he’s got 2 glocks.
Retired LEOs that qualify under the LEOSA are private citizens. Is it your contention that these folks cannot use their concealed weapons defensively?
The Place: Times Square
The Time: New Years Eve
The Situation: Police handling a overpacked crowd of drunks, and they can no longer do temporary bans on guns.
You do the math.
Dude, you are seriously barking up the wrong tree. If you were arguing that the pervasiveness of guns in American society leads to many unnecessary deaths, I’m with you. If you were saying that having guns laying around everywhere leads to dead toddlers, I’m with you. If you were saying that carrying a gun isn’t a magic bullet (heh) to guarantee your safety, I’m with you.
But you literally said that guns “cannot” defend someone, because bad guys will have the drop on you. Bone had an extensive thread going for an awful long time that was chock-full of examples of people defending themselves or others with guns, both inside their homes and outside.
The point you’re trying to argue is completely ridiculous.
I do not believe that a retired officers guns will shield against any more bullets than any other person holding that gun.
This statement is an ignorance of reality level silly. A single instance of a person successfully defending themselves against another person that poses a threat willing to rob and kill them would be sufficient to falsify this claim. Here is one:
Store clerk who shot armed suspect says she’d do it again
That was the very first link that showed up with the google search terms “convenience store robbery shot clerk defend”. This person had the firearm resting in their pocket in a visible way so not technically concealed.
There’s lots of other examples. Here is a 0:27 second videoof a store clerk who draws faster and is able to defend himself with his own concealed weapon.
The claim we cannot demonstrate a set of actions that a gun will be used to successfully defend against someone that is actually posing a threat, and willing to kill you to take your money is false.
What’s the problem? The more drunks in the crowd that are carrying concealed weapons, the safer everyone will be. And polite too!
Bone.
They are legally empowered to engage in the exchange of gunfire. In a truly defensive situation their concealed weapon would be useless.
Let’s avoid a tedious discussion of returned fire being ‘defensive’.
Crane
I’m gonna differentiate from crane a bit, and say that guns will hardly ever be able to defend you, outside the home. (Inside the home is different, you have options, you know the layout, and you have time to prepare, if you hear your door open or your dog barking.) Not never, but hardly ever.
First, the scenario where you are in danger at all is pretty small, unless you are looking for dangerous situations to get into. People don’t get robbed or mugged all that often.
Second, if it does happen, you are going to be caught unawares. You are not going to calmly pull out your glock and shoot someone’s head off. You not only need to carry your gun 24/7 in order for it to be an effective defense, but you also need to be 100% aware of your surroundings 24/7, as well as highly paranoid and suspicious of anyone around you. You have no idea whether that guy with a gun is going to pull it out and demand your money until he does. If you pull your gun out first, then you’re the bad guy.
Third, bullets don’t always stop conveniently, whether you hit your target or not. If you pull out your gun, point it at your attacker, and note that there is a playground with children running around directly behind it, are you going to take the shot, knowing that if you miss (and maybe even if you hit) you stand a high chance of injuring or killing one of those kids? Or will you even be considering your backstop?
The intruder scenario is unique. In that case the weapons are not usually concealed on the person. Also, the person fires to protect property more than self.
Crane
So, that set of actions will successfully defend you?
I specifically did say against a target that is willing to kill you. In both those cases, the attacker hesitated, which allowed the “defense” to work.
Can you tell me how that plays out if they had pulled the trigger a bit earlier?
I meant to respond to this, but got distracted.
I don’t know if they could mandate that everyone must carry a gun (I’d guess no), but I think they can mandate that everyone must be able to under a prescribed set of rules. I don’t know if this bill is that, but I think they can pass a law that would achieve that end. I admit, the first thing I thought of is that congress can simply tax people who don’t engage in behaviors they don’t like, but the example is not directly on point.
My personal preference is that the commerce clause be curtailed significantly. Wickard should be overturned. But given that’s extremely unlikely and our current jurisprudence, I’d say that travel between states isn’t necessarily an act of interstate commerce, but this clause has been interpreted so loosely that it could be sufficient. I went from CA to NV to buy a car that was cheaper there - interstate commerce. I did contract security work and traveled from CA to AZ to do it - interstate commerce. I was hiking on foot in the Sierra Nevada mountains and crossed the border from CA to NV on a short section of trail and was in the state of NV for 10 minutes - probably not interstate commerce.
How often does something have to occur to be considered “not all that often”? By my estimation, they happen enough to be aware of the risks.
Of those, just over 17% were in a residence.
Your objections seem to be around concealed carry in general, and not about reciprocity - do I have that right? Are there any reciprocity specific objections you have? Because 41 states have either shall issue or constitutional carry and they have decided that your concerns were not persuasive. Congress has determined that retired police officers should also be able to carry, which they are legally allowed to do - even in placed like CA, NY, and NJ.
Ok, so if Seal Team 6 is out to get you, you’re probably out of luck. Sure you can concoct scenario where being armed isn’t going to be useful and I’m sure that happens. It reality, firearms can be useful in self defense and they are. Because wait for it…attackers sometimes hesitate, or make mistakes, or any number of things that actually happen in the real world.
My objections are to concealed carry with little or no training or competency checks needed. States currently can set up their own standards, requiring a certain amount of training before issuing. With this bill, they will no longer be able to do that.
Doesn’t have to be seal team 6. Tell me, a guy has his gun pointed at your head, and demands your money. Do you try to take him out, or do you go ahead and give it up?
Personally, my life is worth more than any amount of money, so I’m not going to take the chance. I do not see any way of drawing, aiming, and firing in less time than it takes for him to pull the trigger.
If he hesitates, then I may get a chance, but if he hesitates, it means he wasn’t really up for killing me in the first place, and wasn’t a real threat to me. If he doesn’t hesitate, then I’m dead.
Personally, were I a mugger or a robber, and I knew that an increasing percentage of the populace was armed, (and I’m not, and have no plans on being one), I wouldn’t make threats, I would just kill the person I planned on robbing, then take their possessions. Guns do nothing to defend a dead person.
Yes, it is easy to get distracted. Especially on a wholly silly assertion that we have seen.
But I don’t see how Congress could mandate than everyone must carry a gun, but if one advocates a line of argument in which the commerce clause lets Congress do anything with respect to an item in interstate commerce, then it follows that they should have the power to do so. The taxation power is different, because I do think it is a much broader power.
But I think this law probably rests on an interpretation of the commerce clause that is far broader than you want, or current law provides.
Let’s start with a fundamental question: can Congress can legislate on the carrying of concealed guns as an exercise of the commerce clause and preempt local laws in so doing?
If the answer is yes, then Congress can regulate concealed carry permits. And if the answer is yes, then can Congress regulate the time and place of carrying a weapon? Like, no guns near schools? Well, I think that the school issue would be a no-brainer: if Congress can legislate on carrying guns, it can legislate on not carrying guns.
But we know for a fact that gun free school zones are a step too far.
As a person who is strongly opposed to guns, I’m of the opinion that the argument that concealed weapons can’t be used defensively is ridiculous and obviously false, and that continuously harping on it is detrimental to the discussion and the thread.
More close to the thread, I ask what the pressing need is that’s being satisfied by this crushing of state’s rights? Is it nothing more than republicans taking their opportunity to piss on the will of the populace, or is there seriously a detectable segment of the population that’s too scared to travel to other states without the comfort of their security handcannon?