Cops, by the very nature of their job, are often pulling over people they KNOW are lawbreakers. They have plenty of reason to suspect that a person who’s already violated other laws may be violating another law by illegally carrying a firearm.
Muggers, on the other hand, are usually targeting people who are NOT likely lawbreakers. They avoid people who look like they may be trouble. They’ll generally choose the elderly lady or the businessman in a three-piece suit rather than some 6’ fellow whose arms are covered in tatoos and who moves like an ex-con. In a state where concealed carry is illegal, it’s unlikely the old lady or the businessman is going to be carrying a concealed handgun.
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.
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. Yeah, it could go the other way, as well, but it seems to me that allowing concealed carry just raises the stakes a whole lot higher for everyone.
Methinks you seriously overestimate the level of training that police officers get in many cities, especially certain Midwest big cities. Much consideration is given to the proper filling out of forms, and various methods of dealing with the public which will minimize the number of lawsuits against the pd. Less time (and certainly not enough money) is spent on tactical considerations. Heck, I am comfortable saying that I, as Joe IDPA/IPSC Citizen regularly shoot and handle firearms more often than the vast majority of police officers. Regardless, weapon retention is a serious matter, and any decent training course will take that into consideration.
Brandish a firearm once to protect yourself and a loved one, then see how you feel about people trying to deny you that right. Didn’t even have to shoot. What is plan B? Hope for the best? Give the criminal what they want? Bah.
I don’t know why I even am bothering to ask but, cite please.
You aren’t a newbie to the boards, and I am not familiar with your posting history. But, here in GD, one cannot simply make up facts and stats that back up your position out of thin air.
Simply because you feel in your heart of hearts that guns are bad doesn’t make it so. If you’re going to make statements of fact, then you need to be prepared to back them up with a credible cite when challenged. Put up or shut up, so to speak.
Inmates escape from maximum security prisons too. Anything can happen, that doesn`t mean that our freedoms should be taken away by some law, or lack thereof, or by some thugs.
To start off with, I don’t carry a gun. I OWN a gun, but keep it locked away, and only take it out for target shooting. The amunition is also locked up…separately. My state DOES have CC laws…I just choose not to apply or carry a gun in public. MOST citizens in my state ALSO choose not to do so…by their own free will. But it IS a choice, and one I voted for myself…the right to choose.
Now, I can certainly see why it would be a concern for some folks to have ‘average citizens’ carrying guns. Several scenerios have been put forth by Kalhoun, Finagle, etc. But whats the reality here? Finagle predicts “an increase in accidental discharges and/or accidental injuries.” Has there BEEN an increase in such thing? After all, CC laws have been in effect for some time in many states…enough to give us an idea anyway. Where is the evidence? He predicts OK coral type gunfights in the streets by ordinary citizens who are armed. Have there BEEN such incidents? If so, how many? How many ‘gunfights at the OK coral’ have there been between two citizens BOTH with CC licenses? Any? A few? None? Where is the evidence? Other predict citizens out of control, or citizens firing and wounding bystanders in their gunfights. Is there any evidence this has happened? That its on the rise? Some posters saw Bowling for Columbine and think this documentary (snort) shows…well, god only knows what they think it shows to be honest. But where are the STATISTICS to back it up? Where are the trends clearly indicating rising violence in the US, especially between ordinary citizens who are armed?
Thus far nothing has been shown, though cites have been asked for repeatedly. Thus far, most of the anti-conceal folks have speculated on possible scenerios and gloom and doom? But based on what exactly? There are plenty of states that HAVE conceal carry laws, and have had them for some time. What effect has this had on the average citizens? Has there been a marked increase in the number of accidental killings? Has there been a marked increase in the number of shootings in these states? Has crime skyrocketted, especially murder or shootings? If so, how often were citizens with permits involved? Has THIS statistic gone up? Have there been many (any??) ‘ok coral’ type incidents? And if so, how many? If you want to make a case, answering ANY of these questions might be a good place to start. And with all due respect, “Bowling for Columbine” isn’t exactly a good source for this debate, no? The raw statistics should be available from the US or the states themselves. Put it together and make a case.
Personally I see this issue as like the pro-choice/abortion debate. Ordinary citizens should have the right to chose. Myself, I think its foolish to carry a gun with you unless you have a specific reason (i.e. your life has been threatened and remains under threat, you are in law enforcement, you work in an area or job type where the potential for self defense is high, etc). There are a lot of reasons why I feel that way, and I don’t want to get into them right now. But unless you can show definitively a marked increase in the above (something I’ve never seen any indications there is), then why exactly SHOULDN’T ordinary citizens be able to choose?? 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.
No assumption needed. If I’m wrong, tell me why; otherwise concede that I’m right.
Huh? The OP made the assertion that the constitution “allows us to keep and bear arms”, which is a disingenuous statement. I corrected him. Where did I make any assertions about how and when rights exist?
I don’t think you’re understanding the issue. When gun proponents claim a constitutional right to own a gun, what they are saying is that government cannot pass any law that forbids them from owning a gun. But that’s not what the Second Amendment says. It says STATES can form WELL-REGULATED militias; it doesn’t say we can all go nuts and have a gun hidden under our pillow.
Now, that doesn’t mean you can’t own a gun, in the absence of a law to the contrary, but neither does it mean that your government can’t pass a LAW forbidding you from owning a gun. Rights enumerated in the Constitution are elevated above laws. Government can’t pass laws forbidding free speech, for example. Gun proponents claim that owning a gun falls under this elevated status, but IMO this is based on a misreading of the Second Amendment.
As for blowero’s hijack, figured I’d just post this from the Master on it. This sums it up for me:
Its a bit more complicated (as he well knows) than blowero is making it out to be. There IS no definitive answer (in my own opinion anyway). There are only interperatations. This isn’t an ‘appeal to authority’ btw, but I think Cecil’s piece on this sums up the issues nicely without going into huge amounts of details. I know for a fact this has been debated ad nausium on this board before, though I myself never joined in.
Personally, for whatever its worth, I think valid arguements could be made on both sides. I also think that, while one interperatation seems to say that gun ownership is a ‘right’, that societies change, and that such things should periodically be reviewed to see what the PEOPLE think about it. If the people are for the continuation of the legality of private citizens to own and bare arms, then it should be kept in place…if not, then it shouldn’t be. I think its pretty safe to say that TODAY the majority of folks are for private gun ownership, though I have no idea where the majority stands on CC permits and the like. That kind of issue is probably best left in the local states hands.
As to the amendment, the thing was definitely poorly writen, and I think it would be a good idea at some point to amend the ammendment and make the lauguage a bit clearer…one way or the other.
But the point is that, to use a cliche, the Constitution of the United States of America is a “living document.” An overhaul of the Constitution to suit the vagaries of the current ruling class is antithetical to the purpose of the document. The prescience and foresightedness of the writers gave us a framework that for all intents and purposes is ageless, and should be able to serve as a framework for as many generations as the state may last.
I just don’t think that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” can mean anything else but that. If the government passes a law to prevent ownership of firearms, restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then it would be impossible for the state to keep and maintain a well-regulated militia. The framers of the Constitution obviously didn’t intend for the state to provide weaponry, as this was impossible during their time. Soldiers in the Continental Army provided their own weapons, as noted in the linked Straight Dope column.
Pity that this is total BS. Check the data. The number of fenderbenders that have escalated into gunfights because both drivers have concealed-carry permits: ZERO!
The problem with all of these arguments is that the gungrabbers seem to think we have to justify owning a firearm. We don’t have to justify a thing. They, on the other hand, have to justify us NOT having them. This, they cannot do. I do not need to justify or explain my possession of anything that is not SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY LAW, any more than Kalhoun needs to justify owning shoes, or a ball-point pen. I can kill a person with eaither one, so “potential for harm” is moot.
xtisme, I did not mean to imply that there is no controversy regarding the Second Amendment. Obviously, there are two views to it, and I gave my opinion as to which I subscribe to. My response was terse because the OP was terse - citing his constitutional right to own a gun as though it were incontrovertible. And since MGibson’s response to me was sarcastic, I responded in kind. Sorry folks, but you reap what you sow.
I realize this is blasphemy, but personally I think the Master’s bias is showing on this topic. (I applaud you for doing some research on it, though.) His argument boils down to this:
But why should we ignore the first part of the sentence? Are we to believe that the founding fathers just stuck that in there for nothing?
Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
And here’s how gun proponents read it:
“[psssht…crackle…bzzzz…hissssss…], the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Like Cecil says, the “states-rights” view is that the amendment is protecting the right of the states to form militias. Then he says this:
and offers nothing to back it up; just the bald assertion.
He also says:
Well, an even more reasonable restatement would be:
“Since the States have a need to defend against tyranny, the Federal government shall not prevent the States from forming armed militias.”
Cecil’s part about “volunteers supplying their own weapons” is not applicable in this day and age.
Right. Gun control advocates ignore the second half and Gun ownership advocates ignore the first half. Except that ignoring half of the ammendment is not necessary in either case. It is perfectly compatible for the right to bear arms coexist with the states need for a “well regulated militia”. Indeed, it is pretty clear that the founding father though that the clauses were complimentary.
I guess I’m saying that I read the amendment that individuals have a right to own firearms, and the state has the power to regulate which firearms we can own as well as where and how we can use them.
For 26 years I have lived in a home defended by firearms owners. I have come home late at night for half of those years, and have never once even come close to being ‘extinguished’.
But I do know a woman who had to retire from teaching because of the severe lung damage she sustained when hit with a fire extinguisher blast in the hallway of the high school she taught in. She has been on oxygen tanks for the last fifteen years due to two idiots getting into a fight in the hall, ripping fire extinguishers off the wall, and shooting each other with them. She went out there to ‘break it up’, and had no idea that a fire extinguisher can be a lethal weapon. She knows now.
What’s your point?
Can you cite any state in which there have been an increase in these type of shootings by those who hold concealed carry licenses after that state passed a concealed carry provision?
Most police officers do far less training with their firearms than I do with mine as a hobby. I have had cops tell me that they still have the original bullets in their sidearms that they were first issued, after years of service. Many officers do no more than the bare minimum periodic requalification on marksmanship with theirs.
I have taken courses in defensive pistol usage and combat pistol usage on my own time and invest at least a couple thousand dollars out of pocket every year for range membership, ammunition, and shooting time. I try to get out for practice at least once a week, and more if possible. That’s the difference between someone who carries a firearm and shoots because they want to, and someone who merely straps on a pistol as a job requirement.
This goes to show why you should never trust anecdotal evidence. No offense to your friend or your fellow firearms holders, but when you start even suggesting that fire extinguishers are almost ans dangerous as guns you’re venturing into the realm of the surreal. I mean, come on; this is like people who argue against seat belt use by talking about that time in 1983 when they were in an accident without a seat belt and weren’t badly hurt.
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.
My concerns about conceal and carry laws are these:
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.
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.
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.
I don’t think either one of them is inherently dangerous.
I think that both of them can be used in dangerous manners by irresponsible and criminal people. I don’t consider that a reason to make having them around illegal, especially since both can be invaluable lifesaving tools.
That rather depends on how you’re defining “inherently”. Guns are designed to be dangerous. That’s rather the point, after all, now isn’t it? That’s why people want them in the first place. Fire extinguishers, on the other hand, are not designed to be dangerous. They’re designed to put out fires.
Both can certainly be used in non-violent fashion. But, in any argument centering around carrying your gun concealed, you are, in fact, banking on that dangerous aspect of handguns. You surely aren’t carrying them, hidden, in case you wish to suddenly surprise that paper target you’ve been stalking…
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.