How do you do this effectively? Out on the range, I can’t seem to keep much accuracy on the second shot. My trigger technique is mediocre, but that can’t be the sole cause of the loss of control I get after the first shot. It takes me about 1-2 seconds to regain accuracy.
So your rationale for desiring concealed carry is to aid you in hunting, then? And for no other reason? I rather doubt it.
Besides which, you are arguing after the fact: PA already requires you to have a license to carry a concealed weapon for whatever purpose, so arguing that concealed weapons are relevant to hunting strikes me as false. If a state does not have a concealed carry law on the books, such an argument for allowing CC is downright silly: you don’t need a concealed weapon to hunt, and concealing said weapon does not improve your odds during the hunt. Nor do you need a concealed weapon for target practice. Nor do you need a concealed weapon if you are simply a collector of rare firearms.
The police are only as dangerous as their gear (as far as the average criminal is probably concerned, anyway). If they walked around here in the U.S. with nothing more than billy clubs, they would probably be substantially less of a deterrent than they are with guns. All other things being equal, guns are more dangerous than billy clubs. Which is, or course, why the police carry them in the first place.
And, besides which again, certainly those police do not act as a guaranteed deterrent to criminal activity in general, as obviously some people are not deterred by even the threat of the death penalty. I don’t see how a potentially-armed citizen is likely to provide any more deterrence.
Which is, of course, completely irrelevent to the topic of concealed carry.
Although it does demonstrate the fallacy of believing that the mere possibility of carrying a weapon on your person is going to protect you. I’m pretty sure that in every state, it is allowable to keep firearms in one’s residence. Surely Mr Break-In Guy knew this, but broke in anyway. He took his chances, despite the potential risk. Just as, I am sure, any number of other criminals take their chances on the streets in states with legal CC. While having the gun may well provide an unpleasant surprise for the criminally-minded who accosts you, you still have to actually pull it for it to deter anyone. So I’m still not buying this “anyone might be packing, so crime goes down” line.
Sure there is: the logistics of training each and every citizen who meets those requirements. According to the link in the OP, 35,000 people would likely have applied for the permit in the first year alone. How do you train that many people, making sure they all have the same restraint and training that the average police officer does? As stated in the article: “Some sheriffs argued the background checks were burdensome or inadequate. They also complained the maximum $133 permit fee would not cover their costs, and many pledged to opt of the program if it became law.” One does not simply wave magic wands and suddenly, someone is properly trained in the use of a handgun.
I have a couple of thoughts and a question.
First, Catsix. If you want to say that a fire extinguisher is as dangerous as a gun, then surely you won’t mind if we take your guns and give you a fire extinguisher instead.
Next, there seems to be a large difference between scenarios on the two sides. Not every person with a concealed weapon will take more than the required classes to get the gun, and not every person with a gun will shoot whomever happens to piss them off.
Now for the question. Please respond seriously to this as I am genuinely curious. As far as the crime statistics (up, down, or diagonal), were there any other factors included? I mean that other situations can have an influence on crime such as economic climate, racial climate, etc. Can the rises and falls of crime rates be clearly attributed to concealed weapons, or could they be coincidental?
So far, the only one that provided any actual information to back up the anti-CCW position was ITR…and that from a past thread related to this subject. As he hasnt been back in to actually explain the data, I have no idea. The data I found in the thread basically was raw murder rate data, as well as a map listing which states were CCW and which weren’t. You can go through the data yourself and make your own judgement. However, when you say rises and falls, thats kind of misleading.
At least as far as the cited data goes, every single state (except WY) FELL as far as the murder rate goes between 1995 and 2002. Including in the states that have CCW btw. So far, there have been zero cites by people to back up the position that putting a gun in the hand of the average citizen (and allowing said citizen to actually conceal the gun and take it with him/her) is a bad thing. There has been a cite that some 700-800 accidental shootings occur in the US per year…thats a VERY low number. Only thing off the top of my head I can think of less likely is death by coconuts dropping on your head (I’m exaggerating btw…but not by much). No other data or stories have been cited…leading me to conclude that either the anti-CCW crowd is not interested in this debate and doesn’t want to look for cites to back up their speculations, or that the data does not support the speculations put forth so far. As its not MY position, I’m disinclined to get off my lazy butt and find the data for them. So, there we stand. Lots of anacdotal info tossed about, very little actual data.
Make of it what you will.
-XT
I see. Would that be the same John Lott who has been caught fabricating studies, reporting false data, and adopting a secret identity in order to spread lies about his credentials ? Or are there multiple John Lotts writing pro-gun articles?
As to other responses to my post, let me repeat what I already said in the thread I linked to. The higher murder rates in gun-friendly states suggest that guns cause murders; they do not prove the relationship. More research is needed before making a firm conclusion. I don’t have the time or money to undertake such a research effort on my own. That’s why I said that I was willing to reconsider my stance based on serious, well-researched articles if people showed me to them.
I missed the part where I need a rationale. I said one use of concealed carry is hunting.
In my opinion the state is the one with the burden of proof, not me. The state should be the one providing the clear, compelling, factual evidence for banning private citizens from carrying concealed weapons. Fact of the matter is, I don’t think we should have to write special laws to allow such a thing. Those laws do exist, and I comply with them, but my belief is that people like myself shouldn’t have to justify our exercise of our rights to some bureaucrat or Sarah Brady.
You honestly don’t see how a tiny chance of getting the death penalty isn’t as effective as ‘The person I attack might lay me out on a slab right now.’?
I can’t help you.
He took his chances in what was known as a rather liberal, yuppie neighborhood of the city, the kind of place where people put up security system signs and are proud to support HCI. And what, because he did break in that’s a reason to say that guns don’t help anyone? You can think whatever you want, but there’s no way in hell I’ll ever just dial 911 and pray the cops get there before I’m dead. Of course, I want the same ability to defend myself when I’m driving solo from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, or when I’m walking through East Liberty, that I have when I’m inside my house.
How asinine. Both can be used in a dangerous manner. Both can kill someone, friend or foe. But why the hell would I carry around a great big heavy fire extinguisher when a pistol is so much better designed for portability?
What high murder rate in gun-friendly states are you looking at? Those states with the most permissive gun laws are typically the ones with the lowest murder rates.
And if you want to discredit John Lott, you’re going to have to come up with something better than somebody’s blog site.
You are wrong here, catsix. Look at the stats I posted from ITR’s old thread. ‘Typically’ the numbers for the states WITH CCW are all over the board. The only real statement you can make is, accross the board (except in WY…which IS a CCW state according to the cite), the murder rate has fallen in the US from 1995-2002…INCLUDING in those states without CCW. In fact, at a glance, I think the rate in the 5 states without CCW actually dropped more than the national average (though the 8 states labled as restricted were higher). The stats are right in this thread…look at them and see for yourself. Compare the amount states with CCW rate dropped with those that don’t have CCW. I’m not sure exactly what the stats MEAN, but the stats are certainly there.
While I mentioned earlier that no case has yet been made why allowing citizens to be armed is a bad thing (these stats don’t actually PROVE anything, one way or the other…but they are interesting), the other side is, nothing points to the fact that people are necessarily safer either if they carry concealed weapons. The pro-CCW has yet to provide anything remotely conclusive to show this either.
The events are too random and also too rare. As I’ve said before, people always worry about the wrong thing. You are orders of magnitude more likely to be killed driving your car (statistically speaking) than you are to be murdered by a gun…even in a bad neighborhood in a big city. You are much more likely to die of cancer or heart disease than be murdered as well. On the other hand, you are only slightly more likely to die of accidental shooting than you are tooth pick inhalation, and much more likely to die putting up your Christmas lights (or working around the house, actually) than being accidentally shot. People are horrible at risk assessment. 
-XT
Perhaps Wisconsin needs to look at how other states manage this supposedly impossibly burdensome task. Remember, the MAJORITY of US states allow CCW. Wisconsin is hardly facing a unique dilemma here.
We require our law officers to do many burdensome things - that by itself is no reason to prohibit CCW. If the background checks are inadequate, they should be made adequate. It’s not an impossiblity.
If they can document that, then obviously the permit fee should be raised to a level that will cover costs.
Since when do we allow law officers to “opt out” of performing a required duty? They don’t get to selectively decide which state laws they will or will not uphold.
No - one provides adequate resources to accomplish the task, something that can definitely be done if the people of Wisconsin truly desire CCW.
There is also some evidence that this is not true. This cite suggests that the number of guns have gone up considerably while the murder rate remained constant. As you wisely suggest, such things do not prove a negative correlation. The cite seems to agree with this conservative view.
Specdifically:
And this in the section critical of Lott’s work:
I see. So when you make a claim, I have to take your word for it. When I make a claim and back it up with a website that is well organized and provides links or references for all of the facts that it presents, that still isn’t good enough, and I have to “come up with something better”.
Earlier in this thread, I posted a link to a previous thread. In that previous thread, I posted a link to the data I used in my statistics. I don’t think that two clicks with your mouse constitutes that arduous of a process, and I see no reason why you can’t look for yourself. However, if you insist, I’ll reduce the necessary work to just one link. My data on murder rates came from here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169&scid=12
Now one of our favorite mottos in this forum is “cite please”. I provided a cite to back up my claims about Lott. You have basically responded by saying that you don’t like my cite, so you’re not going to believe it. Well, if that’s the attitude that you’re going to take, then there isn’t really any reason for me to provide more cites because you could just as easily refuse to believe those as well. I will, however, warn you that Lott’s credibility has been debated on this board before, and generally even hardcore pro-gunners have given up on trying to find excuses for Lott’s ongoing reign of error. For example, you might read the thread that I already linked to earlier.
[hijack]
…been there xtisme, you do the hard work, find cites, debunk nearly everybody-be they pro or con the arguement, and everybody ignores just ignores your hard-typed post… 
[/hijack]
Tis the nature of the Boards. Besides,
No-one is being debunked by the info.
The stats dont specifically address the percentage of the gun crimes committed by those with CWs that were actually carrying said weapons outside of otherwise normal circumstances. Did those that perpetrate the crimes own the weapons and carry them before the CW law permitted them to do so? Would they have committed the crimes regardless of the CW laws?If that is the case then why should a few bad apples spoil the bunch.
Let`s take away everyones drivers liscense because 1 percent of the population drives wrecklessly.
By the way, have you gentlemen read through the link I posted Earlier? Note the continuing updates of crimes that are spoiled by responsible gun owners. I guarantee that far outweighs the few irresponsible delinquents that were probably rotten people before there were CW laws in their state.
You need to show me that there is an uprising of crimes committed by those that carry a CW that would NOT have done so without the CW law on the books in their state. Good luck.
Your statement could logically be rewritten as, “If you posses a valid driver’s license, you may drive a car.” Are you suggesting that the 2nd Am. would have the same meaning if it were written as, “If a Well Regulated Militia is necessary for the Security of a Free State, then the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed”? Because it seems an awful lot to me like it is simply asserting a “Well Regulated Militia” is necessary. If so, it doesn’t matter if the second clause is dependent.
If it were written in the constitution that Weird Al Einstein has a driver’s license, then I could indeed toss out those pesky renewal forms, and if you wanted to take away my license you’d have to amend the constitution.
Who says it was “intended merely to protect the right of individual citizens to own guns”. Is there any logical reason to exclude the possibility that it was intended to protect both the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the ability of the states to have militias?
1-What does it matter?
2-They are not completely unrelated, militia members traditionally have guns and bear arms.
3-There is precedent for lumping things together, look at the 1st Am. Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly, and Religion, all in one amendment.
Hell yes, I ask for cites. This is Great Debates. Where we do that.
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
By “others” I assume you mean other people who might apply for CCW permits. What is it, exactly, you are not sure about?
Again I quote just for emphasis. This is a very important truth silenus has stated here. It ought to be repeated, people have a strong tendency to forget it.
As I recall. the Lott-Mustard study factored out as many variables as they could think of, including the ones you mentioned.
And I said that it makes absolutely no difference at all whether the handgun is concealed or not in hunting. Hunting is not a “use” for CC.
I see the chance that “[t]he person I attack might lay me out on a slab right now” to be likewise small. Not everyone owns a gun. Not everyone carries said gun, even in CC-legal states. Not everyone who owns and carries a gun is properly trained to be able to handle it in a level-headed fashion.
Did I say that? Why, no, I didn’t. Let’s re-read what I did say:
In case you didn’t get it the first time, I’m pointing out that the idea that someone might have a gun will deter criminals is bullshit. It didn’t stop the guy from breaking into your apartment, and I doubt it will cause Mr. Criminal-on-the-Street from thinking twice about who or who not to mug. If there are studies available wherein street thugs have been asked about the deterrent effect of CC in their states (rather than just broad statistics about declining murder rates), then I’d sure like to see them.
Perhaps they do. But what degree of training do people in those states get? Certainly, it is no-where near that of the average police officer. You claim that policemen are not supermen, but they are still most assuredly better trained in the use of firearms (specifically, with handguns) than is Joe Citizen.
By my reading, they are referring to the training and background-checking program (allowing concealed carry itself is not a “program”). If they can’t cover the costs of doing so, they would simply not do so, which means you’ve now got a lot of untrained folks out there with handguns (as well as possibly more than a few individuals who should have been disallowed from carrying them in the first place). Hardly seems like a good idea to me.
Well, perhaps you should talk to the good people of Wisconsin about that. I was merely quoting the article.
I’m aware of your m.o., xtisme. You scream for cites, cites, cites; I will give you cites, but you will either ignore them or pooh-pooh them, and continue to scream. So I’ll give you your cites anyway, but here’s the problem - this will quickly turn into the battle of the blogs. I couldn’t find a single neutral website that offered statistics on gun crime. In fact, it took 20 minutes of googling to even find one site that wasn’t rabidly pro-gun. And another 20 minutes to find a good anti-gun website that actually included some statistics.
So without further ado - cite:
CCW LICENSE HOLDERS: “LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS?”
The article goes on, including a gargantuan list of examples of the kinds of crimes that CCW permit holders in Texas have committed. Remember, these are your “good guys” - your “law abiding citizens” that the OP is claiming we don’t have to worry about.
Next up:
Concealed Truth - What the Gun Lobby Doesn’t Want You to Know About Concealed Weapons Laws
So yes, crime dropped everywhere in the last decade or so, but it dropped faster in states that DON’T allow CCW.
Lots more info on the site. Of course, I know right now that people will immediately start whining that this is a blog, in spite of the fact that all your data comes from blogs. So if you can find a neutral source that contradicts this data, I’m all ears.
Meanwhile, Uncommon Sense is taking the opposite tack, that statistics don’t matter:
How absurd is that? Only in the most Orwellian sense could one argue that owning a device for which the sole purpose is to injure or kill other living beings “boils down to freedom”. There is no legitimate peaceful purpose for a gun; your so-called “freedom” to use a gun infringes on my freedom not to be shot, so it’s a wash. And please, before anyone complains that I am being overly broad, remember that I am simply refuting the overly broad statement made by Uncommon Sense. Owning guns does not “boil down” to anything.
You realize that you are just confirming everything lt180ml said about you, don’t you? Sorry, but I’m not going to respond to anyone who engages in such childish “debating” tactics.
As few gun crimes have been committed by persons LEGALLY carrying a concealed weapon (as opposed to gang members walking around with an illegal 9 mm in their coat pocket), I’d say they’re obviously receiving enough. And contrary to what you seem to believe, the average police officer in fact receives very little training in firearms use (especially police in smaller towns and rural areas) - most of their time in the academy is spent learning other things. Nor are the marksmanship requalifications standards most police departments require their officers to meet very stringent. It’s not especially hard to train someone to the firearms proficency level of the average police officer; the real difference between police training and “ordinary” civilian firearms training is that police are taught “point and shoot” or “combat firing” in addition to traditional marksmanship (using the weapon’s sights to accurately aim the shot), while most civilian programs concentrate only on traditional marksmanship.
So the Wisconsin police departments are saying they’d knowingly break the law by issuing CCW permits without doing the legally mandated background checks? That they’d knowingly violate a law because it’s an inconvenience to them? If that’s what you’re saying, Wisconsin has FAR bigger problems to deal with than deciding whether or not to allow CCW!
“It would be too burdensome!” is the traditional cry of law enforcement agencies any time something is proposed they don’t like. Complying with Miranda warnings was once thought to be “too burdensome”; they managed to do it, though.
And as for “a lot of untrained folks out there with handguns”: in most states that require a permit for CCW only a small fraction of gun owners bother to get one, and most of them, far from being novices, have owned guns for a while.
Do you?
Being that each of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights is a stricture on the government, I would say that the phrase, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” would be primary clause, as it is the phrase that makes mention of a specific right and places the explicit limitation on the government in protection of said right.
To interpret the phrase, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” as the primary clause, would be a “through the looking glass” interpretation. You know, where up is down and down is up.
See, the existance of the militia is dependent on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, not the vice versa, as those whose worldview is distorted by peering through the looking glass would have us believe.
Furthermore, the sentence structure of the Amendment itself shows that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” existed prior to the formulation of any militias, and even prior to the Constitution.
But there is a legitimate purpose for possessing a firearm.
There is no freedom to use a gun at will, but there are circumstances in which the use of a firearm is justified.
As for a “freedom not to be shot”, one can behave in a manner that forfiets that “freedom”.
I wont shoot you unless you are a threat to my life. And then I`ll only try to maim you.
My freedom is to exist on the same plane as the criminal who carries concealed illegally. Should I not be allowed to carry a CW then the criminal who does carry will ALWAYS have the upper hand.
You claim there is no legitimate peaceful purpose for a gun…
Tell that to an officer, or to the countless people who have saved there own asses because they had a gun.
I think your argument is better served in opposition to guns in general. Not in opposition to law abiding citizens being able to defend themselves.