# Toss up your reasons NOT to allow concealed carry, and I\`ll (heh) shoot them down. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2004, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437 "2004-02-04T04:02:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/61 "2004-02-05T06:28:28Z")
In repsonse to the OP, I oppose concealed-carry laws because states that have them have high murder rates than states that don’t, as I showed in this thread: > **[Concealed Carry Laws and Crime](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=182318)** > > Is there any evidence that in states that allow concealed guns to be carried have lower crime because of these laws? Now, as I can sense the statistical virgins already gearing up to accuse my analysis of being overly simplistic, let me offer a simple response. If you can show me a more in depth analysis which invalidates my approach, I will be happy to read it. If it is written intelligently and has appropriate citations of reliable sources of data, I will reconsider my stance. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/62 "2004-02-05T13:05:17Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > In repsonse to the OP, I oppose concealed-carry laws because states that have them have high murder rates than states that don’t, as I showed in this thread: > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=182318](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=182318) > > Now, as I can sense the statistical virgins already gearing up to accuse my analysis of being overly simplistic, let me offer a simple response. If you can show me a more in depth analysis which invalidates my approach, I will be happy to read it. If it is written intelligently and has appropriate citations of reliable sources of data, I will reconsider my stance. Have you considered that, perhaps, the states with concealed carry laws in 2001 (the year you examined) passed concealed carry laws _because_ they had higher murder rates than other states to begin with, and that the murder rates in those states experienced a subsequent drop? Analyzing one year doesn’t prove much. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/63 "2004-02-05T13:37:02Z")
> [@El Escorpio](#): > > My concerns about conceal and carry laws are these: > > 1. There are numerous places (stores, churches, theaters…) that post signs prohibiting people from bringing guns into their establishments. Legal gun carriers have to leave them somewhere, presumably in their cars. Cars are frequently stolen. That’s potentially a lot of free guns for criminals. > 2. Should this occur, is there any retribution for the gun owner who allows (accidentally) his or her gun to be stolen? Or for not reporting it? Or for any crimes committed later with that gun? If not, we have people saying, “oh, well, darn it, that was expensive, now I need to buy a new one” and the cycle begins again. > 3. Would it still be legal for a person who has a conceal and carry license to carry his gun when drunk? If so, should it be? Many law abiding citizens make regrettable decisions (and mistakes!) while drunk. If not, at what point does it become illegal for a impaired person to carry a gun, and where do people expect them to put it after two rounds in the bar? > > Those are my questions-- I am interested in the responses; really, I’m not taking a stand here. My concerns about my home state - Minnesota - are not with intentional gun violence done by CC licensees, but rather their potential carelessness and potential lack of accountability which might lead to more and more illegal firearms being available. Regarding point 3), First off, you can`t take the gun into a bar, restuarant that serves alchohol, tavern, etc. If you`re drunk then you must have done so (legally) at your home or someone elses. If you`re anywhere but the original place that you got drunk, then you probably drove there, again, illegal. The person would have broken several laws already on the books to have that scenario take place. Points 1), and 2), are not good enough reasons to not allow CW. Think about it, your arguing that because someone might perform several illegal activities to obtain your weapon that that should be a reason for you not to own one? ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/64 "2004-02-05T13:43:50Z")
> [@BonoVox](#): > > Here is my question, are you covered by some sort of insurance? What happens if in your altercation, I or some other bystander is shot? Is there a company that would cover that? Has that ever happened? I live in Madison, WI, and all we would need is a few armed people around state st on halloween to really put the city on the national radar. The idiots riot over someone bad mouthing Bucky badger, I don’t want them armed. Guess what? Many or your drinking rioting buddies already own guns. If they really wanted to, right now, they could walk down State Street with a holstered 45. Non-concealed. This law isn`t intended to increase gun ownership, what it will do is get more of the present gun owners registered, trained, and informed. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/65 "2004-02-05T14:44:59Z")
Uncommon Sense, that gets back to my earlier question that was never answered. In what states can you walk around with an unconcealed weapon? And what are the restrictions? > [@](#): > > _ITR Champion wrote:_ > If you can show me a more in depth analysis which invalidates my approach, I will be happy to read it. These studies have been done, including a large one maybe five years ago, and it was found that crime rates in states dropped faster in states which passed concealed carry laws, than in states that didn’t. This was in the 1990s, when crime rates in general were dropping. You have to compare before and after data, not just single year. I’ll look for citations - I heard the full story on NPR, that tool of the NRA. You can also Google articles by John Lott. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/66 "2004-02-05T15:23:32Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > Check post # 27. > > 😃 Thank you very much, that’s one to bookmark. Now if I could just get my bookmarks _organized_… > [@BlackKnight](#): > > If cops, as has been said, are already in the position of not knowing whether the person they pull over has a gun, isn’t it also the case that muggers are already in the position of not knowing whether their intended victim has a gun? Yet clearly muggings still occur. > > Why is this? Why do muggings occur in the first place? No one is claiming that liberalized CCW laws can end them completely, only that they may plausibly have a deterrent effect. > [@Finagle](#): > > How about the potential for borderline situations to escalate into the extremely serious? I’m thinking your standard fender bender. Big dude in the car that got hit gets out and starts spewing profanity and violating personal space. The other guy gets nervous and draws Mr. Glock. Turns out big dude also has a gun. Suddenly a relatively minor incident becomes gunfight at the OK Corral. As has been pointed out, a large number of states have liberalized their CCW laws in the past 15 years or so. Have incidents like this increased in those states? If so, have they disproportionately involved CCW holders? Never mind about “potential”, or what _might_ hapen, what are the _facts_? > [@Finagle](#): > > I think that having a gun constantly present means that there will be a temptation to fiddle with it/ use it. Not on people – just plinking away. But I’d predict an increase in accidental discharges and/or accidental injuries. See my question above. > [@jebert](#): > > Anyone who thinks that carrying a gun will improve his level of safety might just be overestimating things a bit. > > Last week in St. Louis officer Nicholas Sloan was slain with his own weapon while trying to make an arrest. The officer?s partner was also serioiusly wounded but managed to kill the attacker. > > [Link](http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.+Louis+City+%2F+County/A2AEB6860181518586256E30005676BA?OpenDocument&Headline=Funeral+is+today+for+slain+officer) Police officers carry their weapons openly. We are discussing _concealed_ carry here. > [@jebert](#): > > If a weapon can be taken from a highly trained police officer, it can be taken from an ordinary citizen. A mugging that would result in the loss of your wallet could easily turn into one resulting in the loss of your life. A lot of things _can_ happen. The question is, has the passage of liberalized CCW laws in the states that have them led to this sort of thing _actually_ happening? > [@xtisme](#): > > So, instead of waving your arms and SAYING why you THINK thus and thus would happen, you need to SHOW that it does. SHOW that ordinary citizens HAVE in fact been having OK coral type gunfights in the streets. SHOW that the incident of people misfiring their guns while toying with them has gone up since CC permits were available in the various states they currently are. Prove your case…it should be easy enough, no? The statistics should be screaming that you are right…so trot em out. I am just quoting this for emphasis. **xtisme** has expressed my own feeling perfectly here. > [@blowero](#): > > But that’s not what the Second Amendment _says_. It says STATES can form WELL-REGULATED militias; Of course, which is why the text of the amendment reads, “The Right of the States to have a Well Regulated Militia Shall Not be Infringed.” How fortunate for us that they did not confuse the issue by putting in any extraneous verbiage, like a reference to some “Right of the People”. > [@BonoVox](#): > > Here is my question, are you covered by some sort of insurance? What happens if in your altercation, I or some other bystander is shot? Is there a company that would cover that? Interesting question. I don’t know the answer, but I think a good place to start would be to ask what sort of insurance the police and armed security guards and private detectives have for this sort of thing. It’s obviously an issue for them as well. > [@BonoVox](#): > > I live in Madison, WI, and all we would need is a few armed people around state st on halloween to really put the city on the national radar. The idiots riot over someone bad mouthing Bucky badger, I don’t want them armed. In the states that have already liberalized concealed carry laws, have these laws led to an increase in this sort of problem? > [@ITR champion](#): > > In repsonse to the OP, I oppose concealed-carry laws because states that have them have high murder rates than states that don’t, as I showed in this thread: > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=182318](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=182318). 1 - That’s a long thread, could you please point out the specific link, and 2 - Even if that is true, you still have to show that liberalized CCW laws _cause_ higher murder rates. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/67 "2004-02-05T16:30:24Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Uncommon Sense, that gets back to my earlier question that was never answered. In what states can you walk around with an unconcealed weapon? And what are the restrictions? [See this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=198038) Also, authored by yours truly. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/68 "2004-02-05T17:14:57Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Guns are designed to cuase the rapid acceleration of a projectile along a very specific trajectory. > > They are not ‘designed to be dangerous.’ If there ever were such a gun, I would never buy one. How mind-bogglingly disingenuous. If guns _aren’t_ dangerous, then why the desire to carry them, concealed? The _entire_ purpose is to a) scare the crap out of someone, or b) shoot someone. Preferably option a), and usually because of the fear of someone doing the same to you. Arguments for collecting, hunting or mere target practice simply don’t apply when you are talking about concealed carry. How, exactly, are guns supposed to be a deterrent to crime if they _aren’t_ considered dangerous? ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/69 "2004-02-05T18:08:22Z")
> [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > How mind-bogglingly disingenuous. If guns _aren’t_ dangerous, then why the desire to carry them, concealed? The _entire_ purpose is to a) scare the crap out of someone, or b) shoot someone. Preferably option a), and usually because of the fear of someone doing the same to you. > > Arguments for collecting, hunting or mere target practice simply don’t apply when you are talking about concealed carry. How, exactly, are guns supposed to be a deterrent to crime if they _aren’t_ considered dangerous? I think the danger lies strictly in the abount of control (or lack of) that the user excersizes over the weapon. A gun lying on the dresser is not dangerous. A gun in the hands of a four year old is. A gun in the hands of **catsix** is probably not. I think that is the general point that was being made. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/70 "2004-02-05T18:33:59Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > I think the danger lies strictly in the abount of control (or lack of) that the user excersizes over the weapon. > A gun lying on the dresser is not dangerous. > A gun in the hands of a four year old is. > A gun in the hands of **catsix** is probably not. > > I think that is the general point that was being made. Sorry, but I don’t buy it. If guns are not inherently dangerous, how does one explain the alleged reduction in crime that is supposed to occur when everyone’s packin’? How does one explain any alleged deterrence that a would-be attacker supposedly would face? Why the desire to conceal the weapon in the first place, so as to make said would-be attackers guess as to who’s armed and who’s not? The entire argument behind concealed carry boils down to would-be attackers _fearing_ being attacked themselves, thereby causing them to seek out gainful employment somewhere instead of turning to a life of crime, or some damn thing. If the danger isn’t there, the fear isn’t there, and the whole argument becomes nonsense. If you want to talk about irrational or potentially-dangerous _people_, then it doesn’t matter what they’re armed with, or even if they’re armed - they can be a potential threat regardless. That’s _my_ point. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/71 "2004-02-05T18:43:28Z")
From ITR Champions evidence in the other thread. [From Murder Rates 1995-2002](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169&scid=12) > [@](#): > > NATIONWIDE MURDER RATES, 1995-2002 > ALPHABETICAL BY STATE > MURDER RATES PER 100,000 PEOPLE > STATES HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW HAVE NO DEATH PENALTY STATUTE > YEAR 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 > NATIONAL RATE 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.2 > Alabama 6.8 8.5 7.4 7.9 8.1 9.9 10.4 11.2 > Alaska 5.1 6.1 4.3 8.6 6.7 8.9 7.4 9.1 > Arizona 7.1 7.5 7.0 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.5 10.4 > Arkansas 5.2 5.5 6.3 5.6 8.0 9.9 8.7 10.4 > California 6.8 6.4 6.1 6.0 6.6 8.0 9.1 11.2 > Colorado 4.0 3.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.7 5.8 > Connecticut 2.3 3.1 2.9 3.3 4.1 3.8 4.8 4.6 > Delaware 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.8 2.5 4.3 3.5 > Florida 5.5 5.3 5.6 5.7 6.5 6.9 7.5 7.3 > Georgia 7.1 7.1 8.0 7.5 8.1 7.5 9.5 10.0 > Hawaii 1.9 2.6 2.9 3.7 2.0 4.0 3.4 4.7 > Idaho 2.7 2.3 1.2 2.0 2.9 3.2 3.6 4.1 > Illinois 7.5 7.9 7.2 7.7 8.4 9.2 10.0 10.3 > Indiana 5.9 6.8 5.8 6.6 7.7 7.3 7.2 8.0 > Iowa 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 > Kansas 2.9 3.4 6.3 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.6 6.2 > Kentucky 4.5 4.7 4.8 5.4 4.6 5.8 5.9 7.2 > Louisiana 13.2 11.2 12.5 10.7 12.8 15.7 17.5 17.0 > Maine 1.1 1.4 1.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 > Maryland 9.4 8.3 8.1 9.0 10.0 9.9 11.6 11.8 > Massachusetts 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.6 3.6 > Michigan 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.3 7.8 7.5 8.5 > Minnesota 2.2 2.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.8 3.6 3.9 > Mississippi 9.2 9.9 9.0 7.7 11.4 13.1 11.1 12.9 > Missouri 5.8 6.6 6.2 6.6 7.3 7.9 8.1 8.8 > Montana 1.8 3.8 1.8 2.6 4.1 4.8 3.9 3.0 > Nebraska 2.8 2.5 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 > Nevada 8.3 8.5 6.5 9.1 9.7 11.2 13.7 10.7 > New Hampshire 0.9 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.8 > New Jersey 3.9 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 4.2 4.2 5.1 > New Mexico 8.2 5.4 7.4 9.8 10.9 7.7 11.5 8.8 > New York 4.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.1 6.0 7.4 8.5 > North Carolina 6.6 6.2 7.0 7.2 8.1 8.3 8.5 9.4 > North Dakota 0.8 1.1 0.6 1.6 1.1 0.9 2.2 0.9 > Ohio 4.6 4.0 3.7 3.5 4.0 4.7 4.8 5.4 > Oklahoma 4.7 5.3 5.3 6.9 6.1 6.9 6.8 12.2 > Oregon 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.7 3.8 2.9 4.0 4.1 > Pennsylvania 5.1 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 5.9 5.7 6.3 > Rhode Island 3.8 3.7 4.3 3.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 3.3 > South Carolina 7.3 6.3 5.8 6.6 8.0 8.4 9.0 7.9 > South Dakota 1.4 0.9 0.9 2.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.8 > Tennessee 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.1 8.5 9.5 9.5 10.6 > Texas 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.1 6.8 6.8 7.7 9.0 > Utah 2.0 3.0 1.9 2.1 3.1 2.4 3.2 3.9 > Vermont 2.1 1.1 1.5 2.9 2.6 1.5 1.9 2.2 > Virginia 5.3 5.1 5.7 5.7 6.2 7.2 7.5 7.6 > Washington 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.9 4.3 4.6 5.1 > West Virginia 3.2 2.2 2.5 4.4 4.3 4.1 3.8 4.9 > Wisconsin 2.8 3.6 3.2 3.4 3.6 4.0 4.2 5.1 > Wyoming 3.0 1.8 2.4 2.3 4.8 3.5 3.3 2.1 > NATIONAL RATE 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.2 The general trend almost across the board is downward for ALL (well, except for Wy which went up) the states…including those with CCW. I haven’t sat down yet and gone through all the data and compared the relative rates of decline. According to his [other](http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/all+united+states/) cite in the other thread, there are only 5 states and DC where the right to carry is denied. Those are NE, KS, MO, IL, WI…and DC. There are 8 states where the CCW is restricted, CA, IA, NY, MA, RI, NJ, DE, and MD. Just a cursory look seems to indicate the 5 states that deny right to carry have declined at a faster rate than the national average. So, this kind of blows out of the water the concept that crime drops more in states with a right to carry than those without. However, the sample size for those states without is pretty small (and I didn’t really look hard at the 8 states with restriced access closely), so I’m not sure how valid even a tenitive statement like that is. Broadly speaking, murder went down accross the board, reguardless of whether they have CCW or not. This seems to indicate that the dire predictions of citizen gunslingers wreaking havoc are a bit exaggerated…at least its not indicated in the murder rate or other evidence I saw on a quick look at ITC’s other thread (I didn’t go through the whole thing, just picked out his first post with cites in that thread). I certainly don’t see how this data ‘proves’ anything, one way or the other. CCW is in effect in MOST of the states (something I didn’t know before hand…I assumed it was a minority of states that allowed it), yet I’ve seen nothing in the papers (and certainly there have been no cites from those opposed) showing either an increase in murders, or gunfights at the ok coral between gun wielding citizens. The fact that the general trend is downward for murder across the board SEEMS to indicate that CCW hasn’t had a real effect one way or the other. I don’t have time to go all through the other thread ITC. I might have missed other cites you posted and other data. Also, I didn’t see where you interperated the data. Maybe later tonight I’ll have time to go through your other thread in more depth and see what else you said. Feel free to post relevant sections here if you like, or give your interperatation of the data you cited. I just tossed out this post on my lunch hour to give us something to look at to keep the discussion going and maybe even get off the path. -XT ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/72 "2004-02-05T18:57:32Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > Of course, which is why the text of the amendment reads, “The Right of the States to have a Well Regulated Militia Shall Not be Infringed.” How fortunate for us that they did not confuse the issue by putting in any extraneous verbiage, like a reference to some “Right of the People”. I guess you missed it when I pointed out that’s a dependent clause. Here’s an example of a sentence with a dependent clause - let’s say I have a roommate, and I say to my roommate: “Since you’re going to meet me at the party later, why don’t you borrow my car?” Does that give my roommate the right to take my car, blow me off, and drive to Vegas? Only if you remove the first part of the sentence. But you can’t do that, because it IS part of the sentence. Usually, you’re clued in to a dependent clause coming up by conditional words such as “if”, “when”, “since”, “provided that”, etc., but not always. “Possessing a valid driver’s license, you may drive a car.” Using _your_ logic, and bifurcating this sentence, this would mean you can drive a car whether or not you have a license, which of course is not the meaning of the sentence. I agree that the Second Amendment is a poorly-worded piece of crap, but how is that cause to just flat-out ignore the main part of the sentence? I ask you this - if the Second Amendment was intended merely to protect the right of individual citizens to own guns for personal self-defense, then what exactly does the first part of the sentence _mean_? If the first part of the sentence is completely unrelated, why is it not simply a seperate amendment? ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/73 "2004-02-05T19:26:28Z")
**RickJay** wrote: > [@](#): > > There are hundreds of accidental fatal shootings in the U.S. every year. I sincerely doubt there have been 100 cases of people being slain by fire extinguishers in your lifetime. Correct. I’ve provided some other stats for comparison. [From the CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_15.pdf)(Warning, PDF). Year 2000. Falls (W00-W19) … 13,322 Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34) … 776. Accidental drowning and submersion (W65-W74) 3,482 Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames 3,377 Accidental poisoning and exposure to noxious substances (X40-X49) 12,757 **El Escorpio** wrote: > [@](#): > > 1. Should this occur, is there any retribution for the gun owner who allows (accidentally) his or her gun to be stolen? Or for not reporting it? Or for any crimes committed later with that gun? If not, we have people saying, “oh, well, darn it, that was expensive, now I need to buy a new one” and the cycle begins again. Good question. However, ask yourself this. If your car is stolen, should there be a penalty on you? If you use an ax to split firewood, it gets stolen and you don’t report it, should you be held liable when some whacko uses it to dismember his family? > [@](#): > > 1. Would it still be legal for a person who has a conceal and carry license to carry his gun when drunk? If so, should it be? Many law abiding citizens make regrettable decisions (and mistakes!) while drunk. If not, at what point does it become illegal for a impaired person to carry a gun, and where do people expect them to put it after two rounds in the bar? One of the unwritten golden rules of firearms handling is alcohol and firearms do not mix. I’m not particularly sure of the statutes, but I’m sure if you get stopped while packing and drinking, one of the penalties is immediate suspension or revocation of your CC license. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/74 "2004-02-05T19:50:12Z")
> [@](#): > > **Darwin’s Finch** said: > Arguments for collecting, hunting or mere target practice simply don’t apply when you are talking about concealed carry. Wrong. If I carry my pistol with me while deer hunting, which is legal in Pennsylvania so long as I have a valid concealed carry license, in order to put a kill shot into a deer that I’ve wounded, that firearm will be holstered on my person as required. Because it is _under_ the heavy weight jacket that I’ve got to wear in the winter, even if only partially obscured, it’s considered concealed, and the license is necessary. Open carry is perfectly legal without a license, but practically an impossibility in a winter deer hunt in PA. > [@](#): > > How, exactly, are guns supposed to be a deterrent to crime if they aren’t considered dangerous? How, exactly, are uniformed police officers patrolling the streets supposed to be a deterrent to crime if they aren’t considered dangerous to criminals? > [@](#): > > One of the unwritten golden rules of firearms handling is alcohol and firearms do not mix. I’m not particularly sure of the statutes, but I’m sure if you get stopped while packing and drinking, one of the penalties is immediate suspension or revocation of your CC license. In Pennsylvania, in a situation like that, your license is automatically revoked. We were also told at the meeting with the County Sheriff’s Deputy that we were prohibited from carrying a firearm into an establishment that does not sell food but sells alcohol (bar) and from carrying one while drinking at _any_ establishment, or we risk the loss of our licenses. You may of course contest this at a hearing, but you’re not going to win. It’s also the case that _even if you are not carrying your firearm at the time_ your license will be revoked if you have been found driving under the influence three times. Getting caught with illegal drugs is yet another way to lose your license, as is having a PFA (Protection From Abuse) order filed against you. The last one really bothers me, because PFAs are granted on the request of one party, typically with no requirement of evidence at all. I’ve seen someone file a PFA against her boyfriend solely because she wanted to make sure that he couldn’t take their baby to visit his mother in another state. She admitted to us (her family) that he had never been violent toward her. He lost his guns anyway. ---
**Author:** ![lt180ml](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90db22/32.png) [@lt180ml](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lt180ml)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/75 "2004-02-05T20:41:07Z")
**Uncommon Sense,** while you make some good arguments, and while I don’t deny that you have the right and would seem to have both the proficiency and the ‘common sense’ (if you can forgive me for using the term) to carry and possibly use a concealed weapon, this thread is an example of why many people are in favor of gun control. Basically, for every sane, law-abiding, competent owner of a handgun there is out there, there are others who are so easily incensed by gun control that I wonder if they should be allowed to carry a weapon. Forget the criminals, forget the likelihood of a gun-related accident or a mugging. Unfortunately, many gun owners seem to have more passion about firearms than education or reasoning skills. **Weird Al Einstein** asks for cites and seems to think that any doubts about his argument are unworthy of being seen outside the pit, but he asks for cites when stumped for a reply, answers rhetorical questions, and takes idiomatic expressions literally just to make his argument superficially stronger. If an ordinary adult gets so worked up about the topic just reading things on the Internet, I have my doubts about how well an ordinary adult could decide, in a split second, whether or not he would be justified in shooting someone. Even given that, panic or stress could cause inaccuracy and result in an unnecessary fatality of a bystander. Gun owners often cite their prowess on the range to refute this. As a conservatory student (I’ve performed in Carnegie Hall, had my picture in the NY Times twice) I’ve seen firsthand how much can go wrong when people have to perform under pressure. **Uncommon Sense,** I’m pretty sure that if I knew you, I would be fine with letting you have rocket launchers and tanks if you wanted them. The problem is, if the government lets you have them, then we have to let others have them. I’m not so sure about the others. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/76 "2004-02-05T20:44:41Z")
We can nitpick the details to death. We can go over the percentages until the cows come home. In the end, it boils down to one thing. Freedom. If you`re a law abiding citizen, you need not worry nor care that others in your society are carrying a CW legally because the reality is you`ll probably never be in a situation that this will directly affect you (unless said CW person is saving your ass from a mugging). If you`re the type that keeps your nose clean, there is no reason to believe that this law will affect you in any way shape or form. The numbers you will end up crunching are numbers put forth by the delinquent members of society. Not by the good people that want to ensure their own safety. Those that wish to carry CW`s are under the impression that they are safer. They are under the impression that it is a freedom given to us by the Constituiton. They are a majority in this country. They have 46 other states on their side, and I might add, a good number of Dopers. If you can find specific instances where the numbers show that CW are harmful to society (I doubt you will) then I will still support the CW laws. Because, with every freedom we have, we have to give up something else in order to have that freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/77 "2004-02-05T20:46:17Z")
By the way, I don`t own a single gun. Or any weapon that I`d care to carry concealed for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/78 "2004-02-05T21:34:00Z")
> [@lt180ml](#): > > The problem is, if the government lets you have them, then we have to let others have them. I’m not so sure about the others. Herein lies the crux of the matter. You se, the government doesn’t **let** me do anything. I **let** the government do things. It is a not-too-subtle difference. This country was founded, and still exists, on the idea that power flows **from** the people **to** the government, not the other way around. The gun control argument tends to fall along the lines of: people who understand this distinction - against gun control. People who **do not** understand this distinction - for gun control. At no time does any owner of a gun have to justify anything to anybody. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/79 "2004-02-05T23:04:19Z")
> [@lt180ml](#): > > \*\*Uncommon Sense,\*\*Basically, for every sane, law-abiding, competent owner of a handgun there is out there, there are others who are so easily incensed by gun control that I wonder if they should be allowed to carry a weapon. > > If an ordinary adult gets so worked up about the topic just reading things on the Internet, I have my doubts about how well an ordinary adult could decide, in a split second, whether or not he would be justified in shooting someone. Do you say the same things about those people who are incensed about the more obnoxious provisions in the Patriot Act? After all, they only restrict aspects of our First and Fourth Amendment rights - what’s the big deal? The people who are “so incensed about gun control” are people who feel it is an unjustified infringment of a Constitutional right. Infringement of Constitutional rights IS something we should get worked up over. As for how well “ordinary adults” can handle weapons under fire - what do you think police officers and soldiers are? Superhuman? I’d remind you that police work has traditionally been a working-class job, an alternative to being a butcher or a factory worker or a garbage truck driver. The pool from which police recruits are chosen is composed of very ordinary men and women; rocket scientists or test pilots they’re not. As **Catsix** has already shown, the requirements for obtaining a CCW permit are generally designed to exclude people with a history of violent behavior, drug abuse, or alcohol abuse; there’s no reason to believe that a citizen who meets the CCW permit requirements can’t be trained to use their weapon appropriately under stress. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/80 "2004-02-06T00:58:52Z")
> [@](#): > > As a conservatory student (I’ve performed in Carnegie Hall, had my picture in the NY Times twice) I’ve seen firsthand how much can go wrong when people have to perform under pressure. When there’s no pre-performance, there’s no stage fright. You train, and train, and train, and practice, and practice, and practice again until your body performs the actions without your brain getting involved. That’s how it was when the crackhead broke into my apartment. I did exactly what I had practiced thousands of times. I had the cell phone and the gun, and I was dialing. The door opened, and then there was no more barrier between him and me. The phone hit the floor, and I aimed. I gave him one verbal warning that he had 3 seconds to leave. He hesitated. I said ‘Two seconds.’ He turned and ran. I heard him go down the stairs. I closed the door, called the police, and waited. He was caught, I was safe. Another vicitm that never was. I do not want to know what would have happened if I’d had to wait for the cops to arrive, which took seven minutes after I called. I do not want to know what would have happened had I not been armed. I’m glad I don’t. I do know what would have happened had he taken another step forward. I would’ve done exactly what I’d practiced. Double tap center of mass. I didn’t think about the situation, didn’t think ‘Hey this is really bad. I might have to shoot this guy.’ I just did what I trained to, by rote. I believe that if you train enough, when that moment hits unexpectedly, you don’t have time to get nervous or feel the pressure. You can’t feel pressure to perform when you don’t know you’re going to be on stage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437.md?page=5)