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

Great Debates
141

…and 40% of all sales are at gun shows or other non-regulated venues. I understand that there are a lot of gun hobbyists. But my point about what the law actually is -and the NRA’s acceptance of it- still stands. This isn’t surprising, as the NRA is essentially an industry lobby posing as a human rights organization. Criminals are customers whether they buy the guns new or through a couple of intermediaries. And most businesses have grasped the Pareto Principle: a larger share of their sales are focused on a smaller share of their customer base. The NRA should be considered to have as much credibility as the tobacco lobby or maybe the Flat Earth Society if you want to argue for a bunch of irregulars going up against a modern armored military.

So taking the NRA’s official position seriously is risible. The tobacco lobby also claimed to not promote teen smoking: their actions proved otherwise. I’ve subscribed to the NRA’s hunting publication though. I’ve never seen such effective propaganda: it’s admirable in its own way.

Taking another tact, there are plenty of free nations with the sorts of gun control supported by the majority of Americans. Talking about solemn rights to be safe from miniscule risks is highly dubious and smacks of posturing.

I may misunderstand. The presumed purpose of defense is safety, right?

I deny the sexist charge. Look. I’ve been mugged at (simulated) gun point (the gun was in a pocket, so it could have been a banana AFAIK). I’ve had a knife held to my throat. I was diminutive in elementary and middle school and was challenged accordingly. Some years back there was a murder 3 houses down. And yet the objective risks I face are much lower than those faced by females. If somebody mugs me, I hand over my money. Problem solved. I can cancel my credit card. It’s a hassle, but not worth killing over. But women have to deal with the possibility of sexual assault, as do men in prison. But I am not in prison.

FTR, I carve out an exception for women, because I haven’t really grasped their self defense challenges fully. I’m not advocating that women carry guns; I’m simply agnostic on the issue. I will comment about male risk assessment. I’m willing to opine on female self defense challenges, but only with a lot more circumspection. And if I see a women open carrying or CCW, I may wonder but won’t judge.

I’m a prudent man, so your certainty is justified. I stated upthread that I couldn’t locate a solid statistical basis for distinguishing between risk enhancing firearm ownership and risk reducing ownership. Carrying a gun around at Lowe’s is another matter (again, for a nonuniformed guy) and talking about a right to do so is pretty odd. Besides, when we’re talking about individual rights we’re leaving the world of particular people’s needs and training. Put another way, if somebody said they had the right to apply to the government for a gun license and have it evaluated in a non-discriminatory fashion, I wouldn’t have a problem. That indeed seems to be the gist of the language in England’s Bill of Rights of 1689, (FWIW: yes it’s a different document).

Um… people get the driver’s license taken away all the time.

Those were nice cites about the evolution of the 2nd amendment: I had not seen them. I still have difficulty parsing the language though. I can imagine plausible meanings that are both very narrow and very broad.

142

Not if by safety you mean a guaranteed absence of potential threat. This is a chimera that will never be achieved. The pro-gun faction takes the position that perfect safety is impossible so it’s better to have the means to deal with threats when they occur. We tried eliminating the public carry of firearms in the name of safety, and discovered it had a negative effect- it simply produced unarmed victims for the predators that no law can effectively restrain beforehand. Gun prohibition is one of those laws that, in the words of Ammon Hennacy, “The good people don’t need them and the bad people don’t obey them”.

143

Good analogy, now illustrate (with facts please) how often that occurs

Either will be fine.

The occurrence of gun violence (by non-criminals) or the occurrence of sprinklers that go off and damage the interior

144

Of course not. I know and associate with lots of people who carry guns.

The point is not that gun owners are crazy (though frankly, “cowboy” is probably less flattering than what I really think when I see people who are openly carrying), it’s that any individual gun owner might be crazy. That is obviously also true of any non-gun-owner, but if they turn out to be crazy, they pose far less of a threat.

Look at it this way: wasps are more aggressive than bears. However, I don’t really worry too much when I walk past a wasp, while I make every effort to avoid walking past bears. Well, hypothetically speaking; I’ve never encountered a wild bear, as far as I can recall.

145

Right, when they misuse cars. Note that no one is shouting “OMG - tens of thousands of people are killed every year because some drivers drive drunk, or text while driving, or drive their sports car 40 miles per hour over the speed limit! Clearly the average person has no business driving a car, and automobile ownership should be tightly restricted.” You’d be thought insane if you seriously proposed that in our society.

So why isn’t that same approach, as currently applied to firearms, also good enough? If I’m careless, I can lose my concealed carry permit. If I’m very careless, I could end up with a felony conviction and lose my right to even OWN a gun, much less carry one. Why isn’t that enough to satisfy the anti-gun folks?

146

After decades of fighting this fight, the only conclusion I can come to is that anti-gun people want to feel a certain way. They want to feel safe from guns and as long as any are in private hands they can’t feel that way. Statistics about numbers of guns in private hands vs. crime figures and so on don’t sway them and they never have. That’s why I seldom bother bringing them up in conversation any more. The anti-gun position is, and always has been, “even one is too many.”
From my POV, their desire to feel a certain way isn’t something that matters. As long as I am not harming anybody, I see no reason why what I may own or do should be curtailed. If guns make them feel unsafe, they are at liberty to not own any and avoid those, including me, who do.

147

As soon as they are pushed as the basis for public policies that violate the Constitution.

If you want to believe that carrying a gun causes people to spontaneously start shooting at random intervals, feel free to run away at the sight of Evil Magic Bang-Stick[sup]TM[/sup]. If you are using that belief to try to get the state to prevent people from keeping and bearing Evil Magic Bang-Sticks[sup]TM[/sup], that’s another matter.

Regards,
Shodan

148

You aren’t allowed to operate a car without a license, and generally you have to pass some sort of test to get it. As I understand (please correct me if I’m wrong), there are many states where you can openly carry a gun in public places without having any sort of license. It seems to me that it would be nice if everyone who wanted to carry a gun (openly or concealed) had to pass some sort of licensing test that shows they know how to use their gun and understand gun safety.

149

Whether a belief shows one lacks an understanding of statistics depends on the Constitution? If the Second Amendment were repealed, would their understanding of statistics improve?:dubious:

150

I don’t think statistics are necessary to justify an analogy.

If I say, “You wanting a raise after losing the MacDuff account is like taking a victory lap after losing the race.” I don’t need to give you detailed statistics on footrace performance and compensation increases.

That said, I’m sure the large majority of people who carry in every day life are fine.

151

.

You only need a driver’s license if you plan to drive your car on the public roads, actually. On private property you can drive unlicensed to your heart’s content.

The majority of states which permit carry (either concealed or open) require the gun owner to possess a permit to do so - and getting that permit generally requires taking and passing a test. To obtain a hunting license, you generally have to take and pass a hunter safety course. So the situation with firearms is already more analogous to the situation with cars than many people realize.

(There are a few state which are exceptions - Vermont is one. They generally have lower levels of gun violence than average, which is probably why they’re not terribly interested in tightening up their carry requirements. What would be the point? They currently don’t have a problem in need of fixing.)

Believe it or not, many (probably most) gun owners would be fine with that - PROVIDED the test was both fair and fairly administered. The problem is that historically such laws have been used to unfairly deny ordinary folks permits (while the wealthy, privileged, and connected were permitted them). Understandably, many firearms enthusiasts now distrust the motives of people who propose such laws. It’s hard to clean up a poisoned well.

152

+1 Nothing to add.

153

I actually didn’t realize that, but for what it’s worth I couldn’t care less whether someone with a gun on their own private property has any sort of license, as long as they aren’t close enough to the edge of their property that shooting their gun could hit someone outside it. (But unless your property is a large private hunting ground or something, I imagine you’re usually going to be within range of your neighbors.)

Hmm, I tried looking at the map in this wiki article, looks like about a dozen states are “permissive”. It’s hard to tell what they mean by “anomalous”; I guess I’d have to look up individual state laws.

154

if only all of these children had been carrying, this tragic event would not have happened:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school.html?

155

If only some of the adults working in the school had been carrying, the event may have been stopped before all those students had been shot. That’s the thing about these sorts of spree killings: the police can NEVER get there in time to protect anyone, and the deranged killer feels no compulsion to obey the posted “No Guns Permitted” signs. (Which is hardly a surprise, since premeditated murder’s a bigger crime than unlicensed carrying.)

And ever notice that in a high percentage of these shootings, the shooter is using a rifle or shotgun? You know, nice guns that have a legitimate sporting use (as opposed to those evil, evil handguns everyone wants to ban). And guns which just happen to be much more lethal than a handgun?

156

Conservative radio host Bryan Fischer agrees. Here’s what he tweeted shortly after the tragedy was reported:

[QUOTE=Bryan J Fischer]
Shooters attack and elementary school in CT - another “gun-free zone.” Makes children sitting ducks.
[/quote]

157

imho every citizen should be allowed to own a muzzle-loading rifle for hunting, which were the weapons available when this country was founded.

158

That’s not surprising. In my experience, most people overestimate the degree of regulation surrounding auto ownership (because they only use their vehicles in the most regulated environment, the public roads), and underestimate the amount of regulation already in place for firearms (and particularly handgun) ownership (because, not owning any guns themselves, they’ve had no reason to familiarize themselves with those regulations). So in many cases, the 'improvements" they are proposing in the gun laws are in fact already in place.

You definitely have to look at the laws state by state. As I recall, the outliers are Vermont (no carry permit required at all), Arizona (no permit required for open carry, but you need one for concealed carry), Wyoming (no permit required to carry concealed), and Alaska (no permit required to carry concealed). Ohio may be an outlier as well, but I don’t recall for certain. All other states require a permit (which may be either “shall issue” or “may issue” depending on the state).

159

I think I’ve been whooshed. This person used a glock and a sig sauer. Handguns.

It’s okay though. This is the acceptable loss.we’re comfy with so that we can keep our guns. These kids paid part of the bill for you, so you ought to thank them.

And the folks in Oregon. And the people who.will be killed in the next major shooting incident two to four weeks from now.

160

Yes, they always use a nice friendly sporting rifle, like the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle used in a random mall shooting just days ago in the Portland Oregon area. In countries like Canada or the UK perhaps the criminals can still manage to smuggle in such high powered weapons, but I doubt a person unconnected with criminal networks would be able to get there hands on one so easily or in a quick timeframe.
Yeah yeah, gun don’t kill people - people kill people. But guns make it a hell of a lot easier.