POLL: CCW (Are you packing heat yet?)

[BKM]

I think that people should be permitted to carry guns. I think that a lot less people would be willing to hold up a bank if they knew that most of the other people in there had a gun.

Boy, the bullets flying in the bank lobby sure makes me feel more secure.

Myself, I think that if High School and Middle School students carried concealed weapons, there would be fewer Columbines. Yep, I can see the peacekeeping coming from a dining hall full of frightened 15 yer olds whipping out their glocks and letting fly! It warms my heart.

Or, given the news reports over the last year, what I would really like to see would be more people going TO CHURCH armed. In case a nutcase shows up, or a local spoiled brat decides to commit arson.

Maybe we could also arm our 12 years olds and create armed checkpoints in every neighborhood. That would sure cut down on the crime from "outsiders." Look how effectively Somalia is governed. Heck, allow each religious sect and ethnic tribe to create their own neighborhood militias, and we'd have a system of (non-)government even jaws would love.

[Michele Zone]

I haven't voted yet because you left off "I am a woman and consider it a male responsibility to protect me."

[dobopoq]

"If you have to carry a gun
To keep your fragile seat at number 1
Here's a bullet, you can't outrun
You're way of thinking"

-Fugazi

[jaws]

Private citizens shouldn't have to arm themselves and live with the fear of having to use deadly force. This is a perfect example of the government's failure to provide security.

[Michele Zone]

Private citizens shouldn't have to arm themselves and live with the fear of having to use deadly force. This is a perfect example of the government's failure to provide security.

ROFLOL. Sorry, America has lower density rates than, say, a lot of European countries. There is a lot of rural land, etc. In the big city, one hopes the police are doing their job properly but there are places where it isn't reasonable to leave it up to The Law (ironic you think they should provide "security" so completely when you seem to be so against government intervention elsewhere).

MZ, who married a man not too unlike eG in some respects and, while I never owned a gun, I'm not a bad shot with a gun or bow and I used to carry a concealed sheath knife, courtesy of said husband.

[illinoisplanner]

guns also save criminals' lives and kill innocent lives. Where do you draw the line? I say take the guns out of the equation and you don't have to worry about who's criminal and who's innocent.

Our country's infatuation with self-protection won't stop here, of course. But if I'm going to be assailed, I'd much rather get clubbed with a baseball bat and at least have a chance of survival. Guns are far more lethal than knives, clubs, etc. That we want to legalize the most lethal form of weapon in the name of self-defense just seems counterintuitive. Why do you need to kill if all you want to do is protect yourself?

This is my closure. After this, I'll take it to PM.

PS, note the [broad-brush] tags. I know I was generalizing. However, grew up in a very white, very scared town near a large city and I KNOW that there are a lot of people there (if I had to put a number on it, I'd say 20-25%) who are scared of anyone who looks different. Maybe the other 80% aren't scared. But the other 80% probably won't apply for a concealed weapon permit, either.

Please keep in mind that most CCW laws require you to get a permit and go through some sort of training. The weapon should be used only as a last resort.

But there are several instances in which guns have saved lives, and that's what's important. Citizens should never be held at the mercy of criminals. The police cannot always be there...in order to have constant police protection, we'd have to resort to Communism, Socialism, or Nazism.

The way I see it, someone who has the intention and attempts to kill, rape, or rob another human being doesn't deserve to live.

This isn't just about self-protection. It's about justice.

Toby Keith and Willie Nelson put it best:
"Well a man come on the 6 o’clock news
Said somebody’s been shot, somebody’s been abused
Somebody blew up a building
Somebody stole a car
Somebody got away
Somebody didn’t get too far
Yeah, they didn’t get too far
...
Justice is the one thing you should always find
You got to saddle up your boys
You got to draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles, we’ll sing a victory tune
We’ll all meet back at the local saloon
We’ll raise up our glasses against evil forces
Singing whiskey for my men, beer for my horses "

This is my closure and I do not wish further discussion in the PMs.

[jaws]

ROFLOL. Sorry, America has lower density rates than, say, a lot of European countries. There is a lot of rural land, etc. In the big city, one hopes the police are doing their job properly but there are places where it isn't reasonable to leave it up to The Law (ironic you think they should provide "security" so completely when you seem to be so against government intervention elsewhere).

I don't think they should provide security, since they fail at it and corruption of security services is possibly the worst form of corruption imaginable.

And I don't see what density has to do with it. There are rural areas in Europe as well.

[Michele Zone]

And I don't see what density has to do with it. There are rural areas in Europe as well.

If you live in an isolated area -- farm, ranch, etc -- you need to have a gun handy in case of wild animals, intruders, etc. I am not so sure a gun is appropriate in a city but guns are a normal part of rural culture, where they are viewed more as tools rather than weapons (for hunting, slaughtering rabid dogs, etc.). My dad grew up on a farm and he hunted deer and squirrel when I was growing up to help feed the family. I grew up with his shotguns on the wall above the bed in the master bedroom and played with bloody squirrel tails as a preschooler while he skinned them. When you have that type of environment, guns have a different cultural meaning than when you grow up in the big city and the main thing they seem to be good for is holding up liquor stores.

I lived in Germany. My first apartment was in a tiny hamlet named Dampfach, where my parking space faced a farmer's field. It was 20 or 30 minutes from the city my husband worked in. It was deemed to be very rural. "Rural" in Europe is not the same degree of isolation that you can have in the Midwest and Western parts of the U.S.

[imaplanner]

But there are several instances in which guns have saved lives, and that's what's important. .

I wonder what the ratio is of guns saving lives to guns ending them. I was under the impression that studies have consistently shown that people who own guns are more likely to die from gun related injuries than people who don't own guns.

[Suburb Repairman]

I have a concealed handgun permit, but I don't go around packing heat. I got it because I'm friends with a couple of cops and like to go to the range with them. I figured it wasn't that expensive to get and would help avoid issues with other officers later on if I get stopped and they happen to say something.

The second reason I have it has to do with certain wildlife running out in front of cars and getting hit, but not quite dead. I hit a few deer in my old car and was glad I had my gun with me so I could put the poor things out of their misery since they are usually pretty mangled. My gun stays in its case in the trunk of my car most of the time.

So, I'm not one of those people that got a gun to scare the bad men or have paranoia problems.

Also, you are correct that armed robberies fluctuate about that much in Texas each year. If anything, it has more to do with the weather than would-be robbers sweating whether the person they are about to mug is packing.

I honestly found it a bit disturbing how little is really required to get a permit in Texas. The accuracy test is an absolute joke!

I have a Glock G17(C) that fires quite nicely.

[iamme]

Private citizens shouldn't have to arm themselves and live with the fear of having to use deadly force. This is a perfect example of the government's failure to provide security.

I don't mean to take this off-topic, but in your ideal, how would the poor afford security? If they couldn't afford market options for security, wouldn't they be forced to provide it themselves, in certain cases using deadly force and/or concealed carry?

[Random Traffic Guy]

It is very interesting to see all the claims of "blood running in the streets" before liberalizing CCW, and then after, it gets really quiet It is especially interesting to see politicians and celebrities with their legions of armed bodyguards try to tell individuals that they shouldn't prepare to protect themselves.

Budgie wrote:
IMO, anyone who carries a gun for reasons other than hunting, military action or law enforcement is a complete ignoramous or mentally troubled...

Police carry a handgun for the same reason many citizens do, which is to primarily protect themselves, and only secondarily to stop crimes in progress. The police are under no obligation to protect others. In fact, since police arrive on the scene after, or at best during a criminal act, their error rate in shootings is much higher than CCW people who are there from the beginning and know the context of the event. Sources for this and many other useful statistics can be found at http://www.gunfacts.info/.

As folks have mentioned, CCW holders tend to be much more law abiding than the average person. Texas produces quite a few statistics on their program, which have been analyzed in summaries like this.

With the overall drop in crime nationwide lately, macro effects of liberalizing CCW on crime rates are still under debate, with some evidence that rates in pro-CCW states falling faster. I have certainly heard anecdotal evidence of deterrent effects on criminals' mindset from prison interviews and the like. It is also interesting to see the difference in things like home burglaries and robberies when comparing the US and UK, where in the US burglaries are predominately done when no resident is around, while in the UK the criminals don't seem to care.

On a micro level I know of two crimes that were thwarted by my best friend using his CCW pistol, one of which was a stopping a crowbar attack where the man was later shot when he attacked the police. One other acquaintance stopped a carjacking with his pistol (hint: don't bring a bat to a gunfight). In none of these cases were shots fired. The presence of a pistol and the equalization it brings to the victim of an attack made all the difference. This is very important when the potential victims are women, elderly, disabled, or otherwise unable to flee or physically defend themselves.

On a personal level I do have a Texas CHL and I do carry a pistol nearly everywhere it is allowed (which is 99% of my normal activity, outside of the office). It is just a part of my normal equipment, 7 years now, same as strapping into a seatbelt in the car or having a fire extinguisher at home. You never expect to need insurance, and hope you never use it; but when you do need it, nothing else will suffice. So far I've never had the need to use anything beyond avoidance.

Unfortunately my new job is very anti-self-defence (although my local boss has said he doesn't care, the fearsome warnings in the emp. handbook are too much to risk until I get settled better), so I go without during business hours. I do still carry in my vehicle, which is nice when I'm sitting out counting cars in some bad part of town, getting solicited for drugs, sex, or aggressive begging.

[jordanb]

On that note, I'd like to propose that Texas be given back to Mexico.

[jaws]

I don't mean to take this off-topic, but in your ideal, how would the poor afford security? If they couldn't afford market options for security, wouldn't they be forced to provide it themselves, in certain cases using deadly force and/or concealed carry?

Providing it themselves is a market option, isn't it? The poor can also provide themselves with food and clothing, but it is a lot more convenient and cheaper to buy these commodities on the marketplace, where providers compete to do so at the cheapest possible price.

There's no reason that poor people could not afford security anyway. They are the cheapest to insure as they have little property that can be aggressed.

[mendelman]

The second reason I have it has to do with certain wildlife running out in front of cars and getting hit, but not quite dead. I hit a few deer in my old car and was glad I had my gun with me so I could put the poor things out of their misery since they are usually pretty mangled. My gun stays in its case in the trunk of my car most of the time. I have a Glock G17(C) that fires quite nicely. I have to laugh. I have this image of you: Dirty Suburb Repairman ...standing over a twitching, prostrate deer, saying, "Make my day, punk!"

[otterpop]

I don't think they should provide security, since they fail at it and corruption of security services is possibly the worst form of corruption imaginable.

And I don't see what density has to do with it. There are rural areas in Europe as well.

In the rural West, where people often live far from urban centers, the population in the county does not generate enough taxes to fund a lot of emergecy services and roads are often not well-marked or well-maintained, it is not uncommon for a response call from the sheriff to take 30 minutes or later to get there. If it is an emergency, you best be able to fend for yourself for a little while. Because the sheriff will get there about time to pull out the police scene tape and call the coroner.

Of course the chances of being a victim of a violent crime is lower than in an urban area, but self-sufficiency is a good thing.

[Budgie]

Budgie, master of the obvious.

Another fine example

Remember boys and girls, common sense isn't so common.

[Random Traffic Guy]

Budgie, master of the obvious.

Another fine example
Remember boys and girls, common sense isn't so common.

Not seeing the CCW angle to this, besides Oba not being able to protect himself since he was in the no-CCW zone of the government meeting???
Criminals are the threat, not the tools they use.

[Budgie]

Criminals are the threat, not the tools they use.

OK, so why don't we just give them legal access to all the tools they want. While we're at it, let's give meth to meth users since it's not the meth that's the problem, but the user themselves. Give the victim a gun and you get more victims -- some will be accidental victims.

[imaplanner]

I agree with budgie. Anyone who feels the need to carry a gun everywhere they go is a complete ignoramous. My pops was in law enforcement for 25 years and still has a concealed handgun permit. He never takes his gun anywhere - he thinks it would be stupid to do so. I agree.

Having idiots running around with concealed weapons does not make me very happy or feel very safe. Especially considering that the people who I have known to like guns and want to carry them around are also way into tough guy movies and seem to have this false image about how cool it would be to stop a crime by pulling a gun. Potentially trigger happy people in the grocery store doesn't make me feel very confortable.

So you are going to pull a gun on someone who is stealing 30 bucks from a McDonalds cash register? For what is possible a minor crime you are going to turn a public place into a shooting range? What happens when the criminal fires back and you miss and 5 innocent people get shot?

I don't see any reason in most areas for this except for people to feel tough and walk around with a metal hard-on.

[BKM]

I agree with budgie. Anyone who feels the need to carry a gun everywhere they go is a complete ignoramous. My pops was in law enforcement for 25 years and still has a concealed handgun permit. He never takes his gun anywhere - he thinks it would be stupid to do so. I agree.

Having idiots running around with concealed weapons does not make me very happy or feel very safe. Especially considering that the people who I have known to like guns and want to carry them around are also way into tough guy movies and seem to have this false image about how cool it would be to stop a crime by pulling a gun. Potentially trigger happy people in the grocery store doesn't make me feel very confortable.

So you are going to pull a gun on someone who is stealing 30 bucks from a McDonalds cash register? For what is possible a minor crime you are going to turn a public place into a shooting range? What happens when the criminal fires back and you miss and 5 innocent people get shot?

I don't see any reason in most areas for this except for people to feel tough and walk around with a metal hard-on.

And...don't forget the teachers. If only "Coach" and the second period math teacher were armed, Columbine could have been prevented. Or, maybe we can arm the hall monitors?

[jaws]

In the rural West, where people often live far from urban centers, the population in the county does not generate enough taxes to fund a lot of emergecy services and roads are often not well-marked or well-maintained, it is not uncommon for a response call from the sheriff to take 30 minutes or later to get there. If it is an emergency, you best be able to fend for yourself for a little while. Because the sheriff will get there about time to pull out the police scene tape and call the coroner.

So because of failure to provide roads and bad service from the providers of security, people have no option left but the defend themselves directly? This sounds like it supports my position more than any other.

(NHPlanner) User suspended 24 hours for trolling. Previous warnings apparently haven't been enough. Post is completely irrelevant to the original post, and serves only to further jaws' ideological views.

[illinoisplanner]

I agree with budgie. Anyone who feels the need to carry a gun everywhere they go is a complete ignoramous. My pops was in law enforcement for 25 years and still has a concealed handgun permit. He never takes his gun anywhere - he thinks it would be stupid to do so. I agree.

Having idiots running around with concealed weapons does not make me very happy or feel very safe. Especially considering that the people who I have known to like guns and want to carry them around are also way into tough guy movies and seem to have this false image about how cool it would be to stop a crime by pulling a gun. Potentially trigger happy people in the grocery store doesn't make me feel very confortable.

So you are going to pull a gun on someone who is stealing 30 bucks from a McDonalds cash register? For what is possible a minor crime you are going to turn a public place into a shooting range? What happens when the criminal fires back and you miss and 5 innocent people get shot?

I don't see any reason in most areas for this except for people to feel tough and walk around with a metal hard-on.

Well, this is why some sort of safety class and/or test be taken to qualify for a concealed carry permit.

[BKM]

Well, this is why some sort of safety class and/or test be taken to qualify for a concealed carry permit.

Safety classes and tests will have almost no impact on people with sudden flight or fight syndrome. We are only half kidding when we warn of people pulling guns in a questionable situation and letting fly a fusilade of gunfire.

[illinoisplanner]

Safety classes and tests will have almost no impact on people with sudden flight or fight syndrome. We are only half kidding when we warn of people pulling guns in a questionable situation and letting fly a fusilade of gunfire.

Well, there are plenty of behavioral experts out there. I think a test can also be created to identify sudden flight or fight syndrome people, or any other kind of disease that would make a person unfit to safely own and carry a gun. We should rather be addressing these little problems...these exceptions to the rule...which are hindering otherwise safe and fit citizens from arming and defending themselves.