In what way does my legally carrying a concealed weapon at a restaurant harm anyone else?

[GreenStormCloud]

Responders, please answer the question, instead of using it as a springboard to go off on a tangent.

I carry concealed, legal in Texas, when I am in a restaurant. (NOT a bar, a restaurant) I have taken the required classes, passed a marksmanship test, and passed an FBI background check.

In what way do I harm you by having a CONCEALED handgun on me? BTW - Wife has one too.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Carrying is not the issue.

Using is.

[burrfoot]

5. How do you mean?

I'm genuinely not clear on what you're getting at, unless you're indicating that it is inherently a bad thing that anyone, ever, is hurt or killed with a firearm.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. What I'm saying is:

You can't hurt me with it unless you're carrying it. If you don't have it on you, then you can't use it against me, or anyone.

It isn't (of course) a bad thing that people are hurt or killed by a firearm...

Only bad people should be hurt by gunfire.

Is that better?

[NewMoonTherian]

77. With that in mind...

what is your opinion of allowing concealed carry in restaurants? You've indicated that you don't have a problem with carrying weapons so long as they aren't used to hurt innocent people. CCW licensees aren't going to do this, and criminals who might do so will disregard laws prohibiting guns. The presence of CCW licensees with guns can mitigate the harm done by criminals.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

135. CCW permit holders shoot fewer innocent people than police officers.

[proteus_lives]

259. I'm a CCW holder. Why would I hurt you?

Just curious.

[Name removed]

368. Deleted message

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

[Euromutt]

372. By that logic, we should ban knives from restaurants

After all, if that large steak knife isn't right next to my plate, and those chef's knives aren't in the kitchen, then I can't use them against you, or anyone, either.

Let's take this to its logical extreme, and require everyone to go around with their hands and feet encased in multiple layers of bubble wrap, so that they can't punch or kick each other. We can have the kitchen staff pre-cut your food, and you can eat it with a plastic spoon, or perhaps they can puree it and you can suck it up through a straw. Of course, everything will have to come though a serving hatch so that no unauthorized persons can get to the food preparation implements.

Maybe it won't do much for your dining experience, but surely that's worth it to feel safe?

[GreenStormCloud]

15. I think you mean that ILLEGALLY using it is.

With the background checks that I have been through, and an LIFETIME of not being illegally violent, the probability of me using it wrongly is next to zero.

Regarding legal violence in my past. I am a retired private investigator, and once pulled my gun on a burglar I caught in the act. I didn't shoot him, just attempted to hold him for the cops. But he knew I would not shoot him unless he became a threat to me so he dropped the stuff he was stealing and slowly walked away.

[MineralMan]

40. The probability of you using it "rightly" also approaches zero.

Of course, you are in Texas, so I suppose the odds increase slightly...maybe to 100,000:1.

If I see that you're carrying in the restaurant and I see it because you're concealing in a deliberately unconcealed way, I will mock you publicly. I promise. I will ask you about your "concealed" pistol in a pointed way.

If it's properly concealed, I will not know you have it, now will I?

[GreenStormCloud]

45. If I am allowing the gun to play peek-a-boo you have every right to call the police.

Further, you should call them. It is a violation of Texas law for the gun to even print through the clothes. Concealed means CONCEALED.

[MineralMan]

51. That's OK. I'd rather mock the guy publicly if he's playing

games with concealment. It's much more fun than calling the cops. What's he gonna do, pull the thing and shoot me?

[GreenStormCloud]

66. Your choice. I don't play peek-a-boo. N/T

[MineralMan]

209. Then the situation would never arise, would it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. If you see the firearm it probably is a cop or a criminal.

[MineralMan]

208. Cops look like cops. Criminals don't look like cops.

CCW guys trying to show off look like neither.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

252. LOL. There is nothing quite like an angry man that likes to stereotype.

[The Doctor.]

275. Ummmm.... the point of 'concealment' is to *NOT* "show off" anything.

That kind of defeats the purpose.

That you assume all legal gun owners want to 'show off' their guns is somewhat evident in your post. You seem to believe that owning guns is about 'status' somehow.

Here's something to really think about; Every time you leave your home and go out into the world, it is likely that you come within 10 ft of at least one person carrying a concealed weapon. Ever go to a carnival?

Make that twenty.


Don't worry about the legal owners; you feel safe around them already without realizing it... and that's kind of the point.

[paulsby]

335. most people are woefully nonobservant

evne if a gun is "printing" etc.

i notice them sometimes, but most people never would.

[paulsby]

334. here's one way to tell

ime, criminals rarely use holsters.

cops almost always do.

[DissedByBush]

380. In many states it's the opposite

Open carry is allowed, you need a CCW to conceal it.

[spin]

103. There have been many instances in which a permit holder did use...

his weapon "rightly". There have also been a few instances in which a person with a CCW did misuse his firearm in a criminal manner.

In Florida, a grand total of 167 people lost their concealed carry permits because of a crime involving a firearm in 22 years.

You can always check the monthly Florida Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

125. Mocking people with guns probably isn't the greatest idea.

Not because you might start arguments, most ccw'ers are level-headed.
More so because what if the person you've decided to mock, about the semi-concealed gun, happens to not be a CCW'er?
Otherwise known as a criminal. I would have to imagine they don't enjoy being called out.
If you knew someone was a criminal illegally carrying a firearm would you mock such a person?
So when you see someone with a partially concealed handgun, what lets know that this a CCWer and not a criminal?
Just something to think about.

Also, don't you have a concealed carry permit yourself?

[GreenStormCloud]

138. Great response. N/T

[MineralMan]

190. I do have a CCW permit. When I carry, which is rare, nobody

would EVER know it.

As for your question...I can tell when the guy doing the hidey seekey concealed carry is just an asshole playing games. It's obvious. That's when I ridicule him in public. I haven't failed yet, and I've done it half a dozen times. What happens is that the guy boogies. Of course I wouldn't do that to a criminal, but you can tell the difference. Criminals don't want you to know they're armed. The phony CCW assholes definitely want you to know. They're obvious about it. Maybe you haven't encountered one of these morons. I have.

I'm not afraid of assholes. I'm afraid of criminals. I can tell the difference. The guy who is printing under his little NASCAR windbreaker is a moron. Every time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

268. More stereotypes you are a real winner.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. So if you see a person's concealed firearm you mock them publicly?

How many times have you done that?

[MineralMan]

191. Half a dozen times in the past three years. You?

I'm not a very nice person, sometimes. I don't like assholes who are playing hidey seeky with their "concealed" pistol. It makes me angry. Wanna try me on it? Show up where I am with your pistol printing through your windbreaker. You'll hear from me.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

226. What about people open carrying?

Here in ohio open carry is perfectly legal.
I've open carried before.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

250. The only people in plain clothes I see carrying firearms partially concealed are cops.

I don't make a habit of calling them out. You seem to have some anger management issues, I'm glad you don't own firearms.

[PavePusher]

282. What would you do in Arizona, where open carry is legal...

and common?

[burrfoot]

2. It doesn't, of course.

Not even psychologically- because they won't ever know you're carrying.

But I'm curious to see what other answers you get.....


:popcorn:


(Although, to be honest, I suspect that you won't get much. Genuinely reasonable, well thought-out questions rarely seem to these days)

[burrfoot]

308. Well damn, CSG! My foot is in my mouth. :) n/t

[DrDan]

3. I break out in hives when near a concealed weapon

of course Peggy is correct - it is not carrying that is the issue. It is the use. Not hard to understand, really.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. Try benadryl.

[GreenStormCloud]

163. Don't you mean the ILLEGAL use?

I am certain that if a mass-murderer started a shooting spree at a place you were eating, you wouldn't complain if a CCW person stopped him.

You seem to conflate legal and illegal use as the same, and they aren't.

[MineralMan]

189. When has that happened? When has there been a mass shooting

that has been foiled by someone who was CCW? Name me a single incident and I'll STFU. One.

[X_Digger]

211. New Life Church, Colorado Springs, CO

Stopped by Jeanne Assam, a CCW holder acting as security. She was not a cop, not a security guard, just a CCW holder.

[MineralMan]

213. Actually, I believe she was retained as security. I'd have to check

but that's my recollection.

"Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.

Boyd said Assam was the one who suggested the church beef up its security Sunday following the Arvada shooting, which it did. The pastor credited the security plan and the extra security for preventing further bloodshed.

Boyd said there are 15 to 20 security people at the church. All are volunteers but the only ones armed are those who are licensed to carry weapons."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html

Check it out. She was acting as a volunteer security guard at the time. It's important to get the facts right.

[X_Digger]

217. Moving the goal posts?

You asked "When has there been a mass shooting that has been foiled by someone who was CCW?"

I gave you one.

eta:

"The security guard credited with bravery for shooting a gunman at a Colorado church was fired from her job as a Minneapolis police officer in the 1990s for lying, Minneapolis police officials said Tuesday.

But that didn't bother officials at New Life Church. Pastor Brady Boyd said Jeanne Assam's license to carry a gun, and to work at other police departments, persuaded leaders to allow her to serve on a voluntary security detail at the Colorado Springs church."

http://wcco.com/crime/colorado.shooting.security.2.608063.html

[MineralMan]

219. She was a volunteer security guard.

Very different from a random CCW licensee who happened to be on the scene. She was there with the intent to provide security.

[X_Digger]

221. So yes, moving the goal posts then?

Since you didn't stipulate those conditions originally..

eta: and I see you noticed the difference between 'retained as' and 'volunteer'. Good on ya.

[MineralMan]

229. Look, there's a huge difference between someone acting

as a security guard, volunteer or not, and some random CCW licensee in a restaurant. I asked for an example of a CCW licensee stopping some mass killing and you give me a security guard. Never mind that she was someone who had been fired from a police department. I'd have pulled her CCW until she demonstrated good judgment, but that's beside the point.

You keep talking about how much safer you feel with a firearm on your person. That's fine. You say you never display your weapon. That's fine, too, and I've said I have no problem with that kind of CCW. I asked a simple, straightforward question, and you're playing semantic games. She was there as an armed security guard. She did a great job. That has nothing to do with the typical CCW licensee carrying as he/she goes about normal activities.

What I'm saying is that it's incorrect to say that such carry results in greater safety for anyone. It does not. It may make you feel more secure, and that's just fine. If you keep your weapon concealed, then it's not an issue for me or anyone else. They will not know you are carrying.

For me, other factors have a higher priority. I would never, under any circumstances, take my wife to any place that I did not consider to be completely safe. I don't carry when we go out. The only time I carry is when I'm doing something like looking at an outboard motor I'm considering buying in a crappy part of the city. I don't carry when I go out to eat, because we're going to a place where the likelihood of anything happening that involved firearms is 1,000,000:1. It's far more dangerous to drive there than to walk from the parking lot to the restaurant.

Yes, I'm an asshole when it comes to morons who have CCW permits and display their stupidity. I have zero patience for them. I'm vocal about it. Now, I wouldn't beard these idiots when my wife is there. She'd chew my ass out royally. But, when I'm by myself, I call them out for their stupidity. I will continue to do that.

You're not the problem. You carry properly and you probably won't ever have any occasion to have to use your firearm. Good. Not everyone is like you, though. There are morons out there. It's a no-brainer her in Minnesota to get a CCW permit. Any moron can do it, and many have.

Life is full of surprises. I've surprised some morons by not being pleased by their nonsense. I plan to continue doing that. I don't want to lose the right to carry because some asshole is acting like an asshole.

You don't like that...OK by me. You won't ever encounter me. But, don't assume that everyone who is opposed to unlimited carry by morons is anti-gun. I'm far from that. I'm anti-moron.

[X_Digger]

240. If that's the question you wanted answered, you should have asked that.

Regarding only carrying when you go into a crappy part of the city..

I don't go into the crappy part of the city. That's me avoiding trouble. I have an extra responsibility to not put myself in a place where I can reasonably expect to have to discharge my weapon. No outboard motor (or marine coral in my case) is worth the psychological, legal, and financial burden, if I can simply choose not to put myself in that position.

If I knew that I was going to have to use my gun to defend myself one morning, I'd hit the snooze button and go back to sleep that day.

I carry my gun for the possibility (not certainty, not guarantee) of defending myself or others when I'm not expecting it- therefore I carry whenever I go out, in places where legal. A woman was abducted from the grocery store parking lot about a mile from my house. It was unheard of for this burb, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility, obviously. http://cbs11tv.com/local/Kathleen.Garza.Missing.2.989816.html.

Summer before last, there was a string of home invasions and 'bump and rob' traffic accidents in the area (http://cbs11tv.com/local/Coppell.Coppell.home.2.621398.html http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/011608dnmethomeinvasions.276f922.html)

I don't roll the dice with my life any more than I have to. I plan on being prepared.

eta: I just re-read your response and noticed a lot of 'You say that..' or 'You keep talking about..'. Not sure if you were talking to me, or someone else, because I don't think I've said any of those things.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

256. Let's see if you are really a man of your word.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=293580&mesg_id=293961

[GreenStormCloud]

225. You are moving the goalposts. Her CCW was what allowed her to

legally have a concealed gun. That she had volunteered to provide security is irrelevant.

Your demand for proof requires us to prove something that didn't happen. There was the case a few months ago in which some guy walked into a bar in NV and shot two brothers. A CCW holder then dropped the guy. We can't prove that the shooter would have continued, nor can you prove that he would have stopped. We can only say that the killer dropped two and got dropped.

[benEzra]

299. Had she been an official security guard, it would have been illegal for her to carry

the 9mm that she stopped the shooter with, in that jurisdiction. Security guards in that jurisdiction were limited by law to revolvers (a rather stupid rule that is unfortunately rather common nationwide).

She was a parishioner with a CHL and a personally owned Beretta who volunteered to carry at church. It's a darn good thing she did, but that doesn't make her something other than a private citizen with a CHL, and it's people like her that the no-CCW-at-church crowd wishes to disarm.

[Glassunion]

218. Down play it all you want, but here...

From the Corvallis Gazette-Times of November 23, 2005
and
From Portland’s KATU.com of February 14, 2006

Mall shooting victim drew own pistol, family says
Parents of the man most seriously wounded in a shooting rampage at a shopping mall said Tuesday that he drew a pistol and confronted the gunman before being shot.
Brendan “Dan’’ McKown, 38, was hit twice in the abdomen on Sunday, when a gunman opened fire on crowds in the Tacoma Mall.
Doctors at Tacoma General Hospital believe McKown may have suffered permanent paralysis because of spinal damage, hospital spokesman Todd Kelley said.
Roger McKown, 63, of Yelm, called his son a hero and said he has been licensed to carry a firearm for years.
“Dan has been one that always believes in protecting other people, and he put his life on the line for other people,’’ he said at a hospital news conference.

McKown would not be in this position had he not been at work on Nov. 20. He managed a store inside the mall and was chatting with a friend when he heard gunshots.
“Bam, bam, bam, bam, high rate of fire, people wer diving for cover,” he says.
That is when McKown pulled his pistol, the gun he has carried for 17 years, not imagining he might actually have to use it. That is, until he came face to face with Dominick Maldonado, who had a rifle.
“I said – ‘Young man, I think you need to put your weapon down.’ He apparently didn’t appreciate that and he brought his gun around. I drew and right as I aimed at his head, he hit me in the spine,” McKown says. “Each blow is throwing my arm back into the air and I’m just praying to God, something really un-Christian, just please let me kill this guy before he shoots somebody else.”
As McKown was bleeding and believing he was going to die, police say Maldonado took hostages, keeping officers and paramedics outside for another hour and twenty minutes.
As for his accused shooter, Maldonado’s trial begins in April and McKown says he plans to be there.

After confronting the shooter, no one else was killed.

I'm sure you will down play it. But here it is none the less. A CCWer confronted a gunman, and prevented more people from getting killed.

[GreenStormCloud]

230. I bet that at the beginning of his day, he didn't know that was going to happen.

BTW - He made a huge tactical error and is paying for it. Once the bad guy starts shooting, you don't give him any warnings. Instead you shoot him at first opportunity. By telling him to drop his gun the good guy gave the bad guy a chance to shoot the good guy, and the bad guy did just that.

[Glassunion]

233. He carried for 17 years.

8,935,199 minutes of being a paranoid gun lover. However it took only a few short seconds to show that last statement as false.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

254. Here you go. Please live up to your word.

Shootout in Winnemucca: Three dead, two injured in early-morning gunfight


WINNEMUCCA - Three people were killed and two were injured after a man with a high-capacity, semi-automatic handgun began shooting inside a bar packed with people.

The battle occurred at Players Bar and Grill shortly before 2:30 a.m. Sunday.

Ernesto Villagomez, 30, allegedly fired multiple shots at Jose Torres, 20, and his brother, Margarito Torres, 19, of Winnemucca, both of whom were pronounced dead at the scene. Villagomez was shot and killed at the scene by a bystander.

Winnemucca Police Chief Bob Davidson confirmed the deceased brothers and the shooter were involved in a family dispute that included numerous violent confrontations going back approximately one year. He confirmed Villagomez appeared to target the Torres brothers.

The bystander was identified only as a 48-year-old Reno man with a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. Authorities confirmed he was a U.S. Marine, but it was not clear whether he was on active duty or had finished his term of service.


http://elkodaily.com/articles/2008/05/26/news/breaking_news/breaking1.txt

[MineralMan]

301. Good story. Thanks.

[Glassunion]

264. Hello Mineral Man

I do believe in post 218 and 254 answered your challenge. It's ok, I will not hold you to your word.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

269. Then why do you carry if it's so unimportant?

[hedgehog]

4. Why would you want to carry a concealed weapon into a restaurant?

Is it really that dangerous in Texas? Or is that your back-up plan in case you can't pay for the meal and you don't want to do dishes?

Edited to add some snark: I guess all those extra taxes us New Yorkers pay buy us better security in public places!

[Chulanowa]

7. Might have to quiet down the folks shouting for their "Motherf'ng iced tea!"

[hedgehog]

10. We're talking Texas; shouldn't that be

Motherf'ng sweet tea?

[NewMoonTherian]

85. The proper term is "dadgum tea".

If you want unsweetened or hot tea, you have to specify. And this isn't a dig at Texas. I'm in Oklahoma and I say "dadgum" on a regular basis. CCW licensee too.

[burrfoot]

9. Why would you ever own a fire extinguisher?

Is your home really that likely to catch on fire?


The relative rarity of an event doesn't have an impact on the validity of preparation to respond to it.

[hedgehog]

11. Hmm, is the proper comparison a fire extinguisher or a flame thrower?

[AtheistCrusader]

A flame thrower is commonly sold as agricultrual equipment.

It's not even considered a weapon.

[hedgehog]

47. Well, there you go. Everyone who fears assault should just carry a flame thrower.

Problem solved.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Indiscriminate weapon.

If you actually carried/employed one as a weapon, as with the Anthrax analogy further down thread, you couldn't credibly use it in a self-defense manner, because you cannot credibly direct it upon just one target.

[hedgehog]

55. I have a special modern design flame thrower that enables me

to target only bad guys.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. The BATFE would have to approve it.

If it did, you'd be good to go.

[hedgehog]

91. Actaully, I can buy one at Amazon today!

And, I can get a good top on my creme brulee!

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Heh

That could almost stop an angry chipmunk

[NewMoonTherian]

95. Actually...

If it were something like a small jet afterburner, or an upscaled blowtorch, it wouldn't be indiscriminate. The flame would have to extend at least ten feet and not spread more than the width of a quarter though, and I don't think anyone's developed anything like that. That'd be the closest real equivalent to a lightsaber. Anyway, what loon would bother with that when you could simply carry a gun? Silly.

[hedgehog]

102. Are you kidding? Someone threatens me, I whip out my trusty

creme brulee torch, and they back off slowly, because I'm clearly my own kind of crazy and not to be tampered with!

[NewMoonTherian]

122. Hah! I do something similar.

Though I use a little snow globe. While sternly staring my assailant in the eye, I give it a little shake. That usually ceases hostilities.

[slackmaster]

59. A flame thrower is appropriate if you are being menaced by a sward

[paulsby]

336. fear canard

one doesn't carry because on FEARS assault etc.

one carries merely to be prepared for a very unlikely reality.

same reason i had fire insurance on my old house (wasn't required since i owned it)

[burrfoot]

300. Oh, you're just being silly now.

I have it the right way.

A fire extinguisher, because it offers you a chance of surviving a crisis situation.

[spin]

278. I carry a gun when I'm out ...

if I go into a restaurant I take the gun with me rather then leaving it in in parking lot where it might be stolen.

I also have to walk through the parking lot to the restaurant and back. Parking lots are often dangerous places.

I'm not paranoid or afraid. I am alert and aware of my surroundings.

If I felt that the restaurant or the parking lot was a dangerous place to go, I would simply go elsewhere. I don't go looking for trouble. But if trouble occurs, I want my handgun with me as the my last option when there is no other alternative and I know for a fact that I face serious injury or death.

I don't ever expect to find myself in that situation, but I don't have the ability to predict the future.

[PavePusher]

283. Have you been paying attention at all? n/t

[Chulanowa]

6. It doesn't. Unless you're planning on using it

And spare me the argument that claims anyone with a CCW permit is as benevolent as the Mahatma simply by having the license.

So. I'm curious about where this came from, so I'll pose my own question.

How does the owner of an establishment having a "no weapons on my property" rule harm you?

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Perhaps you should check the stastics on CCWers.

Both Texas and Florida post them online. We are much safer than the general public. In fact, you are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning that to be illegally killed by a CCWer.

By the owner of the place having such a sign, he requires me to be defenseless if a violent felon chooses to attack us in the parking lot, or in his restaurant.

However, Texas has specific signage law, so his sign, unless it corforms EXACTLY to the state authorized sign, can be ignored. Of course, the owner can ask me to leave, but first he has to find out that I have a concealed gun on me. You may rest assured that my concealed gun is CONCEALED.

FWIW, here in Texas I have not seen any restaurant that bothers with any kind of no-guns sign.

[HillbillyBob]

32. Partner has ccw, doesn't carry it often.

Usually not unless he is out on business far from home (within state) travelling at night.
I don't see a problem unless you dust a sorry waitron unit, short the tip maybe, but shooting him might be a bit harsh.

[bpj62]

36. attacked in a parking lot

That is the same old tired argument that you always use. You all have these Rambo fantasies about being mugged or accosted in a parking lot and the statistics just don't bear it out. Once again why do you think you have the right to force you beliefs and values on other citizens and thier private property.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

65. No body believes they have the right to force beliefs/values on other citizens or private property.

I've never seen one progun person claim all people should be forced to carry firearms.
How are we foring our beliefs on you?

Furthermore, CCW laws do not force CCW on private property.

Around here, if the owner of a private property does not want concealed weapons on his property then he may post a "No Guns" sign at the entrance. This sign prohibits carry in the store and failure to leave the premesis of such a store will result in arrest. The gas station right near my house has this sign... so when I pump gas there I must pay at the pump. Likewise, if the property is your home or land, you may ask me to leave for whatever reason - it's your land and if I'm on it without consent that is trespassing. Criminal trespassing is enforced by police if you call them.

[bpj62]

168. Private Property

THe property line is actually where the sign Be it No Guns or No Trespassing takes affect. If you are in my front yard and I ask you to leave and you don't then you are trespassing. You do not have to enter the domicile for it to be trespassing. Once you have entered the gas station property line you are breaking the law because you have violated a posted sign on private property. My earlier point which you ignored is that for some reason many of the CWC have this fantasy of being attacked in a parking lot and the statistics just dont back you up. And yes I have seen CWC who feel that their constitutional rights are being violated by people who dont want them to bring guns into thier establishments.

[GreenStormCloud]

182. Muggings are a fantasy? You must live in a crime-free world.

Mine isn't. Some of it is low-crime, some part of it is high-crime. It isn't paranoia to be prepared.

BTW, the FBI statistics show, "An estimated 1,382,012 violent crimes occurred nationwide in 2008". That is a bunch of violent crimes. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

Yes, the private property owner has rights. But I rarely see no-guns signs. Some places try to have it both ways. They post a sign that says unlicensed handguns on the premises is a felony. To most people I suppose they think of it as a no-guns sign, but it isn't. Since I am licensed, that sign doesn't apply to me.

[oneshooter]

232. Actually in Texas, the sign must be posted at the entrance

to the parking lot. If it to be in force for that lot. By placing it at the building entrance only denies legal entrance to that building.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

284. You don't watch the news AT ALL, do you?! n/t

[Chulanowa]

56. And people still get hit by lightning

Just like every now and then someone gets shot by a CCW holder. I'm just saying that having the license doesn't mean you're a saint, which is an argument I see pretty often. You're more likely to get mauled by a dodo than stabbed with an icepick by a WEBLO scout... but that doesn't mean that little gap-toothed ginger kid couldn't stab you with an ice pick!

You're worried about being defenseless in a restaurant? I hope the places you frequent supply complimentary antacids because damned if it doesn't sound like you'll need them. :rofl:

[GreenStormCloud]

78. Muggins are a reality. They happen. I choose not to live in denail. N/T

[Chulanowa]

81. Paranoia's the next neighborhood over from Denial

Yeah, muggings happen.

So do tiger attacks.

Generally though, neither happens in restaurants. If they do, maybe you need to find better establishments to give your business to

[GreenStormCloud]

84. Muggings happen in parking lots.

Those are places where on parks their car to walk to the restaurant, unless the place is so fancy that they have valet parking. I have never eaten a place that has valet parking.

[Chulanowa]

101. The valet would probably mug you and steal your car

I mean it IS technically a parking lot, and muggings are always happening in parking lots, so, with your luck?

[GreenStormCloud]

112. I am not rich enough to go to places with valet parking.

Luby's for us is a special treat. There is a Chinese buffet place that my wife really likes, but it shares parking with a 12 screen movie theather.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

141. Just because you always eat at Sonic, that doesn't mean everyone else does.

[Euromutt]

245. It's not unheard of

"Man Foiled During Attempted Robbery At Tacoma Restaurant" http://www.kirotv.com/news/16956119/detail.html

The restaurant in question was the Pacific Grill http://www.pacificgrilltacoma.com/ which is hardly some dive on the Hilltop.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

285. So you believe that muggings and tiger attacks happen with the same frequency. That's funny.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

140. Surely you have a link to someone referring to all permit holders as "saints"?

[MineralMan]

64. Here's another statistic to check. How many people carrying

have had occasion to use their firearm to protect themselves or others in a public place? What are the odds that someone will be carrying if something happens. Think about the two cops in Seattle who were shot sitting in the diner. They were armed. Now they're dead.

It's a false sense of security.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

69. No one here has EVER claimed carrying a gun is a guarantee in safety.

It offers an option should one be cornered or assaulted and forced to defend themselves.
I know this very sentiment has been made at least 5-6 times in the last week.

What do you suggest someone (unarmed) do when faced with an armed attacker?
Roll over and die? Hope they are faster? Hope the criminal forgets what he was doing and leaves?

[Chulanowa]

83. Are you new to the guns forum?

'Cause that's basically the entire argument, "Having a gun makes me safer"

Maybe you could enlighten your fellows. We "antis" have had no luck in dispelling the notion of a firearm as a magical talisman. of course if you try, you'll just be labeled an "anti" as well, just like me.


Son, you're on your own.

[GreenStormCloud]

94. FBI crime victimization statistics do show that you are less likely to be injured...

...if you resist crime and that those who resist with guns are injured less often.

I do not trust violent felons to be merciful.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

106. Carrying a firearm technically does make one safer... it is not however a "magic talisman".

You would agree that having smoke detectors and fire extinguishers makes a home owner safer, yes?
You might also agree that those items will never prevent all fire-related deaths and injuries, yes?

If so, then you must agree that having a concealed gun offers a greater chance of defending against threats. If a concealed firearm protects a victim (even just one time) where an unarmed victim would face certain defeat then, by definition, carrying a concealed firearm would make one safER from attack. The key word being safER.Guns aren't perfect for defense every time, but they are certainly better than nothing if you're out of options.

You're making a straw-man argument. No one is claiming guns protect everyone every time or that guns "make them safe"... merely that "guns offer more safety" - there is a difference. Grow up and make some big-boy arguments next time... leave the fallacies at the door, MMmmkay?

[NewMoonTherian]

109. I'm a CCW holder...

and I don't think carrying imparts total safety. It's something that I carry to enhance my ability to defend my life in desperate circumstances. I also study martial arts to defend my safety in less desperate circumstances. Nothing guarantees my safety, but I've made a choice to take this precaution because I think that it may benefit me at some point, and it doesn't harm anyone else. If it did, I wouldn't do it.

Now, I admit that I've developed a bit of an unyielding attitude through my arguments with other gun control supporters, but I'd like to actually discuss why you feel the way you do, for my own education.



EDIT: I was watching Blazing Saddles just last night! Your pic gave me a laugh. "Dear Lord, do we have the strength to accomplish the mighty task in a single night?"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

145. And again surely you have a link to someone saying that?

[Chulanowa]

271. Yeah. It's right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

GO for it.

Hell, the same link will give you the whole "owning a gun protects me" mythology

And of course, many defenders of the "needed killin' " defense.

Knock yourself out, it looks like motherfucking freeperville in there... except freepers draw a distinction between god and guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

277. So that would be nothing, as I suspected, you can't even give one quote.

[Chulanowa]

280. I could do like you guys, and just make one up on the spot

But i'm just too lazy and full of good curry to go datamining, when you can just check your own posts and find something, I'm sure. :)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

281. Thanks for the concession of defeat.

[Glassunion]

152. Chulanowa, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

In the following posts you seem to be establishing a pattern, where you’re are implying that a CCWer will use their firearm in an illegal manner. Basically stating; the CCW holder will suddenly start shooting up a restaurant because they now have a legal ability to carry in a restaurant.

#7

Might have to quiet down the folks shouting for their "Motherf'ng iced tea!"

#6

It doesn't. Unless you're planning on using it.

#56

Just like every now and then someone gets shot by a CCW holder.

But then in the following posts you completely turn around and imply that anyone who holds a CCW is paranoid and pathetic and unhealthy beacause they fear that someone in the general public might start acting in an illegal manner.

#56

You're worried about being defenseless in a restaurant? I hope the places you frequent supply complimentary antacids because damned if it doesn't sound like you'll need them.

#98

You basically live in a world where the world is out to get you, don't you? Must be fucking terrifying. Screw the antacid tabs, GreenStormCloud. Therapy might be better. And I don't mean that in a mean way, just that honestly, you seem to be terrified of the world, and that's just not healthy.

You are using your own logic against yourself. It makes no sense to me. You are exhibiting the same behavior that you are scolding others for.
These two arguments, in my mind, seem to contradict each other. How is it that you can say that a CCWer’s point of view is invalid because they are living in fear of what the public may do, however at the same time make arguments that the CCWer’s need to be feared because of what they may do?

Are CCWers a group that is more prone to killing than the rest of the population? You are criminalizing a group of people that have committed no crime. Correct me if I am wrong, but somewhere in some dusty old documents down in DC, there are a few legal bindings stating that all are innocent until proven guilty. However you seem to me to be going out of your way to state that there are those who are guilty, even in the absence of a crime. I would suggest to you to write your representatives and local authorities and demand their arrest. Let me know how that works out.

[Chulanowa]

276. If you're really squinting, I suppose

#7 - I consider the guns forum one of two enclaves of racism and right-wing vitriol on DU. I/P is more rancorous on the first bit, but you guys take the frosted topping on the second. I felt a mocking reference to BillO's bigoted jabbering about visiting a "black restaurant" seemed appropriate. I doubt you agree, but it amused me.

#6 - If you plan on whipping it out and blasting away, that's obviously going to be a problem. Personally I see no reason to lug a weapon around if I don't intend to use it, but then, I'm a practical sort of guy. I don't carry a spare pair of socks, even though I'm more likely to need 'em.

#56 - It happens. It's often argued around these parts that it doesn't, that a CCW permit is like some sort of magical aura of sainthood and incorruptibility. It's just one more of the magical gun myth that drives me up the damn wall.

Now, you are creating a presupposition out of this - namely, you're claiming that I think CCWer's are gun-happy maniacs. I certainly don't. I'm just saying that they aren't beyond scrutiny. Nice try though.

See, the huge difference between set of phrases #1, and set of phrases #2? I'm not living in a freakish paranoia land. I don't think that I'm going to die from a crazed CCWer, and I don't plan as if I were. On the other hand, the poster I'm criticizing seems to plan every day of his life as if he's going to be attacked at any moment. He's not alone, this seems to be the standard mentality of a lot of people around here.

I'm not scared of guns, or gun owners. I'm not even scared by people threatening me with a gun (it's happened before). I figure if some asshole's going to shoot me, I'm probably going to get shot. Doesn't really bother me, and I don't plan my day as if I'm going to have to fend off throngs of gun-toting loonies. However, a lot of folks here live their lives as if their gun were the absolute central point of it, that everything else was secondary, that they're slap terrified that someone somewhere means them harm, and their entire life revolves around this paranoid, egotistical conceit that, not only does the universe revolve around them, but that it's also out to get them.

I pity such people. If I lived my life in such a state of unreasoning terror, I would buy a gun, too, just to blow my own fucking brains out and save myself the misery.

[burrfoot]

310. You seem to have a great gift for

determining how people who post here live their lives.

You are only exposed to a tiny slice of an individual by reading their posts on an internet discussion board. Don't fool yourself into assuming that you know the entire person based solely on this type of interaction.

I will concede that I have no way of knowing that any particular poster here checks in, reads and posts, and then moves on with their day; but by the same token you don't have any basis for assuming that anyone here does spend any considerable portion of their life online.

That got a little muddled. My point is that while you may be able to pick a poster and say "99% of your postings are in the gun category," it does not equate that that person spends all their time or centers their life around their guns.

The only thing it tells you is that, here on this website, this is the topic that poster has chosen to discuss.

That's a far cry from being enough information for you to tell anyone- not to mention "a lot of folks" - how they live their lives.

[Glassunion]

316. I'm impressed.

#7 I am impressed at how well you turned a post that was intended to convey that an individual would whip out their gun to quiet other patrons down in to a backhanded jab at accusing racism. I'm surprised that no one else here has ever accused me of it before. Everywhere my wife and I eat could be considered a "Black Restaurant"

#6 "Personally I see no reason to lug a weapon around if I don't intend to use it" I don't intend on using it, but I may have to. However it will not be in a willie nilly fashion as you are accusing. I am a responsible gun owner.

#56 Find me a quote where one, just one person here has posted that they feel that way. As you say it is often argued, so I'm sure that you will have no problem finding a post where one of us on this side of the fence has stated that. I know for a fact I have never said that.

"I certainly don't. I'm just saying that they aren't beyond scrutiny" I'm 100% ok with that statement, however I would qualify it that we already are under more scrutiny. As we all have to have background checks ect... in order to posses and carry a firearm.

"On the other hand, the poster I'm criticizing seems to plan every day of his life as if he's going to be attacked at any moment." I'll post the question to the group. GROUP: Are any of you planning everyday of your life as if you are going to be attacked at any moment? My answer is no, I'm sure the rest of us will reply in kind.

"However, a lot of folks here live their lives as if their gun were the absolute central point of it, that everything else was secondary, that they're slap terrified that someone somewhere means them harm, and their entire life revolves around this paranoid, egotistical conceit that, not only does the universe revolve around them, but that it's also out to get them.
I pity such people. If I lived my life in such a state of unreasoning terror, I would buy a gun, too, just to blow my own fucking brains out and save myself the misery." Again I would post the question to the group. GROUP: do you agree with the above statement? My answer again, is no. I do not live my life "slap terrified" that someone somewhere means me harm.

I have explained once, not too long ago why I carry a firearm. Besides the fact that it is none of anyone's business, here it is, in the simplest of terms. I carry a firearm as a last option. If I have no avenue of retreat, and my life will end at the hands of another, I have one, last option. That is not paranoia. To state so would be antagonistic.

[Chulanowa]

319. A last option? Truly?

I'm glad that you're so solid in your principle that you can say, with perfect certainty, that your gun is only for when everything else fails. You and everyone else, of course. Perfect, flawless angels.

Another thing I've noticed around here? The No True Scotsman Fallacy; You and everyone else in the gun forum are "gun owners" a flawless, nearly magical category of human being who are all completely responsible, highly principled, morally upright, upstanding, grade A citizens who would never, under any circumstances, use their weapon in anything but the absolutely most pressing need.

All those people in the gun violence statistics are NOT "gun owners" they're "thugs" and "lowlifes" and "criminals" and they all stole their guns, and should never figure into the discussion at all because they're not really part of the group that you proudly and righteously belong to.

The saying goes, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Now maybe you really are an angelic being of superior discipline to us mere mortals, I don't know. But I kinda doubt that you're as fantastically restrained as you claim to be. When a person has the advantage in a violent or potentially violent situation, instinct tells them to push that advantage.

[X_Digger]

320. Oh lookie, a strawman of a 'no true scotsman'.. a double fallacy! n/t

[Glassunion]

332. Truly impressed again.

I'll break out my reply, one paragraph at a time.
#1. My gun is not just for when everything else fails. They are used for target practice and competition as well. In fact the majority of my firearms would make for very poor defensive weapons. In my household there are only two that are used for carry. I made comment in my last post at how you are eluding my statement about infallibility. Gun owners are not infallible, I have NEVER stated that they are. On top of that I have yet to come across a post where someone her has said that gun owners or CCWers are perfect, flawless or angels. Please enlighten me as to where you saw that.

#2. For the entire paragraph, please enlighten me as to where someone has conveyed that we are perfect or flawless.

#3. Again, please show me where you saw this.

#4. You seemed to be continuing a theme and have a paragraph that is redundant to the other three. But in the name of redundancy, please show me posts where someone has claimed that "we" are infallible creatures. Really, please. As to the last sentence I would have to say I agree. If I find myself in a violent situation(I will guarantee you that I will not start one) your are damn straight that I will press whatever advantage I can muster. So if I cannot de-escalate the situation, nor have an avenue of retreat, I will draw my weapon. If that (drawing my weapon) does not curtail the violence I may be forced to pull the trigger as my very last option.

You seem to me to have the impression that I may have fantasies about getting to kill someone. In fact it is the very last thing that I want to do. To end another human life is to me the most extreme measures that one human can inflict on another human. I do not take it lightly by any stretch of the imagination.

[Chulanowa]

333. Do you understand the words "context" and "implication"?

No, there's nobody here directly stating "ALL GUN OWNERS ARE PERFECT!"... However the notion is implied constantly. There's the "us" - the gun owners, and then there's the "them" - people who use their guns illegally or irresponsibly. You cannot flip through this forum and tell me that people do not make this distinction between an "us" and a "them". Whenever gun crime statistics are brought up, the immediate reply is "Well, I'M not in those and neither is anybody I know!" - implying that the people who are on the list are somehow totally incompatible with the group at hand. The resounding yet unstated retort is "they're not us, so they don't count"

"Reading" is more than just knowing your letters and being able to move your eyes along lines of text, Glassunion. A page is not just a collection of sentences, it's a complete unit conveying an idea collected from those sentences. Similarly a book is not just a clump of pages, but is an overall work consisting of thousands and thousands of words and sentences, arranged into cohesive interconnected paragraphs and strung together in a unified, single message. I didn't need Brain Herbert to give me a five-sentence synopsis of what Dune was about; I could read the damn book and figure it out myself.

Consider the guns forum (or any other forum, I suppose) to be a book. Do I need someone stating, flat out, "I think gun owners are flawless, and I also live my life in mortal terror" to gather that notion from the implied statements and context present? No, I don't. When I see someone posting eight or nine times of how they think they need to be armed because of parking lots, I don't need them to SAY "I'm scared!" - it oozes out of what they are saying.

I don't know where you're getting that I think you have fantasies of killing people (I know some posters here do; I haven't seen enough from you.) The fact you're stating that after demanding straight quotes from me is laughable, but I'll let it pass, since you clearly understand what I'm getting at in my previous paragraphs.

As for my derision of your "last option only" thing... Well, if a person's got barreled courage under their arm, odds are they're going to be more willing to press a confrontation they find themselves involved in. it's a dominance thing, you want to "show that punk who's boss". Maybe you don't (because offline I'm sure you're completely rational at all times. You also have pointy ears and copper-based blood!) but I'm certain you're aware that it can and has happened. If I get into an argument with the guy and it gets to a point where he feels threatened enough to pull out his gun, am I justified in whipping out mine and blowing his ass away? Should he have kept his piece tucked away, then? To what point? How about me, am I justified in sticking mine in his face at the first moment of aggression, or should I wait? If he pulls his piece on me when the argument heats, surely I'm justified in doing anything it takes to end the obvious threat he's giving me, right? No? You know as well as I do (and as we're demonstrating here) that a fair number of people aren't prone to "just walking away" - and i know from experience that trying to do so often ends up with a foot getting implanted into your spinal column. So at what exact point is enough enough, and that "final resort" is reached?

It's completely subjective. And if you're armed, you're going to feel pressure to retaliate with your weapon before an unarmed person would feel the pressure to retaliate with physical blows. It simply makes sense, your brain is telling you "You've got a gun, show that punk who's boss!" as soon as any conflict arises. And obviously it never pops into your head that the other person is feeling threatened by you because humans are, by nature, pretty fucking self-cetered.

of course, none of this fits into the "Black hats and white hats" mythology found around here, so I'm not expecting much introspective thought. Just putting it out there though :)

[Glassunion]

343. We will just have to agree to disagree.

I stand by my initial statement that you seem to be someone who is contradicting their own statements. In my posts I have not personally criticized you. I have criticized your argument. However from your last post, you seem to be resorting at an attempt to belittle me. I’ll explain that later. But for now, here are my answers to your last post.

No, there's nobody here directly stating "ALL GUN OWNERS ARE PERFECT!"... However the notion is implied constantly. There's the "us" - the gun owners, and then there's the "them" - people who use their guns illegally or irresponsibly. You cannot flip through this forum and tell me that people do not make this distinction between an "us" and a "them". Whenever gun crime statistics are brought up, the immediate reply is "Well, I'M not in those and neither is anybody I know!" - implying that the people who are on the list are somehow totally incompatible with the group at hand. The resounding yet unstated retort is "they're not us, so they don't count"

You say that we imply; not state, that “ALL GUN OWNERS ARE PERFECT”. In post # 332, I specifically asked that you show me where someone has conveyed (either communicated or expressed) where one of “US” has made those statements. You say it has been implied constantly; however in my reading of these forums I apparently have yet to come across that chapter in this grand book that we are writing. I have simply asked that you give me direction as to where you read this. I have stated to you directly that I do not agree with that statement. You however, seem to ignore the fact that I have stated or implied the following thought. Here it is in one sentence all by itself.

I DO NOT BELIVE ALL GUN OWNERS ARE PERFECT, INFALLABLE, ANGELIC or FLAWLESS.

As far as the “US and Them” statements that you made I would have to agree, we do differentiate ourselves from criminals. There are more than two categories to choose from when you claim that there is an US and THEM. The way I see it, is that there is an “US”. This “US” consists of a group of people, who have gone through extensive background checks to purchase our firearms. We then take a step further and go through gun safety courses; we take classes on how to carry our firearms and how to de-escalate situations. We then go through more background checks to obtain licenses to carry our firearms. We have our pictures taken, some of us have to be fingerprinted and some more of us may have to stand in front of a judge to be considered eligible to carry a firearm. We specifically go out of our way to prove that we are not criminals, that we are upstanding citizens. Again, we are just saying that we are upstanding citizens, we are not saying that it makes us magical, infallible, perfect human beings.

Most gun crime is committed by those who would not pass the checks, classes and scrutiny that we place ourselves under. This would be the “Them” that we refer to. They would be the people with criminal histories and mental deficiencies that would make them ineligible for the “US” that we refer to. Let me further qualify this by saying that “No one from the “US” club cannot commit a crime or have an accident”. As I have stated before, we are not perfect. What we do argue is the frequency and probability of that occurring. I will give you an example. According the NOAA, lightning kills on average 90 people per year. CCWers have murdered on average 58 people per year. Of all of the murders that occurred in the US in 2007, CCWers accounted for 0.00342% of all of those murdered. Those murderers accounted for 0.0000116% of all of those in the country who have a CCW, and 0.000000725% of all legal gun owners overall. I am 78 times more likely to be murdered by someone who is not a legal gun owner. Our point that we either attempt to communicate either through implication or direct statement is just that the “US” group is a LOT LESS likely to do harm, not immune from it. My personal feelings are that this is due to the fact that we go out of our way to prove that we are not criminals.

Context and implication… Here is where I have an issue.

"Reading" is more than just knowing your letters and being able to move your eyes along lines of text, Glassunion. A page is not just a collection of sentences, it's a complete unit conveying an idea collected from those sentences. Similarly a book is not just a clump of pages, but is an overall work consisting of thousands and thousands of words and sentences, arranged into cohesive interconnected paragraphs and strung together in a unified, single message. I didn't need Brain Herbert to give me a five-sentence synopsis of what Dune was about; I could read the damn book and figure it out myself.
Consider the guns forum (or any other forum, I suppose) to be a book. Do I need someone stating, flat out, "I think gun owners are flawless, and I also live my life in mortal terror" to gather that notion from the implied statements and context present? No, I don't. When I see someone posting eight or nine times of how they think they need to be armed because of parking lots, I don't need them to SAY "I'm scared!" - it oozes out of what they are saying.
I don't know where you're getting that I think you have fantasies of killing people (I know some posters here do; I haven't seen enough from you.) The fact you're stating that after demanding straight quotes from me is laughable, but I'll let it pass, since you clearly understand what I'm getting at in my previous paragraphs.

Judging from the context and implication in these 3 paragraphs, you have shown me that you would prefer to belittle, than to have an honest discussion. The first paragraph to me would seem an attempt at explaining the components of English, with the implication that I am unaware of how to use those components. Basically you are implying that I do not know how to read. Since, you have so eloquently implied that I am incapable of basic comprehension and discussion in that first paragraph, am I to further suppose that you feel that I am uneducated overall? I would so love to thank you for educating the “illiterate me” as to what a book is by implying that I do not know what one is. Since it seems that you have just obviously proved your superior intellect my point of view must be wrong, yes?

As for my derision of your "last option only" thing... Well, if a person's got barreled courage under their arm, odds are they're going to be more willing to press a confrontation they find themselves involved in. it's a dominance thing, you want to "show that punk who's boss".

I’m so glad that you see what I have honestly described as my last option with mocking scorn. You further your ridicule by describing something that is nothing more than a tool in my mind as “barreled courage”, implying an inadequacy. Then you continue to add how one would be more willing to exacerbate a confrontation, implying we magically become bullies. Then in the very next sentence you claim that it is an underlying desire that we want to dominate other people. In three short sentences you managed five insults. I’m impressed. It does however, in my mind not further your point. You are just being insulting, while not making any attempt at an honest conversation.

Maybe you don't (because offline I'm sure you're completely rational at all times. You also have pointy ears and copper-based blood!) but I'm certain you're aware that it can and has happened.

Yes I am aware it has happened and yes I am aware that it can happen. In fact I have stated that it is possible. Again you ignore that I stated it. Why you needed to spend the majority of the statement in insulting me, I am unsure. I’m sure you could enlighten me at your insulting sarcasm. You gave me the benefit of the doubt in the start of the sentence; however you could not make it to the end without removing that benefit and insulting me. Thanks.

If I get into an argument with the guy and it gets to a point where he feels threatened enough to pull out his gun, am I justified in whipping out mine and blowing his ass away? Should he have kept his piece tucked away, then? To what point? How about me, am I justified in sticking mine in his face at the first moment of aggression, or should I wait? If he pulls his piece on me when the argument heats, surely I'm justified in doing anything it takes to end the obvious threat he's giving me, right? No?

I would not threaten a guy. You do state, not imply, that I would threaten. But I can tell you is that I do not go around threatening anyone. In your example you are doing the opposite of what I would do. I would rather de-escalate the situation, if I cannot, I would separate myself from the situation. You would not be justified in pulling your gun as you described yourself as the aggressor and are the one doing the threatening. If you “blow his ass away”, that would make you a murderer. I would continue however, you are describing a situation I would not put myself in at all.

You know as well as I do (and as we're demonstrating here) that a fair number of people aren't prone to "just walking away" - and i know from experience that trying to do so often ends up with a foot getting implanted into your spinal column. So at what exact point is enough enough, and that "final resort" is reached?

No I do not know as well as you do that a fair number of people aren’t prone to just walking away. I would disagree, I know several people that would just walk away. I’m sorry that that you had an experience of a foot getting implanted into your spinal column. It does indeed sound painful. I do not place myself into these confrontations that you describe. I separate myself from them. Why one would not do that, I cannot answer. You seemed to be so well versed in these types of situations, perhaps you could enlighten us.

It's completely subjective. And if you're armed, you're going to feel pressure to retaliate with your weapon before an unarmed person would feel the pressure to retaliate with physical blows. It simply makes sense, your brain is telling you "You've got a gun, show that punk who's boss!" as soon as any conflict arises. And obviously it never pops into your head that the other person is feeling threatened by you because humans are, by nature, pretty fucking self-cetered.

I will agree with your first sentence. It is completely based on opinion and or feelings, than that of facts or evidence. You somehow, using an amazing amount of armchair psychology, have managed to derive from the internet ink that I leave behind that because I am armed, I will feel pressured to retaliate with my firearm solely because I have a firearm. You do not know me or anything about me on a psychological level; however you can determine that I would be more apt to criminal behavior than that of my fellow man. That is an amazing statement. Somehow a firearm inflicts some sort of magical power that deprives any and all individuals of morals and good judgment.

Somehow my brain is suddenly telling me that when I am carrying a firearm, that I must suddenly become some Punisher ™ type character. Obviously it would never pop into my head that I am threatening them because I am of course a self-centered person. I disagree with your assumption.

of course, none of this fits into the "Black hats and white hats" mythology found around here, so I'm not expecting much introspective thought. Just putting it out there though

After reading your post as a whole I must conclude that there really was not much in the way of honest conversation. I have expressed to you my feelings, yet you close by saying that you don’t expect any introspective thought. You just did not get the introspective thought from the perspective that you wanted, therefore you stated that there was none.

You have gone above and beyond to belittle and insult my intelligence, and gone out of your way at an attempt to prove your superior intelligence. By doing that you are implying that the only possible conclusion is that your perspective is the only way one should view it. Thereby negating all other possible conclusions as immature, sophomoric, illiterate and obtuse points of view.

I am left with the simple notion that you are simply not a nice person open to honest discussion. If you insist on replying with assumptions and insults I will consider this discussion a complete failure and waste of time. But for now I just suggest that we agree to disagree.

[Chulanowa]

354. I really have to disagree about your statement re; "Us versus them"

You're engaging in exactly what I'm talking about.

"WE" go through all these checks and licensing and safety courses and all this other stuff. Okay, yes you do.

So where do "they" get all their firearms? Those weapons can't ALL be stolen, right? They can't all have been fenced. I'm dead certain a sizable number of the people committing crime with their guns, or otherwise using them responsibly, went through the same rigors you did to get the right to have that gun. Certainly those 58 CCWers per year that engage in gun crime did.

But for some reason these people "don't count." The reason is, much like the religious, the moment someone in your club commits some act of stupidity, you erase him, pretend he doesn't exist, because that might tarnish your little community. Just as how a Christian will go "Oh, but he wasn't a REAL christian!" gun people will go "Oh, but he's not a REAL gun owner!" despite the fact that, up until one moment, he was happily included in your club of clean-nosed, morally upright, wonderfully harmless "gun owners" society.

Drawing a false distinction as to how suddenly he's not "Really one of US" is just silly. It's like you're saying "Well, I thought Fred was a person, but it turns out he was actually a ferret the whole time!"

As for the rest, sure, we can agree to disagree. I just dislike the "gun mythology" that I see around here so much; from both sides. Though frankly the "antis" seem to be more grounded in reality than most of the "pros" :shrug:

[Glassunion]

365. Thank you for changing your tone and not dropping any more insults. It is appreciated.

You have asked the question; “Where do “they” get all their firearms?” You state that you are dead certain that a sizable number of those guns came from legal means. There are no statistics to back that statement up. In fact, I will state quite the opposite, however I will acknowledge that yes indeed those 58 people did indeed obtain their firearms through completely legal means and on top of that were in all probability still at the time of committing their crime still legally able to posses their firearms.

In keeping with an apples to apples comparison we will look at the murder rates further. According to the Department of Justice reports on Felony convictions, only 13% of those convicted of murder had a clean record. But let’s back up a second. Now according to the FBI crime and statistics report 66% of murders were committed with a firearm (any firearm). So let’s look at some totals…

In the data I was referring to in my last post in the 2007 FBI expanded homicide data (Table 1). The total number of murders was 14,831. Now since we know that only 66% of those murdered were killed with a firearm. So now we have 9,788 people murdered by firearms. Now out of those murderers I am going to assume a one to one ratio. Meaning that for every murder victim I am going to make the comparison that there was one murderer. We do know that there are mass murderers, and group killings, however for the sake of argument, I am going to state that out of that number there were 9,788 killers that murdered with a firearm.

Now out of that number 1272 did not have any prior convictions. So now I leave it at that number. How many of those murderers obtained their firearms legally? I do not know. There is no data that I can find anywhere that points me in that direction. Is it possible for criminals to obtain just under thirteen hundred firearms through theft, fencing, or other means I do not know? Were all of those firearms purchased legally? I don’t think so. How many though, I have no idea.

Now I have in no way in the past made the claim that “those people” don’t count. In fact I think quite the opposite. In my mind they all count. All 14,831 of them. That number sickens me.

Now I look at this in a different way than you might. I also see the good uses of firearms. I do know that there are a significant amount of defensive gun uses every year. We have all seen the surveys and government reports. Some around here completely dismiss them, others embrace them. For me with any survey, I take them with a grain of salt. There have been a few, well documented surveys that put the number of defensive gun uses per year between 1.5 and 2.5 million instances per year. So let’s look a little more at my thought process.

I can see for a fact from the FBI crime statistics for the same year that there were 254 justified killings (this includes police officer shootings of criminals). Now from the survey data above, I use the lowest number of 1.5 million. So out of all defensive uses of firearms only 0.000169% resulted in the death of another human being. So even when used for good, firearms pose very little risk to the life of a criminal. So with my firearm I am almost 6000 times more likely to scare a criminal off or detain one for the police than to do harm. That to me is an outstanding value.

Another thought on my thinking if you will. Personally I am of the school of thought that things (money, tv, car) are not worth ending the life of another human being.

I will not however concede my enumerated right due to the acts of criminals. Just as I will not forego any of my other enumerated rights, like when Bush wanted to strip me of several of my rights for the sake of safety in the name of the Patriot Act. Just like with anything, we cannot just look at only one side of the story. Sometimes there are those that only see the downside of something, without considering that there is another side to the story. I will back up my opinions in the voting booth.

I do see the downside to firearms. I do see that there are those that abuse the system to do harm. I have never denied that. But in this case I do see the good side, and in my opinion it outweighs the bad by a factor of six thousand.

[Chulanowa]

369. I think you may mistake my intent

I have no problem with people owning guns. To me a gun is a hammer; a tool. If you want a gun, go get a gun. if you don't want a gun, don't get one. I don't fall into either "camp" because of this. I'm not here to demonize guns or to proclaim this tool to be a symbol of herpiosm like a knight's sword or something. What i do here is challenge the mythology, as I said. This upsets a lot of people who, for one reason or another, have taken the mythology as reality - this includes people that think guns cause violence, as well as the people who think the world is so terribly violent that htye must have one just to survive.

Now then. Those with prior convictions; how many were felony? Lots of people get in trouble with the law on misdemeanor charges, after all.

Let's say they're all felons. That's 8,516 illegally-obtained firearms, using your one-one basis. While that's not a gigantic amount compared to say, stolen cars or merchandise, it's no small number, either. it would seem that that's 8,516 gun owners who's guns failed to protect them from robbery. Alternately it could be a pretty big loophole in the way dealers work; I wonder if that's the case, why so many "pro gun" people complain about the notion of stricter regulations on the firearms trade. You can't have it both ways after all. You can't divest yourself of the "criminals and thugs" while endorsing the means they use to get their weapons, correct? :shrug:

And one wonders how much that number of felons would drop, if we were able to remove all nonviolent offenders from the ranks. Remember, "felon" is often a very flexible and often arbitrary term in the US legal system, depending on the local politics, the skin color of the offender, whether the officer's in a bad mood (a DUI offender who yarfs on a cop's shoes can be charged with "assaulting an officer" and go from misdemeanor to a major felony just like that" for instance)

So regarding justified use for firearms... Your numbers point to an extremely low rate of fatalities from defensive firearms use. How is it then that every day, Fire Medic Dave and several other posters here often bring in ten or more instances of some "thug" getting his brains blown out for touching someone's car? 254 killings sounds awfully small. Perhaps we should do a count of FMD's OP's over the course of a year, that'll set us straight :D

[Glassunion]

375. I think I did mistake your intent...

I completely agree with you that a gun is just a tool. I would have to say that there may have been some misreading your posts on my part if you state that you are not here to demonize guns or to proclaim this tool to be a symbol of {heroism}. I took you posts as a whole and the tone that they conveyed seemed to me to be quite the opposite. Perhaps you were speaking with a sarcasm that I did not pick up on.

In regards to the rest of your post, according to a BAFTE report on the sources of guns used in crimes, only about 10% to 15% of those firearms were stolen from private owners. So that would workout to 852 to 1278 murders firearms were sourced from the theft of a private firearm. I’m not sure that you can say that these individuals failed to protect them from robbery. You can take measures to protect your property, however even some of the best safes available for home use can be broken into quite quickly. It is true that not everyone has a safe, or even locks their front doors at night. But I also don’t think that we can blame a victim of robbery for being robbed. This is one reason that I do not leave my firearm in my car when at all possible. Cars are incredibly easy to break into, and the criminal most likely will not be after a gun if they decide to steal my car. It would just be a byproduct of the theft of my vehicle. I would actually be more upset at the loss of a firearm than that of a vehicle, even though I am insured for both. I would be very angry if I allowed a firearm to be put in the hands of a criminal.

The rest is a point of contention with me as well. The remainder of illegal firearms according to the BAFTE report comes from several sources. One is straw purchases. This is one that upsets me and I wish that there was an easy way to prevent this. However it is quite difficult as the only easy ways to infringe on the privacy of law abiding individuals. The other source noted was the FFLs themselves. There are those out there that deal legally in the sale of firearms, however there a higher profit can be found by dealing to criminals. This number according to the BAFTE report can be reduced by more frequent and thorough inspections and good old fashioned police work. However I’m sure that their budget and manpower is preventing this. The last source is the black market. Just like drugs, weapons are illegally imported into this country every day.

In the report there was mention of a survey where criminals were surveyed as to the source of their illegal firearms. A key finding was that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally," the report states. Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.

As for you last paragraph, I have no answer. “How is it then that every day, Fire Medic Dave and several other posters here often bring in ten or more instances of some "thug" getting his brains blown out for touching someone's car?” This is an exaggeration, as I have not seen one post even remotely close to this. Yes there are several posts on the DGU topic, I could add several hundred myself, however I am not one to reiterate the news. Yes the number of fatalities is low; however it does not negate the high number of DGUs in a given year.

[Chulanowa]

377. Maybe you didn't misunderstand as much as we thought

I do see a lot of "pro-gun" people as having a sort of Clint Eastwood syndrome. Like they're lone, righteous samurai in a dangerous world out to get them or something. My use of the term "barreled courage" wasn't me calling gun owners cowards; It was me pointing out how the things are often treated as magical talismans, combined with the realistic notion that a person with a gun may very well be less likely to back out of a confrontation; In the same way calling alcohol "liquid courage" doesn't mean the person drinking is a coward, calling the gun "barreled courage" implies the instillment of something above and beyond what's already there.

I'm glad to see you don't buy into "blame the victim" mentality - it seems unfortunately common in some sectors of the "pro-gun" crowd, the notion that not carrying a weapon makes you responsible for anything that happens to you; sort of like how the victim of a rape is at fault if they dressed "sexy."

The point about the gun failing to protect a person from robbery is a jab at the myth that possessing a gun makes you safer. Using a gun might very well make you safer, but the pro-gun crowd seems terribly averse to admitting that their icon is an actual weapon with a dangerous function, and seem to avoid any mention of actually using the things. That's not so much a myth as a whitewashing, I suppose, but the notion still comes through; if you have a gun, it'll keep you safe by its very presence in your home. Obviously this is false; a gun in your car can no more prevent itself from getting stolen than the fishing rods you have in there too

Most criminals gain their weapons from the "illegal market"? Okay, that sounds reasonable, but where are those guns on the market coming from? I somehow doubt the manufacturers are putting themselves at risk by supplying the black market of firearms. They certainly don't appear out of thin air, so they're coming from somewhere. If I stole your car and found a gun in there, I'd probably pawn it; That's a hundred and fifty bucks, and using it would just make my legal situation worse, after all. So there would seem to be two sources for the black market; sale of stolen guns, and "legit" owners selling off their weapons for quick cash. In either case we're seeing two pro-gun myths getting a bite i nthe ass - the "magical protection" myth, and the "gun owners are all responsible and respectable"

:shrug: Like I said, it's the myths and fallacies that draw my attention, so I guess I have a bit of a narrow focus, save for when I get distracted by some piece of completely ludicrous garbage such as blaming the victim, overt racism, or cries for vigilantism.

[MineralMan]

192. How many times have you been faced with an armed attacker?

Seriously.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

222. How many times have you needed your homeowners insurance?

Personally, I've faced zero house fires, food shortages, or armed attacks.
However, I am reasonably prepared for all.

To answer your question... none.
I've had to show some unarmed idiots I was packin' though - cleared some attitudes right up.

Statistics bear that a VAST majority of people will never use a firearm in self defense yet there are nearly 80M gun owners.
This is no mystery. Your question is not as clever as you think it might be.

[GreenStormCloud]

235. About forty years ago, a nut case held a gun to my head for an hour.

During that hour he talked about how he was being told what to do by ascended master space aliens. Amazingly, I somehow talked him down, even though I had no training of any kind for that kind of situation. Somehow I was strangely calm throughout the event. Finally he let me go. Then I shook for three days after it. To this day, if I think about it much, some of the feelings return.

Remember that an attacker can kill even if he doesn't have a weapon. People die of beatings. I am a senior citizen and in no shape to fight a 20ish man. I would be stomped to jelly.

So at my age, even an unarmed attacker may as well be armed. Criminals do like to target older people because the figure that we can't fight back.

My wife has faced an attacker, but before he could attack she showed that she was armed. He ran like hell.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

286. What's your point? Why do you carry a firearm if these events are so rare?

[GreenStormCloud]

80. Actually, it was four officers.

They were specifically targeted for murder. There isn't much you can do about that. But a mugger has to operate differently and that gives me a window of opportunity to defend us.

To have the gun available in the parking lot, I have to have it in the restaurant.

[MineralMan]

195. Pick a better class of restaurant. That's my advice.

Bubba's Road House is probably not your best choice.

[GreenStormCloud]

207. Bubba'a in Ennis, TX has some really good BBQ. N/T

[MineralMan]

210. If you feel the need to carry to get to Bubba's, then I'd choose another

restaurant. Seriously.

[GreenStormCloud]

228. I carry everywhere. I am not selective. I don't know when or where something may happen.

I just don't have that good of a crystal ball. A few months ago I was in a car accident, other guy completely at fault. He was a wanted felon, prior convictions, assumed to be armed and dangerous. And he had his friends in his car. Of course I didn't know that at the time. Police arrived quickly, found out who the driver was. He had taken off down the interstate, but his friends hung around. Police told me about him. His friends started acting angry at me. Since the cops were there, I retreated to stand beside the police car. I was armed, as usual, but I didn't want to get into a fight if I could find a way out.

My point is that you just don't know what is going to happen, or when.

I once used my car fire extinguisher to help a mother get her baby out of her car that had burst into flames. No, I am not a hero for that, just right place, right time with the right equipment. But at the start of the day, I didn't know that was going to happen. But I am glad I was prepared.

[paulsby]

337. need canard

take who knows...

[Euromutt]

246. How about the Pacific Grill in Tacoma, WA?

It's a fairly upscale place. http://www.pacificgrilltacoma.com/
But in July 2008, some guy tried to rob a bunch of diners: http://www.kirotv.com/news/16956119/detail.html
Note how the story panned out.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

287. So he shouldn't carry a gun but you should? After all you need those outboard motors.

[aliendroid]

107. about as likely to be a victim of a police officer than a CCW holder

Actually you may be more likely to be a victim of a police officer committing a crime.

[MineralMan]

8. How would I know you were carrying it?

If I don't know, what the heck do I care? You planning to whip it out so everyone can see it? No? Then nobody cares.

The whole point of carrying concealed is the second word. If it's concealed, nobody knows you're carrying it.

It's a non-issue.

[GreenStormCloud]

89. True. But as you can see in this thread, some folks get excited about it.

Several states are looking at changing their laws to allow CC in restaurants. The gun-control advocates seem to be rather upset over the new laws.

[MineralMan]

196. Here's what I'm going to do if that happens. I'm going to look

for the sign banning firearms in the places me and my wife go for dinner. It's that simple. I choose where I go. I don't go to places where I'm likely to encounter problems. I'm 64. So far, nobody's ever pulled a gun on me. I suspect it will never happen.

So, how many times have you been mugged in a restaurant parking lot? If it's more than 0, then I suggest you're patronizing the wrong establishments.

[gateley]

12. In theory, it doesn't . In real life, this could happen to you:

KOMO photographer Peter Mongillo took this video outside Westlake Mall, where Seattle Police say a man's gun accidentally went off Tuesday afternoon, shooting him in the leg.

Apparently the man was eating upstairs in the food court when his gun fell out of either his pocket or a holster.

The gun hit the ground, went off and shot the man in the knee.

He is in satisfactory condition at the hospital.

Nobody else was injured.
http://downtownseattle.komonews.com/content/man-shoots-himself-leg-westlake-mall



Update: man who accidentally shot himself was legally carrying gun

Seattle Officers are requesting that the man who accidentally shot himself in the knee Tuesday afternoon in the food court of Westlake Mall be charged with reckless endangerment.

Police say the gun went off after the man dropped it onto the ground. A bullet went through his leg and lodged into the ceiling.

The man had a valid concealed weapons permit. His injuries are non life-threatening.
http://downtownseattle.komonews.com/content/update-man-who-accidentally-shot-himself-was-legally-carrying-gun

~~~~~~~

I don't care who carries, I care if I'm potentially put at risk.

So I'll ask you, in what way does locking your weapon in your car before you enter the restaurant harm you?

[GreenStormCloud]

42. Weapons of modern design don't go off when dropped.

I would have to know more about the specific gun. All of mine are modern designs, and WILL NOT GO OFF WHEN DROPPED. It is pretty simple engineering.

Requiring me to leave the gun in the car exposes me to crime in the parking lot. Many restaurants don't have parking that is solely theirs and that is patrolled. Often the restaurants shares parking with other businesses and the lot is open.

However, in Texas it is extremely rare for a restaurant to have a no-gun sign. I have never seen one. And I know they won't have a Texas specific sign up. Without a specific sign, their no-guns sign has no effect.

[gateley]

48. Okay. I didn't know that about modern designs. Carry safely. :-) nt

[NewMoonTherian]

172. Dude! Stay with us forever. Bring friends. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

183. Thank you for having an open mind. N/T

[gateley]

307. I'm usually able to see and understand both sides of an argument. It's a curse. :-) nt

[aliendroid]

111. who did he hurt? Anecdotal evidence = fail.

Did he hurt someone? just himself.

the reduction in the chance of a criminal harming someone in the restaurant due to their fear of a CCW holder exceeds the tiny increased risk of some guy's gun going off.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Enrique]

16. it creates a risk of someone getting hurt

like if a fight breaks out. Safer if no one had guns if a fight broke out.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. I have never seen a fight in a restaurant. Are you talking about a bar by mistake? N/T

[Enrique]

38. 4 charged after brawl at Memphis Chuck E. Cheese

This story is from TODAY:

4 charged after brawl at Memphis Chuck E. Cheese

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/201002174_charged_after_brawl_at_memphis_chuck_e_cheese/srvc=home&position=recent

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - Memphis police have charged at least four people after a fight broke out involving several people at a child-themed restaurant.

The Commercial Appeal reported the ruckus Saturday night began when someone asked a woman how long she planned on being at a vending machine. Police reports stated that when the woman said she "was going to take her time," a man punched the woman, she and a companion fought back and the victim’s family got into the brawl.

Police said other customers panicked and fled the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant with their children.

[slackmaster]

61. Beer and wine are served at Chuck E. Cheese

Guns aren't allowed there in most states.

[Enrique]

74. I assumed that was the reason for this thread

the gun bans for restaurants.

[slackmaster]

76. No state allows people who are drinking to carry concealed firearms

:hi:

[Enrique]

88. good

alcohol and guns definitely do not mix.

[GreenStormCloud]

96. Total agreement on that. N/T

[Euromutt]

251. Not entirely true, actually

The Revised Code of Washington prohibits carrying a firearm into any establishment (or part of an establishment) declared off-limits to persons under 21 by the state Liquor Control Board; it's also illegal to be in possession of a firearm if you are legally "under the influence" and not in your home or place of business.

But it's not illegal to have a glass of beer or wine with your meal while carrying.

[GreenStormCloud]

82. In Texas, carry in such a place is legal. Drinking is not.

In Texas, if the place makes less than 51% of their revenue from on premises consumption of alcohol, then CC is legal.

The rest of the situation I have addressed below, in the other post in this sub-thread.

[NewMoonTherian]

127. Drinking WHILE in possession of a gun, of course. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

170. Self delete. Responded to wrong post. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

63. Rarely happens is not never.

Part of CHL training in Texas is conflict de-escalation. We are required to avoid conflict and to not contribute to it.

I would need to know more about the specific incident. If some man started beating up my wife, (Like myself, she is a senior citizen, and a tiny woman. 4' 9".) I will defend her, and if that means shooting him, so be it. She is frail and could be killed by a man beating her.

But we would first attempt to leave. Usually hostile people show verbal hostility and threatening postures before they strike. We would retreat if possible. Whatever the problem, it isn't worth elevating it, on our part, to a shooting. But if the other guy persues and strikes anyway, even when we are trying to retreat, then we are genuinely threatened and may, both legally and morally, defend ourselves.

[oneshooter]

236. GSC do you know about this site?

http://texas3006.com/index.php

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

247. Thanks.

BTW - I am confident that Oneshooter knows this, but for others, in Texas the sign has to be at ALL entrances. Otherwise you can claim that you can in by an unmarked entrance and so couldn't see the sign.

[X_Digger]

249. Well, that's untested in court..

.. and more importantly, I wouldn't advise anyone to lie and say they used an entrance that was not marked.

[GreenStormCloud]

257. Yeah. Place that go to the expense of those signs usually have cameras too. N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Yeah, because someone getting knifed to death, or their skull smashed open on the floor tiles

is a much better alternative.

[sandnsea]

17. In what way does my carrying concealed anthrax harm anyone

All safe in a tube where it can't hurt anyone unless I decide I'm being threatened.

It is a weapon you know.

[Bobbieo]

29. You would be no threat to me unless you are declared insane,

How would I know you are carrying a weapon if it was concealed?

[sandnsea]

31. If you're comfortable with folks walking around with anthrax

then I'm not the one that needs the diagnosis.

[downtrodden41]

317. If it is concealed, how would anyone know about it to be uncomfortable with it in the first place?

[AtheistCrusader]

52. To spare a few cycles and honestly examine your ridiculous analogy

In this case, the vial of anthrax would have to be treated as any other Destructive Device, a classification for indiscriminate weapons like explosives, grenades, etc. You cannot use anthrax in a personally protective way, because not only would your attacker be exposed, but anyone in the building would potentially be exposed, and yourself included.

A firearm is a directed energy weapon. You can select an individual target and drive a hole in it. Not so with a vial of anthrax. So if people were asking to carry grenades into XYZ eating establishment, then your analogy would make more sense.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. You would do your caue better if you gave serious answers. N/T

[NewMoonTherian]

146. I don't think that's a fair comparison, for two main reasons,

one being that anthrax is an indiscriminate weapon(not only is there a danger of injuring bystanders, it's damned well guaranteed to injure a LOT of innocent people). The other is that there is a greater danger of "misfire", meaning of course that the container may break(and we're talking in realistic hypothetical terms, not mega indestructible containers here).

Furthermore(and this isn't an argument for prohibiting it, it's just further observation), weaponized anthrax isn't useful for protecting oneself on an immediate basis. Making someone sick - even fatally so - isn't going to stop that someone from attacking me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

147. For starters it's illegal to possess weaponized anthrax. Thanks for playing.

[MineralMan]

18. It's coming up on Spring here in Minnesota. That means

the parkas go into the closet and guys start wearing light jackets again. The CCW guys are mostly pretty careful about making sure their sidearms are well-concealed. Most of them. But, with springtime also come the CCWers who deliberately make sure the outline of their Glock or whatever is clearly visible under that nylon windbreaker.

Legally, it's concealed, but the reality is that it's not really concealed, and they know it. Some are very proud of it. They get out of their F150 and head into the supermarket or Home Depot, knowing that a lot of people will notice that they're carrying a sidearm. Puts a little extra spring in their step, it does.

And if you think I don't know what I'm talking about, come on up here in April and May and go to the hardware store or some other many retail store. You'll see 'em there. Silly people. Makes 'em feel all proud and shit.

I have a CCW permit in Minnesota. I rarely carry, because it's too darned warm for an outer garment that actually conceals my pistol. Only if I'm going somewhere when I anticipate trouble (and that's a rare, rare event) do I carry, and if I do, I make sure I'm wearing something that actually conceals.

[JuniperLea]

27. Guys like that in Los Angeles...

Just drive Hummers.

:)

[MineralMan]

34. It's hard to get a CCW in California,

so the Hummer has to substitute.

I'm going to hear that this doesn't really happen. I'd be happy to haul someone around and show them the guys with the bulge in their windbreaker as soon as spring arrives. Every last one of them is driving a pickup with dumbass bumper stickers, too. Morons.

[PavePusher]

288. Why bother to conceal? n/t

[dmallind]

90. I carried in MN. Looked just like a wallet in my pocket

Kahr PM9 in a pocket holster is pretty square and about the same size. Nobody would notice an outline unless I was sitting down, and then it would appear to be a medium sized billfold. I don't think I had a spring in my step once because of it.

[hedgehog]

93. Are you more worried about Ole or Lena?

[MineralMan]

185. We got lotsa Bubbas in Minnesota

[dmallind]

263. Ah yes patronizing stereotypes always work

Meanwhile crime statistics for MN are widely available. Why do you think it's impossible for me to be a victim of one?

[GreenStormCloud]

108. In Texas, printing does not count as concealed.

I wish I had such a wonderful crystal ball that I could know when trouble would come my way.

Let me tell you a true story that happened to me last year. I was in a car accident on the interstate. The other driver had tried to make a U-turn on the interstate, at night, in the rain, with a black car. (He was parked on the shoulder and wanted to reverse his direction so he could jump-start another car.) Suddenly, he was in front of me, crossways to the traffic. I got on the brakes, but slide into him anyway. I was mildly injured (BIG bruise from the shoulder strap, some other minor bruises.)but he wasn't. He had people with him in his car. He took off, running away down the interstate. SNIP A BUNCH OF THE STORY.

Police told me that the driver of the other car had a warrant for his arrest and was to be considered armed and dangerous. He had prior convictions. When I started to get insurance info (That was a laugh, the car wasn't his, but I didn't know that at the moment.)his friends started acting like everything was my fault and that the situation should be handled right there and then. I retreated to stand beside the police car, and said nothing to them. I didn't want this to develop into a shooting. (If these idiots want to start something, let them do it with the officer right here beside me.)

When I start out that night, I definately had no plans for a traffic accident with a wanted violent felon and his friends.

BTW - He was captured that night. He was so stupid that he kept walking on the shoulder of the interstate.

[aliendroid]

113. backpack

Stick it in a backpack in the gun's own box and it is concealed.

[NewMoonTherian]

158. Agreed.

When I first got my license, I had a commander model 1911. "Pro Carry" they called it, well not CONCEALED carry. It was a constant hassle to conceal that monster, much less be able access it once it was hidden. I stopped carrying for a long time until I got a more reasonable weapon that I could keep completely inside a pocket. Much nicer. No printing, no flashing, no stress.

Now, if we could get open carry passed, I could carry the monster again - still concealed of course(I can't imagine somebody WANTING that kind of attention), but without worrying about legal trouble if it accidentally came into view.

[GreenStormCloud]

187. That's why .380s are becoming so popular.

They are small enough to hide and still have a decent punch. Granted, they are on the low end of the effectiveness scale, but they are way better than the .22s, .25s, and .32s. The new .327 Magnum revolver looks interesting for CC.

[MineralMan]

188. I have an original Colt 1911. It's silly to think you could carry

that concealed except in the winter under a parka. I would never carry such a pistol. When I do carry, it's a slim .380, but I almost never do. Open carry? Not a chance. Why would I do that? To provoke people? I'm not into that at all.

[GreenStormCloud]

197. That's why I like the Kel-Tec P3AT.

Slip it into the moderately soft case that it comes in, top zipper partly open, and there is no print.

[MineralMan]

212. Cool. I have older pistols. I don't buy guns any more.

I have what I've had for years. I leave the gun porn to others.

[oneshooter]

238. I carry either a full size SIG 220 or a Series 70 LW Commander concealed. n/t

[mvccd1000]

296. Why no Open Carry?

I always feel like people who CC are hoping for a chance to pull their firearms and use them on somebody. Myself, I prefer deterrence. There was a story in the paper in AZ not too long ago about a waitress walking home from her shift at a restaurant at midnight. Two men in a truck stopped, got out, and attempted to either rob or kidnap her. She had a knife in her purse and managed to stab one of them in the hand and yell loud enough that they got scared and took off.

The police found them about 20 minutes later, still in the same stolen truck (criminals are not generally too smart, apparently). They admitted that they had been driving around for nearly an hour looking for someone to rob. She happened to have a concealed weapon in her purse, but she still looked like an inviting target to them.

Do you really they would have stopped for her if she'd had a pistol on her hip? I truly believe they would have kept on driving.



Imagine those two guys are driving around to ATMs looking for an easy target. You and I both realize at 11:30 pm that we forgot to get cash out to buy girl scout cookies at work tomorrow, so we race up to the closet ATM to our houses (2 blocks apart from each other). If I'm openly carrying and you're CC, which one of us do you think the two lurkers are going to consider an easier target?

[oneshooter]

303. There is no open carry in Texas. n/t

[PavePusher]

311. 1911? Easy, with the right holster and clothes.

http://crossbreedholsters.com/

Just to get you started. (P.S., I have no affiliation with them, don't even own one. Yet.)


If that's not your thing, try this:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=holster%2C+concealed+carry&FORM=IEFM&src=IE-SearchBox


Really, you don't seem to be trying too hard. In any event, I won't let you dictate how I may exercise my Civil Rights under the law.

[cowman]

214. I carry

a Star PD .45, small, compact but still packs quite a wallop

[meeshrox]

19. People are not concerned with a responsible carrying adult...

It, of course, does not harm anyone else if you are carrying a concealed weapon. The point concealing is that no one should know you have one. The issue is that people fear some hotheaded, posturing idiot that would otherwise pass the same courses but have a bad temper, for example. It's a risk factor of having someone that cannot tell or would ignore the difference between an emotional dispute (without pulling a gun) and a real physical threat (such as a robbery). Unfortunately, I think it's a bad-apple situation.

[GreenStormCloud]

118. As you can see by this thread, some are concerned with a responsible carrying adult.

Generally, the hot tempered person will already have an arrest record, often with convictions. That's what they do. The process, in most states, denies the permit to people like that. Rarely, a few will slip through.

[MineralMan]

199. Yeah, they do slip through.

I had some moron in a supermarket parking lot who thought I parked to close to his car push back his jacket to show me his Glock. His car was badly parked and the lot was full. There was plenty of room for his car and my Volvo. I laughed at him, took out my cell phone and called 911. Oddly enough, he got in his car and took off. I wonder why that was?

I did have his license number, though. He doesn't carry any more. Lots of hot-tempered people with CCW permits here in Minnesota. They won't shoot you, but they may well try to intimidate you. They're whatcha call assholes. If you contend that there aren't any assholes with CCW permits, then you aren't being truthful.

I make it a point to call such people out when I have an opportunity. I'm weird like that.

[GreenStormCloud]

304. You did the right thing in calling 911 on him.

People like that don't deserve permits and should have them revoked.

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. Doesn't particularly bother me, but why do you need to carry it?

Is this a just-in-case thing.............?

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Violent crime sometimes happens to good people.

I choose to be prepared.

BTW - I also carry a fire extinguisher in the trunk of my car. They are rarely needed by anybody, but I was once behind a car, driving down the interstate, when that car caught fire. I suppressed the flames while the mother got her baby out of the back seat baby seat. The point is - you never know.

[TheCowsCameHome]

43. So you're ready to "take charge" if something bad happens while you're dining.

Are you a fully trained law enforcement officer?

I can see the fire extinguisher in the trunk, but frankly I think you're paraniod.

[GreenStormCloud]

75. Depends upon the situation.

Likely, I would not interfer with a simple robbery. Starting a gunfight in a crowded place is a really bad idea. But if the bad guy starts shooting, I am not just going to sit there and wait my turn to be executed, or passively watch my wife get shot.

And, as stated in several posts in this thread, there is the parking lot to consider. I am not worried about the time in the restaurant very much. Parking lot crime is the greater possibility.

[PavePusher]

290. You do not have to be...

"a fully trained law enforcement officer" to indulge in self-defense.

Whatever would give you such an odd idea?

[benEzra]

328. What do I need to know about handcuffing suspects, Mirandizing suspects,

Are you a fully trained law enforcement officer?

What do I need to know about handcuffing suspects, Mirandizing suspects, Terry frisks/stops, the exclusionary rule, interrogation, directing traffic, searching buildings, and whatnot? I know a little in some of those areas (I've done traffic, for example) but I don't need "training" in those areas in order to lawfully and competently use a firearm for ordinary civilian defensive purposes. I do need to understand self-defense law (which I do), firearms law (which I do), and be able to shoot competently under pressure (I shoot competitively and could pass the state police firearms quals of most states I've looked at with ease).

Here is the course of fire for the Virginia State Police, which is typical:

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/standardsTraining/documents/performanceOutcomes/section7.pdf

They use a HUGE target (the old "B21" target) and you only even have to hit anywhere on the target with 70% of your shots to qualify, even given the extremely generous time allotments.

Very little police academy time is devoted to firearms training, most stuff police do is not firearms related, and most departments only require officers to shoot a few rounds at paper maybe twice a year, using very basic accuracy and time standards. The vast majority of non-SWAT officers shoot considerably less than competitive shooters or most gun enthusiasts, unless the officer is a gun enthusiast herself/himself.

FWIW, here is what a "highly trained" course of fire would look like.

http://www.pgpft.com/MEUSOC_qual_M4-Pistol.pdf

I'm not there yet, but My personal goal is to eventually be able to pass that one.

So you're ready to "take charge" if something bad happens while you're dining.

Have you ever carried an umbrella into a store? If so, was it because you were afraid that it was going to start raining inside the store?

Until somebody comes up with a way to quantum teleport a firearm to and from one's gun safe on demand, if you wish to have a firearm with you before or after you go out to eat, you'll need to hang onto it in the interim as well, unless your local maitre'd is kind enough to hold onto it for you.

[paulsby]

338. as a law enforcement officer myself

i balk at that idea that one needs being a "fully trained LEO" to protect yourself or others, in situations where the problem comes to you

you just need common sense, and good gun handling.

[nykym]

21. I really don't

have a problem with people with CCW's doing so and acting responsibly. But is it that you carry your gun into an establishment you enjoy because you can, is it for protection. I just don't understand why it needs to be done. Additionally if a business owner does not want guns in his establishment why do some CCW'ers feel the need to protest his decision. It is his business and he gets to make the rules within a legal framework. I will admit if I don't see your gun and you don't advertise the fact, then no one would know. So I guess it is just something that makes you feel comfortable.
P.S. I am not trying to enrage anyone, this is just how I feel.

[X_Digger]

115. If a business owner prohibits concealed carry..

I usually just take my business elsewhere, and let them know, later.

[Sherman A1]

22. What is the policy of the Restaurant on concealed weapons?

Because the owner or operator has rights as well as you do.

[oneshooter]

242. If the owner does not want CHL holders business

All he has to do is post a proper 30.06 sign at his doorway.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

262. You mean the corporation that owns the place?

What rights does the corporation have that we are bound to respect?

[bpj62]

25. Law Enforcement

You may be trained in the use of a firearm and you passed a back round check, but in no way qualifies you to act in a law enforcement manner if you feel threatened. I own a handgun and I do not feel the need to obtain a CWP. Also you and others like you seem to think that the 2nd amendment grants you the right to carry weapons into places of business such as restaurant's or bars or movie theaters. Those places are private establishments and if they wish to ban concealed or visible weapons from their place of business they have the right to do so. Virginia is going allow concealed weapons into bars and restaurant's and many of the owners have already said that they nay install metal detectors to keep the weapons out of their establishments. I will support your right to own weapons but I object to you thinking you have the right to take it onto other peoples property.

[slackmaster]

67. Nice strawman you have constructed - Welcome to DU!

Take a self-defense class some time. It doesn't have to be a firearm class. A good instructor teaching the use of edged weapons or any empty-hand technique will tell you exactly the same things about the proper purposes of self-defense.

Enforcing the law is not one of them.

[bpj62]

173. Self Defense

Nice try. Pistols are made for one thing only and that is to shoot another human being from a safe range. Most humans never engage in hand to hand combat. law enforcement officers will tell you that the last thing they ever want to do is draw down on another human being. That is why they are trained for months at a time so that they use thier pistol as a last resort. That is why so many Police agencies have equipped thier officers with tasers. My question to you is simply this, if you could carry a taser instead of pistol would you?

[GreenStormCloud]

194. No. A taser is a one shot affair, and sometimes doesn't work.

Criminals often work in packs, so a one-shot taser won't do anything at all for the others. Tasers are also rather bulky and can't be carried concealed, especially in a Texas summer.

I do carry a stun gun on me. It is a 2.5 million volt model, internal rechargeable batteries. Safety lanyard so that if it is taken from me the activation pin is removed and it won't work. But that requires contact. I carry it for a situation that I may need help with but doesn't rise to a shooting threat.

Also 15% combination spray. But I can't use it around my wife. If she inhaled it, it could trigger a fatal asthma attack.

The gun is a last resort for when the situation has gone to hell.

[Euromutt]

265. Let me counter your question with another

How many law enforcement agencies in the United States are you aware of that have replaced firearms with Tasers? I'm not aware of any; Taser-equipped cops still carry firearms in the event the Taser doesn't do the job.

Moreover, Taser divides customers into three categories: private citizens, private security companies, and government agencies. Private citizens are limited to cartridges with 15 foot range; private security can purchase 25-ft range; government agencies can purchase cartridges with 35-ft range. Also, Taser won't sell training cartridges to private citizens, so the only way to practice with it is to shell out $25/round. That kind of money buys you 50 rounds of good quality .40 S&W JHPs.

And because Tasers are "less lethal," not non-lethal, you still need equal justification (as a private citizen) to shoot (at) someone with a Taser as you would to use a firearm. Despite the marketing copy, a Taser doesn't hold much of an advantage over a firearm for a private citizen.

Personally, I carry an OC spray (a Kimber PepperBlaster) as a non-lethal option, but I still carry a compact .40 in case the threat is particularly acute, or the OC doesn't do the job.

[slackmaster]

267. Sometimes people need to be shot at close range, AND...

...Pistols are often used to DETER violence by intimidating wannabe violent criminals.

Please take a self-defense class. You won't regret it.

My question to you is simply this, if you could carry a taser instead of pistol would you?

Neither. I prefer to carry a knife.

[PavePusher]

292. Why do you seem to feel...

That I should not have an overwhelming advantage over a criminal?

[bpj62]

175. DU

I have been at DU since 2003. I just don't post that often.

[PavePusher]

291. Self-defense is NOT...

"act in a law enforcement manner if you feel threatened".

Whatever gave you such an odd idea?

[slackmaster]

302. When someone says something like that, it's a dead giveaway

That he or she has never received any proper training in self-defense, and doesn't understand the law.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

339. Could you point to where someone said they had that right?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[JuniperLea]

28. Depends on how mentally stable you are...

And I can't tell that from here.

I don't have a problem with mentally stable people with a lot of gun totin' experience having guns on them... it's the other guys I worry about. I'm not sure how we can tell who is and who isn't packing the wherewithal to manage such a responsibility.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. Did you miss the part about the FBI background investigation.

For me to carry means that the FBI had to give their OK. Not just an NICS check, but a background investigation.

I have a lifetime record of no illegal violence.

[JuniperLea]

340. The FBI knows me well...

Because of the NASD securities licenses I used to hold... I have a lifetime record of no violence, illegal or otherwise... none of that is a guarantee that I'm mentally stable. Doesn't guarantee you are either.

[oneshooter]

241. In California there is no training or background

check needed to get a CCL. Just be a good friend, or large contributer to, of your county sheriff. In Texas you need a 12hr training course, with a written exam, and a live fire test of 50 rds, which you must also pass. A Texas State background check, as well as a Federal(FBI) background check. The background check is so intense(it is the same as given to LEO's) that the possession of a Texas CHL negates the need for a NICS call to purchase a firearm.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[JuniperLea]

341. Unless it includes a test for mental stability...

None of that means squat, imho. Scary that it's so easy in CA! I was raised with guns and have been shooting since age 7; I have a healthy respect for what they can do and how they should be handled. That said, I feel very strongly that there are certain people who should never be allowed within arm's reach of a loaded weapon of any kind.

[X_Digger]

342. Then work to have those criteria codified as law..

But until you can define those criteria, and apply them via due process of law, in a fashion that doesn't affect one group or class of people unfairly, we're at an impasse.

Require a psych evaluation? Who's going to pay for it? Only those with enough money for that and capability to take a day off work to get it done can have guns?

[JuniperLea]

344. it's like a house...

Some people can afford to buy a house, but they can't afford the upkeep, so in reality they can't afford to own a house.

Same with cars... some people can buy a car, but they can't afford the upkeep, registration, or insurance. Should they just be allowed to drive uninsured clunkers around?

There's a difference between a right and a privilege.

[X_Digger]

346. Cars and Houses aren't rights protected by our constitution..

they actually are privileges.

The right to keep and bear arms, however, is an enumerated right.

Predicating the exercise of a right based on payment or fees has been held unconstitutional for other rights. Once McDonald incorporates the second amendment, it won't fly for the second, either.

(For background on such schemes for other rights, see Cantwell v. Connecticut and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.)

[JuniperLea]

347. Only if you can afford to do it properly...

What if you can't afford to buy a gun? Should you be allowed to steal one because it's your right to own one?

[X_Digger]

348. *sigh* No more than the government must pay for abortions..

.. you're making about as much sense as the anti-abortion fundies do when saying that if the pro-choice side had their way, the government would be forced to provide abortions.

eta: to clarify- the government isn't the source of our rights, the bill of rights constrains the government, not the people. Fundamental difference between the 'state as source of all rights' and 'government as protector of rights'.

[JuniperLea]

359. Then tell me how you figure you can guarantee the right...

When so many can barely afford to feed themselves, let alone buy a gun.

Your strawman is ridiculous... and I think it's you that lacks the ability to make sense, thank you very much.

[X_Digger]

361. It's the same- choice.

Right now, one is able to choose to vote, unencumbered by fees from the government. (Remember, "Real ID" and its ilk are derided as disproportionately affecting the poor who may not have time nor money to procure updated state ID.)

Right now, one is able to choose to collect signatures for a petition, unencumbered by fees from the government.

Right now, one is able to choose to procure the services of a medical professional to terminate a pregnancy, unencumbered by fees from the government. (At least fees related to the right, not necessarily the service itself.)

Eventually, one will be able to choose to own a gun, unencumbered by fees from the government.


Just because all these are rights, there is no obligation for the government to provide the means to exercise them.

I have a right to privacy. Does that mean the government should be obligated to provide me with a document shredder? Of course not.

I have a right to the press. Does this mean the government must provide me a computer or a printer in order to publish my views? Don't be silly.

I have a right to choose whatever religion suits me. Does that mean that the government must provide the church bus to come pick me up each Sunday? You'd get laughed out of court for even suggesting such.


In answer to your question, you don't "guarantee" a right, you protect them. You set a standard for constitutional review, and apply that standard to all infringements of that right. If it meets muster, it stands. If not? It's out.

I gave you two court cases that demonstrate that 'charging' for the exercise of a right has been deemed to not be constitutional. If McDonald provides us with incorporation, which means that it applies to state and localities, we have cases that will serve as examples of possibly acceptable and unacceptable infringements of the second amendment. The two cases I highlighted focus on a 'fee' to exercise a right (and find their justification wanting.) Your endorsement of some kind of psych evaluation, at the person's expense, would probably fall into that same category. Not to mention due process and equal protections clauses of the fourteenth amendment.

In summation, "Good luck with that!"




eta: typo

[Glassunion]

350. It's more like...

Charging people for a license to exercise free speech.
Or let's say you want to go to church but you had to obtain a permit to do so.
Or you are arrested and the police officer offers you a card that you can buy that grants you the right to remain silent.
Etc...

None of those things can be impeded on by the government, those rights are a constraint on the government, never a constraint on the people.

[JuniperLea]

360. gun prices and upkeep are a constraignt to many...

i guess only the gun manufacturing industry has any pull in this regard. nice.

[Glassunion]

366. True.

Unless you live in Kennesaw GA. I grew up there. All you had to do, was go down to the town hall, and you could have a .22 rifle. Now that's customer service! :sarcasm:

[PavePusher]

374. It's called "free market", except that it ain't so free.

The Government medles in it in many ways. From "banning" "Saturday Night Specials", to restricting imports of "non-sporting" firearms, to exhorbitant taxing of safety devices (suppressors)....

Reduce stupid restrictions and firearm and accesory prices will go down.

[Captain Hilts]

35. LIQUOR. There's a reason firearms have been banned from restaurants/bars for 100+ yrs. nt

[farmout rightarm]

62. Uh, several posters have recalled the 'bad old days' when drunken cowboys with guns

in the 'wild west' took towns hostage, robbed the bank, killed the women, stole the men and raped the horses...something like that..

:silly:

[GreenStormCloud]

121. Including places that don't serve liquor? N/T

[PavePusher]

294. Where?

If you were to actually look up the laws, you'd be very suprised...

[Euromutt]

297. Now why didn't anyone think of that?

Oh wait, every state that permits concealed carry makes it either illegal to drink while carrying (that's almost all of them) or to be legally "under the influence" while in possession of a firearm.

I guess they did think of that! What a shocker.

[Captain Hilts]

37. I don't trust you with a firearm. nt

[cowman]

105. Well about

all I can say to that thought out reply is TOUGH SHIT. If you don't trust us to conceal carry, don't go where we might be and even if you do you won't know, hence the word "concealed"

[GreenStormCloud]

The FBI does. N/T

[X_Digger]

126. I don't trust you with a computer.

See how easy that was? *snort*

[Captain Hilts]

253. My computer isn't designed to kill. I can operate it safely while drinking. nt

[X_Digger]

260. I don't trust that you won't let chinese hackers use it to hack the pentagon or the FAA. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

148. Good thing that's not a requirement.

[PavePusher]

293. Silly Constitutional Rights....

WHo really needs those outdated things?


:sarcasm: --for the impaired...

[hlthe2b]

39. I worrry about becoming collateral damage if .....

a gun-toting bystander decides they will become law enforcement against someone who may (or is just perceived to) pose a threat. Responsible gun-owners are still not trained as law enforcement officers. In their zeal (however well intentioned) to act, a lot of innocents may be harmed by their own gun.

That, said, I do not make it my mission in life to stop either legal gun ownership nor conceal carry laws. I just wish that common sense could prevail. I'm getting damned tired of being accused of wanting to take everyone's guns away. That is not the case.

[GreenStormCloud]

128. Please show where that has happened in real life, and how often.

40 states now have shall-issue permit systems, none have repealed their laws. The blood-in-the-streets hasn't happened yet. CCWers have a better record than the police in that regard, yet you trust them with guns.

[hlthe2b]

144. I have to prove nothing to you. The issue is a real one and my

concerns are valid.

[GreenStormCloud]

202. Your response demonstrates why our side is winning.

We provide reasoned argument, backed up by facts. Your side refuses to. If you want your concerns enacted into law, then you will have to prove them to other voters.

[Euromutt]

298. If you won't or can't prove it, why should anyone accept that "the issue is a real one"?

Or that your "concerns are valid"? Surely, if the issue is a real one and your concerns are valid, it shouldn't be too difficult to provide some evidence to that effect? If, on the other hand, you've never come across such evidence, then on what basis can you reasonably assert that the issue is real and your concerns valid?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[X_Digger]

129. Interesting response..

.. do you have any law enforcement personnel in your family? If so, have a chat with them about the training they receive. Depending on the level (federal, state, county / ward / parish / town) there's a wide latitude of difference.

It always strikes me funny at the implicit trust most folks endow law enforcement without much real knowledge about how they are trained or how much experience they have with firearms.

Most law enforcement that I know personally would say they received more administrative training than any single other category. (Not to say that they don't receive a wide breadth of training at some levels, but administrivia seems to be their strong suit in some places.)

[hlthe2b]

142. I have no choice in the issue of arms among law enforcement

I can only hope that they received sufficient training and engage as a private citizen if incidents occur suggesting they are not. I have NO control over the inclinations of the more impulsive private gun-holder, whose honorable intent, may still cause them to misread situations or to escalate them into ones that increase risk to me as the bystander.

[X_Digger]

156. Perhaps you should see if your local law enforcement..

.. has a civilian training program. Many do, and the training is usually on par with regular officers in many areas.

Regarding your statement- "NO control over the inclinations of the more impulsive private gun-holder"- I hate to break it to you, but you have no control over anyone's inclinations.

Statistically, you're more likely to be the victim of crime by a police officer than a concealed licensee.

eta: typo

[hlthe2b]

161. While true.... the laws of probabilities come into play...

See my post # 50

[X_Digger]

169. So then it becomes a probability balancing game.

Depending on which study you check and who ran it, there are between 100,000 and 2.5M 'defensive gun uses' per year, not all of which actually involve firing the gun, much less killing someone. Balance that against the odds of being shot by a concealed permit licensee.

Rather than say "anything that increases X" is bad, compare the "increase in X" to the "decrease in Y"- because the inverse is also true. If fewer people carried, there'd be fewer defensive gun uses, leading to more successful crimes.

[hlthe2b]

176. I am statistically driven and very left-brained, in general

so, I can appreciate your point. But, being human, I think of those over my lifetime who I know well, who have and use guns. I would say that at least 8/10 are so responsible that I would trust them implicitly--as well as their judgement. But, I know that at least a few people that I might otherwise respect do not have the level of judgment that would render me confident that they would not act in haste and in so doing, put others lives at risk. So, while I can appreciate the statistics, in this case, the anecdote does enter in as well. If I know a handful of reckless gun-owners, how many might there be out there? More gun-toting individuals, more chance that at least one or two out of every ten may be every bit as much the problem as the criminals (or the incompetent or corrupt police). I live a stressful life, as many here do. Quite frankly and if I had my druthers, I would prefer to think the tired, frustrated, or somewhat immature people at the booth next to me are not packing.

That is, if I had my druthers. Perhaps one day I'll be the benefactor of a CCW carrying individual or perhaps I'll wish that there had been one around. Who knows? Right now, I'd prefer less deadly traffic on the highways and I think I'd like less guns for the same reasons.

[X_Digger]

I think we can agree on less guns in the hands of criminals and the unstable. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

216. The people you know are a small, and unscreened, statistical sample.

CCWers, in most states are screened, and there is a very large sample size of us. Texas and Florida post the stats online. Take a look at them. You will see that our safety record is better than that of the police.

[GreenStormCloud]

205. Probability favors CCWers. We have a proven safety record that is better than the police. N/T

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

149. Who is accusing you of wanting to take everyone guns away?

[hlthe2b]

150. Not you...

Some of your gun forum compatriots do, routinely

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

155. No offense but I doubt they have in the last 2 weeks.

We have stepped into a kindler, gentler era in the gungeon.

[hlthe2b]

157. That is possible... (and good to know)

[jeepnstein]

306. You would be shocked.

If you only knew about the reality of firearms training police officers receive in the U.S. Hint, we are taught how to shoot to save our own skins, not necessarily the person waiting for a hero to come and save them. With the exception of active shooter training, I can't really recall a training scenario that involved being the slightest bit concerned about third parties in the area.

Cops aren't trained gunfighters. That's not what it's about. I don't care what you see on the TV. Police work just doesn't roll that way.

[tularetom]

41. Fly right at it just be careful you don't shoot your testicles off

I own over fifty firearms yet I've never had any interest in concealing one on my person, I already carry around too much shit without worrying about a fucking concealed weapon.

I personally believe the issuance of permits to do this is a form of gun control and I oppose it.

But if it makes you feel good, do it.

[NewMoonTherian]

167. I'd prefer...

my own state was like Vermont or Alaska, but that's a battle I'm willing to put off until we get some more important wins, like national reciprocity and college carry.

Also, stop warning people! Any yoyo who unmans himself being stupid with a gun has done future generations a service.

[bigmonkey]

44. I think you're confusing an objection to an increased abstract danger with a personal attack on you.

As a number of people have said, no-one will know if you have a concealed weapon if it's never brought out and never referred to.

However, some people, including the owners of restaurants, might object to the increased chance of someone getting shot, either by accident or by mistake, that the presence of guns causes in the abstract. If guns (well, loaded guns) are present there is more chance of someone being shot than if guns are not present.

No-one is thereby dissing you as a careful gun owner, but it's not your restaurant.

The same would be true for water balloons, squirtguns filled with ink, and so forth.

[hlthe2b]

50. Yes... the laws of probability, whether the lethal weapon is a

gun or a 2000 pound motor vehicle. Either way, when you put human error into the equation, more of either does increase the probability of something unintended happening. I'd certainly rather travel on a high speed interstate with less, rather than more traffic and likewise, given the mix of very experienced, very responsible gun owners with those who, though legal, are NOT, I'd just as soon play the probabiity of having less guns within close proximity to me. I personally find this especially true, when the focus is on things other than the individual's gun, thereby allowing for distractions (and accidents) to occur.

[bigmonkey]

73. I'm shocked at your reasonable reply!

:-)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

151. The owner can prohibit concealed carry.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

153. Using your reasoning cops shouldn't be allowed in restaurants then either?

After all a cop being in the restaurant increases the odds of someone being shot at least in the abstract right?

[MineralMan]

201. I don't have a restaurant. If I did, I would discourage cops in uniform

as customers. They make people nervous, and that's bad for business. I'm just saying...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

234. Interesting. Most restaurants here love to have them around.

[farmout rightarm]

49. It's the Four and a Halfth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be free of nervousness and uncertainty shall not be infringed."

[hedgehog]

53. You know, you really shouldn't be so worried about getting

attacked in the parking lot. Have you not read anything about the crap that goes into restaurant food?That salmonella is going to get you, concealed gun or not!

[yodoobo]

57. Same way you carrying an unexploded bomb does

It doesn't harm anyone - until it does.

[GreenStormCloud]

134. Bombs are illegal. None of us here want to make them legal. N/T

[yodoobo]

159. The question was about harm.

Not legality.

[GreenStormCloud]

237. Reread the OP. I specified LEGAL. N/T

[yodoobo]

270. yea. But you asked about harm

If you wanted to discuss legality you probably should have asked about legality.

So yes. If yes your gun doesn't harm anyone, until it does harm someone.



It sounds like though you are itching to talk about legality. shrug. I'm happy to oblige.

YOur beloved handgun is legal carry in some places with a carry permit. Its also a felony to carry it in other places even with said permit.

An explosive device is legal to transport in some places with an explosive permit. It's also a felony to transport it in other places, permit and license notwithstanding.

In both cases, these laws were written because of the potential destruction and death these devices can cause.

[safeinOhio]

58. I have no problem with you legally carrying a well

concealed weapon. For some reason I find it strange that you or anyone else would bring it up. What is the point of it. Some people like guns and others don't, so why not just shut up about it and go about your business. The only harm you do is to keep making a point about it. You know damn well it will piss some off. You do it anyway. Your not going to change any minds or be anyones' hero.

I have a question, why do people go on and on about how they carry a gun? Pick any other forum on DU and spend one week posting about something else and nothing about guns. Prove you have a real opinions about other things. Just one week. Please post to tell us where you are going and we'll all follow to see what you say.

[hlthe2b]

71. I too find it interesting (and a little disturbing) that there are some

who post only on this topic and nothing else. Further the posts re: guns are generally accusatory and not without a significant amount of anger.

I too, would like to know what views those who post only on gun issues might hold (and why they seem only interested in that one issue while posting on DU)

[safeinOhio]

79. I do see some of the heavy gun posters on other subjects

A few never. A bunch of people here at DU love cars. Old ones, fast ones and just clunkers. Yet no one pisses anyone else off over there. They don't even post very much. They just go about their business, tinkering with their cars and posting about stuff that all most every one else cares about.

[MineralMan]

204. Bingo. I don't either. How would I even know someone was

carrying? Too much bravado around this forum. Carry all you want. If I can't see it, then I don't know.

[GreenStormCloud]

243. It relates to the threads about some states legalizing it.

I sometimes pop up in other forums. I was in one recently discussing a possible difference between the GOP of 1994 and today's GOP.

I posted about some of the relief efforts in Haiti because I know some people who were there when it happened, and I read their web page.

DU does not have any rules concerning the distribution of a person's posts. My main interest happens to be guns. Sorry if that angers some around here.

Next Wednesday (Social Security day), I will finally be able to send a modest money order for a donation. For the past year we have had it extremely rough, financially. Bankruptcy last year, car accident, two illnesses with wife, lost her job twice - with no umemployment benefits at all. But the extreme times seem to be over for us for a while, and I expect to be able to quite freeloading.

[burrfoot]

315. Glad to hear the tide is turning, GSC.

:toast:

[Captain Hilts]

60. Why would you want to carry in a restaurant? nt

[benEzra]

92. Because it might be nice to have it before you go to the restaurant

or after you leave, or while walking there and back?

Because unholstering a gun in the parking lot in plain view of everybody and sticking it in your glove compartment is asking for it to get stolen, not to mention potentially alarming to those who have a conditioned fear of guns?

Do you carry a pepper spray, a pocketknife, or occasionally an umbrella? Ever carried same into a store? Why or why not?

[Captain Hilts]

248. No, I don't carry a weapon. I carried pepper spray in Moscow in '93. That's it. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

68. God, how love these fucking posts.

This is cheap entertainment at it's very best.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Tim01]

72. No effect at all. Same as gay marriage.nt

[X_Digger]

87. No harm that I've seen. n/t

[DirkGently]

97. It's obviously not the carrying

that's the source of whomever's concern you're talking about. It's the possible misuse. Obviously.

The bottom line is that the property owner doesn't have to trust you to carry responsibly.

Most likely you do. Most likely if you don't like the way your steak is cooked or have one too many you will not even raise your voice, nevermind using your weapon to instantly kill anyone in the room. But unless you're a law enforcement officer, the private property owner doesn't have to agree to let you have that option.

The real question, then is, "Why shouldn't the property owner be permitted to govern whether weapons are brought onto the premises?"

[X_Digger]

139. Did anyone say a property owner shouldn't be allowed to govern that? n/t

[DirkGently]

174. That's not implied in the OP?

[X_Digger]

177. I don't read it that way, no.

I see it as a response to those in other recent threads that seem to have an objection to concealed carry in restaurants, and their objections seem to be as patrons, not as owners.

[DirkGently]

181. I thought it was a facetious

challenge to the notion that ANYONE has the right to object, because carrying itself does no "harm." Seemed like a bit of dodge of the issue, which is that we (collectively) can and do limit the circumstances under which someone can have a weapon with them, for the rather obvious reason that we want to reduce the likelihood of gunfire breaking out. We ban guns on planes. In courtrooms. On private property.

Maybe I'm a little too attuned to one of the big pro-gun fallacies I perceive, which is that guns are harmless "tools" that should be paid no more attention than a claw hammer or an automobile. "What do you mean what's the 'harm'?" The "harm" is that everyone is not required to afford everyone else absolute trust with a weapon in every situation.

But maybe that's not what was meant.

[X_Digger]

184. I'm not the OP, but I don't read it that way, no. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

305. I was referring to the arguments about state laws.

Certainly the owner of the property has his rights too.

[GreenStormCloud]

143. The private property owner should have that right.

But the government should not make that decision for everyone.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

331. They are permitted to govern what comes on there property, in most cases.

[denverbill]

100. It increases my theoretical chances of being shot, either purposely or accidentally.

Guns have this annoying habit of going off and killing people, in happy homes, in police locker rooms, even in gun safety classes. You may think you are the safest gun owner in the world, and maybe you are, but no matter how safe you are, you increase my chances of getting shot by some tiny percentage. Even if that chance is only one in a million or more, it still puts me at increased risk.

To put it another way, if it increases my risk by one in a million, would you let me take an revolver with 1,000,000 chambers, put one bullet in it, and pull the trigger with it pointed at you? If not, how much would I have to pay you to take the chance? I mean, the odds are slim, but I, for one, wouldn't take $1 or $5, or $20 for taking the chance. I might start thinking about it around $1000, but I'd look pretty silly gambling my life away for $1000 if I happened to catch that one in a million shot.

But you are asking take those same odds for free. Well, not asking, forcing.

So I'd say whatever that $ amount is that is needed to compensate me for that 1/1,000,000 or 1/1,000,000,000 chance, that's the damage you are doing me, because you are forcing me to take an increased risk of death with no compensation.

[spin]

137. There is a higher probability that a person with a carry permit...

could save your ass.

In that case you owe some impossible to calculate to "$ amount" that equals the difference between the odds that you will be saved by a permit holder or injured or killed by one.

You could have been sitting in the New Life Church in Colorado Springs when a shooter embarked on a rampage. This shooter had already killed two people at a missionary training center in Arvada Colorado. He was well armed and ready to rack up a new record of kills during a massacre.

During his assault on New Life Church, Murray carried an assault rifle, two handguns and a backpack with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in clips, Colorado Springs police said. Authorities believe Murray acted alone and bought the firearms himself.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14810359/detail.html

At about 1 p.m. MST (20:00 UTC), 30 minutes after the 11 a.m. service had ended at New Life Church, Murray opened fire in the church parking lot shooting the Works family and Judy Purcell, 40. Murray then entered the building's main foyer where he shot Larry Bourbonnais, 59, hitting him in the forearm. At this point, Assam opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon. After suffering multiple hits from Assam's gun, Murray fatally shot himself.<1>

The pastor of the church stated that Assam shot Murray before he entered 50 feet inside the building, after she encountered him in the hallway, and that Assam probably saved "over 100 lives."<12>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Church_shooting

The news media reported that Jeanne Assam was a "security guard" she was merely a citizen with a CCW.

It seems the mainstream media has a hard time accepting the idea that a concealed weapons carrier can stop a massacre in progress. I'm not surprised. Even though the pastor of the New Life Church explained the position of his members who carry handguns in church, the media continues to portray Jeanne Assam as a security guard. She wore no uniform. She received no pay. She worshiped there by choice. Her only duty was to God, her fellow parishioners, and to her own conscience. She was a private citizen with a gun, not a hired security guard.
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/12/remaking-of-jeanne-assam.html

But of course those who carry concealed don't expect money. They are not cops, just citizens like Jeanne Assam. But as I pointed out they can and do save lives, often their own and sometimes others.

[GreenStormCloud]

154. Now apply that style of thinking to driving to work.

Salary, or wage, against the chance of death by auto accident, as applied annually.

CCWers, according to VPC, illegally kill about 40 people a year. From a population base of 308 million, that revolver needs to have about 8,000,000 cyliners, instead of just one.

If I recall correctly, I think auto accidents kill about 35,000 per year. So you are 875 time more likely to die in an auto accident than to be illegaly shot by a CCWer. Do you make $875,000 per year? By your figures, that is what you should make to commute to work.

The world is not made of Nerf.

[hedgehog]

104. Are you certain you wouldn't really rather send out for pizza?

[Katya Mullethov]

123. Pizza delivery people

Bunch of pistol packin paranoids in that group too .

[spin]

164. Would you deliver pizzas in a bad neighborhood unarmed?

For the pay a pizza delivery guy gets?

And you call them paranoid?

Pizza delivery driver fifth of 10-most dangerous jobs

23 Oct 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C.-- A new study published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows the job of pizza delivery driver is a dangerous one.

According to a CNN.com report, the study selected occupations that had the highest fatalities per 100,000 employees in that line of work.

Ranking fifth on the top-10 list was "driver-sales workers," which, according to the BLS, includes "pizza deliverers, vending machine fillers, and the like."

Fatalities in traffic accidents contributed heavily to national average of 38 per 100,000, but nearly 25 percent of drivers died in robberies and assaults.

The entire top-10 list:

1. Timber cutters
2. Fishers
3. Pilots and navigators
4. Structural metal workers
5. Drivers-sales workers
6. Roofers
7. Electrical power installers
8. Farm occupations
9. Construction laborers
10. Truck drivers.
emphasis added
http://www.pizzamarketplace.com/article.php?id=2816

[Don Caballero]

110. Carry in a restaurant in Texas?

Isn't that how the Luby's massacre took place? Sorry you have no right to carry a gun in public. In a perfect world you wouldn't be allowed to own a gun period.

[Katya Mullethov]

116. Yeah , he carried it right in the front door

No wait , he drove through the plate glass windows with his truck , but it's almost exactly as you describe though .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGxU9GQ6M_g

[Don Caballero]

Why was the killer at Lubys allowed to own firearms

That is the crux of the problem for us who believe in aggressive gun control.

[aliendroid]

119. Here are they ways in which he can get a firearm.

1. spouse that is not a felon buys one, he gets it
2. he finds one on the black market
3. he has a gun smith build him one

Nothing will stop him, even a total gun ban can't stop him if he decides to use option 3.

[Don Caballero]

124. With a total gun ban and lengthy prison sentences for those who possessed them

these types of things would not happen. If that gun smith is caught building guns for civilians he would spend the rest of his life in prison.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

131. You mean like the total Ban and prison sentences imposed for:

Meth, Cocaine, Heroin, ....

Yeah, because no one make or uses ANY of those in America. :sarcasm:
IDK, maybe you're right... maybe I missed where it's legal to make, use, or posses those things. :eyes:

[spin]

180. There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. ...

Perhaps 60 million gun owners might turn in their firearms if you totally banned them. (That's a generous estimate.)

That leaves you with 20 million people to arrest and imprison. Most of the cops I know wouldn't be interested in taking firearms away from honest citizens. They have more important things to do, like catching criminals.

How do you plan to house all the people who do get caught? Tent cities like Sheriff Joe Arpaio runs? Would you have all the doctors, lawyers, engineers, college professors, church pastors, business owners, factory workers etc that you have caught with firearms wear pink underwear?



And of course there is the 500,000 people or so who are well armed and would decide to fight. Obviously they would not organize into an army, they would fight a guerrilla war. Many of these people are patriotic and have been well trained courtesy of our government and the many wars we have fought. Can you imagine that amount of damage of group of ex-seals could do.

As your war on guns begins to drag on and on and the death toll of both citizens and government enforcement increases, how long to you expect support for your war to last?

The media would turn on you and broadcast stories of honest people who never committed a crime being killed or imprisoned because they owned a shotgun or rifle for hunting. Weeping wives and children would be shown on daily news reports.

So of course, you would have to do away with the First Amendment. The voters would turn out in mass against you, so you would have to rig the elections to stay in power.

In order to accomplish your mission of disarming the American people you would have to turn a federal constitutional republic into a totalitarian dictatorship. You would have to resort to cutting off food supplies and casing starvation to get compliance.

For a idea of how effective this might be, study a relatively unknown episode in history know as the Holodomor. Of course you might need a leader like Stalin to accomplish your mission.

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

[Don Caballero]

186. I would never send local police to collect the guns of civilians

An operation that large would require the military. We may even have to call in the militaries of our North American allies to assist in the confiscation. I really do doubt any considerable resistance by my fellow Americans. A majority of people understand that guns are the real issue when it comes to rising murder rates.

[Katya Mullethov]

193. A lot of people are convinced it is recidivist predators that cause problems

Very , very , few people believe guns cause anything . About the same amount that believe in leprechauns and change .

[X_Digger]

215. Do let us know when you repeal the Posse Comitatus Act

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

[cowman]

224. You really are

delusional if you think that the military would even try to disarm the american people and that other nation's armies would get involved and you are totally wrong about the majority of americans support gun confiscation.

Years ago a Russian General was asked if he thought that the Soviet Union could invade and occupy the U.S. and he said it would be suicide because of all the weapons in private hands

Yours is just a pipe dream

[spin]

231. Wow! If you did that we would have a war on our hands ...

You start bringing in troops from other nations and watch what happens.

How many thousand of people are you willing to kill and how many cities are you willing to destroy in order to stop the roughly 14,000 people a year that are murdered by firearms? For your plan to succeed I would estimate that at least 100,000 to 200,000 people might get killed by your military force.

Of course, bringing in foreign troops might cause members of our military to desert with all their equipment and fight the army of occupation.

As you started your campaign with foreign military, hundreds of thousands of people would take to the streets in protest. Many of them would be armed. Tear gas doesn't work well against an armed and angry population. So I guess you would roll the tanks.

Seriously, consider what you are proposing. The current situation with firearm violence is definitely a problem we need to work on but is nowhere as big a disaster as what you are suggesting.

[GreenStormCloud]

255. Murder rates are falling, not rising. They have been falling for years.

Where do you get "rising murder rates" from?

Militaries of our North American allies? Mexico & Canada. You would make the same mistake as Bush in Iraq, or Johnson in Vietnam. The populace will hate an invader more than anything. Foriegn soldiers are called, targets.

And much of the American military would desert and join the rebels.

One rebel symphatizer who was also an aircraft mech could destroy an entire squadron of planes. During the Vietnam War, one sailor threw a 12 inch wrench into the reduction gears of a destroyer and put it in the shipyard for a year for repairs.

You really should fact-check your stuff before you post.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

272. I'd kill every one of them I could. It is my Constitutional duty.

[beevul]

274. Uhh...IIRC the "murder by firearm" rate is going downward.

"A majority of people understand that guns are the real issue when it comes to rising murder rates."


While gun sales and ownership are going up.


Please explain that.

[PavePusher]

295. I am in the military.

We won't do it.

And the person giving the order would likely be shot.

How do you like them apples?

[one-eyed fat man]

313. Wear a helmet!!!!

You have obviously fallen off your damn bicycle a dozen times too many!

You come in here and repeatedly claim that the government is OBLIGATED to protect you, yet run and hide when facts show differently, only to pop up in a new thread to claim the same thing.

You advocate the invasion of the US by foreign powers to confiscate guns from the populace, but are mysteriously quiet about why you are not in the forefront of the Gun Gestapo kicking in doors yourself to advance the arrival of your vaunted, gun-free, 420 friendly, Nirvana.

From the way you talk, I am almost certain I own socks that are older than you! They are certainly a lot smarter!

[downtrodden41]

318. You would allow military forces from another country to come into the US and confiscate guns?

Thats treason, you know.

[Euromutt]

289. Your certainty is unwarranted

Nine people have been hurt after a gunman opened fire outside a nightclub in what detectives believe may have been a Yardie incident involving Caribbean gangsters. A 16-year-old girl was amongst those injured when the man fired shots from an automatic weapon outside the Chicago's nightclub in Peckham High Street, south east London.

31-Jul-2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/859574.stm

Note: an automatic weapon.

Two men have been shot at the birthday party of a member of the garage group So Solid Crew. The incident occurred early on Thursday morning at London's Astoria night club, where So Solid Crew member Romeo was holding a party for his 21st birthday.

01-Nov-2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1632801.stm

Three gunmen were convicted and police commended for their bravery after a gang went on a shooting rampage across south London. One victim was hit after he came under fire from a machine gun. The Old Bailey heard unarmed police who gave chase after the shooting - described like a scene from Hollywood - were commended for their courage and professionalism by Judge Jeremy Roberts.

16-Mar-2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1876580.stm

Note: another automatic weapon.

Two men have died and another has been seriously injured in a triple shooting at a south London nightclub. The men are believed to have been shot inside Spotlight nightclub, in London Road, Croydon, on Saturday at 0310 BST.

02-Oct-2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3709858.stm

Officers attended The Spot in Catford, south-east London, at 0200 BST on Saturday after reports a 19-year-old woman had been shot in the leg. But when they arrived they found four people with gun shot wounds and hospital staff later told police they were treating a fifth victim.

26-May-2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5025786.stm

Three shootings at London clubs
One man has been killed and another two seriously hurt in separate shootings in or near London clubs over the weekend.

25-Sep-2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5376710.stm

A teenager was killed and two others injured in a shooting outside a nightclub in south London. Jamail Newton, 19, from south-west London, was shot several times outside Aristocrats in Camberwell Green at about 0220 BST on Wednesday. He died later in hospital. Two others subsequently arrived for treatment to gunshot wounds and one was detained.

01-Nov-2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6105014.stm

A night club has been permanently closed down after a night of violence left one man dead and three injured. Jimoh Plunkett, 24, from South London, was fatally shot inside the club Zest in Ipswich on 9 December 2006. Three other men received gunshot wounds.

10-Jan-2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/6250099.stm

Two men have been injured, one seriously, in a shooting at a north London nightclub. <...> Police are investigating whether a third person may also have been hurt.

02-Sep-2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6974928.stm

Police investigating a fatal shooting want to speak to people who attended a birthday party at a nearby nightclub. They believe "an incident" inside Starlight Rooms may have led to Monday's attack outside in Streatham High Road in south London. Two friends, who were at the party, were taken to hospital with bullet wounds in the early hours. Gary Guthrie, 35, from Streatham, died shortly after arriving. His friend remains in a comfortable condition.
<...>
Police have refused to discuss how many weapons were involved in the shooting. But a large number of bullet casings littered the ground at the scene close to Streatham Station. At least one weapon, a silver handgun, was removed from the scene and was undergoing examination.

24-Oct-2007, Police have refused to discuss how many weapons were involved in the shooting.

But a large number of bullet casings littered the ground at the scene close to Streatham Station. At least one weapon, a silver handgun, was removed from the scene and was undergoing examination.

A man has been killed and another injured in a shooting near the Ministry of Sound nightclub in south London. The 25-year-old man was killed near the venue in Gaunt Street, Southwark, at about 0440 BST, police said.

31-Aug-2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8230045.stm

And just to really drive the point home:

A gunman in Japan has taken his own life after wounding three people in Yokohama, outside Tokyo, police said. <...> Police named the gunman as Kenji Hayashi, a 62-year-old member of the Inagawa-kai, a large Japanese organised crime group.

06-Nov-2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8345953.stm

At least two people have been killed and two others injured when a gunman opened fire at a bar in western Japan, officials say. They say the incident happened at Habikino, in Osaka Prefecture.

12-Jan-2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8454625.stm

Note that I've limited myself to multiple-victim shooting incidents, with the exception of the second incident involving an automatic weapon.

Handguns and automatic weapons are illegal to own privately in the UK. Anything other than a single-shot shotgun is illegal to own in Japan.

So much for "these types of things" not happening.

[aliendroid]

117. no the luby's massacre occured because...

The woman who was involved in pushing for CCW said she had not brought her gun because of the law that forbid her from having a gun in the restaurant while she was in a position where she could have shot him right from the start.

The criminal went in there without permission and shot up the restaurant despite it being against the law. Do you understand? No criminal bothers to try to get a CCW permit so he can get the gun into the restaurant first and then shoot because he can just walk in anyway illegally with a gun.

Now that we see that CCW helped decrease violent crime in the USA, you can see that a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun in a restaurant is a good thing.

[Don Caballero]

120. The guy should not have had access to a firearm in the first place

So lets say that woman goes out to her car to get her firearm. What is she going to do? The guy was a crazed drug addict intent on murdering innocent cafe goers. She would have caused the situation to get much much worse.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

136. The guy was on a shooting rampage.

How is it supposed to get worse?
He shoot at people? ... oh wait, he was already doing that.

[GreenStormCloud]

160. How could she have made it worse?

He starts shooting. CHLer, or two or three, shoot the criminal. Story ends with only the first few shot, instead of dozens.

[Don Caballero]

162. In a small place like a cafe firing back at the murderer would have been a bad idea

They could have harmed or killed innocents in such a cramped place.

[GreenStormCloud]

165. So you believe that it would have been better to let the killer keep killing? N/T

[Don Caballero]

178. Not what I said.

If the authorities would have gotten to the scene sooner, the amount of casualties would have been much lower. We do not need a Wild West scenario where multiple people are shooting at one another in a small setting like a cafe.

[rrneck]

203. Let us know

when you figure out how to jump through a rip in the fabric of time.

[GreenStormCloud]

244. Police are not able to teleport in.

Even if the cops had a fantastic one minute response time, that still gives him time to shoot lots of folks. A armed person on the scene can stop him immediately - NOW - instead of a couple of dozen corpses later. Your scenario of everybody shooting everybody has NEVER happened in real life, but there have been several cases of armed citizens stopping the killing.

[spin]

239. Bullshit! In this video she says the shooter was ...

12 feet away. She was crouched on the floor behind a table. She could have drawn her weapon from her purse and braced it against the table. If she missed the trajectory of the bullet would have been up toward the ceiling and since most of the people were probably on the ground, the missed shot would have been harmless.

But I've trained people who have never held a firearm and watched many other similar people being trained. I can't remember one person who would have missed a man sized target at 12 feet. And she was not a newbie shooter.

She may not have killed the shooter but she would have injured and quite possibly stopped him.

Take a little time and watch Hupp's testimony to congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRr02YrW6o&feature=related

If you don't believe me buy or borrow a nerf gun and crouch on the floor with a person 12 feet from you. She if you can hit him.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

273. So a good idea would have been what according to you?

[spin]

279. So people should just accept being victims and die gracefully. (n/t)

[aliendroid]

325. it's the perfect place to fire back

I can put 20 bullets through a 6 inch wide circle from 25 yards. At 12 yards I can rapid fire into a space 6 inches in diameter. If I had been there (with my gun) he would have been put down before he even got the second shot off.

[slackmaster]

166. "access to a firearm" is code-speak for people who advocate banning guns

Except of course for use by government employees.

[Don Caballero]

179. Guilty as charged.

I absolutely am in favor of a total gun ban.

[rrneck]

206. Do you have a

way for people to defend themselves from assailants who are not armed with a gun?

[cowman]

227. Well unlucky

for you. Just ain't gonna to happen. We have what is called the Bill of Rights, maybe you heard of it, and in that Bill of Rights is something called the 2nd amend, maybe you heard of that. You seem ok with the 1st amend and that's a good thing so please leave my 2md amend right alone

[slackmaster]

266. Except for guns used by government employees

:hi:

[rrneck]

198. In a perfect world

nobody would have to own or carry a gun. Duh.

[cowman]

220. Wrong

I do have the right to carry. The 2nd amend and the Great State of Nevada says I do

[proteus_lives]

261. Wrong on purpose.

That why grabbers, always fail. Most of you are liars.

Luby's happened because of a criminal act took place. Not because someone was carrying in the place. In fact, fewer people would have been harmed if the customers had been able to defend themselves.

[doc03]

114. That gun could take it on itself to

just start shooting people, don't you understand?

[stray cat]

171. Actually if you are carrying illegally - who is likely to find out if you don't draw it?

Most places no one checks you for a concealed weapon unless you have don't something to draw attention.

Actually my problem is there are some people I would not want carrying a weapon and some places like bars where guns and alcohol don't mix well. The thing is most people carrying are going to be doing it illegally anyway - For all I know every student in my class has a gun in their pocket.

[grahamhgreen]

200. OK by me. nt

[rrneck]

223. It would embolden

the other restaurant patrons to go off their diets.

[proteus_lives]

258. It doesn't.

But the authoritarians want to control other people so they can feel "safe".

And they ignore that their bans and "gun free zones" do nothing.

[Katya Mullethov]

309. Open carry =multiple puddles of pee pee

Slipping hazard .

[PavePusher]

312. Really? Where?

And who cares about people wetting their pants?

[Katya Mullethov]

314. But ...............but ...................what about the children ?

Until we get universal health care , someone is going to have to consider the welfare of unsuspecting and unattended children who will be recieving peepee related head injuries as they run amock down the aisles of various and sundry Chinese buffets .

[PavePusher]

321. I suggest helmets.... n/t

[hlthe2b]

322. I'm sure this guy wouldn't make anyone uncomfortable....

Now, would he? :sarcasm:

[benEzra]

323. Yeah, because he's representative of those of us licensed to carry concealed weapons.

Oh, wait. He's not. :eyes:

Your point is?

[hlthe2b]

324. Would it make you uncomfortable to sit down near this guy

knowing he has a gun? Just asking?

[benEzra]

326. No. Other assorted wierdness might, though.

Now, if he is acting in a threatening manner or pulls the gun out without a darn good reason, then I would get concerned, but holstered guns are inert. I'd be much more worried about someone acting aggressively, even if a gun weren't visible (and the fact that someone isn't carrying openly and doesn't have a carry license doesn't mean they don't have a firearm).

If you look upthread, though, the topic of this thread is lawfully CONCEALED firearms carried by licensed individuals, not open carry. I hold a carry license that is valid in ~30 states and have for many years, and happen to be carrying right now. My licensed carrying of a firearm harms no one and intimidates no one.

Unless you live someplace like California or New Jersey, I suspect you interact with several CHL holders each day without knowing it.

[X_Digger]

327. Nope. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

329. Bad fit. Leg holster needs to be about six inches higher. N/T

[Euromutt]

330. The part that disturbed me about that guy was the sign

The implication that Obama is somehow a tyrant shows a markedly shaky grip on political reality. My general response to teabagger types is "and where the fuck were you during the Bush administration?"

[JuniperLea]

345. You could be overpowered and the gun taken from you...

And used on your or others.

All it takes is someone familiar with the gun carry tells... or someone who knows you carry.

[spin]

349. How to Carry a Concealed Weapon as a Gun Permit Holder ...

Concealed weapons are becoming more common. State concealed weapon permit holders should learn how to carry a concealed weapon safely and have it available. We have had several robberies and bad situations locally handled very well by concealed weapon permit holders. Training is very important. A gun should be a last resort and a permit holder should never be casual with the right and dangers of carrying a weapon in public.

Instructions

***snip***

3. Learn how to best conceal your gun. This may be a handbag, shoulder holster, ankle holster or brief case. Your gun should not ever be visible or displayed openly. If an attacker knows you are armed they will plan to attack you differently. They may disable you solely to steal your gun. Do not advertise, even with friends, that you carry a gun. You may need to wear styles of clothing that you don't normally wear to best conceal a weapon when you carry it.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5857635_carry-weapon-gun-permit-holder.html

[X_Digger]

351. Things to avoid when carrying, courtesy of the NYPD..

see image in subsequent post..

[Glassunion]

353. Booooo!

Hotlinking... Do you have an address? Thanks

[X_Digger]

355. It comes up for me, but here's another location..

[Glassunion]

356. Yaaaay!

Pictures!!!

[spin]

362. Bad guys often don't use holsters ...

one reason why they have to constantly be aware of their firearm and worry about it shifting.

[JuniperLea]

358. Thanks!

Yep... I've seen many such warnings in connection with concealed carrying.

I used to work in Century City, West Los Angeles... across the street from The Century Plaza Hotel... lots of politicos and foreign dignitaries give speeches and hold meetings in the many, large, audio/video equipped ballrooms there... and every time there was such a visitor, my coworkers and I would marvel at all the heavy coats being worn in 90+ degree weather;) Even the sharp-shooters and SWAT dudes and dudettes on rooftops were wearing jackets... some long trenchcoats... long rifles with scopes, no doubt.

It's a "gangster is carrying" tell in LA too... come on... there are only three or four weeks out of the year when you can legitimately wear a jacket in LA... as evidenced by my five-year-old leather jacket that still looks brand new. I'll never get that sucker broken in and looking cool at this rate!

[PavePusher]

352. If you can cite a statistically significant number of such cases...

you might have an argument.

Good luck with that. It happens so seldom that no-one tracks such incidents.

[JuniperLea]

357. Way to move the goalpost...

It must be a fairly good percentage... every instruction I've ever seen on concealed carry mentions how to do it descretely to avoid such things.

[Tim01]

364. I would very much like to hear what you are refering to.

How to avoid having your gun taken away?

[PavePusher]

367. No goal posts moved.

You made an assertion. And didn't back it up.

[Tim01]

363. Gun carry tells? Oh, come on.

Sure. Or a meteor might drop on your head. Better plan for that, too.

[GreenStormCloud]

370. Mouse guns don't create gun tells.

"Mouse gun" is a slang term for a small gun, usually also of a small power, such as .380 or less. The Ruger LCP weights less than half a pound, and can be completely covered by an average man's hand. In the pocket with a small pocket holster, there is no print, and it is so light weight that it doesn't distort the way the clothes fit.

[GreenStormCloud]

371. First, he has to spot me as an armed person.

Second, he is more likely to avoid me than attempt an attack if he knows I am armed. If his attack goes bad for any reason, he could end up dead. Instead of taking that chance, he will likely look for an easier victim.

Also, he has to get within striking range of me without me spotting him as a threat, and that isn't easy to do.

[Bonhomme Richard]

373. Concealed is the key word. If a yahoo is flashing around the fact...

that he is carrying he is 1. stupid because he has let it be known he is carrying and 2. he is creating a disturbance.
Did this come about because people were actually carrying concealed or did it come about because of the yahoo type mentioned. It makes a difference.
In CT I have the right to carry concealed but I do not have the right to upset people. It was explained in my pistol class that if I go into a supermarket and as I innocently reach for my wallet and the checkout girl freaks because she saw my pistol then I can be written up for breach of peace. Simple as that. What I like about it is that it eliminates all the jerks that want to simply intimidate people like the asshole in NH when President Obama did the town hall meeting.
What also amazes me is that so many people live in such dangerous area's that they feel the need to be armed. Just in case.

[oneshooter]

376. It is my plan to carry to my favorite restaurant tonight

as my Loving Wife and I celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary. I will have my preferred SIG220, and she will have her Astra A-75 in 9mm. The owner of the place is a client of mine and knows I carry. He welcomes CHL holders in his restaurant. Excellent Southern Italian food, and 2A friendly! Can't get any better!!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

378. Just a follow up

Had a wonderful meal last night. No gun battles, dropping of firearms, or brandishing of same. Just some(ok a LOT) of well prepared Southern Italian food and pleasant conversation. We ate too much,the eggplant Parmesan and shrimp with mussels were GREAT, laughed a lot, and had a very pleasant evening.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

379. Wife and I carried, Sat night, to a nice restaurant in Rockwall in The Harbor District.

We went with a church group of eight others. They have known us for years and know that we both have CHLs. We all met at the big fountain. One guy asked me if I was packing, and I replied, "Always." One woman also asked P_, because when she hugged her she felt it. Nobody batted an eye about either of us.. We all had an enjoyable evening. I didn't see any "No Guns" signs in any restaurant.

We felt safe walking in the parking lot, and driving both to there and back home.