# Atlanta Airport Bans Guns



## MJS (Jul 7, 2008)

> ATLANTA - The nation's busiest airport dueled with gun rights advocates Tuesday over whether a new Georgia state law allows visitors to carry firearms at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
> City officials in charge of the airport declared it a "gun free zone" when the new law took effect Tuesday. Gun rights supporters, including a state legislator who helped pass the law, quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the designation.


 
Link


----------



## Big Don (Jul 7, 2008)

How depriving law abiding citizens of arms helps anyone or stops crime has never been explained. We'd be far better off with Criminal Control, than with what is called gun control.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 7, 2008)

I see no problem with this.  An airport is no place for a gun.  Seriously - what reaspon would one have anyway?  Is no one has weapons there, what do you need a weapon to defend yourself from anyway?

That is why there are so many trained security personnel in the airport.  Of course, debating the effectiveness of TSA is a totally different topic.


----------



## Lisa (Jul 7, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I see no problem with this.  An airport is no place for a gun.  Seriously - what reaspon would one have anyway?  Is no one has weapons there, what do you need a weapon to defend yourself from anyway?
> 
> That is why there are so many trained security personnel in the airport.  Of course, debating the effectiveness of TSA is a totally different topic.



Many people, myself included don't really wanna put my safety in anothers hands (I have no choice being in Canada). "Trained" is a word with many definitions.  One can not be certain that a "trained" security personnel can react appropriately or really has the training or experience to protect others in a crisis situation.

Give me a couple of people with private firearms that really know how to use them over someone that may or may not have the "right stuff" any day.


----------



## MJS (Jul 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> How depriving law abiding citizens of arms helps anyone or stops crime has never been explained. We'd be far better off with Criminal Control, than with what is called gun control.


 
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, how do the people in the airports know who is law abiding and who isn't?


----------



## MJS (Jul 7, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I see no problem with this. An airport is no place for a gun. Seriously - what reaspon would one have anyway? Is no one has weapons there, what do you need a weapon to defend yourself from anyway?
> 
> That is why there are so many trained security personnel in the airport. Of course, debating the effectiveness of TSA is a totally different topic.


 
Well, its like I said in my other post...how are we supposed to know who is law abiding and who isn't?  I would tend to agree with what you said....an airport..IMO, way too much risk for a terrorist attack, etc.  If someone feels that they need to bring it with them when they go to dinner with the family...fine.  

As far as airport security goes...AFAIK, the only armed people in the airports where I live is the State Police.  



Lisa said:


> Many people, myself included don't really wanna put my safety in anothers hands (I have no choice being in Canada). "Trained" is a word with many definitions. One can not be certain that a "trained" security personnel can react appropriately or really has the training or experience to protect others in a crisis situation.
> 
> Give me a couple of people with private firearms that really know how to use them over someone that may or may not have the "right stuff" any day.


 
To play devils advocate for a moment...some may not feel safe putting their lives in the hands of the average Joe either.  How do I know whether or not the civilian has gone thru the proper courses, that will cover moving targets, shooting under pressure/stress, etc.?

I'll close by saying what I always say...I'm not anti-gun.  If someone wants to own one, I'm fine with that.  I would just hope that people who're going to do more with it than just take it to the range, have been trained properly.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2008)

9/11 would have had a far different outcome if law abiding people had weapons on those planes.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 7, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> 9/11 would have had a far different outcome if law abiding people had weapons on those planes.


I think that's way too simplistic a view.  Prior to 9/11, our experience said that a hijack script was "take the plane, go somewhere, land, deal for the hostages."  While there were plenty of reasons to anticipate something different -- the advice generally given if you found yourself in a hostage situation or hijacking was to go along & not call attention to yourself, while waiting to be rescued.  The passengers on Flight 93 only acted when they received word of the other attacks, and realized that the script had changed.  I give them every bit of credit for adapting to the new situation, and doing their best to overcome it... but I do think a key factor was that they did receive word of the other attacks, with enough time to act.  I think it's also noteworthy that they did not possess guns...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 7, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> 9/11 would have had a far different outcome if law abiding people had weapons on those planes.


 
Maybe, maybe not.  I think that you are assuming that these people may have had some training.  I've always said that I would scrap most gun control law in favor of classes and tests that would check for usage aptitude for whatever weapon a person wanted to own.  I have no problem with people who know what they are doing carrying weapons in an airport.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2008)

Compared to running into them with a service cart? In that situation an untrained man with a gun i would take over unarmed any day.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2008)

Guns and Airplanes:Myths and Reality

A bit simple. But with some valid points.


----------



## Kreth (Jul 7, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> That is why there are so many trained security personnel in the airport.


Um, I've seen some of these "trained security personnel" get winded using the hand scanner... :lol:


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 7, 2008)

Kreth said:


> Um, I've seen some of these "trained security personnel" get winded using the hand scanner... :lol:


 
True, as I said, I think that the TSA effectiveness thing is a whole different issue.  In my experience also, there are plenty of people there who couldn't get jobs as security guards, so they went to TSA.  But then, there are also those who are good at their jobs and know what they are doing.  Just like in any job.  My biggest point about the guns in airports is that 1) No one else has one either and 2) Where are you really going to be allowed to carry it anyway?  You could _never _get it past the metal detectors, that is nothing new.  So basically, this law means that you can't have it at the ticket counters, a few restaurants (although in most airports, the majority of the restaurants are inside the security perimeter), and the baggage claim.  The biggest threat that I see there is a few pickpockets - maybe someone trying to take your baggage.  But really, what is the target in that area?

Personally, if I was any kind of criminal terrorist, etc...I wouldn't be going after the people buying tickets and picking up their bags.  You have the biggest effect either on the plane or inside the security perimeter (where acces to the planes is; baggage loading, maintenance, parking ramp, etc).  

While I don't necessarily agree that people need to carry guns everywhere they go, I support their right to do it and would never argue that they shouldn't be allowed.  

I really just see this as a "pick your battles" kind of thing.  Carrying a gun in an airport isn't that big of a deal, they're not really taking that much away, there really isn't that big of a threat....now, when legislation start to take away the right to carry it into bars and government buildings....now THERE is where we need to step in!    hehehe


----------



## Kreth (Jul 7, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I really just see this as a "pick your battles" kind of thing.  Carrying a gun in an airport isn't that big of a deal, they're not really taking that much away, there really isn't that big of a threat....now, when legislation start to take away the right to carry it into bars and government buildings....now THERE is where we need to step in!    hehehe


Even though I don't carry, I'm with the gun rights people here. It's a slippery slope. What's the next "small" restriction?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 7, 2008)

Kreth said:


> Even though I don't carry, I'm with the gun rights people here. It's a slippery slope. What's the next "small" restriction?


 
The Supreme Court seemed not to think so.  As I read their reading of the Constitution, they seem to think that citizens are entitled to private ownership, but some restrictions are appropriate.  With that being said, are there any cases where gun bans ARE appropriate?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 7, 2008)

An airport needs to be a controlled area. This doesn't bother me.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 7, 2008)

Aren't airports already gun free zones?  You certainly can't take one beyond the security checkpoint unless you have a badge to flash.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2008)

Ive been told by those who lived at the time that prior to 1961 it wasn't uncommon for people to carry on-board.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HalbrookAirSecurity.html



> In 1961, for the first time in aviation history, Congress enacted legislation to prohibit carriage of an accessible concealed weapon aboard an aircraft. [28] Also for the first time, the suggestion surfaced that passengers and carrying baggage should be searched for weapons.
> 
> In the Senate hearings, discussion centered on fourth amendment problems with detecting concealed weapons and the legitimate need to transport firearms in checked baggage. One proposed bill would have required passengers to submit their persons to a search for concealed weapons by air carriers. [29] Senator Engle, who introduced [p.593] the original bill on crimes aboard aircraft (which eventually passed), argued that 'digging through people's luggage and 'shaking them down' with reference to trying to find concealed weapons gets pretty close to the limit.' [30]



While I'm kind of playing devils advocate here, I'm not really FOR everybody packing on planes, I think that flight 98 showed that the best defense against another 9/11 style attack is the passengers taking care of business. Stripping everybody of any form of armed defense is not working already, ask anybody involved in airport security. Perhaps a different approach should be considered.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 7, 2008)

MJS said:


> While I don't necessarily disagree with you, how do the people in the airports know who is law abiding and who isn't?


One who has jumped through the numerous legal hoops required to obtain a concealed weapon's permit is a pretty safe bet as far as law abiding goes.


----------



## MJS (Jul 7, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> 9/11 would have had a far different outcome if law abiding people had weapons on those planes.


 


Archangel M said:


> Guns and Airplanes:Myths and Reality
> 
> A bit simple. But with some valid points.


 

Hmm...and here are some people who probably shouldn't have guns.
http://www.ofainc.com/newsletters/1998/ofapg5.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/08/london_flight_d.html

http://consumerist.com/337189/unruly-passenger-forces-jetblue-flight-to-make-unscheduled-landing


So, I want the guy, whos sitting next to me, who cant seem to go from point A to point B without a drink, getting upset because the crew refuses him one because he's getting intoxicated, so he pulls out a gun.

I'll also add again...how are we going to know who is law abiding and who isn't?


----------



## MJS (Jul 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> One who has jumped through the numerous legal hoops required to obtain a concealed weapon's permit is a pretty safe bet as far as law abiding goes.


 
So how are we going to tell who is law abiding and who isn't?  By looking at them?  Unless we ask each and every person who may be carrying, to see the proper documentation, prolonging the boarding process a little more, we won't know.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 7, 2008)

Not sure the exact date, but years before 9/11/2001 the Detroit Metro airport had signs up stating firearms and knives were not allowed at the airport terminal or on a plane. 

I would like to have my options open to me, but I am not sure how to do this, unless I go back to my old gun control argument. I believe everyone has to carry a weapon and everyone gets 'x' number of bullets, and that is that. If everyone knew that everyone else had the same as them, then they might be polite under the fear of having others take action against them.  If this was the case then I would prefer that the pilots had a separate entrance and their cockpit area was bullet proof/resistant to the level of approved firearm. 

Of course this would not work, as some prefer a larger caliber while others prefer a smaller gun, and others prefer revolver to ACP style. 

I think that some common sense could be applied here. Safety to prevent the loss of pressure in the cabin and the life of the pilot and co-pilot.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 8, 2008)

MJS said:


> So how are we going to tell who is law abiding and who isn't? By looking at them? Unless we ask each and every person who may be carrying, to see the proper documentation, prolonging the boarding process a little more, we won't know.


 
Plenty of people probably shouldnt drive either, but as long as they pass their drivers test thats all we can do until they have their license yanked. unfortunately someone MAY get hurt or killed before that happens. BUT thats the price we pay for living in a free society. You dont deprive someone based on what they or another MAY do or not do.


----------



## MJS (Jul 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Plenty of people probably shouldnt drive either, but as long as they pass their drivers test thats all we can do until they have their license yanked. unfortunately someone MAY get hurt or killed before that happens. BUT thats the price we pay for living in a free society. You dont deprive someone based on what they or another MAY do or not do.


 
Well, thats true.  We are very fortunate to live where we do, as I'm sure there are other countries that don't have it half as easy.  On the other hand, there needs to be some sort of law, control, etc., in place, wouldn't you think?  I mean, if there wasn't you could end up with the Wild West. 

So, going on your analogy above, let everyone who is "Law Abiding" carry whatever they choose.  If they happen to be present in a bank, and it gets robbed, those people should be required or obligated to use their weapon?  And if the time comes, when they make a mistake, such as in the case with a DL, then we can yank the CCW permit, just like we'd yank the DL?

Of course, regardless of whether or not someone is able to carry everywhere vs. certain areas, wouldn't the situation still need to warrant the use of the gun?


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 8, 2008)

I guess I don't understand the problem that they are trying to solve with this ban.  How many gun-related incidents have there been in ATL?  In order to determine if the ban is effective and not just another pointless exercise for the pols to justify their paycheck, you would have to look at the number of incidents pre- and post-ban.  If ATL has a problem, they should handle it but the last airport shoot-em-up I remember hearing about was the d-bag who shot up the El Al section of LAX a few years back.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 8, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> I guess I don't understand the problem that they are trying to solve with this ban. How many gun-related incidents have there been in ATL? In order to determine if the ban is effective and not just another pointless exercise for the pols to justify their paycheck, you would have to look at the number of incidents pre- and post-ban. If ATL has a problem, they should handle it but the last airport shoot-em-up I remember hearing about was the d-bag who shot up the El Al section of LAX a few years back.


 
I don't know if this is a matter of preventing incidents as much as a CYA drill.  I really think that the airport is covering themselves.  Let's be perfectly honest here, if the _average_ person is in an airport and happens to see a glimpse of someone carrying a gun...it will cause problems.  Whether it is complete panic or not, who knows...but in today's mind frame, I would think that anyone who saw someone else carrying a gun would alert TSA and probably get pretty freaked out - they obviously will not know whether the person has a permit or not.

On top of that, I really see this as just closing the loop.  Guns are already not allowed on 90% of airport property....so why not just complete the circle and make it everywhere.  Easier to enforce, easier to deal with.  This way there are no exceptions.

I agree that we have to be careful about where we allow and do not allow guns and particularly be wary of sliding down the slope of too much control....but this one really just doesn't violate the common sense rule.  In today's mindset, it makes sense to disallow guns on airport property.  And simply saying "If we allow this, who knows what they'll take away next" is not a good argument for why not to regulate something.  Each incident would be looking at and evaluated on its own merit.


----------



## MJS (Jul 8, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I don't know if this is a matter of preventing incidents as much as a CYA drill. I really think that the airport is covering themselves. Let's be perfectly honest here, if the _average_ person is in an airport and happens to see a glimpse of someone carrying a gun...it will cause problems. Whether it is complete panic or not, who knows...but in today's mind frame, I would think that anyone who saw someone else carrying a gun would alert TSA and probably get pretty freaked out - they obviously will not know whether the person has a permit or not.
> 
> On top of that, I really see this as just closing the loop. Guns are already not allowed on 90% of airport property....so why not just complete the circle and make it everywhere. Easier to enforce, easier to deal with. This way there are no exceptions.
> 
> I agree that we have to be careful about where we allow and do not allow guns and particularly be wary of sliding down the slope of too much control....but this one really just doesn't violate the common sense rule. In today's mindset, it makes sense to disallow guns on airport property. And simply saying "If we allow this, who knows what they'll take away next" is not a good argument for why not to regulate something. Each incident would be looking at and evaluated on its own merit.


 
This post makes alot of sense!!   A few posts down, I linked a few articles of unruly passengers on airplanes.  Many were people who were drunk.  Do we want a drunk on a plane with a gun, who is upset because he was denied another drink?  I'm still curious as to how one can tell whether or not someone is "Law Abiding" just by looking at them.  Unless you see some paperwork or something that is proof that they are legal to carry, we will not know.  Are we going to stop and frisk and question everyone that has a gun?  Could this lead to stereotyping?  

Another question is....why the need or fixation to carry?  I mean, the days of the wild, wild west are long gone.  I think that, as you said above, we need to take other peoples feelings into consideration as well.  The family sitting in the restaurant having dinner, may not feel comfortable with the guy sitting across from them, with a gun.  And as I had asked in another post, I would think that just because you carry, it does not mean that its ok to pull it out at any time.  You better have a pretty good reason to draw down on someone.  Even a cop gets put under the microscope when they pull their gun and in the event they do shoot.


----------



## Jdokan (Jul 8, 2008)

the laws will only curtail the honest law abiding individuals....the criminals will continue to have a disregard for law and continue to use whatever tools they find best allow them to control a situation....

At what point do we allow take away a persons right to defend themselves...Will there be enough (forgive me here) liberals to warant that unarmed combat is to violent and people can't train in it anymore....??  Far fetched maybe....where do you draw the line...at what point is enough enough....alot for thought/discussion....great post...


----------



## Kreth (Jul 8, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> And simply saying "If we allow this, who knows what they'll take away next" is not a good argument for why not to regulate something.


Ask the British what happened not long after a "reasonable" mandatory registration for all guns was put in place in their country...


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 8, 2008)

Kreth said:


> Ask the British what happened not long after a "reasonable" mandatory registration for all guns was put in place in their country...


 
Which is why I'm not saying that we shouldn't question, but again....choose your battles.  Saying you can't carry in an airport - as I said....logically, what is really being taken away?  A very small portion of the property.  I just don't see this as even being worth opposing.  I mean, it makes sense to me.

Now, if the law was made that you can't have them in the streets....or all concealed carry permits are being taken away, etc there is reason for concern.  I idealistically tend to think that we as a culture have enough experience and intelligence to determine when we are starting down the "slippery slope."  I really just don't see this as it...maybe a lateral step, but not downward.

But then, look at some countries who have completely eliminated guns.  In South Korea, even the criminals can't get guns.....That would make me feel more safe.  I mean, I would personally (again, just my opinion, I realize that this is far from being shared by others!) give up my personal right to own if it would ensure that no criminal could get a gun.

Because seriously - I own a gun, I have a permit.......but I have NEVER carried outside my home, except when I'm going target shooting.  There is no reason.  Really, what do I have to defend myself against.  Even if I was in a convenience store that was getting robbed, chances are, I would never draw...it would only escalate the situation.  But that is part of the larger issue.

We are talking about a ban of guns in a very small percentage of one airport's property.  What is being lost?  How many people really take their guns to the airport anyway??  And if so....why???  Think of it objectively, what is the target at the ticket counter of an airport that you need to defend yourself from?


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 8, 2008)

MJS said:


> Well, thats true. We are very fortunate to live where we do, as I'm sure there are other countries that don't have it half as easy. On the other hand, there needs to be some sort of law, control, etc., in place, wouldn't you think? I mean, if there wasn't you could end up with the Wild West.
> 
> So, going on your analogy above, let everyone who is "Law Abiding" carry whatever they choose. If they happen to be present in a bank, and it gets robbed, those people should be required or obligated to use their weapon? And if the time comes, when they make a mistake, such as in the case with a DL, then we can yank the CCW permit, just like we'd yank the DL?
> 
> Of course, regardless of whether or not someone is able to carry everywhere vs. certain areas, wouldn't the situation still need to warrant the use of the gun?


 
Well. Carrying a weapon wouldnt "obligate" anybody to act in a bank robbery. 

Other than that, I dont know. Honestly. As I said upthread, Im not really FOR anybody and everybody carrying weapons in an airport, gvt. building etc. But I do think of all those sad mass murder cases..the Cali. McDonalds shooting in the 80's, the Post office rampages, School Shootings, VT, 9/11 and on and on where unarmed people were shot down like sheep by single people with guns. I cant help but wonder what would have happened if just 1 or 2 people had been armed at those times. The few examples I can recall...that off duty cop in the mall that managed to hold back a killer from killing more people till the cavalry arrived...that security guard at the church who shot down that rampaging gunman. To honestly respond in those situations you need a weapon of your own.

If I were unarmed in a mall and a killer started shooting..I wouldnt worry if the citizen who responded with his own weapon was "highly trained" or not. Saying that it would be better if nobody had a gun to deal with the killer, rather than an untrained person seems...well...resigning yoursef to fate. I would be ideal if he was a former Delta operator, sure, but even "joe average" would at least take up the BG attention for a while.

While unrestricted carry may not be the best idea on planes (but is it? are we safer than in the 50's when it was allowed?), its the concept of "unarmed is safer" that I have my doubts about. Its looking like unarming those who need unarming is far from a 100% cure all. Those who seem to pay are those who should have been armed.

I dont know the answer. I admit that.


----------



## MJS (Jul 16, 2008)

Came across this link, as it goes along with the thread. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25680821/


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 16, 2008)

MJS said:


> Another question is....why the need or fixation to carry? I mean, the days of the wild, wild west are long gone. I think that, as you said above, we need to take other peoples feelings into consideration as well. The family sitting in the restaurant having dinner, may not feel comfortable with the guy sitting across from them, with a gun.


 
MJS, thats the second time you referred to the Wild West in this thread.  Thats actually a fairly common argument for gun control, "if we allow people to have guns it will be like the wild west all over again" however, none of these so-called Wild West situations can really be pointed to in places where carry is allowed.  I'm not saying YOU are claiming they do, only that your use of the wild west analogy is pretty common. 

And while its true we don't have bandits riding down the street on horseback shooting in the air and robbing banks and saloons, we do have nutcases on Subways and Ferryboats attacking people with swords and machetes.  We do have women who leave their gun in the car watching everyone in the restaraunt including their families murdered because they didn't bring the gun in with them, like the LUBBY'S MASSACRE... and I have to wonder how many of the 23 people killed there would have rather been uncomfortable that Suzanna was armed rather than be dead today... or even the 20 who were only wounded.  I would cite those types of incidents as "reasons" to carry, if not needs.

I'm not saying these are reasons to carry _*on a plane*_, mind you, just reasons that even tho it's not the wild west, *I FEEL* carry is still applicable.

Plus, in the case of concealed carry, those people sitting across from the carrier should never be aware the carrier has the weapon unless they NEED to use it.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 16, 2008)

> MJS, thats the second time you referred to the Wild West in this thread. Thats actually a fairly common argument for gun control, "if we allow people to have guns it will be like the wild west all over again" however, none of these so-called Wild West situations can really be pointed to in places where carry is allowed. I'm not saying YOU are claiming they do, only that your use of the wild west analogy is pretty common.



The Wild West of romantic thought is no more how the west actually was then Die Hard is an example of your average corporate Christmas party...


----------



## thardey (Jul 16, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> MJS, thats the second time you referred to the Wild West in this thread.  Thats actually a fairly common argument for gun control, "if we allow people to have guns it will be like the wild west all over again" however, none of these so-called Wild West situations can really be pointed to in places where carry is allowed.  I'm not saying YOU are claiming they do, only that your use of the wild west analogy is pretty common.



You beat me to it.

Yeah, the dime-store novel version of the "Wild West" is gone, but were they ever really here in the first place? What makes you think that it is really that different? There was the same fight in Tombstone when the Earps decreed that no guns were allowed in town. You had to check them at the sheriff's office. Sure, guns are blued, matte-finished, and concealed, instead of chromed, pearl-handled, and displayed as jewelry, but the myth of the "wild west" never was, and the only thing that has really changed is the introduction of television, video games, and violent deprogramming. 

As for "what is the difference it's just the last 10%", it depends a lot on your style and beliefs of carrying. Is the parking area also gun-free? Or just inside the terminal. What about picking up people? Some states make it illegal to leave your gun in the car. Other people simply won't. Me, I ride a motorcycle in the summer, which means there's no place to secure my gun. That means, if I have to go to the Post office, I have to plan ahead, and leave my gun at home that day.

It's common for me to drive my parent's truck to pick them up at the local airport. Should I have to leave my gun in their truck in some parking lot, so that I can go inside the terminal to welcome them home, and pick up their bags? For some people, it's not a big deal, for others, it is. 

Okay, if you are the traveler, and you want to take your gun, you check it, and go through the proper procedure. But what if you're there to pick up or drop off others? I've carried my gun into our airport before, for exactly those reasons, I was riding with someone else, and I didn't want to leave my gun in their car.

It's the same problem you run into when malls or specific stores are legally declared "gun-free" zones. If you're not able, or comfortable with leaving your gun in the car (how many people use alternative transportation, after all? Bikes, subways, MAX trains?) You either have to break the law by carrying the gun into these places, or you have to leave the gun at home for the entire day, because of that "little" 10% of your total daily errands.

Suddenly it does become a big deal.


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2008)

Regarding the Wild West comment that I made.  IIRC, I had asked a few times in this thread, what the need is to carry, every place someone goes, as well as if someone is carrying, will they act or should they feel that they have to act, should a situation, such as the ones others have mentioned, come up?  

Where I live, I can go to the mall and watch people for an hour, and I'd bet that I don't see one that is carrying.  It'd be interesting to know out of the people that I do see in that time, that are able to carry and if they are, why are they not?  The only people that you may come across would be a CT. State Trooper, even if they are off duty.  Technically, the Troopers here, are on duty even when they are on days off.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 17, 2008)

MJS said:


> It'd be interesting to know out of the people that I do see in that time, that are able to carry and if they are, why are they not?


 
Well, I think this is like asking if people are able to train in martial arts, why don't they... and the answers are broad and many-fold.

If I could make some examples of reasons some people who may have the ABILITY to carry but make the choice not too... and bear in mind these are just a few, and by no means all encompasing...

Some people will deny that anything bad could happen to them.  "THOSE" things happen far away and to other people, you see it on the news, but it's never going to happen to ME.

Some people believe that IF it happens, dialing 911 will save them, so they dont NEED to carry.

Some people feel that if THEY carry, their gun will just be stolen, or used against them in the commission of a crime.

Some people hate guns. Or even just dislike them.

Some people don't have what it takes to stand up and act if the time comes when they need to, and they may or may not recognize this fact.

Like I said... There are any number of reasons for a person who is able NOT to carry despite being able to.  Just like there are a number of reasons that a person who can might just carry.

Self defence, because the person realizes it CAN happen here, to me... its NOT just somthing that happens on the news.

Some people have "tough guy" syndrome, and fantasize about using their gun to "save the day" 

Some people enjoy the peace of mind/sense of security having the gun on them gives them, even if they hope they never have to use it.

Various reasons, various mindsets.


----------



## thardey (Jul 17, 2008)

MJS said:


> Another question is....why the need or fixation to carry?  I mean, the days of the wild, wild west are long gone.



If they ever were, no, they are not gone. Okay, so "duelling" is no longer an accepted way of settling disputes. But the self-defense aspect is the same as it was, and, according to the research by D. Grossman, the only reason it is not 10 times worse than the "Wild West" is that medical technology is 10 times better than it was.



> I think that, as you said above, we need to take other peoples feelings into consideration as well.  The family sitting in the restaurant having dinner, may not feel comfortable with the guy sitting across from them, with a gun.  And as I had asked in another post, I would think that just because you carry, it does not mean that its ok to pull it out at any time.  You better have a pretty good reason to draw down on someone.  Even a cop gets put under the microscope when they pull their gun and in the event they do shoot.


Fine, keep it concealed. I don't think anybody is arguing for "open carry" at airports. What's the difference between a restaurant in the Airport, outside of the "security zone" and a restaurant at, well, a restaurant? 

What about church? Do you think that there would be people who are uncomfortable with the idea of someone sitting next to them with a gun? Of course! Yet, many pastors secretly encourage CCW holders to bring their guns. At any given Sunday, I could identify at least 3 other people with guns, not including me. (The pastor once mentioned 6.) That's why we keep them concealed - so that people won't be bothered.

And you need a damned good reason to pull the gun out, let alone even show that you have one, even if it is still in the holster, let alone point it at someone. That's "menacing" and is illegal. You can justify it in court, but it's still illegal.



MJS said:


> Regarding the Wild West comment that I made.  IIRC, I had asked a few times in this thread, what the need is to carry, every place someone goes, as well as if someone is carrying, will they act or should they feel that they have to act, should a situation, such as the ones others have mentioned, come up?



For the first question, how would you decide when or when not to carry? Once you decide to carry, there is a definite aversion to putting yourself in a position where you might have to use it. (I know that sounds backwards, but it's true!) It's a whole different feeling when you see a potential conflict, knowing that it might have to be solved by a bullet. Carrying the gun itself "ups the ante" in any physical encounter, which means that any fight could end up costing a life. That means you spend most of the rest of your life in places that probably won't need a gun.

Then the gun becomes a part of your daily life, like a wallet, or a watch. You stop thinking "I don't expect to need the gun at the mall today, so I don't think I will carry it." Instead, you simply keep it with you. Unless there is some specific reason _not_ to take the gun with you, say you have to go to the Post Office, or into a Federally-controlled building, the default is to have it.



> Where I live, I can go to the mall and watch people for an hour, and I'd bet that I don't see one that is carrying.  It'd be interesting to know out of the people that I do see in that time, that are able to carry and if they are, why are they not?  The only people that you may come across would be a CT. State Trooper, even if they are off duty.  Technically, the Troopers here, are on duty even when they are on days off.


In the mall, probably yes, very few people are carrying. But then, most people in the mall are teenagers. Of course, I once went to the mall to buy a suit, I tried on several, while being checked for proper fit. Neither my wife, or the saleslady ever had a clue that I had a gun. (And was a full-sized .45 auto.)

 On the street, however, I would easily guess that where I live, 1 in 20 cars has a gun in it. Or at least, most people who have a CCW at least carry in their car, and many who do not.

There are many people who buy a gun for the feeling of security, put it in their closet, and never touch it again. There are people who do the same thing with a CCW (depending on how hard you have to work to get it.) When I first got licensed, I had no intention of carrying in town - it was more for hiking and hunting, where I wanted to be able to have the advantages of concealing. Later, as my training developed, I realized that I had the responsibility to be an armed citizen (not everybody has that responsibility), and it was time to be a part of that.

For the second part of the question - it depends on the individual, and the circumstances. 

Some situations will require you to "hole-up" to protect your family, and to not fire until you have a clean, close shot (which would require the bad guy to be way too close to your family.) Sometimes you have the choice of drawing on the guy, and hoping that is enough to stop him. (92% of crimes prevented by firearms are from simply brandishing the weapon.) Or do you quick-draw, and shoot him before he even realizes you are a threat? Can you escape? Or are others also in danger?

One thing a gun is not, is a "dealer of justice" when you get that mentality, you get into "vigilante" mode. You simply can't keep that mentality for long, though, and still carry -- you burn yourself out. For most people who carry, the gun is for them like the rattle and poison is for a rattlesnake. It's a last-ditch means to protect themselves and those close to them. It's not a tool to go out and pay back the bad guys.


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, I think this is like asking if people are able to train in martial arts, why don't they... and the answers are broad and many-fold.


 
I'd have to say yes and no to this.  Comparing a gun to MA training is IMO, apples to oranges.  MA training is something that we do take with us everywhere we go.  Unless we actually say something, nobody will know that we train.  A gun is something that we have an option to take with us.  Taking it into an airport...well, there is a very good chance it'll be detected.  



> If I could make some examples of reasons some people who may have the ABILITY to carry but make the choice not too... and bear in mind these are just a few, and by no means all encompasing...
> 
> Some people will deny that anything bad could happen to them. "THOSE" things happen far away and to other people, you see it on the news, but it's never going to happen to ME.
> 
> ...


 
Points taken.  Of course, it could be argued that while the gun does provide some security, its something that can really only be used in an extreme circumstance.  Are you going to pull it on someone who is yelling at you for cutting them off in traffic?  If people say that there is a very slim chance that we'll ever use our MA training, that IMO, speaks alot for the gun as well.  Unless you're a LEO or bouncer who may rely on that training, how often does the average citizen rely on it?  The same can be said for the gun.


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2008)

thardey said:


> If they ever were, no, they are not gone. Okay, so "duelling" is no longer an accepted way of settling disputes. But the self-defense aspect is the same as it was, and, according to the research by D. Grossman, the only reason it is not 10 times worse than the "Wild West" is that medical technology is 10 times better than it was.
> 
> Fine, keep it concealed. I don't think anybody is arguing for "open carry" at airports. What's the difference between a restaurant in the Airport, outside of the "security zone" and a restaurant at, well, a restaurant?
> 
> ...


 
Bold part mine.  So it goes back to what I've said before.  If we take our MA training, it can be adapted to whats presented to us at the time.  We can use something as mild as a controlling technique all the way to a killing or maiming.  How can that be done with a gun?  Shooting the person in the leg?  The very same thing that people say about LEOs, and the reply is they shoot center mass.  

So, if the situation has to fit the part you said which I bolded, even if it is carried, its still something that may not be able to be used.  Someone pulls a gun on me during a simple verbal argument, they better plan on using it or prepare for a long court battle.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 18, 2008)

MJS said:


> Unless you're a LEO or bouncer who may rely on that training, how often does the average citizen rely on it?  The same can be said for the gun.



This is very true.  But, the Boy scout motto is "Be Prepared" and I'd rather have it and never need it, than need it and never have it.

I admit freely.  Illinois has NO provisions for concealed carry, and I am often a criminal in my state.  I weigh the risks, living in a neighborhood rife with gang violence against the paranoia voted in my the corrupt Mayor of Chicago and his lackeys Goblowabitch and Obama and choose to be a "bad guy" rather than a victim or statistic.  *shrug* just me tho.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 18, 2008)

MJS said:


> Unless you're a LEO or bouncer who may rely on that training, how often does the average citizen rely on it? The same can be said for the gun.


 

This is a summary of Dr. Gary Klecks book, *Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.*

http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Kleck/point-blank-summary.html

In it, based on a study that he performed, there are between 600,000 to 1 million defensive uses of a firearm *every year.*



> Each year about 1500-2800 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding American civilians in justifiable or excusable homicides, far more than are killed by police officers. There are perhaps 600,000-1 million defensive uses of guns each year, about the same as the number of crimes committed with guns. These astounding totals may be less surprising in light of the following facts. About a third of U.S. households keep a gun at least partially for defensive reasons; at any one time nearly a third of gun owners have a firearm in their home (usually a handgun) which is loaded; about a quarter of retail businesses have a gun on the premises; and perhaps 5% of U.S. adults regularly carry a gun for self-defense.


----------



## MJS (Jul 18, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> This is very true. But, the Boy scout motto is "Be Prepared" and I'd rather have it and never need it, than need it and never have it.
> 
> I admit freely. Illinois has NO provisions for concealed carry, and I am often a criminal in my state. I weigh the risks, living in a neighborhood rife with gang violence against the paranoia voted in my the corrupt Mayor of Chicago and his lackeys Goblowabitch and Obama and choose to be a "bad guy" rather than a victim or statistic. *shrug* just me tho.


 
Good points especially the first paragraph!!


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 18, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> This is very true. But, the Boy scout motto is "Be Prepared" and I'd rather have it and never need it, than need it and never have it.


 
Look, I'm quoting myself like a nerd.  But... this concept came up today because of somthing in the police blotter in my local paper:



> *Battery: An 18-year-old man told police at 3:42 p.m. Tuesday he was assaulted by five men while walking on Hazard Road. The victim said his attackers beat him until he lost consciousness after he wouldn't give them $1, according to reports.*




That is 2 streets away from where I live and a street I frequently walk/ride to get to the main highway.  It's the second attack in that area this week, this one occuring 1 block over


> *A 14-year-old told police at 5:45 p.m. Monday that he had been assaulted while riding his bike. The youth told police he was riding his bike near Robin and Wren roads when seven persons in a white Chevrolet called to him from the car and then chased him. The victim told police that one of the car's passengers hit him in the lower back with a baseball bat. *




Not to sidetrack the thread from this being about carrying in airports, but both of those are, IMO, valid reasons to carry.  Granted In both cases, even if Concealed Carry were an option neither victim was old enough to do so, but perhaps a witness/bystander could have helped, as Hazard, at least, is a fairly busy street.  But its also near 2 section 8 housing projects and a park well known for drug activity.


----------



## thardey (Jul 18, 2008)

MJS said:


> Bold part mine.  So it goes back to what I've said before.  If we take our MA training, it can be adapted to whats presented to us at the time.  We can use something as mild as a controlling technique all the way to a killing or maiming.  How can that be done with a gun?  Shooting the person in the leg?  The very same thing that people say about LEOs, and the reply is they shoot center mass.
> 
> So, if the situation has to fit the part you said which I bolded, even if it is carried, its still something that may not be able to be used.  Someone pulls a gun on me during a simple verbal argument, they better plan on using it or prepare for a long court battle.



Bingo. Both legally and tactically, "shooting to wound" is a bad idea. The only time you should even consider using a weapon for any reason, (same as a knife) is if you are willing to use deadly force. That is not to say that you are intending to kill, but that you are forced to use a level of force that is likely to kill. There's a subtle, but important difference. Using a gun to win an argument is just plain stupid.

However, most legally-carrying people understand this.

That's why LEO's and self-defense minded individuals should also know how to use "appropriate force" without resorting to the gun. Empty hand fighting is like a rheostat, that can go from gentle, to extreme, and a wide range in between. Once any weapon (a baseball bat, or a knife, up to a gun) is included, it's more like an on/off switch.



> I'd have to say yes and no to this. Comparing a gun to MA training is IMO, apples to oranges. MA training is something that we do take with us everywhere we go. Unless we actually say something, nobody will know that we train. A gun is something that we have an option to take with us. *Taking it into an airport...well, there is a very good chance it'll be detected.*



Why? We're not talking about inside the security zones. We're talking about outside the metal detectors.


----------



## MJS (Jul 18, 2008)

thardey said:


> Bingo. Both legally and tactically, "shooting to wound" is a bad idea. The only time you should even consider using a weapon for any reason, (same as a knife) is if you are willing to use deadly force. That is not to say that you are intending to kill, but that you are forced to use a level of force that is likely to kill. There's a subtle, but important difference. Using a gun to win an argument is just plain stupid.
> 
> However, most legally-carrying people understand this.
> 
> ...


 
Let me ask you a few questions.

1) Do you feel that people should be able to carry anywhere?

2) Should there be any places that guns should not be allowed?

3) Do you feel that crime will go down if more people are able to carry?

4) Do you feel that more citizens will take it upon themselves to involve themselves in a situation, where violence is present, when the citizen really has no place getting involved in the first place?


----------



## thardey (Jul 18, 2008)

MJS said:


> Let me ask you a few questions.
> 
> 1) Do you feel that people should be able to carry anywhere?



No



> 2) Should there be any places that guns should not be allowed?


No




> 3) Do you feel that crime will go down if more people are able to carry?


Yes



> 4) Do you feel that more citizens will take it upon themselves to involve themselves in a situation, where violence is present, when the citizen really has no place getting involved in the first place?


Yes


#1: "People" should not be allowed to carry anywhere. That is I'm reading "anywhere" to really mean "everywhere". So there should be some places off limits to the general public. Courthouses, police stations, Federal Buildings, and inside the secured area of airports, don't bother me as "gun free zones."

(Otherwise, read literally, nobody would be ably to carry anywhere at all, and I don't think that's what you meant.)

#2 There should not be places (in the U.S.) where there is a total ban on all guns. At least LEO's and soldiers should be allowed to have them.

#3 I believe that _violent_ crime will go down. Blue-collar crime, identity theft, etc, won't be affected. However, even if the rules are relaxed, there are many people who will chose not to take advantage of them. It's a societal issue to me, more than a legal issue.

#4 Technically, more people will get involved over their heads, simply because the percentage of "unwise" involvement will stay the same, while the overall number of people with guns will rise. However, If maybe 2% of shootings involving guns are dealing with innocent third-party intervention, then the remaining 98% will mean that more crime will have been stopped. If you count all defensive uses of a gun that amounts to one in 26,000. Statistically speaking, that's 25,999 crimes deterred, compared to 1 innocent person killed.



> About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens
> kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than
> 1 in 26,000.113 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times
> every year. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf



My turn: (Although I won't be able to see your response until Tuesday.)

1.) Do you believe that the act of carrying a gun gives the person an overpowering "Hero" mentality?

2.) Do you believe that unarmed people's lack of comfort with the proximity of guns is primarily a logical, or emotional one?

3.) Do you believe that the average _daily_ gun carrier is incompetent with the use of his/her firearm? (compared to a.) LEO's and b.) soldiers.)

4.) Do you believe that the average _daily_ gun carrier is unaware of their local, State, and Federal laws regarding use of force, even though that is the most basic instruction given before a permit is issued?

5.) Again, why would there be a high chance being detected in the unsecured area of an airport with a gun?


----------



## MJS (Jul 19, 2008)

thardey said:


> No
> 
> No
> 
> ...


 
My bad.  Yes, everywhere is what I should have said.



> #2 There should not be places (in the U.S.) where there is a total ban on all guns. At least LEO's and soldiers should be allowed to have them.


 
Im sure some or a good portion of my posts seem anit-gun.  I'm not anti gun.  I do feel that there should be places that guns should not be allowed.  



> #3 I believe that _violent_ crime will go down. Blue-collar crime, identity theft, etc, won't be affected. However, even if the rules are relaxed, there are many people who will chose not to take advantage of them. It's a societal issue to me, more than a legal issue.


 
Ok.



> #4 Technically, more people will get involved over their heads, simply because the percentage of "unwise" involvement will stay the same, while the overall number of people with guns will rise. However, If maybe 2% of shootings involving guns are dealing with innocent third-party intervention, then the remaining 98% will mean that more crime will have been stopped. If you count all defensive uses of a gun that amounts to one in 26,000. Statistically speaking, that's 25,999 crimes deterred, compared to 1 innocent person killed.


 
Ok.





> My turn: (Although I won't be able to see your response until Tuesday.)


 
No problem, as my time over the next week will be limited as well. 



> 1.) Do you believe that the act of carrying a gun gives the person an overpowering "Hero" mentality?


 
Depends on the person.  



> 2.) Do you believe that unarmed people's lack of comfort with the proximity of guns is primarily a logical, or emotional one?


 
Don't know.



> 3.) Do you believe that the average _daily_ gun carrier is incompetent with the use of his/her firearm? (compared to a.) LEO's and b.) soldiers.)


 
Again, I'd say it depends on the person.  



> 4.) Do you believe that the average _daily_ gun carrier is unaware of their local, State, and Federal laws regarding use of force, even though that is the most basic instruction given before a permit is issued?


 
You would think that people would know.  However, look at drivers ed.  Basic rules of the road are taught, yet how many people violate them on a daily basis?



> 5.) Again, why would there be a high chance being detected in the unsecured area of an airport with a gun?


 
Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't believe I mentioned anything about a gun in the unsecure area.


----------



## thardey (Jul 24, 2008)

MJS said:


> My bad.  Yes, everywhere is what I should have said.
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure some or a good portion of my posts seem anit-gun. I'm not anti gun. I do feel that there should be places that guns should not be allowed.


They don't seem aniti-gun at all, they just seem to be anti-_stupid people with guns_, which is fine with me.




> You would think that people would know. However, look at drivers ed. Basic rules of the road are taught, yet how many people violate them on a daily basis?


Good point, but there's as much of a fundamental difference there as there is between MA and guns.

Sure, a car can be a deadly weapon, but that's not what it was designed for. When you turn the keys, or when you "practice" driving, you don't think "This could very well be used to _intentionally_ kill someone." A car is designed to move you and yours from point A to point B. If you use the car improperly, you may kill someone while following that other objective.

Now, granted that a lot of people just buy a gun, load it, and stuff it in their closet for "protection." They've shot maybe 50 rounds through it, then they forget about it. These people are dangerous. They're the ones who have heard the rules, but forget them when the time comes.

Fortunately, that type of person rarely puts in the day-to-day effort that comes with daily carry.

--------------------------
This next bit isn't directed at anyone in particular - it's just something I've been thinking about since this thread started.

I know for myself, I had a lot of mis-conceptions about daily carry before I started doing it, myself. At first, I did have a strong sense of "responsibility" -- almost a "Hero" mentality. After about 4 days it wore off, to be replaced by a different sense of responsibility. The gun became a burden to bear, after the novelty wore off. Not a heavy burden, but a healthy one. 

I became very aware of that family sitting next to me in the restaurant, with the kids, who would have been bothered if they knew that I had a gun, and so I worked hard to keep it hidden. Certain parts of town that didn't bother me before, now became places where a situation could turn bad very quickly. Now I don't like those places, and get uncomfortable being there. I found out that those were places I didn't need to be anyway. I was expecting the opposite feeling -- I figured I would get a sense of invulnerability that would have to be constantly checked and controlled.

In fact, having a gun makes me even more careful, vulnerable, and polite, (and I was a very polite guy before.) Confident, yes, but confident in a way that made me even less aggressive. It also made me constantly be aware of my surroundings, because even walking, I could feel the gun on my hip as a reminder. It is a constant reminder that the world is not safe, but that alertness and preparedness go a long way toward survival. 

Even now, I often like to carry because I prefer the attitude that comes with it. That is, I like who I am better when I am armed. I am more considerate, more aware of others, more patient, more forgiving, more confident, with more self-control. In short, a better, more mature person.

I think, at some level, that is what keeps that minority of private citizens who carry, carrying.

People who try to carry to cover up some lack of personal power in their lives won't be able to keep it up, because a gun just doesn't make you feel invulnerable in the long run, in fact, it does the opposite. For a couple of days you feel powerful, but after that it won't give the "rush" that these people seek, and they'll leave their gun at home, looking for another type of power that is more visible to others.
-------------------------------




> Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't believe I mentioned anything about a gun in the unsecure area.


That's what I got from this quote:


MJS said:


> I'd have to say yes and no to this. Comparing a gun to MA training is IMO, apples to oranges. MA training is something that we do take with us everywhere we go. Unless we actually say something, nobody will know that we train. A gun is something that we have an option to take with us. *Taking it into an airport...well, there is a very good chance it'll be detected. *


Since the rest of the conversation was about the unsecured area, I read this as referring to the same. Forgive me if I assumed too much.


----------



## MJS (Jul 28, 2008)

thardey said:


> They don't seem aniti-gun at all, they just seem to be anti-_stupid people with guns_, which is fine with me.


 
Thanks. 




> Good point, but there's as much of a fundamental difference there as there is between MA and guns.
> 
> Sure, a car can be a deadly weapon, but that's not what it was designed for. When you turn the keys, or when you "practice" driving, you don't think "This could very well be used to _intentionally_ kill someone." A car is designed to move you and yours from point A to point B. If you use the car improperly, you may kill someone while following that other objective.
> 
> ...


 
Well, thats true.  Regarding your original question that led me to the reply I gave, I have to wonder, and I really don't know because I've never taken a course, but how in-depth do they get with the laws in your basic firearms course? 


--------------------------


> This next bit isn't directed at anyone in particular - it's just something I've been thinking about since this thread started.
> 
> I know for myself, I had a lot of mis-conceptions about daily carry before I started doing it, myself. At first, I did have a strong sense of "responsibility" -- almost a "Hero" mentality. After about 4 days it wore off, to be replaced by a different sense of responsibility. The gun became a burden to bear, after the novelty wore off. Not a heavy burden, but a healthy one.
> 
> ...


----------



## thardey (Jul 29, 2008)

MJS said:


> Well, thats true.  Regarding your original question that led me to the reply I gave, I have to wonder, and I really don't know because I've never taken a course, but how in-depth do they get with the laws in your basic firearms course?



I can only speak for the class I've taken, but in Oregon all that's required is an NRA or government-approved handgun "safety" course. Officially around here they're known as a "handgun cleaning class" since that satisfies some strange requirement as the law is written.

Practically, the class is 4 hours of legal explanation about the use of force laws in Oregon. It includes lots of questions and answers, case histories, and a thorough examination of the Oregon Revised Statutes, along with a workbook that has all of this in writing.

This stuff covers a lot more than what you would find in something related to a driving manual, for instance. Very rarely in a driving class do you go to the laws as written -- only a summary, or study case histories. I really believe that this stuff needs to be taught in Marital arts, as well.

There are a couple of laws specific to firearms, but most of them relate to general use of force, physical, deadly, and weapons. It's a lot of the stuff you see written here - see this article on use of force if you want a general idea.

From what I understand, Oregon has one of the lowest requirements for class time, and almost all of it is related to legal issues. The end result is that here (in S. Oregon, at least), nearly all of the police and community leaders encourage responsible people to get and use a CCW permit.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

Came across this update:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26144087/


"ATLANTA - A federal judge on Monday upheld a gun ban at the worlds busiest airport, dealing a blow to gun rights groups who argued a new Georgia law authorized them to pack heat in certain parts of the Atlanta airport. 
U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob expressed concern that allowing guns at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport could cause significant economic damage and could be a serious threat to public safety and welfare.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 13, 2008)

Interesting discussion...I'll try to not rehash too much of what's already been said but I do have a few comments/thoughts.

People worry about a CCW-holder going nuts or getting mad and pulling out a gun when it's not necessary, or shooting someone over a simple argument. In reality, such incidents are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. CCW holders are arguably the most law-abiding group of people in the country. The number of CCW holders who have been convicted of a violent crime in which their weapon was a factor is literally a fraction of a percent. I'd just about guarentee that if you look at any other group of people who have a similar profession, association, etc. that the numbers are going to be higher. 
I think tardey made an excellent point when he spoke about the fact that carrying a gun makes him more careful about avoiding potential problems. I know that I am the same way and that many, if not most, other CCW holders share similar thoughts.

Another argument seems to be "lets leave the gun carrying to the professionals." In other words, "LEOs have more training/skill than regular citizens." Unfortunately, this is very often not the case. I have no problem asserting that a CCW holder who actually takes his responsibility seriously and obtains professional instruction beyond the basic CCW course is probably just as competent (if not more so) than the average cop. The statistics have already been posted regarding the number of defensive gun uses per year as well as the percentage of "wrongful" deaths due to police shootings as opposed to citizen encounters...those numbers are, I feel, very telling. 
Another piece of data would be the "hit percentages." The average accuracy rate for LE in this country is less than 50% (sometimes far less). In contrast, let's look at just one shooting school as an example. There is an instructor named Tom Givens who owns a training school in Memphis,Tn (Rangemasters). Over the years, something like 90 people who have been to [at least] one of his classes have been involved in SD shootings. His students enjoy a hit percentage of somewhere in the area of 80-90%. 

As to the argument that if people carry guns, they will involve themselves unecessarily in incidents, I just don't see that happening all that often. There are places where a large number of people carry guns on a regular basis. For example, states like Florida and Texas where CCW has been in place for a long time and there are hundreds of thousands of CCW holders. Take another look at the stats already posted (number of incidents, low percentage of wrongful deaths, etc.), I'm not seeing a problem.

Then there is the argument that there are places where guns just shouldn't be allowed. Usually the list includes churches and schools ("why would anyone need a gun there?"). All I'm going to say about that is to look at the majority of the active-shooter incidents that have occurred (Va-Tech, Columbine, etc.) and then think about the one at the church in Colorado Springs, Co where a CCW holder used her weapon to stop the bad guy before he could get into the church with a rifle. I'm glad she didn't buy into the "I don't need a gun at church...what could possibly happen to me there" mindset.

I guess my thoughts on this issue can be summarized with the statement that: regardless of the location or situation currently being discussed, I feel that more good guys with guns (i.e. the ability to deal with a deadly encounter) the better.


----------

