If you are NOT pro-gun, is your main issue Concealed Carry or guns at home also?

[Logical]

I am wondering if the non-gun posters here think all guns should be banned, including hunting guns, or just handguns? Or if you think any gun at home is OK but just dislike the conceal carry laws.

I really am interested in the answers because it might help narrow down the discussion and disagreement.

I can promise not insult anyone and also alert any post if a pro-gun poster insults you.

Thanks!

[Hangingon]

1. Will you also alert if an anti-gun person insults me?

I believe it is the right of a citizen to maintain arms for what ever legal uses they wish to enjoy.

[Logical]

2. Yes I will. n-t

[My Good Babushka]

3. I wouldn't ban hunting guns

or handguns or guns in the home or conceal carry permits. I just want the people that have these privileges to earn their permits through rigorous mental health screening and a mandatory number of credit hours completed in firearm handling and safety. There's too much at stake with our liberal policy of guns for whomever wants to buy them, regardless of their sanity or experience.

[oneshooter]

22. Please expand your ideas. How many hours? Who does the training? n/t

[My Good Babushka]

187. I would ask people with more gun experience

to figure out the details, police officers, NRA, etc.

[tosh]

23. +1.

[Logical]

27. I would call that a fairly reasonable request......

I do not have my CC license yet, I am waiting for it from the state of Kansas. But the training is really a farce. I was in class with 20 people and some of them had never held a gun. And at the end of class they still had no idea what they are doing. But they still passed the class because the "requirements" are so low. The instructor worked with these people until they did the target part successfully. The written test is instructor led and everyone gets 100%. The instructors even said "no one has not passed this test". How can that be a real test? They need to improve it. But it is better than nothing. I wrote the state and told them that it was a joke.

I am not sure how you do a full mental evaluation successfully with out some bias being entered into the process. That might be too difficult of a process to implement.

The problem is, that some states do not require any license, you can just CC automatically. Which I disagree with. I like the license and fingerprint requirement. Easier to revoke the right when needed.

The big NRA fans and extreme 2nd amendment pushers think anyone should be able to carry open or concealed with no government intervention at all which of course is as crazy as banning all guns. I have seen this quote posted where right wing nut Scalia even said "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Many pro-gun people forget that all rights have limits.

With that being said, I do not think CC license holders have caused a lot if issues nation wide. The feared "gun battles in the streets" has not happened. Only one of the 10 people I talked to in class were what I would call the "rambo" type. The others were low key and would do anything to not need to pull their weapon. My instructors did a great job or pointing out the huge responsibility that CC brings and talked a lot about not escalating a potential bad situation but down scaling it.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

[YllwFvr]

45. No training requirement here

And im fine with that

[Logical]

52. And I am not. OK. n-t

[YllwFvr]

74. I will be dealing with armed people

In the course of my job and wont know if they have any training. Ive come to terms with the fact that I may pull someone over at 3 am whos lawfully and ignorantly armed. This is a very pro 2a state and I support it. Our state constitution has a more strongly worded firearm section than the bill of rights 2a.

[Logical]

78. I think a license to track is a good thing. And fingerprints on file is good also.....

and not much downside to it except the cost to the CC person. Which I admit is a little exclusionary.
It will end up costing me $250 to get my Kansas license. Many cannot afford that.

[YllwFvr]

126. Do they have a break down of the costs?

That seems pretty high. How much is the fingerprinting?

[Logical]

138. The class was $120, The license was $132.50. n-t

[YllwFvr]

167. thank you Logical nt

[spin]

110. All the police officers who I have talked to in Florida ...

have agreed that people with concealed weapons permits are no hazard.

[Logical]

136. I police captain told me that 90% of cops like CCW.....

and 5% are neutral. He said the other 5% hate it and are "idiots". His words.

He said he is less worried about pulling over a CCW holder than an average citizen. He knows they passed a lot of checks to get it.

[YllwFvr]

173. i wouldnt put solid numbers on it

but I dont know ANY officers who outright dont think people should carry.

[YllwFvr]

171. sounds like the boys in blue down in florida

have some common sense! Glad they agree with it, they've dealt with CCW a long time.

Do they actually wear blue though? :) our state troopers call themselves the "Gray Gods"

[spin]

210. The color of the uniform varies in Florida ...

I've seen forest green, black, blue and brown uniforms depending on the jurisdiction. Usually policed wear darker colors in Florida which I have never really understood as it's hot in Florida especially if you are wearing a ballistic vest.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. There is a cheaper, and better way to do the mental health screening.

People can fool a psychologist, I have seen it done. And such sessions are expensive. But people are remarkable consistent with the way they live their lives. People who are likely to cause trouble have almost always already caused trouble before they are old enough to apply for a CCW. Simply look at their police record. If they have a clean record then they have demonstrated on a continual day-to-day basis that they don't have mental stability issues. The current system is working extremely well. Those with permits have shown themselves to be our most trustworthy citizens.

[Taitertots]

102. Sounds like a de facto ban for all low income people

Not to mention that we already prohibit the mentally unfit from purchasing and/or owning firearms.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

104. rigorous mental health screening...?

rigorous ....?

face/palm

[HERVEPA]

4. All handguns banned

Allow only hunting rifles, though I abhor hunting. Ban all rapid fire weapons.

[Recursion]

6. Rapid-fire weapons have for all practical purposes been banned for almost 80 years

I'm not sure why people still bring them up.

[HERVEPA]

38. Whatever killed the people in Arizona and wounded Gabby Giffords

is way too rapid-fire for me. I don't know what official definition is.

[gejohnston]

61. a run of the mill pistol

with an after market extended magazine

[HERVEPA]

107. Then ban that extended magazine then.

Make it harder for people to kill people. Get it?

[PavePusher]

111. The extended magazine did not affect rate of fire. n/t

[spin]

117. The use of extended magazines probably caused the gun to jam ...

which gave bystanders the opportunity to subdue the shooter. A person with minimal training can swap a magazine in two seconds or less, a person who practices can swap one out in under one second.

Note: excerpt is from the comments section of the article.

Having said that, there are a couple of myths perpetuated here. First of all, the high-capacity magazine. When thirty rounds are loaded into a magazine for a pistol, it makes the whole pistol unwieldy and hard to handle. It becomes both bulky and heavy. Also, a much more powerful spring has to be at the bottom of the magazine just to push the mass of cartridges upward. The more powerful spring and large number of rounds increases the chance of a jam. Which, I have read, is exactly what happened. Loughner did not completely empty the magazine before it jammed. Any experienced firearms expert will tell you that comes as no surprise. Furthermore, jam or not, it takes more time to extract a large capacity magazine and insert a new one.

IMHO, more people would have been killed had the shooter used normal magazines with the normal number of rounds. Take a look at the following video of how long it takes to change a normal magazine. Obviously, you cannot do this the first time out, but with practice, anyone can do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxzrahUUTi8

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/02/12/the-nra-claims-that-the-government-is-to-blame-for-tucson-shootings/

Often if you have little understanding of a subject it's easy to find a solution that if implemented might make the problem worse,

Edited for typo

[Recursion]

66. Just an ordinary pistol

Nothing particularly rapid about it. Unless you want to go back to muzzle-loaders, that's the rate of fire weapons have.

[RSillsbee]

7. Please define "rapid fire" ? NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Presumptively semi autos

Antis claim rates of fire from them that are astounding. It is one of the things you can counter with education.

[RSillsbee]

14. That's what I thought as well

Wonder where a DA revolver would fall in the poster's definition

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. There are some remarkable high speed shooting videos done with revolvers from competitions

Posting them might get them included on ban lists

[DonP]

39. We'll have to ban Jerry Miculek

[GreenStormCloud]

59. And a single action can be fanned. Won't hit much but you can do it. N/T

[chibajoe]

89. Don't tell that to this guy

Bob Munden fastest gun in the west:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thCl_mYIUBE&feature=related

[spin]

129. Unbelievable. GREAT video. Thanks. (n/t)

[Hoopla Phil]

214. That is just amazing! Thanks for posting it.

[GreenStormCloud]

225. Wow. You could be holding a gun on that guy and he could still take you out...

...and your partner too.

[rl6214]

82. I know people that can fire a single action revolver faster

than I can fire my semi autos and I shoot a lot.

[oneshooter]

26. A mad minute exercise with a bolt action rifle?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV5pSUlBz18&feature=related

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[RSillsbee]

28. Must be one of those bolt action assault rifle machine gun thingies NT

[one-eyed fat man]

165. British school of musketry

In British military rifle qualification with the Lee-Metford, and later, the various Lee-Enfield rifle was an exercise known as the "mad minute." The point was to simulate repelling an assault and the requirement was to get as many hits as possible on a 200 yard silhouette within a minute.

The minimum passing score was 15 hits on a silhouette target at 200 yards in 1 minute. This was required of any cook or clerk. A well-trained rifleman to perform the "Mad minute" firing 20 to 30 aimed rounds in 60 seconds, making the Lee-Enfield the fastest military bolt-action rifle of the day.

The all time aimed fire record with a bolt action rifle was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army—Sergeant Instructor Snoxall—who placed 38 rounds into a 12-inch-wide target at 300 yards in one minute.

First World War accounts tell of British troops repelling German attackers who subsequently reported that they had encountered machine guns, when in fact it was simply a group of trained riflemen armed with SMLE Mk III rifles

[gejohnston]

13. why?

So the Olympic shooting team will have to go to Canada to train, kind of like UK's having to go to France. Abhorring hunting, all hunting or just trophy hunting? If all hunting, how is that worse than buying chemical loaded meat, that someone else killed under very inhumane circumstances, from a store?

[HERVEPA]

35. I'd prefer to see no shooting competitons,, also

I abhor all hunting, trophy more than for meat.
I think hunting is better than store bought, but dislike people enjoying any type of hunting.
I don't eat any animals, so that part of the question is not relevant to me.
I do find those who criticize hunting for meat but who are not vegetarians to be extremely hypocritical.

[gejohnston]

47. The last two points work

The last point was where I was going. Shooting is no different than fencing and archery (other than the modernity and the noise).

[oneshooter]

192. Why?

"I'd prefer to see no shooting competitions" Rifle, pistol and shotgun competition develops hand/eye coordination, breathing control, and the ability to concentrate. The competitions are normally individual, not team orientated.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

20. If you get them banned, how would you pay for them? n/t

[Logical]

36. So no handguns for home protection allowed? I think many feel that way....

I think handguns is what caused the use of guns to expand for crimes. But I am afraid it is too late now.

[Starboard Tack]

91. So why are you applying for CC?

[oneshooter]

193. Including Police Officers? n/t

[Recursion]

5. Talk of "hunting" always worries me

It's DLC dog-whistle language: guns are OK for exurban whites but not for urban minorities.

Historically, anyways, there's no "right" of hunting -- it's one of the most curtailed practices in common law. The interest of society in having an armed populace isn't about venison.

[Hoyt]

8. I'm most concerned about guns in public places -- concealed or open carry.

I'd prefer to see guns at home at reasonable levels and of reasonable capabilities for home defense (folks, please don't ask me to define "reasonable" right now). Have no problem with guns for hunting and the like as long as hunting guns aren't designed to take out an entire herd (personally, would prefer a bow).

[oneshooter]

21. Why, because you can't? n/t

[Hoyt]

46. I could if I chose to parade around with a gun in public parks, nursery schools, family restaurants.

I don't choose to and don't think it is wise for others to do so.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. 'Parade' implies display.

I carry concealed. You'd never know. You'd never even suspect I was carrying if you saw me in the street.

That better?

[Hoyt]

60. Not much. Just don't think guns are needed -- or wanted -- in most public places.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Need/want doesn't factor into it.

[Hoyt]

69. I disagree. Assuming for a moment it is legal/Constitutional, folks don't have to do it in public.

There are lots of things that are legal, but best undone.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. It is legal and constitutional in public.

At least, in most public spaces. (within the law, which varies by states)

It is purely your personal opinion that XYZ be left un-done.
It is for each individual to weigh risks/decide whether or not this is appropriate.

[Hoyt]

86. Agree, if they also weigh risks to society, future generations, etc., and not just themselves.

Sadly, that is not the case for many.

Take a TBager for instance -- do you think they give a dang about the danger to society and future generations. I doubt it. In fact, many of them carry for intimidation and little else.

I also think easy access to guns and permits should be subject to more restrictions. Eventually, I think that will happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. There we agree.

Different people carry for different reasons.

Unfortunately, training and such does not modify people's motives. At least, not usually. There are some exceptional teachers that can moderate extreme motives, but very few. The ones that point out (effectively) that the use of a firearm in self defense means (depending on the state) possibly defending yourself in civil court, and depending upon the laws, spending tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself in criminal court, or perhaps just a chunk of money in front of a grand jury, justifying your actions to 12 people in a calm, pleasant, air-conditioned courtroom, who have never had to fight for their lives.

Voir dire Is going to eliminate any person off that jury that has been in this situation.


Once that sinks in, it tends to eliminate any hot-doggin' 'IMMA SHOOT SUMBITCH IF HE DOES XYZ' attitudes. (which I think are rare to begin with)



I don't have a problem with my state's lack of a training requirement around shooting proficiency for a CPL, but I would like to see more training around the legal aspects of using deadly force in self defense.

[rrneck]

71. What about the folks that get assaulted in public?

[armueller2001]

76. Apparently there's no exception for them

"Too bad, so sad" is all you'll hear from those who abhor self defense.

[rrneck]

80. Collateral damage because he wants

an upscale chic environment for his own peace of mind.

[Hoyt]

84. I do not abhor self-defense. I do question the need to arm oneself in most cases.

[armueller2001]

142. I was not targeting specific DU members such as yourself

but perhaps I should have rephrased it "effective self defense" because you don't support people being able to defend themselves outside the home with a firearm.

I'm sure the woman or old man who gets assaulted because they lack the upper body strength of a 20 year old gang member will really appreciate the fact they were denied effective self defense options.

[Starboard Tack]

98. Can you show any post that says "I abhor self defense?"

I hope your aim is is truer than you

[oneshooter]

190. You want UK style gun control, including disarming Law Enforcement

That says you want no ability to defend yourself.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

194. It isn't what I want, but the madness seems to warrant it.

I find the CC self defense argument to be specious. Disarming LE would be difficult, I admit, and very unlikely to happen, but it definitely would change the adversarial relationship between LE and the general public.

[Hoyt]

83. I can understand some of them wanting to carry. I think there are other ways to minimize risk.

Carrying a gun is not the only option. Carrying everywhere is not necessary. Carrying the pocket equivalent of an "assault" weapon is not necessary either (and, please don't ask me to define "assault weapon" -- it's clear to anyone who cares to think about it).

More guns are not the ultimate answer to the problem.

Lots of people who have been assaulted still choose not to carry -- I applaud them.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. I engage in all sorts of defensive avoidance

I really don't want to get into a gunfight or anything. It's messy. It's dangerous. It's expensive.

The firearm is a 'last resort' measure for protecting human life. Nothing else.

[rrneck]

105. Nice non answer.

The truth is that nobody can decide who gets to carry except the person carrying.

[Starboard Tack]

99. You mean someone forces you to carry a gun?

You neither need nor want to, yet carry concealed. Good grief

[AtheistCrusader]

109. Well, he understood me, but let me clarify: a 3rd party's need/want doesn't factor into it.

Meaning, you, him, others.

You are not part of my equation on whether carrying is justifiable, for myself, as an individual.

[Starboard Tack]

133. OK fair enough

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. Only one hunting gun has ever been designed to "take out an entire herd"

Well, technically it was designed to entire flocks...
but it doesn't matter because Punt Guns are no longer allowed for hunting.

Other than that, almost every state I know includes magazine limits for hunting.
Usually 3-5 rounds depending on the game.

Punt Gun:

[DonP]

34. Saw one on display at Mystic Seaport

They had a punt gun mounted in a skiff on display. Damn thing looked like a cannon. It didn't even have a stock, mounted directly into the boat, which I guess was the stock. To aim you paddled the boat around. Mostly used on the Chesapeake, Barnegat Bay and inlets that attracted migrating wild fowl.

They explained that they loaded them with nails, rocks, anything they could cram down the tube. Paddled them with small ping pong like paddles, camouflaged, went right up to a whole flock on the water and fired. It was a regular commercial hunting technique in the mid 1800's to the turn of the last century when they finally noticed fewer and fewer ducks each year.

[Katya Mullethov]

92. Their Naptha Launch is a real jewel

What could be rarer than a boat that had a boiler full of lighter fluid setting over an open flame ?

[Hoyt]

44. I would have no problem with folks carrying those in public. Cool photo.

[Logical]

40. Do you think guns in public have caused a lot of issues? n-t

[Hoyt]

43. I think guns in public are bad for society and our self image -- it's really that simple.

[Logical]

51. I am sorry it has got to this point also.....

I wish no bad guys had them either. But since there is no going back, the honest citizens need them also.

[Hoyt]

56. Sometimes you just gotta stand up for what is "right/best," otherwise things will never get better

I understand what you are saying and can only hope that most people who feel like you are selective in where they carry and what they carry.

Good luck.

[gejohnston]

63. One person's right/best

is someone else's wrong/worse. What is best for society seems to match what our own opinions are.

[Logical]

64. I only plan on carrying where there is a high chance of having an issue....

I am not one of the 100% carry believers. Most people will never have a need for a gun. Most cops never fire their weapon in the line of duty.

[Hoyt]

68. I think that is reasonable. But, there are a lot of carriers who'll walk into family restaurants.

An hones to God example is a family restaurant in Alabama where a guy walked in during broad daylight with dual shoulder holsters in shirt sleeves. I think that is absolutely ridiculous and hope to God the day doesn't come where a greater percentage of folks are walking around with guns on their hips or wherever.

[Logical]

73. I am not a fan of Open Carry......

I think causes too much alarm that is not needed.

Too many people on the pro-gun side are doing things just to make a point and not to help the CC cause.

I think a nationwide CC law and banning open carry would be great. I think we need licenses for all CC holders to at least track them as a whole to see if there are any issues.

Now, about carrying, I admit you never know when you will need a gun. Many times people have needed them when you would never think you would. So I sort of understand the people who carry 100% of the time because you never know when you might have an issue. I just don't want to deal with the hassle of carrying all the time.

[Starboard Tack]

106. I totally disagree with you

As offensive and uncivilized as open carry is, it is, at least, honest and others can make informed decisions as to whether they wish to remain in that kind of environment. Concealed carry is furtive, sneaky and dishonest and I see no legitimate purpose outside of law enforcement.
One could also argue the deterrent aspect of open carry. No deterrent with CC until you pull it out.
All those toting Tea Baggers we see in the news may well be buffoons and morons but they are honest about it.

[Logical]

112. No, cops have to address people calling about open carry....

and it takes time.

The 'honest' thing makes no sense to me. Most of it is just showing off. Unless you are out on your ranch or something.

The surprise of CCW makes it great. A bad guy never knows who is armed and who is not. If you outlawed CC and only had open carry you basically tell the bad guy who to rob.

The open carry folks hurt the gun cause. Silly.

[Starboard Tack]

150. I think they're all silly

but at least the OC is visible and avoidable. You must understand that the majority of people do not want to be around guns period. I want to have that option. CC is devious. From your post it sounds like you're inviting the "bad guy" to try and rob you because you appear unarmed. I, for one, do not want to be anywhere near that scenario.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. You are the first person I have ever seen with this opinion.

Whereas, there are multiple individuals that post here with the contention that open carry is, going as far as, brandishing.

Parading.
Shoving in faces.

and other provocative terms.

[Starboard Tack]

176. Most people I discuss this with feel pretty much the same

People tend not to like guns because they are tools designed to kill. Sometimes, most will agree, they are necessary. This is unfortunate for us, as a species, that we haven't yet evolved past our fear of, and hostility toward, one another.
Some have embraced what has come to be known as "the gun culture". Most have not, though they may well own guns. Like most folks drive cars, but don't even know what NASCAR is.
I think that gun enthusiasts are as valid as any other enthusiasts. I used to be one in my youth. Unfortunately, the enthusiasts' world has been co-opted and marginalized by the NRA extremists, much like the way religious fundamentalists have co-opted Christianity and Islam, by peddling fear and salvation through misinformation and propaganda. I don't buy any of it.
The so-called Christian right have turned Christianity into a dirty word and smeared those decent folk who truly follow Christian values, whether they call themselves Christian or not. Taliban type Muslims do the same. Extremists should never be allowed to win the day.
The irony is that the real victims in these scenarios are the supporters and disciples who are used and abused and manipulated into helping these pigs sell their garbage.
We are what we eat.

[PavePusher]

220. "Most people I discuss this with feel pretty much the same"

"Everyone I know voted for McGovern"

[rl6214]

182. This is a new angle, oppose concealed carry because it is

devious and dishonest. Let's see if this one catches on. I haven't seen this one before.

[gejohnston]

169. I agree

ranch, sticks/wilderness etc, but in town is silly. We didn't do that even in Wyoming when I was a kid.

[PavePusher]

178. Not in Arizona...

Or Utah.... New Hampshire... Vermont... Washington... Wyoming, Montana, oh heck, here's the map:

http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html

Even Wisconsin is figuring out that it's no big deal.

I can open carry a handgun, in a holster, through down-town Phoenix (just so no-one can make a rural-vs.-urdan claim) and no-one cares. Unless, of course, an establishment is posted, whereupon I generally stay out.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. What? Since when is concealed carry 'dishonest'?

It's a licensed, legitimate, legal option. The police ENCOURAGE it.

It's only dishonest in your own mind.

[Starboard Tack]

146. Not just my mind I assure you.

Police who encourage it are foolish IMO

[AtheistCrusader]

159. Then most police are foolish.

I have yet to meet a beat cop that DOESN'T encourage it.

[Starboard Tack]

172. Congratulations, I used to be one and I know many who don't

[AtheistCrusader]

174. I can name officers by name.

Can you?

[Starboard Tack]

196. Of course, everyone has a name

[rl6214]

185. Where were you a beat cop?

[Starboard Tack]

197. That's not your business, but a major metropolitan area

[rl6214]

209. No it's not but I don't see why you wouldn't want to say where

It's not a gotcha question, I was just curious.

[rl6214]

184. So CC is dishonest and police who encourage it are foolish

Mmkay.
:eyes:

[one-eyed fat man]

222. Oddly enough, the Kentucky Court of Appeals

The Kentucky Court of Appeals does agree with part of your premise.

Excerpted from

Holland v Commonwealth

Morton HOLLAND, Appellant

V

COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 5, 1956

Prosecution of a deputy sheriff for carrying a concealed deadly weapon. The Circuit Court, Perry County, C.C. Wells, Judge, entered judgment of conviction and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Moremen, Judge, held that where deputy sheriff went outside of the county in which he was appointed to locate an alleged offender for the purpose of offender’s arrest pursuant to a warrant which had been delivered to him, he had the right to carry a concealed deadly weapon.

Judgment reversed with instructions that indictment be dismissed.

MOREMEN, Judge.

"……Section 1, subd. 7 of the Bill of Rights, which is concerned with inherent and inalienable rights, grants to all citizens:

‘The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.’

The foregoing section is an exemplification of the broadest expression of the right to bear arms. Some states give the legislature the right to regulate the carrying of firearms; at least one state prohibits even the possession of firearms. See cases collected in the annotation of Pierce v State of Oklahoma, 42 Okl. Cr. 272, 275 P. 393, 73 A.L.R. 833.

In our state the legislature is empowered only to deny to citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. The constitutional provision is an affirmation of the faith that all men have the inherent right to arm themselves for the defense of themselves and of the state. The only limitation concerns the mode of carrying such instruments. We observe, via obiter dicta, that although a person is granted the right to carry a weapon openly, a severe penalty is imposed for carrying it concealed. If the gun is worn outside the jacket or shirt in full view, no one may question the wearer’s right so to do; but if it is carried under the jacket or shirt, the violator is subject to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than five years. The heavy emphasis, we suppose, is upon the undue advantage given to a person who is able suddenly to expose and use a weapon, although the gun itself is the vicious instrument………."

Emphasis supplied.

The Kentucky Constitution as well the law, recognize the right to "open carry" as generally unassailable, while "concealed carry" is prohibited to except those who are properly licensed.

[rl6214]

181. That's the direct opposite of what most in the anti gun crowd say

Most don't want anything at all to do with open carry, keepit out of their sight they say.

[Starboard Tack]

224. Well the way I see it, if you are carrying openly, you're letting me know

and if I object to your OC, I have options. What option do I have if I don't know? I'm not a believer in "Ignorance is bliss". I like to stay alert and aware of what's going on around me, so I can respond accordingly.

[rl6214]

88. I would like to see that example

can you point me to where I can find it?

[Katya Mullethov]

95. He and a retired volunteer fireman/crossing guard

made the poor nebbish cry !


http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=351154&mesg_id=351203

[rl6214]

103. So it's a private personal story

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

144. If there is a high chance of having an issue

why are you going?

[Logical]

156. Higher chance. Do you think all areas have the same crime rate? Because I can send you stats. n-t

[RSillsbee]

212. I think crime doesn't stay in one area

so I just carry everywhere

[Logical]

226. I know a lot of people who carry 100% of the time also....

I understand your logic.

I just don't want to carry all the time. But there are places where the odds are higher. I'll plan on carrying there.

[one-eyed fat man]

72. So then, you clearly envision

a default mode whereby all the sane and peaceable folks leave their hardware at home. This absolutely assures that only the violent, maldajusted, misanthropic, pyschotic and criminal persons are unimpeded.

Roughly 1% of the population is involved in Law Enforcement.

About 6% are chronic offenders accounting for 71% of the murders and 69% of the aggravated assaults.(Wolfgang et al.: 1972).

Your solution is for the all of the other 93% of the population to be entirely at the mercy and rely totally on the good graces of the the others and luck.

I suppose there is a logic in that. If you can position yourself in the middle of the herd you don't have to worry about the weak, old or slow ones on the edges the wolves take out.

[Starboard Tack]

100. How about going forward instead of going back

You really think more CC permits is progressive?
You think hanging on to the NRA interpretation of the 2A is progressive?

[Logical]

116. I think CC has moved beyond politics.....

I know it is costing us liberals votes. And give the NRA more ammo to beat up great dems.

There are at least 90 million handguns in circulation now. How are you going to stop bad guys from being armed and tell good people you cannot be armed?

The GOP can count on the BRA funding most their elections. And only because the Dems fight the CC laws.

Honest citizens should have rights to CC if the bad guys have guns, I really believe that.

I am in favor of licenses for CC holders and having some rules in place. But the days of banning guns or banning CC is over and we need to stop fighting it.

[Starboard Tack]

134. Why concealed? Why not be open and honest?

Better the devil you know...

[Logical]

135. I think your intent is to expose us.....

It draws unneeded attention to the person and also freaks some people out.

You realize the bad guys are not open carrying I hope. So why do you want the law abiding citizens to open carry?

The fact the bad guy does not know who has a gun helps you also. Maybe less likely to pull theirs.

[Starboard Tack]

152. Who are these"bad" guys who hide their guns?

[Logical]

155. Please tell me you are not claiming that criminals do not have weapons. Because if you are...

we can end all further conversations.

[Starboard Tack]

186. I think the "bad guys" point their guns at one to rob or kill

You don't know they're bad until they do that and by that time it's kinda late to be messing with trying to extract yours cause you're already dead. Best to just hand over the money. If they're after your life then you're already dead and probably should've been aware of the danger up front.
You really think you're gonna save the day? No, I think you have a different agenda. I'm not buying your spiel. Sounds like an NRA sales pitch to me. How many suckers is enough?

[Logical]

188. So if I can prove CCW prevented deaths you will be OK with CCW? n-t

[Starboard Tack]

198. Sure, if you can also prove they caused no deaths which you can't.

It's like saying I can prove MAD kept the world from destroying itself. Tell the Japanese that. Remember the Japanese? They used to be the "bad guys". Along with the Germans and Italians and Russians. Then we nuked them and we became the bad guys. Funny how things change.
All weapons of destruction when used defensively should be used as an absolute last resort and even then it won't end well.

[Logical]

203. You are not being rational......

Even if you count the Violence Policy Centers nutty numbers, CCW holders have killed 286 people in the last 4 years. Many if those are suicides and many not using handguns. But lets say all 286 are correct. In the same period there were 32,000 murders by handguns from non-CCW holders!

So the BAD GUYS are killing people with handguns. And YOU are worried about law abiding citizens having guns.

Sounds like you should be more concerned about bad guys than CCW holders.

You seem really concerned about CCW holders and not concerned at all about the 4,000 people murdered yearly by criminals.

[Starboard Tack]

204. I'm not being rational?

You think proliferation is the answer. 32,000 murders you say (and I thought it was only 30,000) and more guns is the answer? How do you reconcile that with 42 in the UK, out of a total of 651 murders. And the cops don't even carry except in special circumstances.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html

The number of deaths in Britain from gunshot wounds has fallen to a 20-year low despite concerns about levels of violent crime.

Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms. One third of the victims were younger than 21 and four of them were female. The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tougher restrictions on firearms, disclosed the figure, which was a sharp drop on 2007, when 51 gun-related deaths were recorded in England, Wales and Scotland.

[Logical]

205. I agree with you that guns kill people.....

But how do you fix it at this point? I am serious.

There are 70 - 90 million handguns in this country. If you stopped all new sales tomorrow, and I would love to know how that will happen, you will NEVER fix the problem with 70 million already out there? What plan do you have that would even begin to get any political support? Even from the dems?

You CANNOT ban guns or new gun sales. And private sales are legal. Guns are stolen and resold illegally. It is already illegal for felons to have guns, but thousands do.

My point is this, if BAD GUYS have guns and plan on using them on me and possibly my family I want one too. Why do you think I am wrong for that? Until you remove them from the bad guys, I will use mine.

[rrneck]

206. So why are Brits less likely to kill each other? nt

[Starboard Tack]

207. Maybe because they don't have easy access to guns

Why do you think? It's definitely worth studying. We aren't that different. Maybe we need to reprogram ourselves in terms of conflict resolution.
One thing I noticed when living in the UK and also in Canada. There are more bar fights than here. Probably because they almost always end with a bloody nose rather than a bullet. There's a certain argument in favor of lower levels of violence, rather than the "all or nothing" paradigm that tends to prevail here.

[rrneck]

208. Well,

to prove that you would have to prove a causal link between the firearm and the psyche of the person using it. Be forewarned, if you try that here you will hear about "mysterious magic waves emanating from the gun" and other such snark. It's been tried here before to little success.

It's been my experience that if someone is going to hurt you they will find a way, and if not they could be armed to the teeth and it won't matter.

[Starboard Tack]

216. Gang violence is one of the key issues

The US is known for drive by shootings where there is an element of detachment, where the perpetrator is scoring points, almost as though playing a video game. In the UK gang confrontations are much more down and dirty with fists, boots, bicycle chains, bottle and occasionally knives. Rarely guns, because guns aren't part of the rules. Same reason the cops don't wear guns. Not part of the rules. There's a strong code of conduct in the UK and sense of fair play. "It wouldn't be cricket to bring a gun to the fight. Bad form and all that." It would up the ante and chaos would probably ensue, or it would just become like here and I doubt that will happen.

Fable of the porcupine

It was the coldest winter ever. - Many animals died because of the cold. The porcupines, realizing the situation, decided to group together to keep warm. This way they covered and protected themselves; but the quills of each one wounded their closest companions.

After awhile, they decided to distance themselves one from the other and they began to die, alone and frozen. So they had to make a choice: either accept the quills of their companions or disappear from the Earth. Wisely, they decided to go back to being together. They learned to live with the little wounds caused by the close relationship with their companions in order to receive the heat that came from the others. This way they were able to survive.

Moral of the story: tempting as the obvious joke is about learning to live with the 'Pricks' in your life! (not always possible, if a worthy goal -& even they have their story!)

The best relationships are not those that bring together perfect people, they form & grow when each individual learns to live with the imperfections of others while admiring the other person's good qualities.

[rrneck]

217. Very true.

And they didn't have to legislate it.

[rl6214]

211. How did we become the bad guys?

After we nuked Japan, we rebuilt it. We also rebuilt Germany and I'm sure we had a hand in Italy as well.

Agreed though that weapons of mass destruction should be used as an absolute last resort.

[kurtzapril4]

229. Damn right guns freak me out.

But I support other people's right to have them. If one feels that they must carry a gun, I personally would prefer that they openly carry, so I can get the hell away from them. I have rights, too. One of them is the right to be able to stay far away from gun-toters.

[RSillsbee]

148. I'm down

I OC frequently (in the Spring)no one freaks out and most don't even notice

[Starboard Tack]

154. Thank you. Your honesty is appreciated

That way anyone who doesn't like it can alter course and there is no offense taken.
I have a lot of trouble getting my head around the logic of CC, because of it's inherent deception.

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

145. RE: more CC permits is progressive?

No, I think Vermont (and Now Alaska, Arizona, Montana and Wyoming) style carry is more progressive.

[AtheistCrusader]

161. I want to go forward but some people on this forum

want me to carry nothing more advanced than a hundred+ year old handgun design.

[rl6214]

85. Who are you to determine what self image is?

[Starboard Tack]

119. We all determine it daily by our actions

Dubya & Co. put our nation's self image in the toilet. Time to pull it out not flush it.

[Starboard Tack]

94. I agree with you and would define reasonable as

a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun. Perfect for home defense against any kind of critter.

[PavePusher]

114. When I've got the phone in one hand, trying to call 911....

and a firearm in the other, I'd prefer to have a semi-auto pistol, with as much ammo in it as can be reasonably manuvered.

Fireing a 12ga. single handed is not a recipe for a good outcome. And I may very well need considerably more than 2 rounds. This has been well documented.

[Starboard Tack]

123. Sounds like you live an exciting life.

What would be the point in calling 911? If you don't have time to reload a 12 gauge, you sure as hell don't have time for the cops to show.

[PavePusher]

131. I am WAGing that you are in the computer industry.

All your solution sets seem to be soley binary.

The entire point is to get the police on-site as soon as possible, and not shoot anyone unless you absolutely have to.

But you already knew that....

[Starboard Tack]

151. Levelling a 12 gauge would probably suffice.

Not in any industry.

[spin]

137. I can't understand your fear of honest people who responsibly carry firearms ...

Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since October 1, 1987. In the 23 year period of time between then and now, Florida issued 1,953,856 concealed weapons permits and currently 801,219 are valid. Only 168 of those licenses have been revoked for a crime that involved the use of a firearm after the license was issued.

source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Not all of the 168 licenses that were revoked involved a shooting an injury or a death. Unfortunately the state of Florida doesn't break down the statistics to show the reason why the license was revoked.

In Florida between 1998–2008, a ten year period, 74 people died because of lightning strikes. It's obvious that in Florida your chances of getting killed by a person with a concealed weapons permit is lower than your chances of getting hit by lightning. source: http://www.infoplease.com/science/weather/lightning-deaths.html

I can understand why you would fear armed criminals but your fear of individuals who have concealed carry permits seems to me to be irrational.

[ileus]

223. Keep criminals at home, and I'll leave my LCP or M&P at home

[Scuba]

9. I'm a gun owner, but believe in reasonable limits. Otherwise....

http://imgur.com/ebcdA>

[gejohnston]

15. simple economics

and National Firearms Acts of 1934 has that covered. Nice F-15 though.

[Scuba]

24. My point stands.... my MAIN issue is neither CC or home ownership...

...it's having firepower in the hands of people who have no legitimate reason for having it. That doesn't mean banning a handgun, either at home or in your purse.


But how does the 2nd Ammendment justify hi-capacity magazines, armor-piercing ammo, etc? Is that for when we need to have another revolution?

Because if we need to overthrow our government and we DON'T have the military on our side, we're screwed.

[oneshooter]

30. How does the 1st Amendment justify

Computers, the internet, high speed printing presses?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Logical]

53. You know the 1st has limitations also.....correct? n-t

[gejohnston]

33. first

Define high capacity magazines. More than what the pistol is designed for or some arbitrary number? Armour piercing rounds for pistols have been around since the 1930s and have never been legal (or at least available for sale) for non police as far as I know. Other than the occasional engine block, their defensive and sporting value is zero and destroys the barrel, so they are kind of a non issue.

[Hoyt]

58. A true voice of reason.

[gejohnston]

62. not disagreeing

so much as pointing out the absurdity of bringing up fighter planes and tanks.

[PavePusher]

179. What is a "legitimate reason"?

What other Civil Rights do I need a "legitimate reason" (i.e. one approved by you, I presume) to exercise?

[sinkingfeeling]

10. It's useless because with the over abundance of guns of all types, readily available to almost

anybody in this country, nothing will ever happen to remove a single one of them. I hate them all and once threw a guy out of my house for bringing one into it. I can see no useful purpose in any rifle, shotgun, handgun, or Uzi. They exist solely to cause coercion, pain, or death.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. So you do not think self defense with a firearm is appropriate?

[sinkingfeeling]

29. I'm a 63 yr. old woman who has lived by myself for over 40 years. Never had a need for self defense

with a weapon. I have been accosted several times, chased down a street by a crazy man, and received threats by men to 'get me'.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. You are indeed fortunate

Almost all of firearms students, GLBTs by and large, have been attacked or harmed in some way.

[Taitertots]

108. Most be nice to be so lucky...

With so many people making threats that no one has actually tried to do anything while you are totally defenseless. All the rest of us are not going to assume that doing nothing will protect us in the face of credible danger.

[sinkingfeeling]

130. I'm 'unarmed' but hardly totally defenseless. I did take actions to 'protect' myself, just not with

a weapon, meant to maim or kill.

[PavePusher]

180. My defensive weapons are not "meant to maim or kill".

They are meant to stop an attacker if verbal means or retreat do not work.

If they "maim or kill" the attacker, that was his/her decision and not my bad karma.

[PavePusher]

115. Do your expeiences stand for everyone else?

Crime stats would seem to indicate otherwise.

[Logical]

42. I honestly understand your point.....

Guns are not good devices. But no way to stop this at this point.

I think the real pro-gun people worry about the government taking us over. Not a worry of mine.

[spin]

143. There are 300 million firearms in our nation. If you were right ...

and the only use for firearms was to cause "coercion, pain, or death" than many more deaths and injuries would occur each year.

Are you aware of sporting purposes for firearms? For example the summer Olympics has shooting events. Obviously such competitions do not involve "coercion, pain, or death".

Shooting at the Summer Olympics

Shooting sports have been contested at every Summer Olympic Games since the birth of the modern Olympic movement at the 1896 Summer Olympics except at the 1904 & 1928 editions.

***snip***

Men's shooting was one of the nine events at the first modern Olympic Games in Athens, in 1896. In the Paris Games in 1900, live pigeons were used as moving targets. After the 1900 games, the pigeons were replaced with clay targets. In 1907, the International Shooting Sport Federation came into existence and brought some standardizations to the sport.

When shooting was reintroduced in 1932, it consisted of only two events. From this, the number of events have increased steadily until reaching the 2000-2004 maximum of seventeen events. The 2008 games had only fifteen. Events marked as "Men's" were actually open events before the inclusion of separate women's events in that discipline. Two women won medals in such mixed events: Margaret Murdock, silver in 50 m Rifle Three positions (1976) and Zhan Shan, gold in Skeet (1992).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics

In this Aug. 14, 2008 file photo, silver medalist Kim Rhode, from the United States, shoots during the women's skeet shooting event at the Beijing 2008 Olympics. (AP Photo/Sergey Ponomarev)

[bpj62]

11. Concealed Carry Issue

My only problem is with the gun owners who think they should have the right to carry their pistol into private establishments. They get insulted when they are told that they have to leave the gun in the car. Then they accuse the owner of the establishment of being anti gun or anti second amendment. I think that most americans only want law enforcement officers to carry guns into private establishments. If I owned a bar, restaurant, or even a convience store I would place a sign on my door stating that no guns are allowed in the premises. I know that I wouldn't lose any business over it. I don't care how well trained you are in the use of a firearm, you are not trained in police tactics.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. I agree that premises owners should be able to ban conceald weapons carried under a CCW

I disagree that it would not impact business. The places that I go have slowly removed those signs over time, presumptively for business reasons.

[RSillsbee]

17. You'd lose my business

As well as that of quite a few of the pro rights crowd here

[bpj62]

32. lose of business

I can guarantee you that I would not lose a whole lot of sleep over it nor would I lose a whole lot of business. Your response is exactly what I was talking about. you believe you have the right to carry your pistol whereever you want to and you get pissed off when someone tells you that you can't. At the same time you will shout loudly that you have the right to protect yourself and your property. You talk about individual freedoms but I guess it only applies to your freedoms. By the way I am a gun owner I have just never felt the need to get a concealed permit because I have no need for one.

[rl6214]

96. "you get pissed off when someone tells you that you can't."

I don't see anywhere where he got pissed off, only stated his opinion which is what we are all doing here. I would respect and honor your request that no one brings a weapon into your establishment but I would also take my business elsewhere.

[RSillsbee]

139. I never said anything about being pissed off

I said I'd take my business elsewhere. I respect your rights as a property owner and I support your freedomn to make that decision but I won't support your business if you don't support my RKBA.

Where's the anger?

[HERVEPA]

41. I'd be delighted to lose your business if you were bringing a weapon into my establishment

[Logical]

50. That would be fine with me. Going one place with out my gun would not bother me. n-t

[TheCowsCameHome]

75. Then so be it.

I wouldn't knowingly patronize a business that encourages weapons on the premises.

[armueller2001]

77. Unless you live in IL or WI,

any business that does not have a proper "no guns" sign on the door condones weapons on the premises.

[TheCowsCameHome]

81. Big difference.

Sorry.....

[WatsonT]

31. Any property owner can ban guns on their property if they like

no one is disputing that.

And the average CHL holder has more hours logged in the shooting range than the average cop. Going by the stats you're more likely to be accidentally murdered by a cop than a CHL holder. So I wouldn't hold their training up too highly.

[Wickerman]

49. Can you show me a citation on that?

It's not that I doubt it; I just don't recall seeing the citation though I often see the statement. I know the laws vary state to state on training requirements for CHL. How often is a cop required to go to the range? How often do they? How many hours are CHL holders reported to go to the range annually? Someone has surely done a report on it.

[one-eyed fat man]

97. OK, here you are

There's not much data, but what little there is show that civilians are less likely to shoot the wrong person than cops. Perhaps enough to give some of the more strident pause. A significant portion of those civilians who carry also spend quite a bit of time on the range. Not uncommon is spending the money to go to advanced training facilities like Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, or Front Sight.

On the other hand, the local PD fires qualification twice a year and for those who fire only the minimum that is under 200 rounds a year. The department has a policy that each officer can draw, at no cost, 50 rounds a month to practice on his own time. Only a handful do, and they are all active in local club matches. Those are also the few that have attended advanced clinics and classes conducted for LEO only by the NRA, only because it cost the city nothing except allowing the officers the time off to attend.

I spent 26 years in the Army. Excepting Special Ops types, the annual allocation for individual training was 49 rounds. Nine to zero, forty for the qualification table. This included infantrymen, whose only reason for existence was as prime mover for US Rifle, caliber...The Army Marksmanship Unit that fields the teams for the Olympics, national and International Matches does not draws its shooters from the ranks, rather they recruit them directly from schools that have award winning NCAA shooting programs with offers of commissions and guaranteed assignments. The truth of the matter is, that for both military and police, most of them who are accomplished shots got that way on their own time and dime. Even sniper selection in the military, rarely is there a candidate who never shot a rifle before entering the service. Many of them were accomplished shots before joining, although skill with a rifle is not the only discriminator. A shooter might have the skill to shoot the proverbial "hair off a gnat's ass" at a thousand meters but not have the temperment to make an effective sniper.

Police training for the typical patrolman is designed more by the legal department to keep the city from being sued than to ensure his survival in a confrontation.

Can Citizens Use Guns Competently?

Ordinary people, even if they have passed a firearms safety class, cannot be trusted to use guns competently, it is sometimes claimed. The guns will be taken away by criminals, or the gun-owners will shoot an innocent bystander by mistake, it is sometimes predicted. Wherever the concealed carry issue is raised in the future, it can be predicted with confidence that these objections will be raised by reform opponents, including many law enforcement professionals who claim expertise on the issue.

The existing body of research provides no support for these fears. The best evidence we have about what happens when people have carry permits is the experience of the 1/3 of American states that issue such permits routinely. From these states, the most detailed data are those compiled by the Dade County (Miami) police. As discussed above, the police kept track of every known incident involving the county's more than 21,000 handgun carry permitees over a six-year period. In that six-year period, there was one known incident of a crime victim having his gun taken away by the criminal. There were no known incidents of a crime victim injuring an innocent person by mistake. In some cases the handgun permit holder was successful in preventing a crime, and in some cases not, but in no case was any innocent person injured as a result of mistake by a permit-holder.

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal.

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes. Attorney Jeffrey Snyder elaborates:

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher.

In addition, the Missouri study was not restricted to "carry" situations, but also included self-defense in the home. Persons using a gun to defend their own home, who know its layout much better than does an intruder, might be expected to have a higher success rate than would persons using a gun in a less familiar public setting.

The most detailed information about civilian defensive gun use has been compiled by Professor Gary Kleck (a liberal Democrat, and member of the ACLU and Common Cause) in his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. In 1992 the American Society of Criminology awarded the book the Hindelang Prize, as the most significant contribution to criminology in the previous three years. In Point Blank, Kleck studied computer tapes from the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Survey, for the years 1979-85. Analyzing the data from over 180,000 crime incidents in the National Crime Survey, as well from other studies, Kleck found the following:

- In no more than 1% of defensive gun uses was the gun taken away by a criminal.
- The odds of a defensive gun user accidentally killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.
- For robbery and assault victims, the lowest injury rates (17.4% for robberies, and 12.1% for assaults) were among victims who resisted with a gun.
- The next lowest injury rates were among persons who did not resist. Other forms of resistance (such as shouting for help, or using a knife), had higher injury rates than either passive compliance or resistance with a gun.

[Wickerman]

125. Thanks, so the statement in question is more anecdotal than actual.

Got it. Fair enough. The actual citation is a good read but has virtually no info relevant to the question.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. Question was too broad.

Range time requirements for police vary by department, in many cases.

Range time for CPL holders is not required in any state I am aware of, outside those states that require a shooting test to apply for the permit to begin with.

This doesn't mean police are more or less likely to hit their target. In fact, police accuracy is typically abysmal. Hit rate below 50% in most cases.


In Seattle, we had a police car get stolen, kid going on a joy ride. One officer thought he spotted the car, pulled it over and challenged the driver. The two exchanged gunfire, 21 rounds discharged, no one hit anything. Problem was: Other driver was a cop too.

Nobody hit anyone.

That incident in New York, where a guy was gunned down by 3 cops for holding his wallet in his hand? the famous '41 shots' incident? I think only 9 rounds hit the poor guy.

Fuckin' spray and pray.

[Wickerman]

132. Too broad, yet repeated here as truth

so often it's become fact. Backed up with apples and oranges anectdotal evidence.

I honestly thought someone had an actual report on this. Sad to see its all conjecture.

[RSillsbee]

141. Apply logic to your question

Not every cop is a "gun guy" most of them carry a gun because it's a job requirement. They don't go to the range for "fun", they go because their job makes them.

I (your average permit holder)OTOH like to shoot guns and try to get to the range as often as I can and at least a couple of times a month, at my own expense

Who do you think is going to get more shooting hours in?

[Wickerman]

160. Again, you are in error that it is my question

I asked for a citation for an oft-repeated meme.

[one-eyed fat man]

153. Perhaps

I did point out what little evidence there was was a couple of limited studies and linked you to a discussion of them.

Yes, the facts are slim and pithy. By volume, they are far overshadowed by the Dodge City, OK Corral shoot out imagery of gunfights over parking spots and the innocents mowed down in the cross-fire from wild-eyed 'toters' blasting imagined assailants hyperbole of the opposition.

By weight of fact, they contradict the anti-gunners claims that concealed carry permit holders are delusional cowboys, practicing fast draws in front of mirrors fervently hoping for the slimmest excuse to gun down brown people.

[Wickerman]

162. yes, those are valid points

but certainly not part of my request.

My request is that it is often stated that CHL folk shoot more than cops. It is stated as fact. I asked for a citation. If there is none, I am cool with that.

[one-eyed fat man]

175. My apologies.

I misunderstood the request. What little information I was linking to indicates that the police are more likely to shoot the "wrong" person than the concealed carry permit holder.

But if anecdotal data points are of any use to you: Here are some comments from cops who are active shooters and collectors gleaned from a recent thread on a collectors forum involving buying used law enforcement agency guns. The general consensus is most cops carry a gun because the job makes them, even among the police themselves. Most cops who are active shooters above and beyond job requirements see themselves in a minority among their contemporaries. Sixty years of shooting with cops my observation reinforces that opinion. Some agencies require more shooting than others, those requiring 200 rounds seem to be the median, those requiring a 1000 a year at the extreme.

I've bought myself quite a collection of 'police trade' firearms.

Some of these guns really do seem used but little...and carried a bunch. Others are pretty well used period.

Some of my 'trade' guns have come from overseas, and look heavily used and abused.

The last leo trade in gun I bought is a Ruger Mini 14. It really does appear to be lightly used.....and it's about 30 years old.

I have a number of S&W 3rd Gen Police trade-ins, and am an LEO. I read constantly on this forum and others how police trades in are "carried a lot but shot very little". It's almost an obligatory post when someone talks about an ex-LEO sidearm. My last purchase was a Cleveland Ohio PD marked 5943. I would guess it has around 10,000 rounds or so through it. But I easily rebuilt it with new springs and few other parts and now she's a smooth shooter (and probably was before the upgrade, I will never know).

So what do all these people consider to be "shot very little"? When I traded off my department's Glock 17s they each had anywhere from 15,000-25,000 rounds through them of academy and agency ammo (standard pressure, +p and +p+). I could not guess how much they were shot with personal ammo. I know my issue gun easily surpassed the 30,000-35,000 round tally. To me that is not carried a lot and shot very little, its carried a lot and shot a lot. But even focusing on the people in my agency who are not gun people, they will still push a solid 15,000+ rounds or more down range before their sidearm is traded off for a new one. To me 5,000 rounds is shot very little (it's also about double what I consider to be the break in point). How about you?

As an LEO I know countless Officers in my dept. that only practice with their service pistols the required minimum of four sessions a year. Daytime Practice and daytime Qualification and then Nighttime Practice and Nighttime Qualification. Of course if an Officer wants to practice he or she is encouraged to do so. Our range staff has a Service Pistol Practice session a day a month and you can come out and shoot the State mandated course of fire. I have done that a bunch and the ammo is provided free of charge. Relays are rarely full so out of 1,700 sworn we have anywhere from 5-15 per month taking advantage of that.

Some people, myself included, also practice on their own and their ammo is at their own expense and a tax write-off. Again, this is rare. So in my personal experience over the last 17 years, most Officers in my agency (can't speak about other agencies) shoot the required four sessions a year at a round count of a whopping 200 rounds per year. Our qualification course is only 50 rounds. Add that up and over a 5 year period you're looking at 1,000 rounds.

NYPD model 10's, the guys would try to get their cylinders so rusty they wouldn't open and therefore couldn't perform patrol until the range replaced the cylinder or a loaner was given. Other guys upon notification of having to go to Rodman's Neck thought they should check out their revolver before they got there. Some ( most ) hadn't been unholstered for a year. You would not believe the tools used in the locker room to try and free up the cylinder. Slappers, billy's, nightsticks, cuffs, radiators all on those poor model 10's. As far as the RMP's when they needed oil and only when, and thats even if the oil light came on, we had 55 gallon oil drums in the garage. Cops would pick up anything out of the garbage, floor, to scoop oil out of drum and into car. I remember one female picking up a full McDonald's cup of soda topping it off with oil and pouring it into vehicle block. I would never buy a used Police vehicle, or gun. Here in S.Florida it's better but still these RMP's are beat to **** and even though the mileage may be low, they are standing idling in the heat with full A/C for entire 12 hour back to back shifts. There is no reason to care for them, a lot of cops aren't happy at work for one thing and maintaining a city vehicle has no rewards. Just my opinion, take it for what it cost.

Sgt, I'm retired NYPD as well. while I would never buy a ex police vehicle, you and I both know that the average NYPD cop shoots only when he goes to qualify (and I'm sure that goes for most PD's). So 2 times a year at Rodman's Neck, at 200 rounds a session means that you are firing 400 rounds a year. That's 8000 rounds in a 20 year career. Now, cops weren't great with maintaining their weapons (although I was. Some of my guns are 30 years old and look brand new), a thorough cleaning will remedy that (maybe change some springs). I've seen cops unholster their guns and french fries fall out of the holster. Would i buy a cop gun dedicated to recruit training? Hell no. But a 20 year model 10 still has TONS of life left.

KBM, Nothing but respect to you. Remember the dogs at the range? The prisoners? The meatball sandwiches? Anyway, did my whole 20 in the 32, 34, and 26pct's. So did Wifey.
Somehow, were still doing it here in S. Florida. Never thought I'd miss being on the job, even though they consider this being on the job. Kinda miss my swivel holster and cap. Oh well
Good luck to you

[Wickerman]

177. thanks

It's not conclusive, but it does, as you say, anecdotally support the premise.

[AtheistCrusader]

157. Which is conjecture?

A report on how much range time is required?
Or a report on police accuracy?

There is no report on range time required for DGU's by civilians because there isn't any.

Studies exist on officer accuracy. They are not encouraging.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html

I thought you maybe had already done a simple bing search.

[Wickerman]

163. I accomplished no searches as it wasn't my meme

:shrug:

[AtheistCrusader]

164. Well, if you look at the article I just cited, hit rate is about 35%

That's 'not good'.

Unfortunately, Department of Justice statistics on legal defensive gun uses by civilians do not contain hit rate data.

I would support adding that, if possible.

[Wickerman]

166. The question was actually

Do you have a citation for the statement that CHL have more range time than a typical cop.

[AtheistCrusader]

168. No official study.

That would be nice. My anecdotal experience jives with that of many other posters here: Many police officers do not 'take this work home with them' and qualify once a year. (Some police departments have more stringent qualification, and some require twice a year)

Most of the CHL holders I know, even outside my family, do go to the range often as possible, 'for fun' if for no other reason.


It would be fantastic if someone would undertake such a study.

[Wickerman]

170. Ok, that's fair

Where I live nearly everyone hunts and fishes and has weapon interests. Our local cops and highway patrol guys are gun guys. I'd guess in a bigger city the cops aren't so much. When I lived in Texas I had friends that got carry licenses when GWB signed the law into effect simply because they could and it took up a Saturday and, what $85 imsc? None of them even owned guns, had been prior military, either. They had to go out and buy weapons.

When I see the statement I've asked the citation for I always think that my experience is exactly opposite of the statement; hence my question asking for citation. I try not to rely on my own anecdotal knowledge and think arguments are more persuasive when accomplished with documentation.

It would be a cool study. Hellish to accomplish, but cool.

[oneshooter]

199. The Texas requirements for a CHL are a lot stricter than a lot of states.

It includes a 12 hour class with a closed book test. The class covers current law, legal restrictions, violence avoidance and anger management. A 70% is needed to pass.The live fire is as listed below

The course of fire will be at distances of three, seven,
and fifteen yards, for a total of fifty rounds.

(1) Twenty rounds will be fired from three yards, as follows:

(A) five rounds will be fired "One Shot Exercise";
two seconds allowed for each shot;

(B) ten rounds will be fired "Two Shot Exercise";
three seconds allowed for each two shots; and

(C) five rounds will be fired;
ten seconds allowed for five shots.

(2) Twenty rounds will be fired from seven yards,
fired in four five-shot strings as follows:
(A) the first five shots will be fired in ten seconds;

(B) the next five shots will be fired in two stages:
(i) two shots will be fired in four seconds; and
(ii) three shots will be fired in six seconds.

(C) the next five shots at seven yards will be fired
"One Shot Exercise"; three seconds will be allowed
for each shot; and

(D) the last five shots fired at the seven-yard line,
the time will be fifteen seconds to shoot five rounds.

(3) Ten rounds will be fired from fifteen yards,
fired in two five-shot strings as follows:

(A) the first five shots will be fired in two stages:
(i) two shots fired in six seconds; and
(ii) three shots fired in nine seconds.

(B) the last five shots will be fired in fifteen seconds.

Again a 70% score is required to pass.

With a Texas CHL there is no requirement for a NICS check. Simply present the license and and the number will be written on the 7733 form.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[one-eyed fat man]

213. Couple points

I think the most relevant study has already been done. How much time practicing one spends is of little value if, when push comes to shove, you shoot the wrong person.

On that statistic concealed carry holders come out way ahead. But it's not all because they are better shots (although they might be.) In a self-defense situation the victim does not have to solve much ambiguity. The guy with a mask and a gun demanding your money is not an IRS guy trying to trick you into feeling better about paying your taxes.

A cop responding to a prowler call comes onto a homeowner holding a gun and a thief with his hands in the air has to sort out who is who. Until he does to his satisfaction it is a fact of human nature anything anyone does that startles him is likely to result in somebody being shot.

Cops are behind the eight-ball as they are generally required to try and do something if a crime is committed in their presence. Morally at least on a personal level, if not as a government responsibility.

As a concealed carry holder the law in most states imposes a much greater burden when defending a third party.

Here is one example to think about. You are a clerk in a convenience store. Some guy comes in with his hand in his pocket poking it out and says, "This is a stickup. I got a gun. Gimme the money or I'll shoot."

The law in most states requires that you only use lethal force in self defense when you reasonably believe your life to be in danger based on the facts as they appear. The law lets you take the guy at his word and if you shoot him under the circumstances as they appear you would be justified.

Now lets add a little twist to the same scenario and you are a customer in the very same convenience store when the very same crook walks in and announces the stick up in the very same way. Here the decision to shoot to defend the clerk, (a third party) has to be tempered by additional considerations.

First the party you are defending the circumstances must be IN FACT such that they would justified in using lethal force. Repeat that, the circumstances must in fact, support the need for lethal force.

If you shoot the robber and it turns out he was bluffing, there's no gun in his pocket, you better STFU and have a damn good lawyer on speed dial.

In the first instance, as the victim defending himself, reasonable belief in the circumstances as they appear was enough justification to act. In the second anything less than certainty that circumstances in fact warranted lethal force is NOT JUSTIFIED.

The clerk may earnestly feel the crook needs shooting but the situation in fact does not warrant your lethal intervention.

[oneshooter]

218. Very well said, sir. However the laws do vary by state.

In Texas if the third scenario happens you are allowed to shoot. The robber has announced that a stick up is in progress, that he has a gun. The weapon does NOT have to be seen. If he is shot the law treats it the same as if he did, in fact, have a weapon.

Like I said, the laws varies from state to state. It would be best to know them.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Logical]

54. But MANY CCW holders do not have range time. I know that to be true....

and still carry a gun. stupid.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. Oh hey, my mom is stupid.

Good to know.

(I guarantee she knows her way around that revolver, and can hit a human sized target at legally appropriate self-defense ranges, even if she hasn't been to the range this year)

[Logical]

191. So your think "do not have range time" means "has range time yearly"??

[WatsonT]

219. Then you "know" a lie

you have to demonstrate proficiency to get a CCW.

[Logical]

227. Really? Utah you don't. And in kansas you have to shoot....

18 shots out of 25 in a 12 by 14 inch square. And you can try as many times as you want.

and then NEVER have to shoot again the rest of your life.

You think that is proficiency???

LOL. Maybe you were joking.

[Logical]

48. I am amazed how many CC holders love to ignore those signs.....

they always have an excuse ready like "I missed the sign" or "It is not a legal sign". Read the CCW boards and they think their rights extend beyond the sign. Stupid.

Once I get my CC I will honor the business owners requests.

[armueller2001]

79. I won't.

Unless it is a sign I can go to jail for ignoring, I will not honor the business owner's requests. My life is worth more than his biases. If a business owner didn't like Catholics or African Americans, should they honor his requests too?

[Logical]

118. See, you are what I call an extreme pro-gun person and one that hurts...

the image. But I bet you don't care how it looks.

Then keep your ass out of the business.

You realize all the amendments have restrictions correct? If not I will explain it to you.

[armueller2001]

121. Sure I understand and support restrictions on the second amendment.

If a business wants CHL permit holders banned, then they can comply with the law and post a legitimate sign meeting criteria in Texas code 30.06. I will follow the law and take my business elsewhere.

[Logical]

124. You know their intent and and should honor it. But justify it how you want. n-t

[armueller2001]

140. Meh.

If there are no legal repercussions I don't give a shit about the business owner's personal biases any more than I care about his religious beliefs or if he wipes his ass front to back.

[Logical]

147. Classy. I doubt you help the image much. But I am sure you don't care. Good luck! n-t

[S_B_Jackson]

183. I'm not sure that I understand your contention...

that "It is not a legal sign." is an excuse.

At least in Texas, the law states:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/signposting.htm
Sign Posting

PROHIBITING HANDGUNS IN A BUSINESS OR OTHER ENTITY

In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

"CONFORME A LA SECCIÓN 30.06 DEL CÔDIGO PENAL (TRASPASAR PORTANDO ARMAS DE FUEGO) PERSONAS CON LICENCIA BAJO DEL SUB-CAPITULO H, CAPITULO 411, CODIGO DE GOBIERNO (LEY DE PORTAR ARMAS), NO DEBEN ENTRAR A ESTA PROPIEDAD PORTANDO UN ARMA DE FUEGO."


Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) further states that a sign must meet the following requirements:

i.includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
ii.appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
iii.is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

If a property owner wishes to post their business/property, that is their right; but just as I am expected to obey the law, so too is there a duty imposed upon them to legally notify me. A gun busters sign (picture of a pistol in a red circle slashed by a diagonal line) has NO WEIGHT in law and can and should be ignored.

[Logical]

189. If his intent is to keep guns out I will honor it. You can do what the hell your personality wants.

[S_B_Jackson]

201. If the property owners is reasonable, then he will have posted his property in a legal manner

in order to inform his/her customers of that intent.

The law (already cited) is clear and explicit in the manner that this shall be done. Simply slapping a gun busters sign on the door is meaningless and I will ignore it as the meaningless jibberish that it is. Nor will I feel it necessary to advise him/her of the the fact that their sign is devoid of legal weight.

A year or so ago, I noticed that the local AMC Theatre had posted the doors into their theatres. It had the correct language, but the sign did not meet the other criteria defined....it did not use block letters, and the letters were only 1/2" instead of the legally required minimum of 1". They hire off-duty police to provide security on the weekends during the summer, and that weekend the officer was standing outside the door so I asked him if he had seen the new signage? He stated that he had.

I asked him, "If a concealed handgun licensee entered the theatre, would you find tha that sign met the legal requirements?"

He grinned and said, "No, it does not and I would inform the theatre manager of that fact IF it ever became an issue. Of course, you would be asked to leave, and the law would require that you exit the building immediately upon request."

I thanked him, wished him a good day, and went in to watch the movie.

A month or so later, the sign was removed.

[Logical]

202. I doubt a proper sign will keep you from carrying in the business. Just a guess. n-t

[S_B_Jackson]

215. Your doubt would be misplaced.

As stated earlier, I believe a property owner has every right to post their property. If they do so in the manner proscribed by law, I scrupulously comply with MY duty under that law.

If I need something at that location which is not easily obtainable elsewhere, I store my firearm in the console vault in my vehicle and enter the business to purchase whatever it is that I need. I also make sure to speak to the owner/mgr to calmly advise them of my regrets that this was the last purchase that I will be able to make with them so long as they post their property.

Fortunately, I've only encountered a couple of businesses which are 30.06 posted.

[PavePusher]

221. And wrong, for the vast majority of people.

The hurdle for prohibiting firearms on private property is deliberately set very low. All you have to do is post the proper signage, clearly described in the laws.

If a business owner can't be bothered to do that, it is clear that s/he not only does not care about my security (or their own...), but they don't care about the law either. This additionally demonstrates that they don't really care enough about the issue to take a very simple step. Either they are merely paying lip service to someone elses whim, or they are deliberately being jerks.

Either way, they will get my business only once, and only if I do not have a better option (i.e. stuck for gas at a remote highway exit). I will also explain to them why, and alert my contacts within the pro-2A community that the place does not want their business.

If I have to meet strict and often complicated standards in my lawful conduct, they can meet easy and simple ones.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. How can you tell if someone is carrying concealed? N/T

[rl6214]

93. "you are not trained in police tactics."

I guarantee that I can out shoot most cops. Most cops only shoot their firearms when they qualify once a year, at most a couple hundred rounds. I shoot every weekend, going through thousands of rounds. I have trained young police officers in proper techniques and firearm handling. People in the target shooting community are much better shots than most cops.

A business owner has every right to request that anyone comingt into their establishment do it unarmed and I respect that request. I also would not patronize that establishment and know many others who feel the same. By posting that sign they are establishing it as an area where only the criminals will be armed. I don't want to be a sitting duck.

[Logical]

228. You are correct, and some small town cops have no requirement. n-t

[one-eyed fat man]

101. False assumption

"...you are not trained in police tactics."

I don't need to be. I have no interest in chasing or catching criminals. I do not see any reason to intervene on your behalf if you are being robbed. That's not my job. In fact, the law in Kentucky requires a much higher burdens of proof to justify shooting in defense of another. It is, in fact, possible for a situation to exist where a person would be justified in the use of lethal force to defend himself, but a third party could not legally defend them.

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person.

The cops on the other hand show up after trouble has started. Most often, long after, and only to make the chalk outlines and fill out reports. They are much more likely to have to try and sort out the "good guys" from the "bad guys." Consequently, they are also at more risk of looking for the pea under the wrong cup.

[PavePusher]

120. Police tactics and self-defense tactics are overlapping, but not congruent, subsets of skills. n/t

[spin]

149. Parking lots can be dangerous areas...

people would park their car and walk to and from your establishment. Are you willing to provide parking lot security for your patrons?

You state that you know that wouldn't lose any business over a "no-guns" sign on your door. I know that I would never enter your business and take my money elsewhere as would most people who have concealed carry permits. When "shall issue" concealed carry passed in Florida in 1987, such signs were common. Three months later they were rare. I suspect the business owners who posted these signs rapidly witness a decrease in their business.

In Florida today, 801,219 people have concealed weapons permits. Hillsborough County (Tampa) has 39525 license holders, Pinellas County (St Petersburg)has 31935, Polk County has 19362. All those people are potential customers if your business is in the Tampa Bay area.

It's not wise to piss potential customers off.

Of course, your sign might just attract the wrong type of customer, an armed criminal who sees your establishment as an easy target.

[oneshooter]

195. In Texas all you have to do is post a proper 30.06 sign at all entrences. n/t

[slackmaster]

230. I'm not pro-gun. I'm pro-choice on guns.

HTH