POLL: CCW (Are you packing heat yet?)

[Budgie]

Criminals are the threat, not the tools they use.

If Iran has a nuclear bomb it isn't a problem, because it's not the tool of destruction that is the problem, it's the carriers of the tool of destruction.

[The One]

I wonder how many CCW holders also have a hunter safety card? I bet its a high percentage...... While I have a hunter safety card, I haven't felt the need to get a CCW permit, but am the type of person that likes to collect permits and might do it even without owning a handgun It just seems to me that it would be yet another thing to worry about if I was packing all the time.....

[Random Traffic Guy]

Grab bag of responses:

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.

I think you're 100% kidding , since with hundreds of thousands of additional people nationwide carrying in the past 15 years of liberalized CCW laws, it just hasn't happened. I wouldn't mind a cite on the "sudden fight or flight syndrome" either, couldn't find medical info with a quick net search.

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?

Nope, without a threat of deadly harm to me, or potentially another innocent, there's no reason to go to the pistol. Actually having to shoot a criminal, even if I'm in the right and get no-billed by the grand jury, will cost me probably $20k in attorneys fees, often a civil suit by the criminal's relatives, and all kinds of other unpleasantness. It really is the last resort.

If a CCW-holder makes a mistake, he/she goes to jail, and is probably sued into the poorhouse. This is decidedly different from the mistakes of police, which tend to be covered by soverign immunity and unlimited budgets for legal action.

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?

You're exactly right. Why would you trust these teachers with the education of your children, without trusting them enough to help defend your children from deadly harm? And if the killers knew the teachers to be armed, would they have even tried? Don't try to rely on the school cop, he ran off.

It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm. No one else can do it as well, or has as much at stake.

Give the victim a gun and you get more victims -- some will be accidental victims.

I hope you are not implying that a criminal attacking a person, and getting shot, is somehow a victim.

[BKM]

You're exactly right. Why would you trust these teachers with the education of your children, without trusting them enough to help defend your children from deadly harm? And if the killers knew the teachers to be armed, would they have even tried? Don't try to rely on the school cop, he ran off.

It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm. No one else can do it as well, or has as much at stake.
.

So you really believe eschool teachers should be carrying weapons at school? Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

[Budgie]

I hope you are not implying that a criminal attacking a person, and getting shot, is somehow a victim.

Of course not !!!!! Do you make a habit of dealing in absurdities and convenient self serving misinterpretations?

LADIES AND GENTLEMAN --- I GIVE YOU EXHIBIT "A", RTG.

Did I not say "accidental victim". A criminal shot during a crime is far from an accidental victim because his/her act of crime was not an accident. Convience stores are often robbed with patrons in the store. Just one stray bullet can catch a bystander. If there's only one gun in the mix rather than 2, there is a reduced chance of a bystander being hit. I wonder if the rate of convenience store robberies would decrease if guns were not so easily obtained.

PEOPLE - violence begets violence. Rather than shot back or threatening someone who is threatening you, why not show compassion for those who choose the wrong path. While you can't change others, you will be at peace with yourself in that you have not through paranoia, fear, jealousy or malice harmed another. An eye for an eye is the path to ruin. It's a spiraling self fulfilling prophecy that only fools will follow.

The title of this thread includes "Are you packing heat yet?" The word "YET" troubles me. This assumes that for some reason I should ultimately feel compelled to arm myself. This is a very very very sad commentary of our supposed civilization. I never have and never will carry a weapon because I tend to see the good in people rather than the often unsubstantiated bad.

[bdaleray]

So you really believe eschool teachers should be carrying weapons at school? Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Actually I *do* think that allowing teachers to decide for themselve if they should be armed is a good thing. After all, ideas are *infinitely* more dangerous, and we've already trusting the teachers with our children.

(snip)I never have and never will carry a weapon because I tend to see the good in people rather than the often unsubstantiated bad.

Well, you being from the land of milk and honey, I can see how you might believe that turning the other cheek is a good approach for dealing with criminals.

If you ask people who actually live in neighborhoods where crime is an issue, you'll find that they think protecting their families is a good thing. Of course, for them, crime is more than a theoretical exercise.

[jordanb]

If you ask people who actually live in neighborhoods where crime is an issue, you'll find that they think protecting their families is a good thing. Of course, for them, crime is more than a theoretical exercise.

You mean like the ones in Portland, Oregon?

I live in an immigrant community in Chicago and nobody here is in favor of more guns on the street. In fact the populace of this city as a whole is staunchly behind the handgun ban (handguns are illegal here without exception) and generally support more controls.

I'm from a smaller city originally and grew up hunting. I support hunters rights but rural people have no clue about city living. Guns have no place here.

[Budgie]

While you can't change others, you will be at peace with yourself in that you have not through paranoia, fear, jealousy or malice harmed another. An eye for an eye is the path to ruin. It's a spiraling self fulfilling prophecy that only fools will follow.

This girl is a true Christian and should be an inspiration to those who harbor revengeful malice. Although she may be young, she appears wiser than many.

[Michele Zone]

This girl is a true Christian and should be an inspiration to those who harbor revengeful malice. Although she may be young, she appears wiser than many.

I don't think EG started the thread to promote revengeful malice. I think there are times when using deadly force in self defense is reasonable. I don't see where that article really has anything to do with this discussion.

[bdaleray]

You mean like the ones in Portland, Oregon?

Actually, yeah. Ever visited outer SE Portland? The picture out there isn't quite as nice as the pretty downtown area. If I lived out there, I probably *would* have a CCW, and carry on a regular basis.

For that matter, I lived in the DC area for a while, and much of that area would make me want to carry, too. One of the reasons I lived in NoVA rather than DC is because DC makes it so hard to protect yourself. They do damn little for the illegal guns, and the politicians all live in nice neighborhoods and have police protection, but heaven help the regular joe.

Of course, I'm pretty lucky, and have only been assulted once, by some drunk white frat boys. I suppose being 6'1", white, and male makes me much less of a target. I've also had the advantage of a college education, and my personal economics means I have a choice in where I live.

For those that don't, I firmly support the rights of the individuals to decide what's best for them and their families.

[imaplanner]

Actually, yeah. Ever visited outer SE Portland? .

I have. I didn't feel very frightened. There were just more people who didn't look exactly like me.

[Random Traffic Guy]

Bdaleray got in first, I also have no problem with teachers carrying. I'm putting my children (public school rant deleted) into the care and instruction of others, but not giving those caretakers the best means to protect them? In fact I will stir the pot and say I know several students who I would have no problem with carrying pistols all the time in highschool. Responsibility is earned, not granted by reaching some age.

As for "violence begets violence", I should certainly hope so. A criminal needs to get a surplus of violence right back at him, by whatever means available. Criminals are not swayed or stopped by compassion, only by their victims standing up to them. You have compassion for the criminal, but no thought for the next victim, and the next, and the next... What lesson is the criminal learning? "Hell, this is easy". Not "Holy &$^@ this is dangerous, maybe there's another way to make a living".

Give the victim a gun and you get more victims -- some will be accidental victims.

I hope you are not implying that a criminal attacking a person, and getting shot, is somehow a victim.

Of course not !!!!! Do you make a habit of dealing in absurdities and convenient self serving misinterpretations?
LADIES AND GENTLEMAN --- I GIVE YOU EXHIBIT "A", RTG.
Did I not say "accidental victim". A criminal shot during a crime is far from an accidental victim because his/her act of crime was not an accident.

No reason to get all heated up about it, just wondering how else I'm supposed to parse Give the victim a gun and you get more victims -- some will be accidental victims by not thinking that once the some accidental victims are subtracted from the pool of victims, the remaining "victims" are the criminals.

I live in an immigrant community in Chicago and nobody here is in favor of more guns on the street. In fact the populace of this city as a whole is staunchly behind the handgun ban (handguns are illegal here without exception) and generally support more controls.

And yet crime, and shootings, are most common where guns are hardest to get legally. You can take the Brady/Handgun Control yearly grades they give out to states for access to guns (Texas got a D-, I need to work on that), and compare to the crime rates, and there's a strong negative correlation, "worst" grades having the lowest crime rates. Arms in the hands of law-abiding folks are no threat to anyone except criminals, and overall are a huge net benefit to society. It is the people, not the guns.

[imaplanner]

And yet crime, and shootings, are most common where guns are hardest to get legally. You can take the Brady/Handgun Control yearly grades they give out to states for access to guns (Texas got a D-, I need to work on that), and compare to the crime rates, and there's a strong negative correlation, "worst" grades having the lowest crime rates. Arms in the hands of law-abiding folks are no threat to anyone except criminals, and overall are a huge net benefit to society. It is the people, not the guns.

That sounds sort of shady. I will try to look into that. Do you have any links that could assist?


Edit: Okay I searched around. Most pro-gun/pro-concealed carry sites seem to indicate that Florida is the best example of how concealed carry laws reduced violent crime. Florida passed concealed carry in 1987. Many of these sites list the violent crime statistics for the state in 1986 and then go on to say how the crime rate dropped and give examples from 1990 on so on. So I searched some more and found this:

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...cfm?stateid=10

Which shows that violent crime actually went up in the immediate years following the passage of the concealed carry laws. It wasn't until almost 10 years later that violent crime made any significant change and there is no way that any erasonable argument can be made that that shows that concealed carry laws reduce crime.

[Random Traffic Guy]

Isn't BJS a cool site? Lots of interesting stuff to see. It's amazing to see how much crime has dropped in individual states and nationwide over the past decade. Sure gives one pause when considering the "if it bleeds, it leads" news stories. Overall violent crime rate seriously down, and murder down almost 50% since the last national peak in 1993.

Regarding Florida, you should also consider that there was a national peak of violent crime, murder, etc in the early 1990s. So the question becomes more like what would the crime rate have been if there wasn't CCW liberalization in Florida. Getting into more serious statistics than I care to work on during the weekend Alot of these studies can be found at http://www.guncite.com/index.html, check the stats pages on the right column. John Lott kicked over a huge anthill with his More Guns, Less Crime book where he looked at county data, and tried to control for all kinds of other variables; the statisticians are still arguing over the meanings. The Guncite page has the lists of papers on both sides.

Glad to see Texas shows a nice drip in crime rates across the board since CCW was instituted in 1996.