National Conceal & Carry

[Enadail]

But that ruins all the fun! How else can I pretend to be James Bond if I can't walk around in perfect untouched suits and tuxedos with no sign there's anything underneath except my body, then when a KGB agent shows up, BAM! There's suddenly a pistol in my hand and in the instant of drawing it from its secret concealed holster I shoot his gun right out of his hands!

Excuse me while I extrapolate on that a bit... and I'm not saying this is the typical gun owner in the least, I'm positive a vast majority of them are responsible. Lets just take one of the irresponsible ones for a sec. Long day, has a concealed weapon, heads to a bar to get a drink, ends up getting waaaaaay too drunk, picks a fight with someone and decides to use the gun to settle it. Now, he's obviously going to prison under some degree of murder, never gonna get a license again (I hope), etc, as the justice system is supposed to work. But if he didn't have that gun, and tried a fist fight while wasted, lot less chances he'd kill someone. Worse yet what if he misses the guy hes fighting and hits an innocent bystander? Or just to make things even more interesting, he pulls out the gun, everyone else in the bar pulls out a gun to defend themselves, and one person misfires or purposely fires to protect themselves. They are arrested for manslaughter.

Again, I point out that I believe situations like this are isolated, but... Is any of that really necessary?

[Thethunderdome]

Excuse me while I extrapolate on that a bit... and I'm not saying this is the typical gun owner in the least, I'm positive a vast majority of them are responsible. Lets just take one of the irresponsible ones for a sec. Long day, has a concealed weapon, heads to a bar to get a drink, ends up getting waaaaaay too drunk, picks a fight with someone and decides to use the gun to settle it. Now, he's obviously going to prison under some degree of murder, never gonna get a license again (I hope), etc, as the justice system is supposed to work. But if he didn't have that gun, and tried a fist fight while wasted, lot less chances he'd kill someone. Worse yet what if he misses the guy hes fighting and hits an innocent bystander? Or just to make things even more interesting, he pulls out the gun, everyone else in the bar pulls out a gun to defend themselves, and one person misfires or purposely fires to protect themselves. They are arrested for manslaughter.

Again, I point out that I believe situations like this are isolated, but... Is any of that really necessary?

Well, it's illegal to drink while carrying. If someone goes and drinks they are then carrying the gun illegally, permit or no, so the law has done what it can. I suppose one could argue that if they were carrying legally all day it would be easier for them to forget or be careless but....I think that's kind of stretching it. And yes those incidents are extremely isolated, I can't seem to find one fitting that particular scenario. However I feel I should point out that states with "shall-issue" concealed carry laws have lower rates of homicide, aggravated assault, and robbery.

Generally speaking the kind of people who are going to take the class, pay the fee, and wait for the permit are going to follow the laws.

[Enadail]

Well, it's illegal to drink while carrying. If someone goes and drinks they are then carrying the gun illegally, permit or no, so the law has done what it can. I suppose one could argue that if they were carrying legally all day it would be easier for them to forget or be careless but....I think that's kind of stretching it. And yes those incidents are extremely isolated, I can't seem to find one fitting that particular scenario. However I feel I should point out that states with "shall-issue" concealed carry laws have lower rates of homicide, aggravated assault, and robbery.

Fair enough. But if the issue is safety (which I'm assuming it is when we're talking about concealed weapons, which again I question... if safety is the issue, isn't a visible weapon more secure? Why would a robber hold up someone with a pistol on their hip? And as for security... if you walk into a building with something on your hip, security at least knows you have it... if you are hiding, security may not know until one idiot does something too late), why not everyone have tasers? To own a taser, you have to be tazed at least once, which means people, after having been through it, will at least take it more seriously, and tasers are effective against stopping a person (when I say taser, I don't mean the ones that arc electricity between two nodes, but rather the ones that fire the two darts). If the concern is the efficacy of the tasers, wouldn't it be more prudent, in the name of safety and gun control (thus appease both sides?) to invest into research into more effective tasers?

I guess I fail to see why a gun, a tool designed to kill, is necessary for defense in opposition to other methods.

Edit: I did a quick google, so this is only one source, but lets take it for arguments sake, if you don't mind. Please object if you think the source isn't fair.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.htm for crime rates in Massachusetts
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/wacrime.htm for crime rates in Washington

In both, the state population is about the same (the reason I picked those two states to compare). Neither is well known for organized crime, and both are relatively similar. I do admit that the size and population density makes a difference. Mass doesn't have a "shall issue" law, while Washington does. Looking at the homicide rates between the two... they aren't that different to any statistical significance.

[Enadail]

Generally speaking the kind of people who are going to take the class, pay the fee, and wait for the permit are going to follow the laws.

I'll agree on that one. Like I said, I believe a vast majority of gun owners are responsible. I'm just kind of saddened that we see guns as a right while thinking of other, arguably more important things, as privileges, like health care and driving.

[Intestinal fluids]

Generally speaking the kind of people who are going to take the class, pay the fee, and wait for the permit are going to follow the laws.

I'll agree on that one. Like I said, I believe a vast majority of gun owners are responsible. I'm just kind of saddened that we see guns as a right while thinking of other, arguably more important things, as privileges, like health care and driving.

Guns are for all intents and purposes privileges as well. It can be argued that licensing is harder to get for a gun then for a car. Felons and crazy people are still allowed to drive. Not so for guns. Some states you have to go before a Judge to get a pistol license like NY. You certainly dont need to go in front of a judge to get healthcare or a car.

[Fartsniffage]

Guns are for all intents and purposes privileges as well. It can be argued that licensing is harder to get for a gun then for a car. Felons and crazy people are still allowed to drive. Not so for guns. Some states you have to go before a Judge to get a pistol license like NY. You certainly dont need to go in front of a judge to get healthcare or a car.

What sort of crime gets you barred from owning a gun in your state?

[Intestinal fluids]

Guns are for all intents and purposes privileges as well. It can be argued that licensing is harder to get for a gun then for a car. Felons and crazy people are still allowed to drive. Not so for guns. Some states you have to go before a Judge to get a pistol license like NY. You certainly dont need to go in front of a judge to get healthcare or a car.

What sort of crime gets you barred from owning a gun in your state?

Any felony and i believe drug charges that arnt felonys but not sure about the latter.

[Enadail]

Guns are for all intents and purposes privileges as well. It can be argued that licensing is harder to get for a gun then for a car. Felons and crazy people are still allowed to drive. Not so for guns. Some states you have to go before a Judge to get a pistol license like NY. You certainly dont need to go in front of a judge to get healthcare or a car.

What sort of crime gets you barred from owning a gun in your state?

Any felony and i believe drug charges that arnt felonys but not sure about the latter.

But intents and purposes isn't the point... one of the most common arguments against gun control is the second amendment (which I don't believe means every American has the right to own a gun, I believe the spirit of the amendment is being ignored), which people use to make the claim that its a right and thus cannot and should not be touched (also ignoring the other 26 amendments that have been made to the document).

Simply put, the general mentality is that guns are a right, and that licensing is a way to control people from abusing that right. On the other hand, since its not in the Constitution, health care is considered a free for all.

[Thethunderdome]

Well, it's illegal to drink while carrying. If someone goes and drinks they are then carrying the gun illegally, permit or no, so the law has done what it can. I suppose one could argue that if they were carrying legally all day it would be easier for them to forget or be careless but....I think that's kind of stretching it. And yes those incidents are extremely isolated, I can't seem to find one fitting that particular scenario. However I feel I should point out that states with "shall-issue" concealed carry laws have lower rates of homicide, aggravated assault, and robbery.

snip

I have to go right now, but I believe on average they are lower, not entirely sure. At worst those stats prove that CC didn't cause WA residents to run around shooting each other, as compared to MA residents.

[Enadail]

I have to go right now, but I believe on average they are lower, not entirely sure. At worst those stats prove that CC didn't cause WA residents to run around shooting each other, as compared to MA residents.

While I'm not sure thats actually what it shows. Quick research suggests that Washington passed its "shall issue" in 61. Looking at both tables, crime rates steadily grew at similar rates then fell at similar rates in both states. So with or without CC, the violent crime rates remained the same.

[Othyl]

In general, I'm opposed to all weapons in the US, because too many people see it as a right instead of a privilege.

Well, the 2nd Amendment is considered to be part of the so named "Bill of Rights" so it's reasonable to assume that Americans would consider it a right.

And no one generally advocates free acquisition of firearms, usually there's licenses, registrars, background checks, education necessary, age limits for varying types of firearms and a few other restrictions placed on gun ownership by anyone thinking logically about the subject. It would seem as though there are more barriers to owning and operating a gun than a car.

And the reason why you hide a gun is in theory to protect even the unarmed populace. If concealed weapons are common place, and in many cases, simply having a gun is sufficient to deter a crime, then if criminals can reasonably assume everyone is armed, they'll be less likely to do something even if there are unarmed people, because without putting themselves at risk, they can't know for sure if someone is armed or not.

This idea was put into action with that previously mentioned town in Georgia, they passed a law that everyone must have a gun in the house and despite that they don't enforce it, would-be criminals can't know who does or who doesn't have a gun in their house and so crime is deterred.

[The_pantless_hero]

And the reason why you hide a gun is in theory to protect even the unarmed populace. If concealed weapons are common place, and in many cases, simply having a gun is sufficient to deter a crime, then if criminals can reasonably assume everyone is armed, they'll be less likely to do something even if there are unarmed people, because without putting themselves at risk, they can't know for sure if someone is armed or not.

Except for two things
1) Your average criminal is an idiot. That's why he is your average criminal.
2) It is reasonable to assume no one is armed if it appears that way, even in a place with majority carry. I don't care how many fucking people have concealed carry permits, guns don't project magic, crime deterring force fields simply by being on your person.

And no one generally advocates free acquisition of firearms,

No one besides the NRA and their legion.

usually there's licenses, registrars, background checks, education necessary, age limits for varying types of firearms and a few other restrictions placed on gun ownership by anyone thinking logically about the subject. It would seem as though there are more barriers to owning and operating a gun than a car.

Other than the registration, license, education, and age limits required to own and operate a vehicle. Many of those requirements are nonexistent for guns based on point and state of purchase.

[Enadail]

In general, I'm opposed to all weapons in the US, because too many people see it as a right instead of a privilege.

Well, the 2nd Amendment is considered to be part of the so named "Bill of Rights" so it's reasonable to assume that Americans would consider it a right.

And like I said, I don't think that's what the second amendment means. Nor do I think its relevant to this day and age even if it means what it says explicit.

And no one generally advocates free acquisition of firearms, usually there's licenses, registrars, background checks, education necessary, age limits for varying types of firearms and a few other restrictions placed on gun ownership by anyone thinking logically about the subject. It would seem as though there are more barriers to owning and operating a gun than a car.

Unless you want to buy a gun off your neighbor, which is perfectly legal, requires no background checks or education. The license and registration is still necessary, but becomes irrelevant if they do something stupid with it.

And the reason why you hide a gun is in theory to protect even the unarmed populace. If concealed weapons are common place, and in many cases, simply having a gun is sufficient to deter a crime, then if criminals can reasonably assume everyone is armed, they'll be less likely to do something even if there are unarmed people, because without putting themselves at risk, they can't know for sure if someone is armed or not.

Again, wouldn't an open gun do more to protect you against a dumb criminal? As pantless pointed out, dumb criminals are... well, dumb. If instead the argument is that it protects the individual, why bother having police? Security cameras? Etc? I know its not pertinent all around the US, and accept that there can be exceptions, but in general?

This idea was put into action with that previously mentioned town in Georgia, they passed a law that everyone must have a gun in the house and despite that they don't enforce it, would-be criminals can't know who does or who doesn't have a gun in their house and so crime is deterred.

And yet murder and violent crime rates in George are significantly in George then Mass? Murder being nearly three times more common (2.8 v 7.5 per 10,000 people) and violent crimes being about 10% more (4.3 v 4.9 in 1,000 people).

Sources:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/gacrime.htm

[North Occidentia]

And no one generally advocates free acquisition of firearms,

No one besides the NRA and their legion.

Sadly, the NRA doesn't support that. The GOA probably do, though.

[Enadail]

And no one generally advocates free acquisition of firearms,

No one besides the NRA and their legion.

Sadly, the NRA doesn't support that. The GOA probably do, though.

Maybe not free acquisition, but they would certainly like to remove a lot of the limits currently in place.

[Gun Manufacturers]

An armed society is a courteous society.

Rarely do I find your average gun owner courteous.

I don't know what you're talking about, I'm courteous as hell.

[North Occidentia]

Maybe not free acquisition, but they would certainly like to remove a lot of the limits currently in place.

Yes, in many cases, but they have also helped develop new gun control laws and generally betrayed the Second Amendment.

[Fson]

hmmamerica, the country with a massive gang problem, i know lets allow people to carry weapons, wait infact let them hide them....



if you are not talking about weapons then feel free to look at me with comtempt

[Thethunderdome]

I have to go right now, but I believe on average they are lower, not entirely sure. At worst those stats prove that CC didn't cause WA residents to run around shooting each other, as compared to MA residents.

While I'm not sure thats actually what it shows. Quick research suggests that Washington passed its "shall issue" in 61. Looking at both tables, crime rates steadily grew at similar rates then fell at similar rates in both states. So with or without CC, the violent crime rates remained the same.

Alright so after some quick googling it seems some studies show a drop and some no effect. Assuming that CC laws have no effect on crime, which is the best that someone wanting to ban it could claim, it makes little sense to ban it because it will cause a "wild-west" type of situation. As lame as it sounds If you ban carry only criminals will carry. The vast majority of people who are going to bother to get a permit aren't the outlaw type.

As for guns not being necessary to defend yourself- they aren't always. Actually the law in most places states that you can't shoot someone unless your'e threatened with lethal force. Except in FL and TX you can shoot people for stealing your stuff. I don't know about you, but if someone's going to kill or kidnap me or my friend I would rather have a gun than a taser. Besides there are many situations where a taser isn't practical. Also, I'm no ninja. I could take one normal guy, maybe two, but I would be pretty beat up. If I have to protect my life against anything more I'm in trouble unarmed. I have to admit I'm definitely biased towards CCW simply because I was the victim of a..."crime of opportunity" that could have gone from bad to extremely very bad and I never want to be in that position again. Trust me, when there are two big guys with knives trying to take your car/friend you'll wish you had more than a taser. Not trying to be an attention whore, but my personal story is the main reason I want it legal, and unless someone can provide me with a good reason to ban it I'm not changing my position.

[Enadail]

Maybe not free acquisition, but they would certainly like to remove a lot of the limits currently in place.

Yes, in many cases, but they have also helped develop new gun control laws and generally betrayed the Second Amendment.

Explicar por favor?

I still don't believe the second amendment means every American has the right to a gun, but I'm not sure what you mean either.

[Gun Manufacturers]

But that ruins all the fun! How else can I pretend to be James Bond if I can't walk around in perfect untouched suits and tuxedos with no sign there's anything underneath except my body, then when a KGB agent shows up, BAM! There's suddenly a pistol in my hand and in the instant of drawing it from its secret concealed holster I shoot his gun right out of his hands!

Excuse me while I extrapolate on that a bit... and I'm not saying this is the typical gun owner in the least, I'm positive a vast majority of them are responsible. Lets just take one of the irresponsible ones for a sec. Long day, has a concealed weapon, heads to a bar to get a drink, ends up getting waaaaaay too drunk, picks a fight with someone and decides to use the gun to settle it. Now, he's obviously going to prison under some degree of murder, never gonna get a license again (I hope), etc, as the justice system is supposed to work. But if he didn't have that gun, and tried a fist fight while wasted, lot less chances he'd kill someone. Worse yet what if he misses the guy hes fighting and hits an innocent bystander? Or just to make things even more interesting, he pulls out the gun, everyone else in the bar pulls out a gun to defend themselves, and one person misfires or purposely fires to protect themselves. They are arrested for manslaughter.

Again, I point out that I believe situations like this are isolated, but... Is any of that really necessary?

In CT, it's illegal to carry while intoxicated (Sec. 53-206d of the CT general statutes). In fact, while I was taking the pistol permit course, I was told it was illegal to carry in a bar in CT (I haven't located the CT general statute that says that yet, but I'll post that when/if I do).

[Enadail]

In CT, it's illegal to carry while intoxicated (Sec. 53-206d of the CT general statutes). In fact, while I was taking the pistol permit course, I was told it was illegal to carry in a bar in CT (I haven't located the CT general statute that says that yet, but I'll post that when/if I do).

And I don't disagree that the vast majority of gun owners are abiding. But if even one person did, and someone died from it... to me, that again means we should look at the situation.

Again, I ask... is having a gun for protection or because you can ("second amendment says I can, so I can"). Because I again question, if its for protection, why not projectile tasers? And if the concern is "they're not good enough", if more research was done to the point where its pretty much a non-lethal gun, would you switch over? I guess that's what I'm tryin to get at, the purpose.

[Bdellovibrio]

So should school children be given guns as they enter the school? Would that increase or decrease the number of homocides in schools?

[Enadail]

So should school children be given guns as they enter the school? Would that increase or decrease the number of homocides in schools?

I think thats a silly and irrelevant argument. Anyone who advocates that EVERYONE should have a gun either isn't thinking or is incapable of doing so. The vast majority of gun proponents wouldn't be for arming children.

[Gun Manufacturers]

In CT, it's illegal to carry while intoxicated (Sec. 53-206d of the CT general statutes). In fact, while I was taking the pistol permit course, I was told it was illegal to carry in a bar in CT (I haven't located the CT general statute that says that yet, but I'll post that when/if I do).

And I don't disagree that the vast majority of gun owners are abiding. But if even one person did, and someone died from it... to me, that again means we should look at the situation.

Again, I ask... is having a gun for protection or because you can ("second amendment says I can, so I can"). Because I again question, if its for protection, why not projectile tasers? And if the concern is "they're not good enough", if more research was done to the point where its pretty much a non-lethal gun, would you switch over? I guess that's what I'm tryin to get at, the purpose.

See, if one person did, and someone died from it, to me that means that person should get prosecuted, not that all firearms owners should be affected.

I don't carry for protection. Actually, I don't carry at all, for two reasons. One, I'm still waiting for my permit to come in (I'm supposed to get an answer within 8 weeks according to CT state law, but I've been waiting almost 11 weeks now). Two, I currently only have a rifle (AR-15 with a 16" barrel, not exactly concealable, and owned for target shooting). When I do have my permit, and when I do get a pistol, I'm only planning on carrying it to the range and back, or to the gunsmith if it needs major repair service/upgrades.

Non-projectile taser? Do you mean a stun gun? I don't own one because I don't want my roommate to use it on me when I'm asleep, as a prank (he says he owes me one, for a prank I played on him recently).