The Scourge of Concealed Weapons

[jpak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/opinion/sunday/the-scourge-of-concealed-weapons.html?_r=0


As the nation’s leaders devise new gun control strategies following the Connecticut shooting, they should look for ways to strengthen state laws that govern the possession and use of firearms. In too many states, these laws are weak and, in some cases, seem almost designed to encourage violence.

Over the years, states have made it increasingly possible for almost any adult to carry a concealed handgun in public, including on college campuses, in churches and in state parks — places where people tend to congregate in large numbers and where, in a rational world, guns should be strictly prohibited.

Some state legislators like to argue that citizens must be allowed to arm themselves because law enforcement cannot be trusted. Others offer the 2008 Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment as justification for these laws. But that decision recognized only a narrow right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” And it came along well after most states had begun to weaken their controls.

A more likely cause for this shift are the very forces that have undercut efforts to enact strong and sensible national laws, namely, the incredible power of the pro-gun lobby and its profitable allies in the gun manufacturing industry. The assertion on Friday by Wayne LaPierre, the vice president of the National Rifle Association, that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” was as much a sales pitch as it was a restatement of the organization’s perverse philosophy.

<more>

[ileus]

1. I remember the darkages (80's) when only the 1%ers could protect themselves.

Don't let them reverse the progress we've made as a society when it comes to PSD's and CHP's.

[Puha Ekapi]

3. Funny how...

...violent crime and homicides have declined during the same time frame that saw expansion of concealed carry rights.

[bubbayugga]

8. Tell that to the families of the 500 people killed in Chicago this year.

[gejohnston]

9. Illinois has almost no

legal concealed carry, unless you are a state senator who moonlights as a "security guard" or a Chicago city councilperson. Chicago's handgun ban was struck down, but has a overly burdensome registration process that still makes it a defacto ban. All legal gun owners in Illinois are licensed as far as I can tell.

Something those 500 families should as their alterpeople

• Most alarming, both law enforcement and gang sources say, is that some politicians ignore the gangs’ criminal activities. Some go so far as to protect gangs from the police, tipping them off to impending raids or to surveillance activities—in effect, creating safe havens in their political districts. And often they chafe at backing tough measures to stem gang activities, advocating instead for superficial solutions that may garner good press but have little impact.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

[PavePusher]

23. Or a former Mayor with a permanent security detail... n/t

[ManiacJoe]

2. I wish I could say that this editorial was worth the two minutes it took to read.

But, no, it was not.

[Pullo]

4. The anti's got their arses handed to them on this issue during the last couple of decades.

[Glaug-Eldare]

12. Oh my!

[IMG][/IMG]

[spin]

5. Strange that statistics on concealed carry published by Florida and Texas are never mentioned ...

by the liberal main stream media.

Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since October of 1987 and has issued 2,307,881 concealed weapons permits during that period of time, 993,162 of which are currently valid.

During that 25 year period of time only 168 licenses have been revoked for a crime committed involving the misuse of a firearm after the license was issued.
(source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

That is a fact that you will NEVER see mentioned by the New York Times. It shoots large holes in their assertion that concealed weapons are a "scourge" that must be addressed.

The solution according to the Gray Lady is to have Congress "require that states set higher standards for granting permits for concealed weapons, give local law enforcement agencies greater say in the process, and prohibit guns from public places like parks, schools and churches."

"Higher standards" would undoubted cost the applicant for a carry permit far more money and could be so expensive and time consuming that the average citizen could never afford the time and cost to get a permit. "Giving local authorities greater say in the process" would mean a local sheriff would have an opportunity to discriminate against members of minority communities. What our nation might end up would be a system similar to New York City where only the rich, the famous and the well connected can get a license to carry.

The Times also suggests that no firearms should be allowed on any school campus, bars or places of worship. This could lead to a fair debate but I personally see no reason why a licensed person should not be able to carry in such places. How many large massacres has a person with a carry permit caused on a campus? How many bars have they shot up in the states that allow carry in an establishment that primarily sells alcohol to customers for consumption on the premises? How many churches have witnessed a person with a carry permit running amok?

I predict that if the main stream media is successful in efforts to largely disarm the American citizen they will come to regret that effort when the government decides that allowing a free press is a bad idea.

[gejohnston]

6. What are New York's standards for permits?

I mean objective criteria like training? Zero. Some counties require what amounts to hunter training courses like the average ten year old in Idaho gets, to NYC's just have to have a lot of money. Some are defacto shall issue, some are no issue.

[Glaug-Eldare]

11. Latest info I have:

[IMG][/IMG]

Green counties will generally issue a carry permit to any applicant who is not DISqualified
Yellow counties will generally issue a carry permit to particularly-qualified applicants (death threats, high-risk occupation, etc.)
Red counties will generally not issue a carry permit to anyone without money and influence.

[Clames]

7. Tough crap.

yup

[DWC]

10. Does this sound "perverse"?

On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend.
After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming.
It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone.

It seems that since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Only the local media covered it. Have you seen a story about this??
By the way, the city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd
like to know.

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Deputy-shoots-gunman-at-San-Antonio-movie-theater/2wFsix5ntU2CDrsHjXx2kQ.cspx

[holdencaufield]

14. Anti-gun fallacies

"Over the years, states have made it increasingly possible for almost any adult to carry a concealed handgun in public, including on college campuses, in churches and in state parks"

-- YEA! They are merely reaffirming a right that should never legally have been limited in the first place. By saying it is "increasingly possible" implies that it was impossible to do prior to legislation -- that is just wrong. In fact, laws concerning where you can or cannot legally carry a firearm mean nothing to those who would use them to do murder.

"places where people tend to congregate in large numbers and where, in a rational world, guns should be strictly prohibited."


-- Guns SHOULD be strictly prohibited in those places in a rational world -- however, those people who seek out those self-same areas to do their heinous deeds are not -- by definition -- rational and the worst kind of victim is one who assumes that his rational world view applies to everyone who would do him/her harm. The argument that "reason counteracts force" rings particularly hollow to rape and assault victims who make impassioned pleas to their attackers only to be mocked and brutalised. Almost without exceptions, the mass shootings in recent years have taken place in those "gun-free zones" where we assume that rational people won't use firearms.

"Some state legislators like to argue that citizens must be allowed to arm themselves because law enforcement cannot be trusted."

-- I have never heard anyone from a pro-gun rights organisation or pro-RKBA legislators argue this. The closest I can find are the sayings of Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan who have argued in the past that the black community arm themselves as counterbalance to the institutional racism they witnessed in law enforcement.

What they do argue is that people should be allowed to right to arm themselves because -- and any LEO can confirm this -- the function of law enforcement is not to protect individuals from any and all harm but to provide a deterrent and response to incidents when they occur -- in most cases, after the fact. We trust our law-enforcement to do what they are staffed, funded and trained to do -- we do not require (or desire) they be omnipresent and omnipotent.

The oft-repeated saying rings assuredly true to any victim of violence -- "Where seconds count -- help is only minutes away"

[iiibbb]

18. Some side points

to point 1: The operative issue here is that they've made it possible for a law-abiding person to not be detained/arrested just because they've had an encounter with law enforcement. It's granted them no permission to behave normally, peacefully, and sensibly in public. Criminals carry concealed regardless.

to point 2: One's weapon cannot simply materialize and dematerialize when I enter and exit places where people congregate. I would only go for this if any location that restricted possession had a secure means to check weapons.

to point 3: They have misinterpreted the statement. We can't rely on law enforcement to be there we need them. This is particularly true for me because I bought my first gun after a Katrina-like incident in another part of the country. The government did not have things under control. The governor said on the TV "if you call 911 for an emergency you may not receive a response". What is a rational response to that announcement if you happen to live in/near a neighborhood with a reputation for crime?

[jimmy the one]

15. More Guns More Lies - shall issue ccw (mont, wva..)

somebody wrote: ...violent crime and homicides have declined during the same time frame that saw expansion of concealed carry rights.

.. So? violent crime rates & murder rates declined in the 9 states with stricter guncontrol as well, and greater declines. So you really have no point, correlation does not prove causation.
.. also you're not entirely correct: Montana enabled shall issue ccw (concealed carry weaponry permits) 1991 & since then her violent crime rate near tripled several years, & is now about 2 times higher (~140 - 365 - 280) - half the years her murder rate was higher too.
.. West Virginia enabled shall issue in the 1980's iirc, & since then her violent crime rate has doubled.
.. Both dakotas violent crime rates have near or over tripled (~70 - ~240), tho still fairly low.
.. Pennsylvania enabled shall issue ccw in 1989 & for 20 years her violent crime rate remained above the start years, only in 2009 did it marginally fall below - an average of the 23 years since ccw start year would put pennsy's violent crime rate between 5% -10% higher.
Indiana's violent crime rate fluctuates over & below it's si-ccw start year.
.. this, while all the other states saw pretty dramatic violent crime rate declines over near the same time periods (guncontrol hawaii remained at parity, ~250).

.. St Louis city enabled shall issue ccw 2005, & next year had the highest violent crime rate in the country, beating even detroit, & detroit enabled si-ccw ~2002 & still has in the top 3 violent crime rates in the country consistently, plus high murder rater. More guns less crime? nah, more guns more lies.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/index.html

MORE GUNS MORE LIES

[gejohnston]

21. Chicago's ban was not lifted

they have a registration scheme that has so many obstacles that remains a defacto ban, which is why the court orders the city to write checks to the NRA and SAF. Illinois has a licensing system for all guns. The murders were mostly gangs and not with registered guns, so that makes your entire argument invalid.

[jimmy the one]

16. chicagos handgun ban lifted, murder spikes in 2012

Chicago's handgun ban was struck down, but has a overly burdensome registration process that still makes it a defacto ban. All legal gun owners in Illinois are licensed as far as I can tell.

Nah nah nah, you were right your first clause - Chicago's handgun ban was struck down, you only try to deflect the ~17% INCREASE in chicago murder the past year 2012, onto 'burdensome registration process'. Nope aint' gonna fly past, chicago lifted it's handgun ban & murder spiked up.

.. MORE GUNS MORE LIES.

When you compare chicago's morton grove area which banned handguns, & georgia's kennesaw georgia where citizens are required to own guns in their homes (with few exceptions), we find that morton grove over the past couple decades, has CONSISTENTLY had about 30% less violent crime rate than kennesaw, year after year (which has two zip codes, pertains to both but one zip has higher rate etc). Both cities have similar demographics. Murder is so rare in both, 1 every couple years, no comparison possible.

The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the 'state armies' - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state...The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
Warren E Burger (Repub), Chief Justice of the United States, 1991.

[iiibbb]

17. I primarily have the permit to avoid the subjectivity of law enforcement

I have a permit. I rarely carry. Largely because I respect the laws that don't permit me to carry at my place of employment.

In my particular state the laws governing carry can vary from municipality to municipality. It is easy to believe that I might not be aware of certain laws in towns near mine. The state permit trumos all local laws; thus if I happen to have a firearm on me, or in my car, for whatever reason I will not be subject to the arbitrary treatment by a law enforcement officer should I get into a situation where for "probable cause" they decide to search my car or question me... not that there would be reason too, but that doesn't stop some police officers does it?

Furthermore, concealed carry in my area is, frankly, polite. There is a movement in my state to promote open carry of firearms. These guys go around into public places hoping that some unknowledgeable cop or concerned citizen will create a scene so they can promote their right to open carry. I don't need to make a political statement. I am too busy to be bothered with correcting a police officer's interpretation of the law or causing some "concerned" citizen to confront me or go apoplectic.

I also hunt. I have a single shot rifle for this purpose. I carry a pistol with me because there are feral dogs in my hunting area. I have also encountered rabid animals. There is some question as to the legality of me storing my handgun in my backpack, or in a coat pocket, or whatever. So I have the permit to eliminate the question if I am in the presence of a game warden.

The last circumstance I have carried a gun on my person was a natural disaster... not Katrina quality... but certainly enough to cause concern about police availability.

I've also been the vicitim of crime. It doesn't make me want to carry a gun all of the time, but it certainly makes me want to reserve my right to decide for myself when a gun is appropriate or not. I've calculated the odds of it happening again, andIf I'm ever confronted in this way again I will respond as I did last time and leave the scene... however it is not more than 2 parts of luck that I had an escape.

I will always reserve and defend my right to carry, and concealed is the most sensible way to do so for my circumstances.

[jimmy the one]

19. Previous state infringements on shall issue ccw????

Read how throughout american history, several states prohibited concealed carry laws in their constitutions. Gun lobby has enough wiggle room to argue that the legislatures were only 'advised' whether to allow or disallow - lol.

Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (enacted 1891).

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. enacted 1876.

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. (enacted 1974).
1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to .. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and .. but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property... but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. 1945.
1875: "That the right of ... but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons."

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms .. but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. 1889).

New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen ... but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. 1971, added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."

North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary .. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.1971).
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."

Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep .. but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

[Glaug-Eldare]

22. Those are from when open carry was considered the norm,

and concealed carry was associated with criminals.

[jimmy the one]

20. florida

someone wrote: Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since October of 1987...

.. violent crime rate didn't start declining in florida until a decade later after passing shall issue ccw.
.. indeed after shall issue ccw enabled in florida 1987, violent crime rates rose ~27%.

.. indeed takeII, during these (approx) years florida had the highest violent crime rate in the united states of america, and a couple percent of floridians carrying concealed popguns did nothing to lower that distinction.

year ...... popu.....index...... vi-cr/rate.. propcr/r.. murderrate
1986 11,675,000-- 8,228.4-- 1,036.5-- 7,191.9-- 11.7
1987 12,023,000-- 8,503.2-- 1,024.4-- 7,478.7-- 11.4
1988 12,377,000-- 8,937.6-- 1,117.7-- 7,819.9-- 11.4
1989 12,671,000-- 8,804.5-- 1,109.4-- 7,695.1-- 11.1
1990 12,937,926-- 8,810.8-- 1,244.3-- 7,566.5-- 10.7
1991 13,277,000-- 8,547.2-- 1,184.3-- 7,362.9--- 9.4
1992 13,488,000-- 8,358.2-- 1,207.2-- 7,151.0--- 9.0
1993 13,679,000-- 8,351.0-- 1,206.0-- 7,145.0--- 8.9
1994 13,953,000-- 8,250.0-- 1,146.8-- 7,103.2--- 8.3
1995 14,166,000-- 7,701.5-- 1,071.0-- 6,630.6--- 7.3
1996 14,400,000-- 7,497.4-- 1,051.0-- 6,446.3
1997 14,654,000-- 7,271.8-- 1,023.6-- 6,248.2
1998 14,916,000-- 6,886.0-- 938.7-- 5,947

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm