We all want to protect life

[maestro pistolero]

All the fear about law abiding folks packing pistols is sad commentary on the trust we have for our fellow citizen.

I do understand that if one hasn't been exposed to the actual mindset of the millions of us who do "carry" on daily basis, that it may be almost impossible for some to imagine that this behavior comes not from a desire to harm or to take life, but from a determination to protect it.

And along with that motivation, necessarily comes a determination to properly train in the safe carrying, storing and handling of firearms that would equal the determination of any law enforcement personnel.

The safety record of those who pass the training and background checks required in "shall-issue" concealed-carry States equals or exceeds that of active duty law enforcement.

If it's a good safety/risk trade off for police to carry pistols, then it's just as good a trade off for properly trained, screened civilians. What are police anyway, but civilians with special training, and powers of arrest?

I hope people who are worried about the Supreme Court ruling will at least consider the possibility that standing next to an armed citizen may well be the safest place in the world when a criminal element is present.

And remember that, no matter what side of the gun rights fence one is on, that what motivates us all is a desire to protect life.

 

[Huckle2]

Well written!

 

[EHCRain10]

very well said

 

[Vermont]

All the fear about law abiding folks packing pistols is sad commentary on the trust we have for our fellow citizen.

Some would argue that the fact that we feel the need to carry a gun is a sad commentary on the trust WE have for our fellow citizens.

Part of the problem I see with the arguments of many RKBA advocates is they we tend to see the issue as criminals vs. law abiding citizens. A black and white issue where some people are bad and some people are good. All too often our arguments fail to take into account the fact that people who have never broken a law before, can commit crimes. Just because you pass a background check does not mean you will not hurt someone or break a law.

I fear that this is where we lose a lot of people to the gun control side. They see the fact that good people can go bad and they don't want those people to have guns when they go bad. We tend to gloss over the fact and think about the career criminal who was raised by a gang instead of his family.

I think we could do a better job of articulating our position than just stating that we should be allowed to own guns because we are law abiding citizens.

maestro pistolero, this response was not meant as a full rebuttal to your entire post (I actually enjoyed your post), but more of a general post about the shortcomings of a typical RKBA argument that I often see, inspired by a couple of minor points in your post. I hope you don't take it too hard. It wasn't meant that way. I happen to agree with you, though I'm not too fond of requiring a permit or background check to exercise my rights.

And remember that, no matter what side of the gun rights fence one is on, that what motivates us all is a desire to protect life.

True dat!

 

[maestro pistolero]

maestro pistolero, this response was not meant as a full rebuttal to your entire post (I actually enjoyed your post), but more of a general post about the shortcomings of a typical RKBA argument that I often see, inspired by a couple of minor points in your post. I hope you don't take it too hard. It wasn't meant that way. I happen to agree with you, though I'm not too fond of requiring a permit or background check to exercise my rights.

No offense taken whatsoever. You make several fair points.

Some would argue that the fact that we feel the need to carry a gun is a sad commentary on the trust WE have for our fellow citizens.

The answer is that it is precisely because most of us can be trusted, that the net effect of arming an overwhelmingly law abiding population results in an increase in security, and a reduction in violent crime. Who would argue for an armed population if they thought otherwise?

Part of the problem I see with the arguments of many RKBA advocates is they we tend to see the issue as criminals vs. law abiding citizens. A black and white issue where some people are bad and some people are good.

If your only considering it as a criminal vs. law abiding citizen issue, then I agree, your not looking at the whole picture.

. . . people who have never broken a law before, can commit crimes.

True again, but it's so rare as to be statistically insignificant, and doesn't begin to tip the scales away from an overall security benefit derived from arming the citizens who are eligible to exercise the right.

However rare the event may be, if an otherwise sane, lawful person suddenly goes off the deep-end and threatens their fellow citizen, then they are, in that moment, no less a threat than an armed career criminal.

It IS a numbers game. so pointing to statistical anomalies doesn't invalidate the larger point, which is an overall security benefit.

So I continue to put my faith in the overall goodness of fellow citizens, and to acknowledge that will always be a small minority of us who would maim or kill to get what they want.

The real challenge is addressing legitimate fear of those who want to ban arms. Short of prolonged exposure to the large numbers of stable, compassionate, upstanding, solid folks who so happen to be armed, I don't know what the answer is.

Their twisted view of us is not entirely their fault. It's movies,TV, Media, and yes it's US. Making a factual argument for 2A rights is going to always fall on deaf ears if it's angry and confrontational. Who wants to give a gun to someone who's angry and confrontational?

I'm probably guiltier than most. All I'm saying is a little reassurance to the other side wouldn't hurt once in awhile. It doesn't mean we don't stand our ground and fight like hell for our rights. But how much nicer to be a gracious victor? We have Heller, now. Let's convince our opponents we are to be trusted with it.

 

[Vermont]

I agree that there is ...

an overall security benefit derived from arming the citizens who are eligible to exercise the right

I don't think that we as gun owners do a good job of articulating that. I think we just tend to say "but I'm not a criminal so it is ok for me to carry a gun" and we leave it at that. It takes more than that to make our point.

Actually, I think in your response you actually did a good job of addressing that concern.


Your point about not being confrontational is a great one. I cringe everytime I hear someone bashing "liberals". Of course, I'm relatively new to this RKBA thing so I don't have decades of frustration about gun control.

 

[skwab]

if an otherwise sane, lawful person suddenly goes off the deep-end and threatens their fellow citizen, then they are, in that moment, no less a threat than an armed career criminal.

To me, this is the most poignant argument of this thread. I think maestro had a lot of great points, and I certainly understand where Vermont is coming from. However, Maestro's statement above sums it up IMO.

Bad guys will get the guns if that is their particular choice of instrument to commit a crime, whether legally or ilegally. A law abiding citizen, is therefore limited in how they can defend themselves against such a BG if gun control prevents them to do so.

Can an otherwise normal and healthy person who has purchased a gun legally have a tremendous lapse in judgement and commit a gun crime? Absolutely, but I'd be willing to bet, and I have no idea what the actual statitics are, that a great deal of the gun crime commited in our country every day occurs with repeat offenders with illegally obtained guns.

THat being said, gun control only hurts those who choose to obey the laws. Those who don't, already don't care.

 

[Vermont]

Exactly...These are the kinds of arguments I've been looking for.

My point is not that carrying is bad because good people could suddenly do bad things.

I'm all for concealed (or open) carry.

My point is just that we tend to fail at justifying why carrying a gun should be a right. We make the arguments about criminals, but we often act like a criminal and a law abiding citizen are two static types of people, but the truth is that a criminal could go on to never commit a crime again and a law abiding citizen could go on to live a life of crime. I just think that we can do a better job of accounting for these anomalies in our discussions with gun control advocates.

 

[Drgong]

A armed society is a polite society.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Read a few of the "robbery in progress in a quiky mart" type discussions on this forum and you'll quickly see that the only life most people have an interest in protecting is their own.

 

[Jeff White]

As more people get CCW permits the chances of incidents go up. In the last month there are threads posted here about permit holders who have killed police officers during a traffic stop, killed a federal agent during a road
rage incident. Today the Drudge Report has a link to this story:
http://www.wnbc.com/automotive/17120347/detail.html

CINCINNATI -- A 71-year-old Cincinnati preacher was on his way to church when he allegedly waved a gun at another motorist and cursed at her.

The preacher, Thomas Howell, claims that the woman cut him off. Howell testified in court that he has a gun and permit but denied ever removing the weapon from its holster.

But a judge sided with the woman, who said the preacher threatened to shoot her and called her names as their cars chased each other.

Howell has been convicted of aggravated menacing. He could get up to six months in jail on the misdemeanor charge when he's sentenced next month.

I don't care how you screen people, you won't ever screen out the kind of people who do these things. A few years back I predicted this would happen as CCW became more prevalent. How the community is going to deal with it is the question of the day.

Jeff

 

[camslam]

I don't care how you screen people, you won't ever screen out the kind of people who do these things. A few years back I predicted this would happen as CCW became more prevalent. How the community is going to deal with it is the question of the day.

I have been saying the same things for years and I add that there are all kinds of people that can be a threat, given a certain set of circumstances, CCW permit holders included.

THAT IS EXACTLY why I have a CCW permit and carry. I don't discriminate when it comes to threats, realistically, ANYBODY can be a threat, which makes it smart to carry, train, and be responsible for your and your families well being.

 

[camslam]

Read a few of the "robbery in progress in a quiky mart" type discussions on this forum and you'll quickly see that the only life most people have an interest in protecting is their own.

+1000.

I'll add I don't like that opinion, but I have to respect it, because it is personal decision. I just hope that CCW permit holders that refuse to get involved in situations where they could help, will carry the same opinion and understanding, if one of their loved ones or friends is injured or killed. All while a CCW permit holder that could have acted and didn't, was watching it all unfold, or running away, "so they could be a GREAT witness."

 

[230RN]

I fear that this is where we lose a lot of people to the gun control side. They see the fact that good people can go bad and they don't want those people to have guns when they go bad.

And yet...

The safety record of those who pass the training and background checks required in "shall-issue" concealed-carry States equals or exceeds that of active duty law enforcement.

So what's the problem?

 

[Jeff White]

The safety record of those who pass the training and background checks required in "shall-issue" concealed-carry States equals or exceeds that of active duty law enforcement.

You really shouldn't make things up from whole cloth. No one keeps those statistics either for LE or for CCW holders. The only thing reported on the Uniform Crime Report is number of justified shootings by LE and number of justified shootings by civilians. Other incidents, NDs, inappropriate use of force, aren't compiled on either group. You could go by arrest report but even then, occupation or possession of a permit isn't reported to anyone. Some states keep records of CCW holders, but nothing is compiled nationally.

It's probably a valid statement, but there are no numbers to back it up.

Jeff

 

[maestro pistolero]

Jeff I certainly didn't intend to represent my statement as empirical data, you pointing out that it is more anecdotal is correct.

It's probably a valid statement, but there are no numbers to back it up.

Not exactly true. Most agencies keep numbers of revocations of licenses. You do have to kind of piece the information together, but there is data. Most won't tell you why a license was suspended or revoked, but it would be fair to assume some of the numbers had to do with gun crime, and other behavior making the licensee ineligible.

Working from an assumption that anyone shown to commit a crime with a gun would have their license revoked, I found this in just one minute of searching for "concealed, carry, revoked"

This in Ohio: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1684042/posts

"Of the 73,530 licenses issued from April 2004 through the first quarter of this year, sheriffs’ offices reported 391 suspensions and 217 revocations."

If my math is correct, (it usually isn't, help me out here) that's just under 3/10ths of a 1 percent (73530 X .003=220.59) of permits that were revoked for any reason, not even necessarily gun crime.

In time, I think a determined researcher could pretty quickly establish a risk factor, or at least a range of numbers of folks who abused their carry right, one way or another.

I'm still looking for indicators of abuses by LE, and while I'm sure the numbers are very low as well, they are more difficult to find.

The point of this thread, however, is not to load up the opposition with data to attempt to make our case. We are never going to win the hearts and minds (sorry for the cliche) by such arguments. I'm interested here in what we can do to find more common ground and understanding with those on the other side of this issue.

What can we do post Heller to help ease fears and smooth out the road for a transition to a more constitutional approach to 2A rights?

 

[Jeff White]

It's actually going to be easier to find details of abuses by CCW holders then for LE because the great majority of them are handled internally and in many cases labor agreements would preclude details being released to the public.

I think that you are right that if the data were available, both groups would be about equal, and despite the hysteria over news stories here, neither represents any threat to public safety.

I'm think that only time is going to fix the public perception of CCW. One of the things I've observed is that most of the public gets their knowledge about gun issues from TV. I have run into many people who think that we have to register our guns...because on all the TV shows they talk about guns being registered. CCW is not legal here in Illinois, yet I have had people insist that if they went to a judge with a need, the judge could issue a permit.

We're fighting the entertainment industry in order to get our message out. I guess because most screen writers live in California that California gun laws are referenced in the screen plays no matter where the show is set.

But overall we are winning. Shall issue CCW has existed in much of the country for more then a decade now and none of the hysterical things the antis predicted have come to pass.

Jeff

 

[telkontar]

Statistic

"Of the 73,530 licenses issued from April 2004 through the first quarter of this year, sheriffs’ offices reported 391 suspensions and 217 revocations."

I love this stat. I've always wanted some indication that licensed and legally guns are rarely used illegally. (Yes, I know it is not scientific.)
Also, I don't know Ohio or its criteria, but I bet most revocations are not even related to a gun crime: DUIs and domestic violence leap to mind. (All are heinous events and I don't mind better-safe-than-sorry in a limited number of cases.) In the only DUI case I was ever near (I translated in court; Lake County, Illinois), the judge said no ownership of a firearm was a condition of the plea bargain.

 

[TallPine]

All the fear about law abiding folks packing pistols is sad commentary on the trust we have for our fellow citizen.

But only a tiny percentage of them. I have armed neighbors all around me, and I don't fear any of them (well, there was one but he and his friends are gone now).

This sort of logic cuts both ways: one could argue that most people are "safe" therefore you don't need a gun, which also means most people are safe to have a gun.

Or one could argue that most people aren't safe to have a gun, in which case one really does need a gun to protect oneself from those folks.

 

[Mainsail]

Good post! I carry openly because I don't want to shoot anyone. Some people don't understand the concept.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I just hope that CCW permit holders that refuse to get involved in situations where they could help, will carry the same opinion and understanding, if one of their loved ones or friends is injured or killed. All while a CCW permit holder that could have acted and didn't, was watching it all unfold, or running away, "so they could be a GREAT witness."

The general consensus around here is "you're on your own dude"

IN the mall shooting thread there were people who said had that have been them they would have left and not engaged the shooter,

a dangerous double standard for us.

 

[tpaw]

The safety record of those who pass the training and background checks required in "shall-issue" concealed-carry States equals or exceeds that of active duty law enforcement.

A quote like that can only provoke disagreement. Can you post documentation to support your quote?

 

[maestro pistolero]

A quote like that can only provoke disagreement. Can you post documentation to support your quote?

No, it is anecdotal and difficult to support because LE agencies don't publish that data for reasons stated here by Moderator Jeff White. I do think a little digging could turn up more clarity in terms of supporting or not supporting my opinion. I would point out that there is also no readily available evidence to the contrary.

My point certainly is NOT that LE are irresponsible, or unsafe bets as armed individuals. My point is only that there is no gaping disparity between LE and the lawful citizenry as far as safe, and responsible use of firearms.

To the extent that it may be true, however, one must also consider significant factors, such as the frequency with which a law enforcement officer is confronted with dangerous situations compared to the average citizen, and the fact that they must actively pursue criminals when the rest of us are free to retreat to safety when possible.

 

[Drgong]

The general consensus around here is "you're on your own dude"

IN the mall shooting thread there were people who said had that have been them they would have left and not engaged the shooter,

A holdup I would not go to force automaticly, but in a "shooter in the mall" I might very well risk it and try to use my gun and training to defend myself and others...

Why you might ask...

In a holdup it very well that there will be no shooting (in the usual question, your in the back getting milk, and i would get the gun out and ready, but not shoot)

but in the mall shooting, there is a man/women who trying to kill, and thus it is a entirely different situation.

 

[maestro pistolero]

A holdup I would not go to force automaticly, but in a "shooter in the mall" I might very well risk it and try to use my gun and training to defend myself and others...

Why you might ask...

In a holdup it very well that there will be no shooting (in the usual question, your in the back getting milk, and i would get the gun out and ready, but not shoot)

but in the mall shooting, there is a man/women who trying to kill, and thus it is a entirely different situation.
__________________

These types of questions are tactical, judgment calls that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.