Toss up your reasons NOT to allow concealed carry, and I`ll (heh) shoot them down.

It’s unmanly! If one is going to carry it, one ought to be required to display it. Anything else is sneaky, underhanded, and simply unmanly!

I am interested to know what you think I should do when/if my life is threatened? If I have a gun (or presumably any weapon) and “take the law into my own hands” to save myself then I am contributing to anarchy. If I do nothing I am killed, robbed, raped, shot, etc.

Catch phrases such as “taking the law into their own hands” and “anarchy” are not helpful. What would be helpful is a suggestion that protects the public, aka “me.” You have almost conceeded that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us from crime. You have then stated that we should not be armed to protect ourselves. Where does that leave us?

Ya know what, blow’? Nobody would harp on your earlier point if you didn’t have the chutzpah to ridicule so-called “gun-zealots” for engaging in the tactis of the liberal gun-nazis.

Evidence shows that it is the liberal gun-nazis that play fast and loose with the “facts”. To then claim that that is a tactic of “gun-zealots”, is the epitome of low.

You go right ahead and continue to ignore me, (like I care) but I be damned if I’ll let unmitigated liberal hypocrisy stand uncontested.

Good post BTW (including the part I didn`t include here).

To address your concerns;
In WI you will need to undergo 20+ hours of training and classroom to get the CW permit. You can`t just pay a fee. There may be a two year wait for such permits depending on how many people sign up and how many instructors are available, etc. I hope that there is a minimum agility requirement to pass the course and recieve the permit.
I suspect an initial surge of applicants until the novelty wears off. Then just a trickle the following years after that.

Oh, c’mon - it’s actually pretty unlikely that you are going to be murdered, and the evidence shows that crime has gone down more in places that heavily restrict guns, so your insinuation that you need a gun to protect your life is unwarranted. The simple fact is that guns take far, far more innocent lives than they save.

On the contrary, I think it’s quite apropos. We obviously disagree on a very fundamental level on how a society should be run. I abhor the idea of individual citizens believing they should take up the slack they perceive in the police force. I cannot condone such an “every man for himself” philosophy - not in a civilized society.

Now, if you want to talk about useless catch phrases, let’s talk about ones like, “My right to protect my family”, or “Defending my life”, or “Only criminals will have guns”.

Actually, crime is down all over the U.S. Since the crime rate has fallen more slowly in places that allow you to have a gun, I’m curious where you’re getting the idea that having a gun will make you safer? You want a suggestion? Here’s one: ban all assault weapons and handguns. That’ll make the public safer right there.

I disagree. I found a cite that seems to give short succint answers to your affirmations. If you know of some reason why this should be dismissed, I’m all ears.

As for the likely hood that I can be the victem of violent crime, I disagree. In my area there is a fair amount of crime. I would like a method to defend myself.

I never said “every man for himself.” I don’t see that as the case at all. I do believe that the law-abiding public should be allowed and enabled to defend themselves from violent attack in the likely circumstance that a police officer is not present. If one were I would most certainly bow to his superion training and authority. That is not anarchy, it is being prepared for an emergency.

The first two seem like “good things” and the last would seem to be true if all of the law-abiding citizens did not have guns out of respect for the law. People who are criminals would find it hard to aquire a firearm in a legal manner, but they already do. So, being criminals, they aquire a firearm in a criminal manner. Being criminal, they don’t mind breaking laws so laws made to regulate firearms are meaningless. How is this incorrect?

I’m calling bullshit on that one. First on your statistics: What is the crime rate? Is it falling to the same level in both areas? Are the slower declines in areas with already low crime rates? What is the relation between the areas other than the allowance for a CHL?

Your “suggestion:” I am interested to know if you know what classifies an “assault weapon” and just how banning all kinds of things are going to make me safer.

Ah blowero I had a nice pithy reply to your responses, but of course left it at work. :frowning: Anyhoo, I went back and read the entire thread and you used gun proponents and advocates many times at the beginning of the thread, but had started to slide a tad as this one continues. Of course razorsharp may have something to do with that. :stuck_out_tongue:

I was referring to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of which I gave a cite previously in this thread.

Although this is a pro-gun site, I think you’ll find it interesting reading. From another page in the site:

Congratulations - you found a pro-gun blog out of the thousands and thousands of pr-gun blogs on the web. Here’s an anti-gun blog which refutes everything in your pro-gun blog:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/

There, that got us pretty far, didn’t it?

You want a gun; I don’t want you to have a gun. Sounds like a draw. What’s your point?

I never claimed you used that precise wording. When I quote you, I will use quote tags. It will be very clear when I’m doing that.

We’re not discussing whether one should be “allowed and enabled to defend themselves”; we are discussing whether one should be allowed to own and/or concealed-carry a handgun. You scenario would be fine & dandy if guns were only used in law-abiding ways, and never to commit crimes. But such is not the case.

Exactly - they seem like “good things”. They are in fact blithe generalities. You have the right to live - o.k.; does that mean you have the right to pursue any means to that end? Should you be able to have a nuclear weapon?

Where do you think criminals get guns? At some point, somebody manufactured the gun, and somebody bought it. Most of the guns out there are NOT being made in people’s basements. And of course there’s the silly, oversimplified dichotomy of “the law abiding” and “criminals”. Of course, as soon as someone commits a crime with their gun, they immediately belong to the latter group, and are no longer part of this magical “law abiding citizen” group.

Look, I’m sorry you got into this thread late, but we covered that a long way back in the thread.

I leave the exact legal definitions up to our elected legislators. An automatic rifle is one kind of assault weapon. And it’s going to make you safer because there will be fewer guns for you to get shot with.

Well, I told you I won’t use that word that offends you anymore. What else is it you want from me?

Here’s a refutation of Kleck:
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:oCPFCN55yAgJ:www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/myths.pdf&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(html version for your convenience)

It goes on and on - check out the link.

Okay, it’s quite possible that the figures could be exagerated. Let’s assume that there are only 1.25 million defensive gun uses per annum. Hell, let’s just say that there are only 50,000 defensive gun uses per annum. Is that not sufficient? Does that not warrant individual gun possession?

Liberal gun-nazis often sob and blubber:

Well, how about if the possession and use of a handgun by a private individual saves the life of one child? Is that not worth it?

See, this is where one can really get a grasp of the liberal gun-nazis true sentiments concerning the private ownership of firearms.

They want an outright ban. They “feel” that only government officials should possess guns. Gun-nazis are far more dangerous than a law-abiding gun-owners.

BTW: Ya know what the only crime a gun is directly responsible for? It’s to make a previously law-abiding citizen, a criminal, with the passage of a law that makes it unlawful to possess a gun.

You wouldn’t be taking me out of context at all, and I do appreciate you taking the time to confirm my thoughts. I am very much in favour gun control, in fact, under my ideal system there would, quite likely, be far fewer guns on the street in the hands of law-abiding citizens. The 2nd amendment is of no consequence to me with regards to gun ownership (keep in mind I am Canadian). I am a self defense instructor and security outsourcer/analyst (semi-retired now), and have been so for quite some time (more than 2 decades), so my interest in gun control and gun use is more or less professional and of interest to me as it relates to what I do and teach. Much the same as the lawyers on this board answer/correct legal issues I do my best to answer/correct matters of self defense, since it is what I know.

Below is from a previous post:

The vast, vast majority of crimes are not stopped by law enforcement at least not as they are occuring which is what it at the heart of the self defense issue for gun ownership.

Granted that it is true that the most crime that is commited it not stopped either by police or private citizens; however, those crimes which are stopped as they occur are by and large stopped by the victim or a helpful bystander. The reason why more crimes aren’t stopped as they occur is a complex one, and the armament of the victim is not much a part of that equation.

We’ve previously established that people have a right to self defense, either by right here in Canada or by logical extension of the right to life in the USA. So all that remains is what means of self defense will the people have access to?

As I previously noted, from a self defense perspective when confronted by lethal force the response which promote the maximum chance of survival, barring a chance to escape, is a lethal force response in return.

So, it is unavoidable that criminals will continue to prey on people with lethal force. Even if a total ban on firearms were to happen today, and all guns were to magically disappear it still wouldn’t result in a lack of lethal force attacks on innocent people. By denying those who can display the proper training and responsibility access to their best means of defense, you are denying them the right to effective self defense. Denying somebody the right to effective self defense, is wrong. It is in effect saying that if you should happen to come under lethal force attack, tough, the die roll didn’t come up in your favour and so you’ll just have to die for the good of society (i.e. so that society can be free of guns). Why the willingness to trade innocent citizens for criminal citizens? In my self defense classes I teach the concept of the self defense balance. That is that it is the criminal who has made the decision to place the victim’s life and the criminal’s life in the balance and a decision must be made as to who society will keep and who society will allow to die. It seems pretty clear that unless the victim is a violent criminal themselves, society is better served in such a case to discard the criminal and keep the victim if it is such that one or the other must die and the other will live.

Time was, there was a 1/12 chance that an American would be the victim of a violent crime sometime in their lives (1992 I think, I’ll see if I can find it). Crime rates have dropped and so a rough calculation indicates that it should be about 1/20 now. So the next time your walking down the street, count people. Every 20th will be violently attacked at sometime in their life. Should that person be denied an effective means of self defense should they choose to have it and again under my ideal system adequately demonstrate sufficient responsibility and training to operate such safely?

Now, that’s grossly unfair. I never said or implied a discomfort with the police. In fact, I’ve trained many police personnel over the years to better be able to defend themselves and the people they serve. What I said is that the police are not effective at stopping crimes as they occur, this has nothing to do with the quality of the police or any discomfort with them. It has to do with the reality that we don’t have a police officer on every street corner, and are not likely to anytime soon. Back in early 1990s it was 1 police officer for every 10 square miles. The police simply cannot be everywhere a crime is occuring as it occurs.

Were it so that the police could be on the scene of a crime as it occurs instantly then yes I would agree with you that the police would be the logical choice to entrust the individual safety of the public. That is not the case and again nor is it likely to be anytime soon. Again, the reality is that self defense falls almost exclusively to the victim of the attack. Chances are they will be the only person available to stop the crime from occuring, and of course have a very vested interest in doing so.

I can answer that for you. They wouldn’t. Whether or not their victim is potentially armed or not, and to a lesser degree whether they are in fact armed or not is of little consequence to the criminal. Firearms, in the hands of private citizens and to a lesser degree in the hands of police, are not a deterrent to the criminal.

See:

“Inside the Criminal Mind”
“Interviews with the Criminal”
“Collected Police Reports”

Firearm possession is not about deterrment. It is about defense when attacked by lethal force and no means of effective escape are available.

Glitch, I want to correct your misreading of my post.

I bolded a crucial part of my sentence to emphasize your mistake. I think you read it hurriedly and thought it said something other than what I wrote. You are talking about the OVERALL number of crimes that are stopped, whereas I was talking about crimes stopped by police VS. crimes stopped by civilians. You really need to read more carefully before you make claims as to what I said.

You say you need a gun because the police aren’t catching all the criminals. But civilians aren’t catching all the criminals either. In fact, they catch far fewer criminals than the police. It’s like saying “My car isn’t fast enough, so I need a bicycle.”

blowero wrote:

What part of what I said did you not understand:

See the smilies?

As for the site, I thought that you’d read through it and see that even the Justice Department’s study came up with 4.7million DGU’s using Kleck’s methodologies, and leaving X and Y out, came up with 1.25million DGU’s and questioned the methods used by the NCSV in coming up with only 108K. I wonder why they only went after Kleck and not the Justice Department’s study?
(Oh, and razorsharp, please stop violating the cabal’s bylaws on using our secret word for gun-control advocates)

I didn’t misread it at all, or if I did your follow-up hasn’t managed to make it clearer.

I am not referring to the number of crimes that are stopped vs those that aren’t. Of those crimes that are stopped as they occur they are not stopped by law enforcement, they are stopped by the victims themselves or by some bystander who generally is not a member of law enforcement. Again, the reason why law enforcement is generally ineffective in this regard is threefold: first, a lack of manpower, second, technical limitations (e.g. cannot transport instantly from where the police officer is to where the crime is occuring), third, and most imporantly, a crime must be occuring in order for a police officer to respond to it. This third factor is vital to understand. A victim will already be into a self defense situation before the police are likely to even know that anything is happening. Even if the police are mere seconds away, it will still take those seconds for the police to be notifed/or hear a cry for help, and respond. By the time they’ve even been notified the victim is already in a situation where they need to apply self defense techniques. Most violent assaults take 3 minutes or less to resolve. Expecting the police to be able to respond in the kind of time frame required is bordering on the impossible (see factors 1 and 2 above). Even in the best case scenario where the police arrive in time to aid the victim in their struggle, the victim while have had to defend themselves from violent assault for some period of time, it is absolutely unavoidable barring the extremely bizarre, which although they do occur are rare.

What I will agree with is that overall law enforcement stops more crimes than the civilian population, but does so by catching people who have already commited a crime and prevents them from commiting further crimes. Not an ideal system, to be sure, but unless we want to start locking people up for thought crimes or invent a reliable crystal ball it is the best we can do.

What is of importance to the gun control debate is not whether the police are stopping more crime overall, but rather what can be done for crime preventation as it is occuring. The police are not the answer to that particular problem (see factors 1,2 & 3 above).

For the record, I do not support gun ownership so that civilians can capture criminals after the fact. If that is what you thought I was advocating that should clear that up.

That’s false. The response that promotes the maximum chance of survival is capitulation. I realize that those who consider their “stuff” to be more important than their life will reject this option, but it is nonetheless the option with the highest chance of survival.

No, but it would certainly reduce the number that result in death. I haven’t heard about too many drive-by knifings.:smiley:

But by allowing private citizens to be armed, YOU are denying us the right to be free from being shot.

And denying somebody the right to be safe from firearm assault is wrong.

No, it’s not. You act as though guns are a person’s only protection against crime. That’s ridiculous.

Huh?

Strawman. I never advocated protecting criminals. You are trying to draw a magic line between “the law abiding” and “the criminals”, as if it were possible to give guns only to the former and not the latter. The fact is, the more handguns you pass out, the more people are going to get shot. It’s not rocket science.

Should that person be denied the right to feel secure against assault by firearms?

Here, I agree with you to a point. Certainly, if we are going to allow people to possess handguns, it would be better to have stringent regulations to ensure that these people are trained and are responsible enough to own a gun. But even better would be not to allow anyone to have a handgun. However, that’s up to state governments, and I don’t think that’s going to happen, so I think regulation such as you propose is the best idea in reality.

Here’s the problem, though - that’s not happening right now. Go back to Post #95 and check out my link regarding the study of CCW permit holders in Texas. They’re committing gun-related offenses at a higher rate than THE GENERAL POPULATION.

Oh, c’mon - I’ve been extremely fair. I could easily have slammed you with ad hominem attacks, called you “Rambo”, etc. I have gone out of my way to try to keep it civil. I made no characterization about how you feel about the police, I merely responded to your assertion that you need a gun for times when the police aren’t there. Please get the chip off your shoulder.

Of course not, because that’s not how it works. The police aren’t there to swoop down like Batman and punch the criminal right as he’s about to rob you. It’s a combination of deterrence, patrols, lighting, locks and alarms, etc. I have never felt the need to have a gun, and have yet to encounter a situation where a gun was necessary to save my life. Of course, I’m not gonna do anything stupid like walk down skid row alone at 1:00 in the morning with 100-dollar bills hanging out of my pockets.

That’s an extremely rare situation, and would be rendered even more rare if we’d stop letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry have a gun. You’re Canadian, right? Canada has far fewer guns than the U.S., and the violent crime rate is lower. The facts just don’t support your scenario.

Uncommon Sense: Thanks for the info on WI. You wouldn’t happen to have a link or any info on what kind of training that course involves would you? I’d be very interested to see what they consider good training for a CCW permit.

Opps… the cat’s out of the bag.

Now, back to the insanity.

Since no such “right” exists, how can anyone be denied it?

Note, the bolded portion please.

My posts are already plenty long without writing an entire book on the subject of self defense (shameless plug :slight_smile: although I am in the process of writing my second book, which is on self defense). So, yes, avoidance is always your best bet, followed by escape, but those are not always available. So, lets try to limit the discussion to those in which they aren’t because I’m not advocating a “force first” approach to self defense. Granted the lack of exacting clarity is my responsibility, hopefully that’ll clear it up.

FYI, capitulation is actually a non-factor in your odds of survival. Studies have shown that you incur a 2% increase in sustain minor injury (medically defined as I understand it as a non-life threatening cut or contussion) by resisting a violent attack. Also, criminals have already predetermined whether they intend to hurt you or not, your actions or lack thereof have little influence on that.

Although it would certainly reduce/eliminate certain types of crime, as you say there aren’t many drive-by knifings, the types of injuries sustained from a gun shot wound and from a knife are very similar and result in very similar fatality rates. The two largest factors when dealing with most injuries is not what caused the injury but location of the injury and time from injury to medical treatment.

Statistically speaking, at ranges of 15’ or less a knife is nearly as effective a lethal instrument as a firearm.

My apologies I misread the post in this case. I thought you were saying I had a discomfort with the police. I’ve re-read and can see my error.

I’m very glad that is the case. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case for everybody. Violent crime is real and isn’t going to go away whether guns magically disappear or not. I have. Ultimately, I didn’t need a firearm to defend myself but I’m also not your average person trying to defend themselves. At the time of the attack, I had nearly a decade of experience in self defense. Even so, in the resulting fight I experienced several knife wounds.

I’m sure there’s a smiley missing there somewhere. In any case, if only it were that easy to avoid becoming a victim of a violent crime.

What you’re seemingly advocating, removal of all handgun ownership outside of the police and soldiers, would result in a world where your average citizen does not have a means to defend themselves should the need arise. You’re seemingly okay with that, and I can certainly understand your perspective even if I don’t agree with it, but I don’t think it is a slam dunk by any stretch that it is what is right. I know you seem to think it is a strawman, but the self defense balance is no such thing. It demonstrates one of the fundamental philosophies behind self defense in the first place (for a great discussion on it see “The Truth About Self Protection”). By choosing to deny people a means of self defense you tilt the scales, even if it is only slightly (and that’s a whole other story), to the side of the criminal. For me the concept of the balance is easily understood, because I’ve been working with it for so long, I’d urge you, with respect, to think about for awhile before coming to the hasty conclusion that it has no bearing. It isn’t something, that in my experience, people pick up quickly (at least those who take my classes generally don’t, not at first). And that is no insult, and I hope you do not take it as such.

For the record as well, you may be interested in knowing, I generally try to discourage people from getting a firearm when they take my short armed defense course.

Well it’s 2 things. One, I think this “need to defend oneself” is overblown. I’ve noticed that some gun advocates claim this need for defense, while other gun advocates claim that your chances of being a violent crime victim are low, which would suggest defense is unneccesary. It seems to vary according to what is convenient to the argument at the moment. Two, you refer to the “means to defend oneself” as though it exists without its counterpart, the means to attack. There is no such thing as a gun that can only be used defensively. If such a gun could be invented, I would be all for it. IMO, it’s disingenuous to refer to a gun only as a means of defense, without the obvious corollary that it is also a means of attack.

Or to put it in cliche form: Your right to swing your fists ends where my face begins.

No, of course it’s not. If it were a total slam dunk, we wouldn’t even be debating it. You’ve made some great and challenging points, as have pervert, BF, et al. (Not Razorsharp, though.:stuck_out_tongue: )

It’s late, but I’ll try to answer more of your points tomorrow.

Not necessarily. That would depend upon the manner in which you are comporting yourself. See, one could have the right to swing his fist into the space that your face is occupying at that particular moment.