I personally dislike open or concealed carry

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

and I decline to give my business to places that allow it. With the exception of those who are either duly authorized security or law enforcement, such as bank guards or armored car employees, or law enforcement, I have seen far too many people carrying (with or without permits) who behave in an unsafe manner and who too often display a belligerent attitude that they do not attempt without a firearm. That suggests to me an attitude about guns that in equal parts unwise and unhealthy -- in some cases even unstable.

This is an observation borne out by the number of reported road rage incidents involving firearms, the number of bar incidents involving firearms, the number of public location accidents with firearms (notably the roughly 1+ a week at Walmarts) that simply do not occur in locations where there are not firearms carried by other customers.

An armed society is not a polite society, it is a society bent on violence, looking for violence, and likely to be involved in a violent self-fulfilling prophecy. Wearing guns, either overtly, or covertly (where people can tell anyway, most of the time) is inherently antagonistic. Guns have a place in our culture, our society; but it is not a public one.

In that vein, I post this:

[gejohnston]

1. strange, I get around quite a bit and found no such problems

of course, one can come up with lists of rare events to make any point including gun control advocates shooting people.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

7. there has been a rising increase in both fatal and non-fatal shootings which track with increases in

gun ownership

I don't believe all of the people who I have seen carrying in public, or who report they carry in public, are safe. I shouldn't have to trust their judgment or safety practices, in order to be safe from being one of those people who become a shooting statistic.

If people were all that safe with firearms, the increase in guns and gun ownership would not produce an increase in shootings, since there is no credible evidence that the increase in guns in any way correlates to stats for crime (or a decline in crime).

Here is just one example of that correlation:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/26/1124441/-Gunshot-Injuries-in-America-Parallel-Sales-of-Guns

[Callisto32]

9. You are right, you shouldn't have to trust them.

If you don't like public, you are welcome to stay out of it.

As for that link. Hmm, not a lot of context in that data. Looks like its mostly tracking suicide to me.

Their body, their choice, no?

As for correlation. It does not indicate causation.

Carrying a firearm is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for violence, either accidental or volitional.

[krispos42]

25. I don't think that's true

Starting in the early 80's with the adaption of the Beretta 92 by the armed forces, police and civilians alike began purchasing double-stack 9mm pistols instead of revolvers and single-stack .45s. Glock appeared on the scene a few years later and sales went through the roof. Later on, double-stack .45s and .40s were created and sold, and other manufacturers got into the game as well... Smith & Wesson, Sig-Sauer, Heckler & Koch, Springfield Armory, Ruger, etc.

Similarly, in the late 80's, people began taking an interest in civilian-legal versions of modern battlefield rifles, and began buying AR-15s and AK-47s and other rifles.


So, we have semiautomatic rifles fed from a detachable magazine as a greater percentage of rifles in America than ever before. We have handguns that shoot from a 13, 15, or 17-round magazine as a greater percentage of handguns in America than ever before.

So you can argue that the POTENTIAL is as high as ever... yet, homicide trends, even multiple ones, are on the decline.

[krispos42]

28. More data

If there was an increase in both fatal and non-fatal shootings, we would see it in this chart, because a non-fatal, non-accidental shooting is still an assault, right?

[petronius]

2. I personally am not bothered by either open or concealed carry, although I

prefer if people choose concealed simply to avoid any disturbance to those unaccustomed to seeing firearms.

I support shall-issue CCW with a comprehensive training requirement. And individuals who behave negligently should be held legally and criminally liable (as/where appropriate).

Whether or not a business allows or disallows firearms plays no role at all in my decision to patronize (or not) the establishment. I certainly think that any private entity should have the right to bar or allow firearms at its discretion...

[Callisto32]

10. I stay away from business that don't allow people to carry.

Mostly because I respect their property rights, also because disarming requires handling the firearm, not something I am wont to do, publicly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. To each their own

I do not support businesses that have the no guns allowed signs and I also tell them why.

[Callisto32]

20. Round here its really not much of an issue.

This mostly just means i stay out of government buildings that aren't a courthouse.

[Starboard Tack]

57. "I support shall-issue CCW with a comprehensive training requirement"

Isn't that somewhat contradictory. Sounds more like "shall issue" after said training. Which, btw, I can agree with, depending on how comprehensive the training is. I would also add a psych evaluation and a medical sign-off by a physician for any medications which might be a factor. Steroids, for example.

[gejohnston]

58. I would say training standard like Texas

using steroids IAW a prescription isn't a problem. It is those who use them illegally and unsafely. Given that CCW holders are generally safer than cops........ the psych evals are too subjective.

[Starboard Tack]

59. Obviously, armed cops should have to undergo regular psych evaluations.

As should anyone who wants to carry a firearm in public. Psych evaluations do not have to be subjective. On the contrary. Nor are they difficult or complicated to administer.

[petronius]

62. 'Shall-issue' in the sense of it being an administrative rather than discretionary

act on the part of the issuer - tick off the objective criteria on the checklist and issue the permit. No judgement calls or arbitrary/subjective decision making involved or allowed.

As for the training, from what I've read of it I think the Texas model is a good one, although if such a system ever seriously came under consideration here I'd probably want to dig deeper into the specifics.

I'm much more leery of medical or psychological tests, partly because they have the potential to raise a serious financial barrier. And I wonder how many medical or psych practitioners would be willing to sign off on such a test (I guess they do in other countries and circumstances, but it sure seems like a responsibility the professions would not want to assume) .But they also seem to introduce an element of subjectivity into the process: using a prescription as a disqualifier based just on possible (hopefully rare) side-effects is a bit tenuous. On the psych side, it seems to me that determining someone to be not-a-threat, in the absence of any warning signs, would require a very intense and laborious process if it's to have any validity - too much so for ordinary licensing procedures...

[Starboard Tack]

63. I think we're pretty much on the same page

I agree that permits should not be issued at the whim of some local chief of police. The process needs to be standardized, which it currently is not. In fact, it is currently out of control.
The psych test is a challenge, certainly, but not an insurmountable one. Hopefully computerized to eliminate subjectivity.

[Bay Boy]

64. So if you don't have a doctor

you don't get a CCW?

Who pays for the psych exam and how much is it?

[Starboard Tack]

69. You got it. Is that really too much to ask?

You take a vision test to drive. You need a medical certificate to fly a plane. Why not for carrying a gun in public?
And YOU pay. Who else do you think should pay?

[iiibbb]

72. I don't pay for my vision test to drive.

I never have.

I have carried a gun in public. I think the month-long background check was pretty sufficient.

I would like to see better coupling of state adjudicated mental issues and the NICS background check.

[Starboard Tack]

73. Driver's licences are free in your state? I seriously doubt that.

And how do you propose a "better coupling of state adjudicated mental issues and the NICS background check"?

[gejohnston]

74. not free but

part of the forty bucks for the rest of it. The courts do a better job of reporting adjudications to the FBI.

[iiibbb]

3. So you don't go to national parks?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

4. not any more

fortunately we have plenty of state, county and local parks that do not permit firearms, and I've seen the national parks I wanted to see already.

[iiibbb]

12. One can carry in state parks, generally :)

Most states carry laws preempt local ordinances.

[Kennah]

48. I believe the rule on National Parks is ...

... if it's legal in the State Parks in that state, then it's legal in the National Parks in that state.

[Bay Boy]

65. I'm guessing that the map of the places you can go...

...is like a gerrymandered congressional district.

[iiibbb]

66. the places he can go...

...now

or he's fibbing a bit to try and make a point about something... because he thinks there are enough people like him that it will cumulatively make an impact.

which is a point I have made myself. It's just that I think the Democratic candidates will suffer by ill-considered gun control pushes while the outcome of their mandate on the economy remains uncertain

[holdencaufield]

5. "I decline to give my business to places that allow it"

Not planning on getting out much?

[DonP]

6. Umm, how can you be "bothered" by concealed carry it it's like, you know concealed?

Hard to avoid something you can't see. Or are you, like a former member here, able to "sense" when someone is carrying?

[shadowrider]

50. From 100 feet away no less n/t

[DonP]

54. Not the first gun control fan here to claim "Gun Chi ESP"

We've had a steady streams of them that claim they just "KNOW" who is carrying at a glance, that they are doubtless a T-Bagger, how they voted in the last four elections and what kind of dog they kick when they get home.

Gifted "geniuses" one and all.

But I guess things are getting back to normal. A regular stream of cut and paste pointless posts from anti gun blogs that are supposed to have the weight of a SCOTUS decision, at least to weak, unthinking minds.

Also a steady stream of how weak and helpless the NRA "REALLY" is politically etc. Funny, if they are so weak and laughable, why do people keep screaming it? If Wayne and his ilk are so impotent, just let them fade away and laugh as they go. Methinks they dost protest too much, too loud .... and too often.

[Callisto32]

8. So, you're an elitest.

Worse, you are an elitist that purports to tell me my motivations and demeanor.

You provide no data, only vague "observations."

Allow me to counter: I know plenty of people who carry every day. I live in an area where there are probably damn near as many firearms as peopel, and more chickens. We don't have the trouble you are describing. We just don't. This is my observation, as such it is just as valid as yours.

Also, if you think you can "tell most of the time" when someone is carrying concealed, you are likely fooling yourself. Depending on where you live, you might be surprised to find nearly one in 20 folks is carrying (legally), and you never even knew.

[holdencaufield]

11. Are the chickens carrying?

Because I'm not OK with that. Ban high-capacity chickens

[Callisto32]

13. Well a truck full of them ran my wife off the road a couple of months ago.

Much more dangerous than any of the guns in town have been.

Wait, wait, that would be the driver's fault....nm.

[holdencaufield]

15. Where the chickens driving?

Because I'm not OK with that either.

They have like zero depth perception.

[jeepnstein]

67. Now listen heah, I say, listen heah.

Chickens don't need no guns, they have dynamite. I say dynamite.

[Light House]

70. Or just in case the dynamite caper backfires.

[spin]

14. You have every right to your views. I see no problem with your not doing business ...

in establishments that allow licensed people to carry. I don't spend my money in any business that restricts my right to carry. I simply go elsewhere. Of course in Florida it is rare to find a business that has a "no firearms" sign on its door.

Accidental discharges involving people with carry permits do occur but they are extremely rare and usually could be avoided if only the firearm's owner had used a proper holster or carried a modern firearm that would not discharge if dropped.

Road rage incidents and bar shootings involving people with carry permits are also rare but do occur and often receive national media attention. Incidents in which licensed person used his weapon to stop a violent attack usually only get attention at the local level, if that. Often when a victim shows his attacker that he is armed, the incident ends with no shots fired. Such stories are simply not newsworthy.

But you obviously feel strongly about this issue and I can only suggest that you work with your elected representatives to change the carry laws in your state. With enough public support existing carry laws can be changed or repealed. With the mounting anti-gun sentiment in this nation, this might be your best opportunity to push for changes.

[oneshooter]

83. In fact to help you avoid these "dangerous" locations

http://texas3006.com/

A list of known 30.06 businesses

You can feel safe there, knowing that only illegal weapons will be found there.

[oneshooter]

17. Real easy to tell in Texas

30.06 sign required

http://chltraining.com/prohibited.html

It is a rather large sign.

[Clames]

18. What an apt name for the sign.

Pity it's probably lost on those that choose to post them...

[oldhippie]

46. Even that sign is sometimes bogus .......

Where I live in Texas the only place with the 30.06 sign is the bank where I do business. It is not really posted as required, at the entrance, but inside the bank on an interior bulletin board. Now, I happen to know the bank president fairly well. He is also a city councilman I work with on some committees. I asked him once about the sign being mis-placed. He said, "Oh, don't pay any attention to that sign. Corporate makes us put one up to sooth the Nervous Nellies. We would never press the issue with any of our legitimate CHL folks."

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Statistically we are far safer than the general population.

Here are some stats for 2011.

Texas had 525,000+ people with CHL (Concealed Handgun Liscense). Only six were convicted of murder or manslaughter versus about 600 for the general population. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

Here is a chart for you

[IMG][/IMG]

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. *thud*

You and your pesky facts...

[oldhippie]

47. And if you put LEO convictions on the chart ......

.... you'll also get a surprise. You're safer around a CHL holder than an LEO.

[ileus]

21. I personally like both CC and OC

I only OC when engaging in outdoors activities.

Of course the only difference for me between OC and CC is an untucked shirt with a different OWB holster. I also have a nice leather holster for weddings, funerals, and, church.

Safety first, victim later.

[jimmy the one]

22. suicide sometimes a spontaneous 'choice'

Callisto32 If you don't like public, you are welcome to stay out of it.

I think it makes complete sense to stay away from areas where guns proliferate.

Callisto32 I stay away from business that don't allow people to carry.

And they're glad you do.

As for that link.. Looks like its mostly tracking suicide to me.
As for correlation. It does not indicate causation.

Huh? correlation certainly can indicate causation, just that correlation in itself does not 'prove' causation.

Their body, their choice, no?

Such a cavalier approach; teenager gets dumped by boyfriend finds daddys guns & goodbye. Mom can't take it anymore from abusive husband, goodbye. Dad's bills mounting & he got laid off, goodbye. Dispirited elderly man feels inferior, turns to his gun for help. Impulsive suicide attempts are generally not really a cogent 'choice', but a sudden panic or despair. Survivors generally are not recidivistic. Guns make suicide attempts 90% successful, all other methods combined about 15%.

Carrying a firearm is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for violence, either accidental or volitional.

Red herring; guns enhance the situation to greater violent outcomes. 2,000 yrs ago the romans had a saying 'the sword itself incites to violence'. Apply today.

petronius: Whether or not a business allows or disallows firearms plays no role at all in my decision to patronize (or not) the establishment. I certainly think that any private entity should have the right to bar or allow firearms at its discretion...

I won't knowingly go to a restaurant which allows concealed carry, but it's really difficult to tell. I boycott 'olive garden' I think it is, too republican & allows guns here in pennsy, tho likely more the rule.

[Callisto32]

35. You are in college, aren't you?

"Callisto32 If you don't like public, you are welcome to stay out of it.

I think it makes complete sense to stay away from areas where guns proliferate."

"Callisto32 I stay away from business that don't allow people to carry.

And they're glad you do."


Ad hominem, abusive. Further, its is a baseless assertion. You don't know what anybody is glad about but you.

"As for that link.. Looks like its mostly tracking suicide to me.
As for correlation. It does not indicate causation.

Huh? correlation certainly can indicate causation, just that correlation in itself does not 'prove' causation."

Apparently you knew what I meant, eh? So, splitting hairs over a poor choice of words. Yes, correlation may clue you in that there COULD BE a causal relationship, but you need to control for a hell of a lot of factors when discussing social issues.

Re: Suicide
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/14/does-gun-ownership-promote-suicide

"Their body, their choice, no?

Such a cavalier approach; teenager gets dumped by boyfriend finds daddys guns & goodbye. Mom can't take it anymore from abusive husband, goodbye. Dad's bills mounting & he got laid off, goodbye. Dispirited elderly man feels inferior, turns to his gun for help. Impulsive suicide attempts are generally not really a cogent 'choice', but a sudden panic or despair. Survivors generally are not recidivistic. Guns make suicide attempts 90% successful, all other methods combined about 15%."

It is not cavalier, it is recognizing reality. I take no pleasure in a human taking his life. I think suicide is a horrid, horrid, thing and I wince every time I see a story about euthanasia and assisted suicide becoming more accepted. However, I cannot deny that someone who owns his body has the right to put a bullet through it if he wants. It's no more my place to tell someone he can't put lead into himself than it is regarding THC, MDMA, Cocaine, Diacetylmorphine or any other element or combination thereof. You have no idea how many tears I have shed or for what/whom. You know fuck all about me, and I'd appreciate you not telling me what my attitudes are. I stand by my statement regarding suicide. Their body, their choice. That does NOT mean I like or don't care what people are doing when they make those choices. People, if allowed to make choices WILL make bad ones, no doubt, that is their mistake to make, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.

"Carrying a firearm is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for violence, either accidental or volitional.

Red herring; guns enhance the situation to greater violent outcomes. 2,000 yrs ago the romans had a saying 'the sword itself incites to violence'. Apply today. "

False, guns provide human being with a choice to do greater violence, they can make shitty choices. Guns are present in lots of places where the people possessing them exercise restraint and good judgment. As for what the Romans said, who the fuck cares? I can't tell if this is appeal to authority or antiquity, frankly, in either case, you tried to call me out on a logical fallacy and rebutted with...a logical fallacy.

As for it being a red herring, that suggests it is irrelevant. It is perfectly relevant. The person to whom I was responding said:

"If people were all that safe with firearms, the increase in guns and gun ownership would not produce an increase in shootings, since there is no credible evidence that the increase in guns in any way correlates to stats for crime (or a decline in crime)."

S/he seems to be suggesting that we should curtail gun ownership/possession, because people aren't safe with firearms. My point is that possession of firearms is NOT the problem, or so many people would not possess them safely. Stating that mere possession of a firearm is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for aggression or accidents is absolutely relevant to a policy discussion where we are talking about restricting/preventing gun ownership/possession. Strike the root, and all that.

[SQUEE]

23. I find it funny how people seem to think

they can spot all the guns and "gun nuts" out there..
I have carried an SBR'd 6.8 in a back pack w/ 4 mags, as well as .40 full size pistol also w reload, all while being completely invisible to the general pop while working PSD, alot of that is due to the fact I am a tattooed and bearded "freak", it is what actually made me an important part of many details. I have been at at many public venues and had no one even remotely make me. I could stand next to you at Whole Foods or Trader Joe's, and you would never guess, in fact your more likely to strike up a conversation over my shirt, or the unique ink I have. Ask me how I know.
I have worked appearances at book stores and many record stores, during the Summer... never been made..Worked Bonnaroo for years, never made.
The point of all this is you have absolutely no idea who is carrying, the vast majority of CCW do not wear tac-bags and 5.11 gear. So you had better rethink just how much you know about who is and who is not "strapped". See you at the mall

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

24. What is PSD?

Sorry, not familiar with the acronym.

[MicaelS]

27. Security Detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Security_Detail

A security detail more often known as a PSD, standing for Protective Services Detail, Personal Security Detachment, or Personal Security Detail is a protective team assigned to protect the personal security of an individual or group. PSDs can be made up of military personnel, private security contractors, or law enforcement agents.

It could also stand for Perimeter Security Detail.

[SQUEE]

29. Protective detail basically a

"body guard".
I used to work in the security field after the military, most of the "better" companies that do it now are distasteful to me as are many that populate the field.. so I am recently out of it, plus it is a fairly young mans game.

I actually tend to agree that many, not most, but many people don't approach public carry with the proper mindset. I no longer carry due to the mental fatigue of having to be on guard, and constantly having my head on swivel to practice proper situational awareness. I notice I tended to be far more careful of all interactions while carrying. simple situations and conflict can escalate, and as carrier I am OBLIGATED to avoid them, so I found myself constantly running alternatives through my head and not enjoying what I was out doing. Also I find if I feel I might need a weapon to go somewhere, well maybe I should find another place to go.

I open carry at the range, but no where else, mainly due to the value of the firearms I have with me, the isolation of some the ranges I go to, and the times I like to frequent, merely to avoid gawkers and FUDDs.

I do have my CCW in my state mainly for the convenience it affords in transporting to the range and to classes and competitions et al. Also when hiking and camping around here I do carry my back pack set up since it is very easy to stumble on a patch, or a lab area, and there have been many cases of attacks in the mountains.

[shaayecanaan]

68. This is an interesting post...

I can see the merits of open carry as a deterrence measure. If anyone sees you carrying a gun they're probably going to bother someone else.

But otherwise, shit, where do you draw the line? Some drunk guy shouts abuse at you as you're walking home? You're going to shoot him? Probably not. What about if there's a bit of pushing and shoving? Maybe a punch or two gets traded. You going to pull the gun?

About the only time you could definitively pull a gun is if someone pulls one on you. But presuming he's done that already, I wouldnt try any quick draw mcgraw bullshit. I'd rather just give him my wallet.

[iiibbb]

71. You draw the line based on what the law legally permits you to do.

It varies from state to state.

In New York if you shoot someone in self defense and claim it, you are charged with murder (you did admit to killing someone) and you have to prove your innocence. In other states there are stand your ground laws that place the burden of proof on the state to prove it was murder.

Other states are in between... in public, you have to prove your innocence, in your home there is a castle doctrine.


I see no merit in open carry. It bothers other people. I can make you a target as easily as a deterrence I'd say.

With regards to "quick-draw-mcgraw" bullshit. There are too many factors in any confrontation to generalize what is the course of action that will work all of the time. You might give someone your wallet and then they shoot you anyway. Are there other people around? Did you see it coming? Does the other guy have his weapon ready? Is the other guy expecting resistance? Do you resist immediately?

There is no certainty.

[Callisto32]

36. But, damn those are useful pants.

[SQUEE]

51. I find them a bit loose in the gusset..

..OMG it's true!!! I must be compensating.

[CBGLuthier]

26. open carry makes me want to vomit

WTF kind of insane society would ever think such utter stupidity as open carry is a good idea?

[iiibbb]

31. People who don't know what they want.

Half the anti-gun people want people to open carry because "they want to know who the idiots are", or "isn't that the point of a gun, to scare off the bad guys." or whatever else.

These same people are probably the types that would call the police if they saw someone walk into a store with a holstered weapon.



Concealed carry is flat-out polite. Properly holstered, there is no risk to anyone.

[rdharma]

32. Open Carry

[guardian]

33. If open carry = tiny penis

then the corollary is that people that don't carry firearms have droopy vaginas and saggy boobs.

[rdharma]

34. I'm rubber and you are glue...........

Gee, guardian, you seem to have taken my post above personally!

[Callisto32]

37. That's funny.

If I'm compensating, why do I carry a 3" revolver?

[rdharma]

38. I don't know.........

........ are you hoping for enlargement?

[gejohnston]

39. and those of us who excel at

"motion of the ocean"?

[rdharma]

40. So you were in the Navy?........

And here I thought by your avatar, that you were in the Air Force.

[gejohnston]

41. the USAF used to have three

boat squadrons at Homstead, Patrick, and MacDill. The down side was that those AFSCs were limited, on where one could go. Fortunately, I wasn't so limited. I'm guessing you are too young to know the expression.

[rdharma]

42. I'm guessing you are too young to know the expression.

Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)

I've heard the expression...... it's the common defense for the "size doesn't matter" crowd.

[iiibbb]

43. why is it the anti gun crowd are the only ones obsessed with fetishes and penises?

Seriously...

[gejohnston]

44. projecting their own insecurities on to others nt

[rdharma]

45. Buwahahahhaaa!

Who are the insecure ones?!!!!

[Kennah]

49. If it's concealed, how would you know?

[HockeyMom]

52. I would rather SEE who is carrying a gun

so I could stay as far away from them as possible.

[jimmy the one]

53. the KOS article

Penigma: there has been a rising increase in both fatal and non-fatal shootings which track with increases in gun ownership
penigma: If people were all that safe with firearms, the increase in guns and gun ownership would not produce an increase in shootings, since there is no credible evidence that the increase in guns in any way correlates to stats for crime (or a decline in crime).

krispos: don't think that's true

accd'g the KOS article it's true:..results of this study show unmistakeably that: 1) gunshot injuries, both fatal and non-fatal, have increased steadily over the period studied; 2) guns sales as modeled by NICS data have likewise risen steadily since this record was initiated; and 3) there exists a tight linkage between gun sales and gunshot injuries, especially for fatal gunshot injuries.

A question is if 'gun ownership' is actually increasing, or if it's just more guns in existing gunowners hands. That is, 'gunsales' does not necessarily equate to a net increase in gun ownership rate. Overall gun ownership (~33%) is not really increasing the past several years, but staying about the same. Guns SALES increased.

krispos: Starting in the early 80's with the adaption of the Beretta 92.. Similarly, in the late 80's, people began taking an interest in civilian-legal versions of modern battlefield rifles, and began buying AR-15s and AK-47s and other rifles.
So, we have semiautomatic rifles fed from a detachable magazine as a greater percentage of rifles in America than ever before. We have handguns that shoot from a 13, 15, or 17-round magazine as a greater percentage of handguns in America than ever before.
So you can argue that the POTENTIAL is as high as ever...
yet, homicide trends, even multiple ones, are on the decline.

Straight from NRA doctrine, find a way to imply more guns equals less crime.
Crime & murder rates generally rose in the time periods you mention, until about the mid 90's when they began to decline, murder due in part better treatment of gunshot wounds by hospitals resulting in lesser fatality (the 80s & 90s proved good training periods for treating gunshot wounds).
From the early 80's to the mid 90's the national murder rate stayed about the same (high), but the violent crime rate increased about 40%, while, per your argument, the increase in those types firearms. I can't see attributing increases in those firearms with any positive influence on violent crime or murder rates, as you do.
Gun control states have seen more significant drops in both violent crime rates & murder rates, during the time periods you note. Pro gun Lousiana for instance, usually the state with the highest murder rate, went from ~15 in early 80's to ~20 in mid 90s, down to about 11 in 2011. In New York the murder rate was ~11 in early 80's, rose to 14 in 1990, and is at 4.0 today.
(8 of the 9 guncontrol states saw more significant declines from mid 90's than comparable pro gun states, hawaii remained at parity at well under national avg, so it was 'safer' to begin with).

[bossy22]

56. not completely true according to this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_in_the_United_States_criminal_justice_system

Yes violent crime increased during that time period by some extent, but it also significantly decreased in the 1990's and has continued to decrease (Generally) till today.

It should be noted that during the time period you discuss, another important thing happened in the history of this country- the crack cocaine epidemic and de-institutionalization.

I don't argue the point that more guns=less crime, but the argument that more guns=more crime isn't strong either. If there was a direct correlation

Here is a set of graphs that shoe there is a significant historical decrease in gun crime victims over the past 20 years

[jimmy the one]

55. beware rightwing cretinism, aka nra upper mgmt

DonP: We've had a steady streams of them that claim they just "KNOW" who is carrying at a glance, that they are doubtless a T-Bagger, how they voted in the last four elections and what kind of dog they kick when they get home.

Wow. Since there are so many 'streams' of these posts, could you cite one, please?
Lot of false accusations running about in here, I think it's a good way to keep people honest, dontcha think?

A regular stream of cut and paste pointless posts from anti gun blogs that are supposed to have the weight of a SCOTUS decision, at least to weak, unthinking minds.

Ha, couldn't agree more due your semantics - your last 6 words apply to yourself regarding what you wrote before them!

Also a steady stream of how weak and helpless the NRA "REALLY" is politically etc. Funny, if they are so weak and laughable, why do people keep screaming it? If Wayne and his ilk are so impotent, just let them fade away and laugh as they go. Methinks they dost protest too much, too loud .... and too often.

Rightwing Cretinism can be a POWERFUL & DANGEROUS FORCE, and not always weak & impotent.
Rightwing Cretinism, if allowed to foment in it's own filth & lies, can sway weak unthinking minds all the time.
Rightwing Cretinism is the NRA upper mgmt, the NRA upper mgmt is Rightwing Cretinism.

[dhpgetsit]

60. If I decide to take some target practice...

If I decide to take some target practice I would rather carry my handgun into the store to get ammo than leave it locked up in the truck. Vehicles get stolen all the time. And rather than make certain other people uncomfortable or make myself a target of suspicion, I would rather conceal my handgun than wear it openly. And I feel an added responsibility to be more polite, avoid confrontations, when armed. The last thing I would ever want to do is get into an escalating argument with a belligerent person while armed. I realize there are jerks and belligerent people in every group, but brandishing a weapon in a menacing way is a crime, and if you are convicted of a crime, you lose your rights, so again, the added level of responsibility SHOULD cause gun owners to be more mindful of their actions. It works that way for me, anyway.

[JamesSchacht]

61. 1,260,703 Americans died by firearms since 1968

Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

And I just -- just on a personal note, on April 9, 1968, I was in Ebenezer Baptist Church when Martin Luther King's funeral -- a remarkable event. And two months later, I was working in California in Robert Kennedy's campaign when he was shot.

Martin Luther King was 39. Robert Kennedy was 42. That's -- 42 years after their being shot, 1,260,703 Americans died in firearms -- by firearms. In the total history of the United States in every war, in the Revolutionary, all the world's wars, 659,000 Americans have died in combat, twice as many in one-fifth the time.

And I think the president has the capacity and the standing at this point to make that case that we -- that this is not American exceptionalism, when we have five times -- four times as many people killed in this country as in the next 21 richest countries in the world in one year.

-- Mark Shields, PBS NewsHour, NewsHour.PBS.org, January 18, 2013, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june13/shieldsbrooks_01-18.html.

[markgee]

75. I feel much safer

knowing there are several carrying around me. Less chance that someone with an illegal gun or other weapon will try something stupid if they see a 45 on everyones hip.

[BainsBane]

77. ignoring reality makes you feel safer?

Your notion of safety is deadly.

"Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

[geckosfeet]

76. Firearms are carried everywhere EXCEPT where explecitly forbidden by law.

Grocery stores, drug stores, toy stores, libraries, gas stations, parks and playgrounds, churches, medical buildings,factories, office buildings etc. etc.

How many privately owned guns have seen in the last week? How many assaults have you wittnessed? Shootings?

[Politicalboi]

78. Lucky for me I live in Ca

So guns inside businesses are for the most part illegal, as it should be. A law abiding gun nut carrying in public could easily lose their gun to someone bigger and faster than them. And then what? This man has a lot of guts to show these clowns the door. I could give a rats ass about gun nuts 2nd amendment rights when it comes to private businesses. Stores that allow such nonsense should HAVE to post a sign so those who don't want to go near these crazies don't have too. Let them shoot each other.

[gejohnston]

79. I may have some bad news for you

California, like New York, doesn't have state wide standards. The problem with may issue is that it is entirely up to the county. Some counties are de facto shall issue, while others are defacto no issue. LA and Orange (or at least the last guy in the case of Orange) Counties, are issue to sheriff's cronies and campaign contributors. Issuing CCWs
From what I can find, Kern County is a de facto shall issue.

BTW, CCW holders have a better record of non stupidity than cops.

[jimmy the one]

80. kern county ccw

johnston: California, like New York, doesn't have state wide standards. The problem with may issue is that it is entirely up to the county. Some counties are de facto shall issue, while others are defacto no issue. .. From what I can find, Kern County is a de facto shall issue.

link: 4,077: The number of active concealed weapons permits in Kern County in 2005.
2,694: The number of active concealed weapons permits in Fresno County in 2005.
1,358: The number of active concealed weapons permits in Los Angeles County in 2005.
10: The number of active concealed weapons permits in San Francisco County in 2005.
1: The number of active concealed weapons permits in San Benito County in 2005. This is the lowest number in the state.
http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/counties/kern.html

wiki: population of Kern County was 839,631 in 2010 .... 101,580 (35.8%) were Democrats, 131,878 (46.5%) were Republicans, 10,752 (3.8%)... {last pres election kern co voted democrat was 1964} .. Kern County gives out more permits to carry concealed weapons than any other county in the state, and has led the state in citizens who like to pack heat for at least the last 10 years.
Does one really 'like to pack heat', johnston?

Since Kern Co experienced growth from 2005 to 2010 let's add a thousand ccw holders, but even then 5,000 ccw holders of 840,000 residents is about a half percent, or one out of every 200 kern residents, has ccw.
A half percent is well below the national avg for having a ccw license, I think a whopping 3 percent or so, of americans having ccw permit.

J: BTW, CCW holders have a better record of non stupidity than cops.

If you mean by rate, I think this remark belongs in Bain's "Myths" post.
Fact: About 95% of Americans do not have ccw LTC or want to carry a gun.

[gejohnston]

81. the myths posts were mostly myths

you mean by rate, I think this remark belongs in Bain's "Myths" post.

the one using lies to debunk "myths"?

Fact: About 95% of Americans do not have ccw LTC or want to carry a gun.

Probably, but not relevant.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

82. I personally dislike football.