Why are those in favor of greater gun control opposed to concealed carry licenses?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Zeriel

I’m curious to see how those demographics were controlled, because those drinking stats also sound like “my hometown”–that is, I’d expect that you’d find heavier drinking AND driving and heavier binge drinking AND firearms ownership are all correlated with rural life.

That’s a sharp, solid, reality-enabled question. The study indeed did not control for urban/rural effects, though a small slice of that was picked up in the state by state variable (meaning, in statistical parlance, there was a dummy for Alaska, a dummy for New Jersey, etc.). Moreover, I find your hypothesis highly plausible.

I can’t argue with this, myself. I see no inherent restriction on the freedom to keep and bear arms if such training and evaluation were made at least as available as typical training/evaluation for automobile licenses.

You also extracted the substance out of my over-loaded rhetoric. Again, kudos. I had a fair amount of mockery in my posts, but I think it’s justified: note how few of the references here to the 2nd amendment even mentioned “Well regulated militia”, which is part of the same damn sentence. Ignoring something as obvious as that undermines your credibility and makes me question the acuity of your perceptions.

That said, a portion of the US has a pronounced gun culture (which I was mocking). But I believe it should be accommodated in some way: IMHO if you are a responsible citizen and are willing to take out liability insurance against theft or misuse, I’d permit you to own an Uzi, M-16, or automatic weapon. Heck, I’d even grant militias the right to train with bazookas, if they were indeed “Well regulated”. IIRC, a poster in this thread ran a militia for a while and I say, in all seriousness, “Why not?” Judging from his website, his weekend training looked interesting.

But I can only laugh at those who think firearm ownership is some sort of profound human right, extending to all manner of criminal or maniac.

Regarding “fear”, the biggest divide to me seems to be between the people who consider carrying a gun indicative of “fear of being unarmed” vs. those who see it as “preparedness for unlikely but extremely dangerous events” vs. those who see it as “utilizing my rights to their fullest”.

I have a concealed carry permit that I haven’t used in years, personally. Even when I did carry, I never had to draw the weapon and even most of my friends do not know I carried. However, I haven’t had to use the jack in my new car, or the first-aid kit and road flares. I haven’t had to use my homeowner’s insurance.

I’m sympathetic to those who seek to expand their skill set. Part of being a capable human, I say.

But another consideration is the degree to which a gun in the home is a risk reducer or risk intensifier. I’ve studied the matter online in the past and found the studies insufficiently strong to draw a conclusion. (On average, guns appear to be an intensifier, but if you want to advise individuals you need to consider a few covariates.) Which was frustrating, frankly. I haven’t cracked open any books though, largely because I don’t care enough.

[Zeriel]

@Measure_for_Measure

But I can only laugh at those who think firearm ownership is some sort of profound human right, extending to all manner of criminal or maniac.

From a strictly “natural rights” point of view, FYI, it’s not “right to own firearms” so much as it is “right to effective self-defense”–a free person should have the right to own whatever tools enable him to stay free, alive, and uncoerced.

This is especially relevant as a view to the 2nd Amendment given the multiple court cases where it’s been expressly stated that the police have no specific duty to protect individual citizens.

–

Regarding “well-regulated”, the original meaning of the term in a militia context (orderly, disciplined, properly functioning) seems to argue that it wouldn’t be amiss to impose reasonable mandatory training, provided such training was accessible, cheap/free, and shall-issue.

–

Regarding risk intensifiers, data is hard to come by due to political factors (very few states are willing to share research data on varying kinds of firearms owners), but the last time I informally looked at published statistics, the two things that jumped out were A) the fact that no one’s used a legally owned and registered machine gun in a crime since, IIRC 1938, and B) the scanty evidence seems to indicate a relatively lower frequency of gun crime among CCW holders than among the general population.

[Shodan]

@Zeriel

Perhaps you might consider how you might cause people like Der Trihs and **RNATB **to trust your ability to handle a gun safely and correctly.

I don’t think that’s possible. Getting a CCW permit in most states means going thru a process to verify that the gun owner is responsible, knows how to handle the weapon safely, and they are still freaking out and thinking they are at risk from them more than the random criminal who bought his Glock on the street.

But I think much of the discussion is missing the point - gun control people don’t oppose concealed carry because they want to know who is carrying a gun - they don’t support carrying of any sort, open, concealed, or any other way. The Brady campaign folks aren’t going to drop their opposition to open carry if CCW is done away with.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

@Shodan

I don’t think that’s possible. Getting a CCW permit in most states means going thru a process to verify that the gun owner is responsible, knows how to handle the weapon safely, and they are still freaking out and thinking they are at risk from them more than the random criminal who bought his Glock on the street.

But I think much of the discussion is missing the point - gun control people don’t oppose concealed carry because they want to know who is carrying a gun - they don’t support carrying of any sort, open, concealed, or any other way. The Brady campaign folks aren’t going to drop their opposition to open carry if CCW is done away with.

Regards,
Shodan

Exactly. It’s like trying to convince an anti-nuke that nuclear power is actually pretty safe, or a 9/11 Truther that perhaps, just perhaps, it was planes flown into the Twin Towers that caused them to fall, not magical explosives planted by ninja pixies with large floppy ears. Can’t be done and it’s a waste of effort to even try. Der et al already have made up their minds, and guns is dangerous…and those who want to have one, or even worse, carry one, are demented and live in fear…or something. Which is irony that is totally lost on those who think these things.

[Shodan]

@XT

It’s like trying to convince an anti-nuke that nuclear power is actually pretty safe…

I think this is an excellent analogy.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]

But I can only laugh at those who think firearm ownership is some sort of profound human right, extending to all manner of criminal or maniac.

[/QUOTE]
Could you name a few of the major pro-gun organizations that are in favor of allowing criminals and lunatics to own firearms?

Regards,
Shodan

[ChickenLegs]

@XT

Unless you have that backwards, can you point to some ‘pro-guns’ who don’t like CCW, and some ‘anti-guns’ that do? Again, I’ve never, ever heard such sentiments from either side wrt CCW laws…in fact, just the opposite, as is pretty clear in THIS thread.

I’ve been following, and often involved with, the pro-concealed carry movement for a long time. Prior to1987, there was exactly one state in this country where the average citizen could carry a conclealed firearm legally: Vermont, no permit required. Then Florida got the ball rolling in 1987 when they became the first “shall issue” state. Anybody who met the basic requirements must be issued a permit if they wanted one. before that, only the politically-connected could get permits. Now, I think, 47 states are shall issue. It’s been a long fight.

In my experience, the majority of politically active gun owners believe that you should be able to carry concealed with no permit at all (…shall not be infringed), but practical realities being what they are, licensed concealed carry is a heck of a lot better than no concealed carry. So we pssed licensed concealed carry, and are now working on unlicensed concealed carry. My state; Wyoming, passed it last year.

There always were a few guys who wanted all or nothing: carry without a permit or don’t carry at all. Right from the very beginning. And there are a large number of gun owners who are happy with the now-common situation of licensed carry. And of course, there are still lots of people who don’t want guns at all. But as far as the gun rights movement, it was pretty much always : unlicensed carry is better than licensed carry, but we’ll take what we can get. And the anti-gunners were ALWAYS opposed to shall-issue carry. Without exception, the anti-gun groups opposed it in every single state, with the same disproven arguments.

[Glazer]

@steronz

Do you live somewhere where carrying an exposed sidearm would be considered “ordinary?” Because in my neck of the woods, we’d call that highly unusual.

I live in Atlanta Ga. In town it is not ordinary but it is seen from time to time. I’ve seen cabbies open carry and I’m sure many more conceal them in their cab. My Pizza delivery guy open carries and I’ve seen open carry in check cashing places and small grocery stores in not so nice neighborhoods. I use my CCW to carry in my work truck. If I’m in an area I feel I need it I open carry on my tool belt. When I work at the Federal Reserve Bank, Courthouse or Federal or State buildings I let the Guard know and check my weapon before I am allowed entry. I check my pocket knife as well, although they let me bring in my pipe knife because it’s a tool.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Shodan

Could you name a few of the major pro-gun organizations that are in favor of allowing criminals and lunatics to own firearms?

Regards,
Shodan

Sure, I did so upthread:

@Measure_for_Measure

The problem is that AFAIK most gun owners don’t have a problem with handing out firearms like they were candy at gun shows: they think it’s a fine idea if hallucinating mental outpatients and homicidal ex-convicts should be packing their pockets with pistols, or at any rate they don’t see a need to curb such activities. Freedom, you know. Forty percent of legal firearm exchanges don’t require Federal background checks and the NRA loves this.

The criminal facilitators at the NRA and its supporters are happy to have guns passed out to any crazed sociopath at gun shows, the internet and between private parties.

[Zeriel]

@Shodan

I don’t think that’s possible. Getting a CCW permit in most states means going thru a process to verify that the gun owner is responsible, knows how to handle the weapon safely

Can we cite that? I only know the rules for my home state, which just requires that I pass a background check confirming my eligibility to own a firearm. The only check at all on my training or responsibility is “In accordance with 18 PA C.S. §6109, a sheriff may deny an individual the right to a License to Carry Firearms if there is reason to believe that the character and reputation of the individual are such that they would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.”

[Zeriel]

@Measure_for_Measure

Sure, I did so upthread: The criminal facilitators at the NRA and its supporters are happy to have guns passed out to any crazed sociopath at gun shows, the internet and between private parties.

Speaking as an NRA member, the above does not accurately describe either the stated or de-facto position of the NRA.

The best data available from the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that only 0.7 percent of criminals obtained their firearms from gun shows, which is the reason that the NRA is generally opposed to requirements that private gun sellers subscribe to the instant background check system.

And to be frank, the instant background check system is essentially worthless in any case. It’s right up there with the TSA in terms of feel-good-accomplishes-nothing security theatre. I’ve proposed measures with more teeth on this board.

[ChickenLegs]

@Zeriel

–

"Regarding risk intensifiers, data is hard to come by due to political factors (very few states are willing to share research data on varying kinds of firearms owners), but the last time I informally looked at published statistics, the two things that jumped out were A) the fact that no one’s used a legally owned and registered machine gun in a crime since, IIRC 1938, and B) the scanty evidence seems to indicate a relatively lower frequency of gun crime among CCW holders than among the general population.

Try here:

Try here:

GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns

Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 ‘ban’ on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source). "

[Zeriel]

@ChickenLegs

Try here:

Try here:

GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns

Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 ‘ban’ on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source). "

Interesting! I was aware of but not counting the Roger Waller case, as he’s one of those corner cases for gun control–in that he had, as a police officer (and apparently a gun store owner, IIRC), access to firepower not typically available to regular citizens. And the local speculation is that he was paid to do a hit on the victim in connection with a robbery of some sort–I have some Ohio buddies who half-remember the story from when it went down.

I’m not familiar with the other case at all, and the source is a dead link.

Suffice it to say that these cases are rare in the extreme.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Zeriel

I’m curious to see how those demographics were controlled, because those drinking stats also sound like “my hometown”–that is, I’d expect that you’d find heavier drinking AND driving and heavier binge drinking AND firearms ownership are all correlated with rural life.

I’m returning to this, to offer a little more depth. The author also ran another piece of multivariate analysis, showing the association of gun owners who attended a gun safety workshop and drunk driving. That association was insignificant, same for binge drinking. Now I’m guessing that rural areas have elevated numbers of gun owners who attend such workshops, while those who don’t own guns are more likely to be in urban areas. If we were picking up a pure rural effect, this association should be significant - but it isn’t. My take is that yahoos are less likely to apply for CCW (though some will) and less likely to take a gun safety course (though some will).

@Zeriel

Speaking as an NRA member, the above does not accurately describe either the stated or de-facto position of the NRA.

The best data available from the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that only 0.7 percent of criminals obtained their firearms from gun shows, which is the reason that the NRA is generally opposed to requirements that private gun sellers subscribe to the instant background check system.

With respect, that sounds highly dubious. I suspect that criminals receive their firearms mostly on the black market, and gun runners have ready access to the internet and gun shows. So you can have a small number of criminals doing resale. My take is that guns should be tracked, just like autos are (albeit for different reasons).

And to be frank, the instant background check system is essentially worthless in any case. It’s right up there with the TSA in terms of feel-good-accomplishes-nothing security theatre. I’ve proposed measures with more teeth on this board.

I’m not surprised, given that it missed 40% of all legal sales.

@Zeriel

From a strictly “natural rights” point of view, FYI, it’s not “right to own firearms” so much as it is “right to effective self-defense”–a free person should have the right to own whatever tools enable him to stay free, alive, and uncoerced.

But you noted upthread that we’re discussing small risks. Millions don’t own firearms, and see little need to (though that divides rural/urban as well.) And it’s by no means clear that these devices are life-extenders anyway – on average they are not though presumably their effects on life expectancy vary by the person. There is a far more compelling argument for a right to drive an automobile -this is something that can have profound effects on livelihoods after all. And yet society (wisely) considers it a privilege. Talking about rights to pack heat is pure hysteria and smacks of terrible risk assessment (again, females excepted).

This is especially relevant as a view to the 2nd Amendment given the multiple court cases where it’s been expressly stated that the police have no specific duty to protect individual citizens.

And the Consumer Protection Agency has no specific responsibility to protect you against auto crashes, a far bigger threat. Ditto for alcohol control boards. These are prudent liability guidelines.

Regarding “well-regulated”, the original meaning of the term in a militia context (orderly, disciplined, properly functioning) seems to argue that it wouldn’t be amiss to impose reasonable mandatory training, provided such training was accessible, cheap/free, and shall-issue.

I’m calling for something more stringent and rigorous. As an aside, I’m pretty dubious about the NRA’s historical claims. I once dug into pre-1786 British documents on the rights to bear arms and it had a rather different flavor involving, “no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defense as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)”. Frankly, I can’t make heads or tails out of the 2nd Amendment.

Regarding risk intensifiers, data is hard to come by due to political factors (very few states are willing to share research data on varying kinds of firearms owners), but the last time I informally looked at published statistics, the two things that jumped out were A) the fact that no one’s used a legally owned and registered machine gun in a crime since, IIRC 1938, and B) the scanty evidence seems to indicate a relatively lower frequency of gun crime among CCW holders than among the general population.

There are quite a few datasets out there: I was unhappy at the level of analysis.

[Lumpy]

I think the gun control crowd reasoning is that they go about their lives just fine without a gun, therefore why does anyone really need one? That the people who do carry handguns are either paranoid right-wing fanatics or Dirty Harry wannabees who are a danger to everyone around them.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the utter contempt with which gun control advocates regard the intelligence and responsibility of the average citizen is appalling.

[Lobohan]

@Lumpy

I think the gun control crowd reasoning is that they go about their lives just fine without a gun, therefore why does anyone really need one? That the people who do carry handguns are either paranoid right-wing fanatics or Dirty Harry wannabees who are a danger to everyone around them.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the utter contempt with which gun control advocates regard the intelligence and responsibility of the average citizen is appalling.

The average citizen doesn’t have a gun on their hip while going to a supermarket. So I think you’re mistaken to think that those feelings apply to the average citizen.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Lumpy

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the utter contempt with which gun control advocates regard the intelligence and responsibility of the average citizen is appalling.

It’s not the average citizen they’re worried about.

[Shodan]

@Measure_for_Measure

Sure, I did so upthread: The criminal facilitators at the NRA and its supporters are happy to have guns passed out to any crazed sociopath at gun shows, the internet and between private parties.

You must not have understood me. I wanted a cite of the actual policy of the NRA, where they state that criminals and lunatics should have the right to own firearms. What you think you know about gun shows is not a worthwhile cite.

[QUOTE=Zeriel]

@Shodan

Getting a CCW permit in most states means going thru a process to verify that the gun owner is responsible, knows how to handle the weapon safely

Can we cite that?
[/QUOTE]
It varies by state, so the “in most states” can be amended to say “often”. Wiki mentions Georgia, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Mississippi as states that have no training requirement (cite) Many states recognize military or police training as valid.

Regards,
Shodan

[tim314]

@Crafter_Man

Outside, “cowboy” style. I wear it whenever I’m out-n-about, which is usually on the weekends. Shopping at Lowe’s, Wal-Mart, etc. has never been a problem.

I find it interesting that a presumably educated person would actively avoid me simply because I am openly carrying a handgun. I wonder, despite their education, if such a person understands even the rudimentary principles of odds & statistics.

What are the statistics on how likely you are to need that gun on your trip to Wal-Mart?

[Scumpup]

@tim314

What are the statistics on how likely you are to need that gun on your trip to Wal-Mart?

It’s not the odds. It’s the stakes.

[Zeriel]

@Measure_for_Measure

With respect, that sounds highly dubious. I suspect that criminals receive their firearms mostly on the black market, and gun runners have ready access to the internet and gun shows. So you can have a small number of criminals doing resale.

It honestly just sounds like you’ve never been to a gun show, then. The vast majority of vendors there who have guns at all are selling collector pieces and accessories–it’s really very much more like an antique mall than anything else in terms of typical feel, and every gun show I’ve ever been to has been loaded with cops in any case.

But you noted upthread that we’re discussing small risks. Millions don’t own firearms, and see little need to (though that divides rural/urban as well.)

Sure, but I also haven’t used my 5th Amendment rights either and doubt I’ll ever need to. I would still not surrender them.

And it’s by no means clear that these devices are life-extenders anyway

That’s not really the issue. The issue isn’t “extend life”, the issue is “defense”.

Talking about rights to pack heat is pure hysteria and smacks of terrible risk assessment (again, females excepted).

Okay, so we’re throwing in blatant sexism here along with our insults? And you were doing so well, too.

I am nigh-certain that there is something you take precautions against that someone else would consider “pure hysteria”, after all. And how exactly are you to evaluate the risks of a particular person owning a firearm without knowing a fair bit about that particular person’s training and habits with regard to firearms ownership?

And the Consumer Protection Agency has no specific responsibility to protect you against auto crashes, a far bigger threat.

Yet no one seems to think THAT’S best addressed by banning cars.

As an aside, I’m pretty dubious about the NRA’s historical claims. I once dug into pre-1786 British documents on the rights to bear arms and it had a rather different flavor involving, “no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defense as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)”. Frankly, I can’t make heads or tails out of the 2nd Amendment.

You should try looking at the original draft versions of the 2nd Amendment, it makes the intent much clearer (and also rather neatly shows how they ended up with the comma-and-clause hell that survived the process)–Madison’s first draft was as follows:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Which mutated to:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

To:

“A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”