How many have concealed carry permit to carry a gun ?

[houstonscott]

Fellow members of TBN have stated their positions on CCW, as is their right to do. Nor do I quibble with any of those opinions. As for myself, I can recall too many cases where deadly weapons have been used for killing students in schools, for killing police officers in cold blood, for robbery, for shooting sprees out of revenge against employers and peers in the workplace. Many of these cases involved the possession of weapons by insane persons, or persons temporarily bereft of reason by virtue of rage or influenced by drugs or liquor. Many persons died by suicide with hand guns. On the balance of the pros and cons, it seems reasonable to restrict the carrying of weapons for the common good, because a weapon of lethal force is not something that anyone can be always trusted with, at any and all times. If you have a gun, and you temporarily lose control of yourself for ANY reason, you are a part of a problem, not a part of a solution. For the number of incidences where a weapon has saved a life, there are many other incidents where pulling a weapon has cost a life. In a civilized society, there should be no need to carry. Yes there are criminals who may rob you. In many cases they will do so at gunpoint. If you carry, they may still rob you..and may kill you too, if you offer deadly force against them to prevent that robbery. Police cannot be everywhere all of the time and so robbery is perhaps inevitable once in a while. I believe it is wiser to allow the loss of property than to accept being shot by a frightened criminal as an alternative. No law can be written, nor enforced, which will guarantee freedom from criminal exploitation.. and carrying handguns is similarly unable to guarantee freedom from crime....but carrying handguns wholesale has often been proven to get innocent people killed. Much is made about "freedom" in the arguments to support the right to bear arms...but I suggest that more reflection on the definition of freedom is required. The ancient greeks philosophied that freedom is nothing more than the right to be self-disciplined, for if we are not self-disciplined we lose our right to govern ourselves and must submit to government by others, else we live in anarchy. Guns do not confer self-discipline, hence they do not guarantee freedom. They do help to guarantee freedom FROM OPPRESSION The American Consitution was drafted following the war against British colonialism where it was necessary to raise arms against wrongful use of power [the Stamp Act] by Britain to impose and collect taxes, without representation. That war was caused by a travesty against the rights of people in the day..and the people rebelled, justifiably, using force against force. For this rebellion to succeed, arms were necessary. Hence the right to bear arms in a regulated and well disciplined militia was [and remains] justified.but this justification has been modified to mean that every person, whether in a well-regulated militia or not, has the right to bear arms anywhere at any time without cause I disagree with that understanding of the American Constitution. I do agree with the Constitution original intent and rationale, just as I agree with Lincoln's Gettysburg address It is a matter of context..and common sense. People, acting in concert and in self-discipline are free. People acting otherwise, never are.

I would submit that the USA is the pinnacle of freedom, prosperity, and tolerance, in human history, and we have gun rights protected as a major leg to keep that freedom. What you'll find is the guns we own aren't for protection from common criminals but from protection from the government, it's governments who have murdered million who didn't have the right to protect themselves. Our guns are not for hunting or protection from criminals, but are protection from a government infringing on our rights. We are a society, free, and armed, and no one can change that unless they face the end of a gun. HS

 

[IslandTractor]

I would submit that the USA is the pinnacle of freedom, prosperity, and tolerance, in human history, and we have gun rights protected as a major leg to keep that freedom. What you'll find is the guns we own aren't for protection from common criminals but from protection from the government, it's governments who have murdered million who didn't have the right to protect themselves. Our guns are not for hunting or protection from criminals, but are protection from a government infringing on our rights. We are a society, free, and armed, and no one can change that unless they face the end of a gun. HS

The U.S. may well have achieved tremendous strides in human freedom but I would challenge you to give examples of how the second amendment has been important in that journey. We have been a nation of laws, not tyranny. We settle issues with votes, not guns.

 

[MossRoad]

He's not only lost respect but also given ammunition to those who would prefer to enact laws or constitutional changes to place tighter controls on firearms. The "anti" gun crowd (myself included) really doesn't get upset by reasonable people with firearms. It's the nutjobs we worry about. Those who consider firearm possession essentially a religious rather than civic matter are part of that group. If you think your right to firearms transcends the rule of law then we have a problem. Firearms became what is almost a religious matter in this country only a few decades ago. No one was terribly concerned about firearm possession until approximately the 1960's. The NRA used to be a sportsman's organization and the Supremes rarely got involved except to clarify things like who could and couldn't use an obvious weapon of war (machine gun). So, in our roughly 250 year history, firearms have been an emotional and political football for only fifty years. While reasonable people can and have compromised on firearm issues in the past, the radical firearm worshipers (bringing AR15s to McDonalds etc) are pushing buttons that are dangerous. I don't care how much Bubba likes his guns, if he is irresponsible and or ignores reasonable laws then perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to carry. A vote or two on the Supreme Court is all it would take to go back to more restrictive gun laws.

On the flip side, if people like you would stop over-reacting to someone that has a legal right to do something you would seriously take the wind out of the sails of those that do it just to get a rise out of folks. They'd not feel the need to openly excercise their rights if they weren't getting a rise out of folks, which is pretty much what you try to do taking the antagonist side in every pro-carry thread, right? hahahhaha

Seriously, you're dealing with two groups of people here.... 1. those that think the government is out to get them and 2. those that think the government is out to get them. Know what I mean? wink. wink.

I grew up in the 70s. I carried a rifle in my trunk to high school. Our school had a rile team. Many kids carried hunting rifles and shotguns to school. Some had pistols. My father carried a handgun in his car. He once used it to defend my mom, a sibling and me on a dark rainy night on a rural highway. I am forever amazed by my father that night. He also defended us on another stormy night at home during a power outage. Someone was breaking into our home. He stopped it. I have no problem with requiring people to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I do have a problem with people that flaunt open carry. It just stirs folks up. No need for it. Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we have to do it.

 

[jix]

Thanks for the Canadian perspective. It must be interesting living there. BTW I was in your town once on vacation. Spent 2 weeks going thru Maine, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Beautiful. Didn't need the gun but "Never leave home without it".

Your Canadian perspective sounds like most of our Liberals. They'd like the US to be just like you and Australia. Only cops and criminals have guns. And think about the response time if you dial 911 during a home invasion? How much damage is that criminal going to do in 10-15 min? And you can't shoot someone who invades your HOME?!?!

I'm guessing you don have guns or like guns.

Hey, BUGGS67..
Yes, you can shoot a burgular, if he is obviously armed and threatens your life first...but even so you will be arrested and charged with a serious crime..and the legal defense will cost you over 50 grand, so practically, you just show him where the valuables are and go back to bed. That is why we have home insurance. Even if a cop shoots a perp he will stand trial for that...every time.

Actually, Buggs, I do have a number of guns, including a .45 Long Colt SW K25 revolver (with a permit) I spent 30 years carrying guns, including fully automatic sub-machine guns in theatres of war as a soldier. In one instance the 9mm SMG was fired by myself in anger at a human being that was trying to kill me in a war zone, so it is fair to say that I like guns, for they allowed me to survive. I also hold an Olympic summer games Gold Medal won in a shooting completion in 1978. I was a soldier and an officer in the Canadian Army before I retired. I have officiated at two military funerals for soldiers that died becoz of the careless use of firearms by civilian "gun nuts" in Canada. My attitude is quite simply that most persons in Canada do not require any handguns near to hand.

Some Canadians do enjoy target shooting with pistols at properly supervised gun club ranges and they can obtain permits for that if they meet the screening requirements for that purpose, BUT hand guns must be transported in a locked gun box, unloaded, and directly to and from the range and only at times when the range is open and supervised... EVEN for an army officer who can carry military automatic weapons on duty. Even police officers can not routinely do that, in Canada

Yes it is a pain in the *** restriction. But it is a necessary and reasonable restriction because of the wing nuts who think that carrying a hand gun makes them a hero with big balls..and because there are more wing nuts out there than one can count. I never feel at ease when I travel in the USA. Too many people carrying guns, and some of them are liable to shoot first and think second, especially in road rage situations. Hand guns, used in typical urban areas by so called lawful private citizens kill innocent bystanders because they are fired without much regard for the collateral damage if the intended target is not hit and the bullet keeps going until another person is hit "accidentally".

My anti-gun reasoning has nothing to do with any passion, cause or aversion to firearms. The reasoning has everything to do with common sense and real-life experience.

In Canada it is generally true that the only persons carrying loaded handguns are criminals and police officers..and yes, Brinks guards filling the ATM's


By the way, no person except a police official on duty can cross a Canadian border point of entry with a handgun in his possession, permits or not, and no person can purchase a handgun without first having obtained a permit to possess and transport it. It is very very unlikely that you can get shot In Canada, Except by a hunting rifle being handled by a drunk out deer hunting. In more than seventy years I have only personally seen one instance of a police officer drawing a weapon. and that was an RCMP officer arresting a drunken man that had just committed a cold-blooded murder, using a sawed-off shotgun because he could not get his hands on a pistol. In Canada, we have about 12 police officers killed every year by criminals or nut jobs with guns. These police were carrying, were highly trained, and quite experienced..and their handguns did not protect them

If handguns will not guarantee the safety of trained police officers, then why would they protect an amateur civilian?

 

[dragoneggs]

Thanks for the Canadian perspective. It must be interesting living there. BTW I was in your town once on vacation. Spent 2 weeks going thru Maine, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Beautiful. Didn't need the gun but "Never leave home without it". Your Canadian perspective sounds like most of our Liberals. They'd like the US to be just like you and Australia. Only cops and criminals have guns. And think about the response time if you dial 911 during a home invasion? How much damage is that criminal going to do in 10-15 min? And you can't shoot someone who invades your HOME?!?! I'm guessing you don have guns or like guns.

You carried a gun across the border? Did they ask you at the crossing and did you claim it?

 

[dragoneggs]

Today, I visited my local Sheriff's office to get a replacement CCW license. Washington state... $50 new license, $32 renewal (5 years), and $10 for a replacement/lost card. I was happy to pay the $10 for admin fees, but I was surprised when the deputy said they would mail it to me as soon as the background check was completed. I am wondering why a background check (that must cost more than $10) was required. I can see this on a renewal but seems a little silly on a lost card. Oh well. Now I just hope someone hasn't assumed my identity and gone done something bad. :shocked:

 

[TomSeller]

Canada is a very nice place. To a large extent, you don't need guns as much up there because there are not as many nut jobs with guns as we have down here. If I lived in Canada, I might be happy without owning guns (after withdrawal).

In the US guns are often needed in defense. I would not feel comfortable without owning guns in the US.

It seems we evolve to adapt to our environment.

 

[Garandman]

As for myself, I can recall too many cases where deadly weapons have been used for killing students in schools, for killing police officers in cold blood, for robbery, for shooting sprees out of revenge against employers and peers in the workplace. Many of these cases involved the possession of weapons by insane persons, or persons temporarily bereft of reason by virtue of rage or influenced by drugs or liquor. Many persons died by suicide with hand guns.

On the balance of the pros and cons, it seems reasonable to restrict the carrying of weapons for the common good, because a weapon of lethal force is not something that anyone can be always trusted with, at any and all times. If you have a gun, and you temporarily lose control of yourself for ANY reason, you are a part of a problem, not a part of a solution.

For the number of incidences where a weapon has saved a life, there are many other incidents where pulling a weapon has cost a life.

In a civilized society, there should be no need to carry. Yes there are criminals who may rob you. In many cases they will do so at gunpoint. If you carry, they may still rob you..and may kill you too, if you offer deadly force against them to prevent that robbery. Police cannot be everywhere all of the time and so robbery is perhaps inevitable once in a while. I believe it is wiser to allow the loss of property than to accept being shot by a frightened criminal as an ////// gigantic wall of text.

Citations needed. You seem to have swallowed the liberal gun control propaganda whole.

If guns cannot be entrusted to people at any and all times, do you think police officers should be required to turn their duty weapons in at the end of a shift?

It is true that some people commit suicide with guns. So let me give you some actual statistics to highlight this societal problem. In MA in the last census year, 531 people committed suicide. About 100 of those committed suicide with guns (mostly men). 257 hung themselves. Most of the rest were "poisoning" which is government speak for drug overdose. http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/injury-surveillance/suicide/suicide-update-fall2011.pdf

There were a small number of failed suicide attempts by gun. There were over 4,000 failed suicide attempts involving drug overdoses.

So more than twice as many people hung themselves as shot themselves, more than twice as many OD'd as shot themselves, and 10 times as many tried to overdose: but you imply that guns are the leading public health concern for suicides and don't mention the epidemic of drug overdoses. Why is that?

The use of a gun to prevent a crime has a name: "Defensive use of a firearm." There is a problem with reporting. Because no crime is committed, such defensive uses are not always recorded, but various studies have give the number as anywhere from 500,000 to 1.5 million per year.

President Obama gave the CDC $10 million to study this question. Like you, he believed that having a gun to defend yourself increased the risk of injury or death when attacked by criminals. The result, as published by that running dog of the NRA, the Center for Disease Control?

studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was used by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies, the CDC study, entitled Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, states.

It's a government study, surely you trust it?

Less than a mile from our house in Boston, a convenience store was robbed in broad daylight, on a busy street, with many witnesses, less than half a mile from the police precinct. The owner complied with the robber's request to give him the money from the cash register, then shot him on the way out. This is the third time the criminal arrested (who lived about a block away) has been charged with firearm crimes. The shop owner is very lucky to be alive, but being,shot doesn't improve anyone.

Boston, Washington DC, Chicago and other metro areas perfectly demonstrate the adage that "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." The statistics are shocking, but the "Progressives" don't want to hear it. If any of my statistics are wrong, feel free to disabuse me. It is a **** of a lot better to have a gun and not need it then to need a gun and not have it. Now get off my lawn.

 

[dragoneggs]

I don't carry regularly and I have really never felt like I have needed a gun for protection until I got a little older... mostly growing up and living in a 'good' area. Now I have two (there are two of us in the household... makes sense to me). I still feel relatively safe and am not as 'armed' and as ready as I could be. But I need to work on that! I did feel it was time that I exercised my 2nd Amendment right and also be prepared (thinking back and remembering my Boy Scout oath)... being serious here.

 

[houstonscott]

The U.S. may well have achieved tremendous strides in human freedom but I would challenge you to give examples of how the second amendment has been important in that journey. We have been a nation of laws, not tyranny. We settle issues with votes, not guns.

The gun and US history are the same, consider the civil war. HS