Christian Science Monitor contemplates America's gun-carry culture

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fred Fuller

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
21,215
Location
AL, NC
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0311/Gun-nation-Inside-America-s-gun-carry-culture
Gun nation: Inside America's gun-carry culture
Why Americans now carry handguns in so many public places, from parks to college campuses. Is it making the country safer or more dangerous?
By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / March 11, 2012
==============================

America's Gun Culture 2.0 essentially got started when Florida passed the nation's first "shall issue" concealed carry permit law in 1987. Since then all but ten states have enacted "shall issue" laws of their own, and a total of four states have gone even further, to "Vermont style" no-permit concealed carry for law abiding citizens (Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming). In addition, a number of states have passed "castle doctrine" laws as well.

This is a definite change from an earlier trend of increasingly restrictive gun laws across most of the nation. The usual partisan arguments continue, seemingly unabated in many cases, and with little regard for available data from some quarters. But it is becoming more and more clear to more and more people that more guns do not necessarily equal more crime, as this article seems to grudgingly acknowledge.

I see this article as being interesting for several reasons. First of all, that grudging admission from a not-always-firearms-friendly source that more guns in the right hands might lead to less crime. In addition, the article might provide support from a 'mainstream' media source for anyone trying to decide whether or not to carry, or even to obtain a firearm for defense in the home. It might help convince a spouse or other family member who is objecting to the desire of another family member to provide for their own protection. And it's a good reminder for people new to the concealed carry community just how much has changed in a relatively few years, and how relatively politically fragile these changes might be. Thus it's in all our best interests to get the best training we can in order to make the best decisions possible where CCW is concerned.

So, on a personal note - if your state makes concealed carry permits available, do you have one yet? If not, why not?

Since I asked, I'll answer first. I got my first concealed carry permit in the state of Alabama as soon as I was old enough, which was in the early 1970s. I've had a permit to carry everywhere one was available since then, in NC the concealed carry legislation wasn't passed until several years after I moved here. And my wife (who also has a permit) and I continue to seek the best training we can manage at every opportunity.
 
Good article. I think the consensus is more guns does not equal more crime or more violence, in other words more guns is a good thing.


Judge a man not by the answers he gives, but by the questions he asks. - Voltaire
 
The article sums it up pretty well. The last decade has been truly amazing, and I, for one, am glad to see so many people waking up to the reality that they alone are responsible for protection of themselves and their families.

I generally have faith in LE, but one would have to be truly diluded to think the police can actually protect them. They're not omnipresent superheros. They're just people, and a tiny fraction of the population at that.
 
I've had my CCW for 5 years, and just had to renew it. Two years after getting mine, I bought my wife and daughter their own revolvers for Christmas and sent them to CCW classes just after that.

For me, it is about two things... First, taking responsibility for my personal well being. When things go wrong, it happens fast and I never want to regret not having had the means to protect myself and my family if the situation ever arises. The other is that I firmly believe in keeping RKBA alive through active participation. I think those became two of many common reasons for the incredible growth in CCW once people began to learn the reality of concealed carry and the stigma began to evaporate.
 
I got my first CCW in KY in 1999, even though I'd BEEN CCW'ing for years. Having my first REAL job, it seemed like the prudent thing to DO, being on the RIGHT side of the law and whatnot!
smiley-face-whistle-2.gif


I've had one in PA since I moved here (in fact, it's up for renewal in August) fo pretty much the same reason. In this overly-litigious society, it's best to elminate EVERY obstacle you can, should you ever be FORCED to defend yourself, and then tried by twelve... :eek:
 
As the reluctant patriarch of a large clan I have convinced about 15 or so to get CCW and lots of training formal and informal.
 
I think the consensus is more guns does not equal more crime or more violence, in other words more guns is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy. If the presence of an item causes no harm, that doesn't make it good, it makes it neutral.

Nobody, as far as I know has been able to show that CCW has a positive affect on crime as far as society is concerned (it certainly makes a difference to individuals). There are a lot of studies out there that imply the easy access to abortion and porn, and the widespread playing of videogames is having an incredible effect on the general violence level of the population.
 
owen said:
Logical fallacy. If the presence of an item causes no harm, that doesn't make it good, it makes it neutral.

Nobody, as far as I know has been able to show that CCW has a positive affect on crime as far as society is concerned (it certainly makes a difference to individuals). There are a lot of studies out there that imply the easy access to abortion and porn, and the widespread playing of videogames is having an incredible effect on the general violence level of the population.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that doesn't make it lawful evil or perhaps chaotic neutral?
 
owen said:
...There are a lot of studies out there that imply the easy access to abortion and porn, and the widespread playing of videogames is having an incredible effect on the general violence level of the population.
Click to expand...

First, let me start with the standard, "correlation does not equal causation" line. Violent crime per capita peaked in the early nineties and has trended back to levels from the mid 70's. Which one of the three variables cited, or any combination thereof, follows that same trend?
 
Being able to get a permit is good; not having to have a permit is even better. Actually carrying, though, is an independent decision that should be based on all facts and circumstances. Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean that it's wise.
 
There seems to have been a shift in the past ten years. I think the 1994 passage of the AWB was a low point, but may have acted to make people realize our gun rights were not secure, and a backlash may have occured. It was telling when the AWB was allowed to sunset with no more than a wimper as politicians realized advocating more gun control was political suicide.

Today, with more and more women joining our ranks as well as non-gun enthusiasts, it is even more pervasive. The Brady Bunch is squirming and fortunately has become pratically irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
In addition, the article might provide support from a 'mainstream' media source for anyone trying to decide whether or not to carry, or even to obtain a firearm for defense in the home.
Click to expand...

I would hardly call the Christian Science monitor a mainstream media source, to be honest.
Couple that with the notion of videogames, porn and abortions now also supposedly lead to science ... I'd call that pretty much on par in terms of reporting quality for the CSM.
 
Owen, the connection to video games was a popular so-called cause of violence in society in the past.

However, current research in psychology has not supported it as a major cause. Quite a few meta-analytic reviews that show lab studies don't transfer to the real world.

The vast majority of crime seems better tied to economic variation in the lower SES areas of the US.

Murder, etc. in the high SES cohorts has been fairly constant over the years.

As far as guns not preventing crimes, that's an interesting take as we know of many cases of successful SD - I suppose that without firearms, the crimes would be successful. However, the attempt is reported as a crime.

The article itself was a good one. It does point out that in the more intellectual (pardon me) press, such as the Chronicle of Higher Education, it is becoming clear that the CCW/CHL wave hasn't produced blood in the streets and that takes the steam out of Bloomberg and friends for the rest of the country. It also makes serious introduction of antigun legislation unlikely despite the rhetoric of some. Say something for the nuts in the base and doing nothing to make the sane angry at you is common for the both parties.

Glenn
 
The Christian Science Monitor has been the most consistent unbiased source of printed media for years and has the accolades, 7 Pulitzers, Peabody, National Headliner, etc to back it up. That it is tied to a religious entity by name it distances itself from the likes of The New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times by not being in a Political or Corporate backed "lobby". All this FWIW now back to your regularly scheduled program. :)
 
Last edited:
Interesting article. I found one small tidbit in the back worthy of thought: the idea of the individudal as DYI, amateur law enforcement. Perhaps this massive CCW trend is part of the bigger trend of DYI in our society, from the decline of traditional news outlets in favor of Internet commentary to independent investing from home without brokers, to whatever else we now look towards ourselves, and away from professional "others", to do.

Who knows. I do know that I got my first CCW when I was 21-a decent time ago. According to the article, at one point I was one of less than 100,000 nationwide-maybe even less considering how long ago I got my first CCW-and now I'm one of 6 million. Not such a rugged individualist now as in my youth, I suppose.
 
The Christian Science Monitor has been the most consistent unbiased source of printed media for years and has the accolades, 7 Pulitzers, Peabody, National Headliner, etc to back it up.
Click to expand...
:what:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the publication that, a few years ago, printed an article that it was the duty of a Christian woman to submit to rape and even murder rather than commit the unspeakable sin of endangering her attacker's life? :scrutiny:
 
Logical fallacy. If the presence of an item causes no harm, that doesn't make it good, it makes it neutral.
Click to expand...
The actual presence may be neutral. However, the absence of a restriction against their presence is a positive, if the society values fewer legal restrictions (and fewer governmental powers needed to enforce them).

To illustrate: let's just say if we add a certain restriction on (legal) CCW, then for every illegal assault that restriction prevents, it ALSO causes one illegal assault (because the now-unarmed victim was unable to defend himself).

Some people would say: that restriction is neutral, because it prevented as many assaults as it caused. I would, however, conclude that the restriction is bad, because the "bad" of the government causing a good citizen to suffer assault (by denying him the means of legal self-defense) is more important than the "good" of the government preventing a criminal act (by hindering the criminal).

I feel that way because I put more value on rights, liberty, and individualism than I do on governmental powers. If we achieve the same "outcome" by restricting liberty as we would by increasing liberty, increasing liberty is the better way.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a CCW although I am strongly considering getting one (mostly due to newer reciprocity laws) , my reason is I don't see it changing the percent of time I am armed by any significant level. My state allows carry in vehicles without a permit, so I have my guns at my house, my gun in my truck, and a gun locked in my desk at work (I often have to carry a substanital bank deposit for work).

The problem with CCW is there are too many places I go on a regular basis where it is not allowed:

No carry at the Post Office (I have a P.O. Box for mail)

No carry in state or locally owned government buildings, my wife works for a local government organization, so no visiting her office when carrying.

No carry in establishments that serve alcohol, this is nearly every non fast food casual dining location around.

No carry without permision in advance into someone elses house, not that big of deal for me, most houses I may go to are close friends and relatives, no need to carry in most because there are guns already there.

The list goes on and on, about the only place I tend to go that is not explicitly off limits by the law are big box stores (and smaller box stores) which often have no guns signs by the entrance, that leaves what the 20 - 30 feet from my door at home or work to my truck.
 
Why don't police departments sponsor "sell back" programs in order to get more guns on the street? They could sell military surplus and retired police handguns back to the taxpayers for $100 each, no questions asked. This would reduce crime.
 
I started carrying on July 4th 1970, when I learned froman open carryer at the Sedro Woolley loggerrodeo, OC without a permit was 100% legal in WA.

OC no license requiredContinued to OC without a license until 1994 when a gun-grabber got in as Gov and pushed through a whole bunch of unconstitutional legislation (90% of which is gone now, thanks to the courts) After that, I got my CPL, but contuinue to OC (except in winter)
 
@ Baylorattorney : The firearm itself would be true neutral. A good majority of laws surrounding them that are being stricken down lately seem to be lawful evil, and a large amount of the owners seem to float effortlessly between lawful good, and chaotic evil. Thats really the kicker, to me. The user. Thankfully, as is illustrated in the statistics used in the article, the wide majority seem to be lawful-neutral...pushing towards lawful good in a lot of instances.

I read the article twice, its fairly well written and objective.... something i'm seeing more and more out of the CSM lately. We as a whole have frequently gotten far worse media attention, for certain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment:Immediate Action Needed
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
EricTheBarbarian
E
M
  • Locked
Vitter To Introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
M1911
M
C
  • Locked
Vermont carry U.S.A.
Replies
6
Views
530
Essex County
E
A
  • Locked
North Dakota to allow concealed carry without a permit.
Replies
6
Views
922
Shed
Shed
B
  • Locked
Could push for gun control yield National Concealed Carry?
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Godsgunman
G
Back
Top