# The result of 'concealed carry laws'.



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2006)

> * Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:
> "lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)​* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)
> 
> * Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
> ...



http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8443
http://hematite.com/dragon/gcmythexplode.html


I was just perusing data on the result of 'shall issue' concealed carry laws around the country, thought these were interesting.  I remember when this was an issue in Missouri, the anti-gunners predicted shootouts in the streets after traffic collisions.  So far, there was only one recorded shootout in the entire country following a traffic collision involving a concealed carry permit holder....and it was ruled self-defense.  So much for the predictive ability of the anti-gun lobby.

Anyone have any other data that directly deals with this issue, or any comments?


----------



## DngrRuss (Jan 3, 2006)

An armed society is a polite society.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 3, 2006)

Intriguing.  Are there records of such State-by-State statistics at a click that could be viewed in comparison regarding those who are licensed?  That is making me quite curious.  I know that the info probably could be found with some research. I just wondered if it is all there with graphs, etc., of each state.  I suppose that might be asking too much as I realize the states do have different definitions of how they report these incidents.

- Ceicei


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2006)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> An armed society is a polite society.


 It is......so long as the arms are possessed by the law abiding citizen.  

Most societies are armed, however, in some socieities, such as Great Britain at the present time, only the brigand is armed.  It is impossible to disarm an entire society without resorting to draconian measures that restrict ALL freedoms.  Therefore, the only people likely armed, as Great Britain is learning, in a society where civilian arms are banned, are those who have no interest in obeying the laws to begin with.

All indication is that the illegal arms trade in Great Britain is exploding.  The criminal element in Britain are buying up imported illegal arms left and right, while the citizen is restricted from even possessing so much as a 100 year old single-shot shotgun.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2006)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Intriguing. Are there records of such State-by-State statistics at a click that could be viewed in comparison regarding those who are licensed? That is making me quite curious. I know that the info probably could be found with some research. I just wondered if it is all there with graphs, etc., of each state. I suppose that might be asking too much as I realize the states do have different definitions of how they report these incidents.
> 
> - Ceicei


 That'll require some extensive research, but i'll see what I can do.  As a start, we can examine this, however.  



> 'All major categories of violent crime in the United States declined in 2004, bringing the rates of the most serious offenses, including murders, rapes, robberies and assaults, to a level 32 percent lower than those reported in 1995, the new figures show.'
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/17/crime.rate/


 
This, despite the fact that more than half the states in the US have passed, in the last 10 years, concealled carry laws in some form or another AND the fact that more guns are in circulation now than ever before.  

So, even if concealled carry laws haven't REDUCED crime, Zero evidence exists to show it increases it.  At BEST gun control is useless.  At worst, it actually increases violent crime.  That's why you'll find the greatest arguments against concealled carry laws being that the drop in violent crime has nothing to do with them....meaning, they can't support that concealled carry laws cause harm, they merely attempt to refute the fact that they are useful in preventing crime....a dubious argument, when their goal is to curtail freedom.  They wish to reduce your ability to engage in an activity, the usefulness of restricting which it has been determined to be pointless.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 3, 2006)

I am concealed carry permitted citizen in the state of Florida. It is nice to have and I have a permit just because I CAN!  Another great thing is the reciprocity act. I can legally carry a concealed handgun in 23 other states as a result. Many states have reciprocity acts that state if another state honors their CCW permit theirs will be honored in the other state as well. So now permitted citizens don't have to be as concerned when they go to other states, just they need to be aware of the ones they can legally carry in and any special limitations in those states.

As an aside, I wanted to point out that the 2nd Ammendment really was not addressing self defense or personal carry. It represents the citizens' liberty teeth and is a right bestowed on the citizens so that the citizens could protect themselves from an out of control government. It kind of goes along with the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

Personal carry and defensive use are bonuses


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> I am concealed carry permitted citizen in the state of Florida. It is nice to have and I have a permit just because I CAN!  Another great thing is the reciprocity act. I can legally carry a concealed handgun in 23 other states as a result. Many states have reciprocity acts that state if another state honors their CCW permit theirs will be honored in the other state as well. So now permitted citizens don't have to be as concerned when they go to other states, just they need to be aware of the ones they can legally carry in and any special limitations in those states.
> 
> As an aside, I wanted to point out that the 2nd Ammendment really was not addressing self defense or personal carry. It represents the citizens' liberty teeth and is a right bestowed on the citizens so that the citizens could protect themselves from an out of control government. It kind of goes along with the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Personal carry and defensive use are bonuses


 No society is truly free, when it's citizens are denied the private ownership of arms.  A society that denies it's citizens private arms, is only as free as the government allows it to be, no more, no less.  Private arms represent the ultimate veto power of the people.  

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## arnisador (Jan 4, 2006)

Recent case here in NM where a woman was being stabbed in a Wal-Mart and someone with a concealed weapon permit shot the attacker dead. People were glad she lived but scared by the thought of a civilian firing shots in a Wal-Mart.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Recent case here in NM where a woman was being stabbed in a Wal-Mart and someone with a concealed weapon permit shot the attacker dead. People were glad she lived but scared by the thought of a civilian firing shots in a Wal-Mart.


 I imagine so, with all the scare tactics the news media in particular and the media in general (including the entertainment industry) have whipped up to create an image of anyone who supports firearms ownership and concealed carry as 'paranoid kooks', when, in reality, the citizen firearms owner and concealled carry permit holder is the LEAST of societies concerns.  

The perceptions being fostered by certain interest groups, and parroted in the popular media, have little basis in reality.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 4, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Recent case here in NM where a woman was being stabbed in a Wal-Mart and someone with a concealed weapon permit shot the attacker dead. People were glad she lived but scared by the thought of a civilian firing shots in a Wal-Mart.


  He should get an award.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 4, 2006)

It turned out well...but, letting someone open up in a Wal-Mart, which is always filled to 110% capacity, is a tad scary to my mind.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> It turned out well...but, letting someone open up in a Wal-Mart, which is always filled to 110% capacity, is a tad scary to my mind.


 Scarier than watching some innocent get stabbed to death?

The whole scenario was scary...however, the citizen shooting part was the solution to a scary situation, not the problem.  The question isn't one of whether someone should have been allowed to shoot in that situation.  At that point it becomes one of shot placement.   A simple matter of front sight, press.

"You know your country is dying when you have to make a distinction between what is moral and ethical, and what is legal." -- John De Armond


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 4, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I imagine so, with all the scare tactics the news media in particular and the media in general (including the entertainment industry) have whipped up to create an image of anyone who supports firearms ownership and concealed carry as 'paranoid kooks', when, in reality, the citizen firearms owner and concealled carry permit holder is the LEAST of societies concerns.


 
I know, and I'd like to think that if I were in a crowded restaurant or mall and some weirdo opened fire, CCW's would return fire. Not likely (return fire in self-defence), unfortunately, as I live in California. Off duty police officers, even, IIRC, are not permitted to bring weapons on school grounds. That's really, really smart as it ensures a large mass of UNARMED victims by ensuring that no person with training and a weapon could possibly be on-site unless they were state payed and approved.

There is some good movement on this issue, though, as many who are not traditional conservatives are becoming pro-gun. A local firebrand liberal talk show radio host is VERY pro-gun and thinks gun control is for idiots.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 4, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> I am concealed carry permitted citizen in the state of Florida. It is nice to have and I have a permit just because I CAN!  Another great thing is the reciprocity act. I can legally carry a concealed handgun in 23 other states as a result. Many states have reciprocity acts that state if another state honors their CCW permit theirs will be honored in the other state as well. So now permitted citizens don't have to be as concerned when they go to other states, just they need to be aware of the ones they can legally carry in and any special limitations in those states.


 
Good for you! Anyone who lives in a hurricane state must be armed. Your emergency supplies are only yours *if you can defend them, yourself and your family.*

As a _liberal _retired Air Force Officer friend of mine points out, lots of people had guns when he was growing up but nobody used them. No, today's problem with violence is not easy access to firearms. Many, if not most, firearms used illegally, IIRC, are STOLEN, not legally licensed and purchased.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Scarier than watching some innocent get stabbed to death?



Well...an idiot with a pistol has a lot of potential to do damage.

It turned out well, but it's easy to imagine how it could have turned out poorly.

Anyway, calm down. I'm not calling for a governmental ban on firearms, and no one will be prying your gun from your cold, dead fingers. I'm saying that having a civilian open fire in a Wal-Mart is a scary thought because of all that could go wrong. Are you really disagreeing with that? Is everyone who gets a conceealed carry permit as well-trained in firearms and use of force as a LEO?


----------



## arnisador (Jan 5, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Anyone who lives in a hurricane state must be armed. Your emergency supplies are only yours *if you can defend them, yourself and your family.*



True. I intended to get a firearm when I lived in earthquake country, but never quite got around to it (or an emergency water supply, etc.).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I know, and I'd like to think that if I were in a crowded restaurant or mall and some weirdo opened fire, CCW's would return fire. Not likely (return fire in self-defence), unfortunately, as I live in California. Off duty police officers, even, IIRC, are not permitted to bring weapons on school grounds. That's really, really smart as it ensures a large mass of UNARMED victims by ensuring that no person with training and a weapon could possibly be on-site unless they were state payed and approved.
> 
> There is some good movement on this issue, though, as many who are not traditional conservatives are becoming pro-gun. A local firebrand liberal talk show radio host is VERY pro-gun and thinks gun control is for idiots.


 Fortunately, increasingly people are seeing the firearms issue as not a conservative issue, but the freedom issue it is.  Private arms should be a concern of everyone, conservative or otherwise, who believe in individual freedom.  It's always concerned me that the ACLU has taken such extremists stances on other issues of Constitutional Freedoms, but has virtually ignored, and taken a neutral stance entirely, on the 2nd Amendment.  

The history of gun-control in the US is an interesting.  Beginning, as it so happens, in the reconstruction south where whites passed black codes to restrict former slaves from possessing arms, and therefore, being able to defend themselves from organizations lik the KKK.  In fact, local sheriff's were known to round up the firearms of northern slaves conveniently before the KKK swooped down upon them.  

Again, this isn't a conservative or liberal issue, it's a basic freedoms issue.  Even Gandhi himself, the pacifist that he was, condemned the British for denying personal arms to Indians.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 5, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well...an idiot with a pistol has a lot of potential to do damage.
> 
> It turned out well, but it's easy to imagine how it could have turned out poorly.
> 
> Anyway, calm down. I'm not calling for a governmental ban on firearms, and no one will be prying your gun from your cold, dead fingers. I'm saying that having a civilian open fire in a Wal-Mart is a scary thought because of all that could go wrong. Are you really disagreeing with that? Is everyone who gets a conceealed carry permit as well-trained in firearms and use of force as a LEO?


 
Yes, it is a frightening prospect - although apparently justified in this case. I think CCW holders should have to undergo some training beyond passing a simple firearms safety course.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well...an idiot with a pistol has a lot of potential to do damage.
> 
> It turned out well, but it's easy to imagine how it could have turned out poorly.


  Yes, they have a potential to do damage.  Of course, so does any moron with a driver's license.  In fact, moron's with driver's license are far more dangerous, and receive far less training. 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Anyway, calm down. I'm not calling for a governmental ban on firearms, and no one will be prying your gun from your cold, dead fingers. I'm saying that having a civilian open fire in a Wal-Mart is a scary thought because of all that could go wrong. Are you really disagreeing with that? Is everyone who gets a conceealed carry permit as well-trained in firearms and use of force as a LEO?


 I'm calm, i'm just making a point.  What would have gone wrong had he not openned fire?  You're making an argument based on 'what if'.  I'm dealing with the reality of that particular situation.  Further, in most states CCW's are required to receive training in marksmanship and the legal restrictions on lethal force....which, i'll again point out, is far more training than the multitude of idiots driving around in 2000lb projectiles, which, have proven to be far deadlier than any number of firearms.


Again, as a police officer, I don't have to worry about having a CCW, so I don't have a personal stake in this, other than I believe that the average citizen should have access to the same right to defend himself as I do.  

I've got a badge and a department ID card, both of which allow me to carry my firearm anywhere, on or off duty, in all 50 states.  I can even contacted the TSA and carry my on board an airline flight.  So, even if my state didn't give out CCW's, it wouldn't effect me personally.  What's more, according to federal law, when I retire, as long as I retire in good standing, I maintain the same privilege to carry as I did when I was a working officer.  

So, again, it's not my rights i'm concerned with at all.  I just believe that I shouldn't be a member of some privileged class, who believes himself above the average citizen.  

It hacks me off when I hear other officers (usually the perfumed princes various command staffs, who haven't worked the road in decades, and then only until their political connections set in) who support some cross-eyed gun grabbing scheme or another as if it were crime control....which they don't believe either, but it makes their civilian political bosses happy.  

I, however, don't fear the average citizen, armed or not.  The man likely to shoot me probably can't even get a driver's license, much less buy a gun or get a CCW...but he's carrying anyway.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 5, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I'm saying that having a civilian open fire in a Wal-Mart is a scary thought because of all that could go wrong. Are you really disagreeing with that? Is everyone who gets a conceealed carry permit as well-trained in firearms and use of force as a LEO?



A CCW holder might not be as well trained as a LEO, but hopefully, may have good training.  I would hope that in obtaining a permit, there would be the necessary training and understanding of the State Codes and Law.  It depends upon what is required by each State where permits are allowed.

Unfortunately, I have met some people who purchase a gun thinking that all they need to know to pull a trigger is sufficient.  I usually encourage these same people to at least go to the range for some training by competent instructors.  Better yet, get a permit and the necessary skills to go with it.

- Ceicei


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2006)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> A CCW holder might not be as well trained as a LEO, but hopefully, may have good training. I would hope that in obtaining a permit, there would be the necessary training and understanding of the State Codes and Law. It depends upon what is required by each State where permits are allowed.
> 
> Unfortunately, I have met some people who purchase a gun thinking that all they need to know to pull a trigger is sufficient. I usually encourage these same people to at least go to the range for some training by competent instructors. Better yet, get a permit and the necessary skills to go with it.
> 
> - Ceicei


 I agree, anyone who carries a firearm should be well versed in not only it's operation, but the legal and ethical responsibilites that entails.

Where my gripe comes, however, is in legislating what people 'might do'.  There's something called personal responsibility.  In a free society we should punish people for what they DO do, not what they 'might' do.  We make the rules, and if they violate them, then the consequences are all theirs.

If this guy in the Wal-Mart shooting made the wrong decision, then he should suffer the consequences...but he didn't.  It seems as though many laws are designed to punish society, in mass, for what individuals MIGHT do.

Many laws are built on the over-active imaginations of legislatures.  An example of this are the 'switch blade' laws of the 1950's and 1960's (Which are still on the books).  Legislatures saw switchblabes being used in the Rebellion movies of that era, and came to the conclusion that the switchblade was a menace that needed to be legislated to avoid the catastrophe that they just KNEW was coming.  

Of course, there's no evidence that a switchblade knife is any more dangerous than a regular knife.  In fact, the cheaply made switchblade knives of the 1950's and 1960's were a poor design, likely to break in the hands of anyone really attempting to use it to harm another.  A fixed blade knife is far more useful and dangerous.  But these legislatures weren't responding to reality, but rather, their fantasies about 'what might happen', and this switchblade was made so menacing by the movies of the era.  

We still have many of these laws on the books.  In most states you can't buy or carry an auto-openning knife unless you are law-enforcement.


The bottom line, we can't pass laws designed around the lowest common denominator, or rather, the dumbest citizen principle.  In other words, we can't design our laws around what some imagined moron might do.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I, however, don't fear the average citizen, armed or not. The man likely to shoot me probably can't even get a driver's license, much less buy a gun or get a CCW...but he's carrying anyway.


 
*Yes, and probably with a stolen and, thus, ILLEGALY possessed firearm.* The UK, or rather England, then, according to Will Durant's history of the period, had a very, very serious trouble with street crime in the 1700's -until they started capturing and hanging violent criminals regularly and the art of fencing, often with concealed blades in canes, again became fashionable with the upper and middle classes. The people HAD to fight back, both through tougher enforcement of the law and PERSONAL ARMED self-defence.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Many laws are built on the over-active imaginations of legislatures.
> 
> The bottom line, we can't pass laws designed around the lowest common denominator, or rather, the dumbest citizen principle. In other words, we can't design our laws around what some imagined moron might do.



Agreed.  Funny, I've noticed that many of the truly serious CCW holders are also those who seem to be highly aware of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  They also tend to be better versed with State code than the average resident in their States.

There is a correlation.  How do we encourage this kind of knowledge among others (especially those who do not necessarily seek to be a permit holder)?

- Ceicei


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> *Yes, and probably with a stolen and, thus, ILLEGALY possessed firearm.* The UK, or rather England, then, according to Will Durant's history of the period, had a very, very serious trouble with street crime in the 1700's -until they started capturing and hanging violent criminals regularly and the art of fencing, often with concealed blades in canes, again became fashionable with the upper and middle classes. The people HAD to fight back, both through tougher enforcement of the law and PERSONAL ARMED self-defence.


 Another interesting fact about the UK is this....they banned virtually all private ownership of firearms.  However, the criminal element has become increasingly involved in gun smuggling.  Smuggled illegal guns are a boon market in the UK, and they are all making their way in to the hands of criminals.  So much for the idea that we can simply legislate guns out of criminal hands.  Disarming the populace did virtually nothing for disarming criminals....it just ran the price up on black market guns and made them more profitable.



> Between April and November 2001, the number of murders in the Metropolitan Police area committed with a firearm soared by almost 90% over the same period a year earlier.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm





> The possession of handguns was banned in Britain that year after the Dunblane massacre. Yet the illegal ownership of handguns is believed to be higher than it has ever been, with nearly 300,000 illegal guns estimated to be in circulation.  The increase in gun crime is linked to gang activity and the illegal drugs trade.
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1878913,00.html



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,868902,00.html


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Many laws are built on the over-active imaginations of legislatures. An example of this are the 'switch blade' laws of the 1950's and 1960's (Which are still on the books). Legislatures saw switchblabes being used in the Rebellion movies of that era, and came to the conclusion that the switchblade was a menace that needed to be legislated to avoid the catastrophe that they just KNEW was coming.
> 
> Of course, there's no evidence that a switchblade knife is any more dangerous than a regular knife. In fact, the cheaply made switchblade knives of the 1950's and 1960's were a poor design, likely to break in the hands of anyone really attempting to use it to harm another. A fixed blade knife is far more useful and dangerous. But these legislatures weren't responding to reality, but rather, their fantasies about 'what might happen', and this switchblade was made so menacing by the movies of the era.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, and the bootleg switchblades that I handled (classmates who bought them in Mexico or aquired by one means or another) were all grade A junk. Because these pieces of junk were illegal, a somewhat unstable but knife loving young man in my algebra class bought a legal, but far more dangerous, military style sheath knife to carry. Talk about the law of unintended consquences.

I think we all agree that CCW carriers MUST be well trained and responsible members of society. However, the statistics you showed demonstrated that this has been the case thus far.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2006)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Agreed. Funny, I've noticed that many of the truly serious CCW holders are also those who seem to be highly aware of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They also tend to be better versed with State code than the average resident in their States.
> 
> There is a correlation. How do we encourage this kind of knowledge among others (especially those who do not necessarily seek to be a permit holder)?
> 
> - Ceicei


 We're doing it in some way's right now.  However, the most important way is to push firearms education as a responsibility among ANYONE who takes on the responsibility of firearms ownership.  It is our duty, as gun owners and users, to be standard bearers in order to preserve this right.  That means we can't afford to be careless in our gun handling, and we need to be far more knowledgeable about ALL aspects of firearms ownership, than those who would take that right are about their position.  

It also means that we don't tolerate sloppy and careless gun ownership among others.  Gun ownership is a citizens right....but also a huge responsibility.  :asian:


I go to the range often, and I shoot very well.  During the last firearms qualification (performed in sub-zero weather because the chief needed it done before the end of the year) I was the only officer to shoot a perfect score on the firearms qualification....while having the fastest time (speed is fine, accuracy is final, both together are lethal).  In their defense, however, it was below freezing, and I none of us could feel our fingers.  Try changing magazines when you can't feel the magazine and have lost most of your manual dexterity.

I didn't do learn to shoot through natural talent, I did it through constant, consciencious practice....because carrying a firearm is a burden and a responsibility as much as a privilege.  

You MUST make the right decision, and you can never afford to 'miss'.  

As a side note, if I were running the range, i'd never tolerate ANYTHING but a perfect score on a firearms qualification.  A 90% doesn't cut it.  I'd have the officer there until they were able to shoot a 100%....But i'm not the departments firearms instructor, as i'm too busy as Defensive Tactics instructor and Field Sobriety Instructor.....but woe be unto them when I am.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Yes, and the bootleg switchblades that I handled (classmates who bought them in Mexico or aquired by one means or another) were all grade A junk. Because these pieces of junk were illegal, a somewhat unstable but knife loving young man in my algebra class bought a legal, but far more dangerous, military style sheath knife to carry. Talk about the law of unintended consquences.
> 
> I think we all agree that CCW carriers MUST be well trained and responsible members of society. However, the statistics you showed demonstrated that this has been the case thus far.


 You want to talk about unintended consquences, the Clinton gun ban, included bans on high-capacity pistol magazines (any magazine able to carry over 10 rounds)....The result?  Some of the nicest sub-compact in size full caliber 10 round firearms you'd ever want, in a very concealable package.


----------



## Dan G (Jan 5, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> *Yes, and probably with a stolen and, thus, ILLEGALY possessed firearm.* The UK, or rather England, then, according to Will Durant's history of the period, had a very, very serious trouble with street crime in the 1700's -until they started capturing and hanging violent criminals regularly and the art of fencing, often with concealed blades in canes, again became fashionable with the upper and middle classes. The people HAD to fight back, both through tougher enforcement of the law and PERSONAL ARMED self-defence.


 
I haven't read Will Durant's history but what you have mentioned doesn't quite ring true to me, particularly on the matter of fencing. Italian schools of fencing - the original McDojo's - took root and marketed very effectively to the court and upper classes at that time (the small sword looked pretty and everyone wanted to wear one). It does not mean that there is a causal link between a drop in street crime and the adoption of a new fencing craze - the old stuff was more effective and remained widely practiced at first. If anything the adoption of the Italian schools was the beginning of the end for the English "Masters of Defence" and I just cannot see a convincing link betwen a drop in street crime and some bloke in a wig deciding a short light sword would look good with his jacket. (when the existing alternative would have been a broadsword, sabre type blade or a rapier). If anything the adoption of the short sword was a clear indication that personal defence was no longer as strong a priority as previously. Having a weapon that was suitable for ritual duelling and looked good without being too heavy was a greater priority. It is a bit like attributing a drop in LA crime to all the actors taking Martial Arts lessons the past few years... 

"Secret History of the Sword" J Cristoph Amberger is a really good read on this area, author is likeably opinionated, is a swordsman first and an academic second - so is readable, and has done extensive research. Worth reading for his account of modern live blade duelling in Southern German University frats alone.

(EDIT for UK slang- Bloke = informal term for a man)


----------



## arnisador (Jan 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> according to federal law, when I retire, as long as I retire in good standing, I maintain the same privilege to carry as I did when I was a working officer.


 
I knew the other facts you mentioned, but not this one!

I think the right to bear arms is important, both for personal defense and, frankly, to keep a certain healthy nervousness in the govt. (I can't quite dredge up the relevant quote here.) But that doesn't mean that I'm happy about every person who has a firearm...anymore than I am about every person who drives a car, as you point out.

I'm glad the Wal-Mart case worked out well, but if I had been in there with my kids and someone had opened fire I would've been mighty nervous. Had he not, perhaps the knifer would have killed the woman...or perhaps he would have been subdued without being killed. Who knows?

Here's a link to the story.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Where my gripe comes, however, is in legislating what people 'might do'. There's something called personal responsibility. In a free society we should punish people for what they DO do, not what they 'might' do.


 
I agree...but there's always a limit. Would you want people walking around with hand grenades? Anti-aircraft missle launchers? You draw the line to include guns, and I do too...others mightn't draw it there.



> Many laws are built on the over-active imaginations of legislatures. An example of this are the 'switch blade' laws of the 1950's and 1960's (Which are still on the books). Legislatures saw switchblabes being used in the Rebellion movies of that era, and came to the conclusion that the switchblade was a menace that needed to be legislated to avoid the catastrophe that they just KNEW was coming.
> 
> Of course, there's no evidence that a switchblade knife is any more dangerous than a regular knife. In fact, the cheaply made switchblade knives of the 1950's and 1960's were a poor design, likely to break in the hands of anyone really attempting to use it to harm another. A fixed blade knife is far more useful and dangerous.


 
Yeah, this drives me crazy. There are places where you could carry a Rambo knife but not a switchblade, gravity blade (also cheap and likely to break), or other automatic one-hand-open blade. These are useful for many people--on the job, or if an arm has suffered an injury.



> The bottom line, we can't pass laws designed around the lowest common denominator, or rather, the dumbest citizen principle. In other words, we can't design our laws around what some imagined moron might do.


 
I agree. That would be the end of many freedoms. But it has to be judged against how much damage that one moron might be able to do. That's not an absolute, just a good guideline.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 5, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> I haven't read Will Durant's history but what you have mentioned doesn't quite ring true to me, particularly on the matter of fencing. Italian schools of fencing - the original McDojo's - took root and marketed very effectively to the court and upper classes at that time (the small sword looked pretty and everyone wanted to wear one). It does not mean that there is a causal link between a drop in street crime and the adoption of a new fencing craze - the old stuff was more effective and remained widely practiced at first. If anything the adoption of the Italian schools was the beginning of the end for the English "Masters of Defence" and I just cannot see a convincing link betwen a drop in street crime and some bloke in a wig deciding a short light sword would look good with his jacket. (when the existing alternative would have been a broadsword, sabre type blade or a rapier). If anything the adoption of the short sword was a clear indication that personal defence was no longer as strong a priority as previously. Having a weapon that was suitable for ritual duelling and looked good without being too heavy was a greater priority. It is a bit like attributing a drop in LA crime to all the actors taking Martial Arts lessons the past few years...
> 
> "Secret History of the Sword" J Cristoph Amberger is a really good read on this area, author is likeably opinionated, is a swordsman first and an academic second - so is readable, and has done extensive research. Worth reading for his account of modern live blade duelling in Southern German University frats alone.
> 
> (EDIT for UK slang- Bloke = informal term for a man)


 
Hmm, I don't think the rapiers of the Italian school at that time were all that short or light (actually I believe Silver rants that the rapiers are often overly long).  His demonstrated "perfect length" of the sword is significantly shorter than many of the rapiers that time.  Try reading Silver's "Paradoxes of Defense" it is a great read if you can handle a guy who is obviously biased against the rapier.  In thinking of the sword being overly short and light, you may be thinking of a smallsword which is a different matter entirely.

And now back to your thread on concealed carry.

Lamont


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 5, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Is everyone who gets a conceealed carry permit as well-trained in firearms and use of force as a LEO?



Likely not everyone, but there are many that are probably BETTER trained than a LEO.  Being a LEO doesn't necessarily = firearms expert.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 5, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Likely not everyone, but there are many that are probably BETTER trained than a LEO. Being a LEO doesn't necessarily = firearms expert.


 
I found it disconcerting that when I was learning to shoot pistols as an Explorer Scout, I was sometimes outshooting some of the actual officers.  Unfortunately, I've met plenty of guys who carry concealed whos firearms skills are less than stellar.... or even adequate.

Lamont


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 5, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> I found it disconcerting that when I was learning to shoot pistols as an Explorer Scout, I was sometimes outshooting some of the actual officers. Unfortunately, I've met plenty of guys who carry concealed whos firearms skills are less than stellar.... or even adequate.
> 
> Lamont



Oh I agree there are people who carry from both sides, however, I think it boils down to how seriously someone takes it.  If it is a novelty, they really won't put much focus on it.  If they take it seriously, then they will apply themselves seriously.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 5, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> I haven't read Will Durant's history but what you have mentioned doesn't quite ring true to me, particularly on the matter of fencing. Italian schools of fencing - the original McDojo's - took root and marketed very effectively to the court and upper classes at that time (the small sword looked pretty and everyone wanted to wear one). It does not mean that there is a causal link between a drop in street crime and the adoption of a new fencing craze - the old stuff was more effective and remained widely practiced at first.


 
There were many reasons, according to Durant, IIRC, for the rapid drop in crime after that period. It's been a few years since I read the book where he touched on it, but I remember reading that people took to carrying swords, cane swords and even heavy sticks in order to defend themselves. As to how much he attributed the drop in crime to this, I don't remember. It is more likely that my recall is in error than Durant's history. I don't remember any mention of Italian Fencing, simply the carrying of swords and large number of guards for coaches.

I should have made clear in my post that I meant the carrying of weapons became popular (by necessity), rather than simply the study of fencing as an art.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 5, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> I found it disconcerting that when I was learning to shoot pistols as an Explorer Scout, I was sometimes outshooting some of the actual officers. Unfortunately, I've met plenty of guys who carry concealed whos firearms skills are less than stellar.... or even adequate.
> 
> Lamont


 
I did the same after a number of summer camps when I almost literally lived at the range. However, they were far more likely to be able to shoot accurately (and without killing innocent bystanders) under pressure than I was.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Likely not everyone, but there are many that are probably BETTER trained than a LEO. Being a LEO doesn't necessarily = firearms expert.


 Sadly, many LEO's don't take the art of the gun seriously.  Some actually even shun the gun, so to speak, in that they view it as much of a badge of station, as what it is intended for.  They hope, I suppose, by avoiding to practice, that they can subconciously avoid that unpleasant reality of what their job may mean....engaging in mortal combat with another human being.

Not every police officer (or even soldier) is a warrior, so to speak....some are merely place holders.   According to the Bureau of Justice Statics, officers killed in the line of duty share some common traits:

Friendly and well-liked by community and department
Uses less force than other officers in similar situations
Perceives self as more public relations than law enforcer
Uses force only as a last resort
Only 8% of partner officers returned fire
85% failed to fire their weapon
Doesn't follow all the rules, especially in regard to:
---Arrests
---Traffic Stops
---Does not call for or wait for back up
Tend to look for the 'good' in others
"Laid back" and "easy going"
57% of the offenders characterized the victim officer as unprepared
Only 15% were wearing body armor

These kind of officers represent a large percentage of law enforcement in this country.  These are also the kind most likely to view their firearm as a necessary hassle of the job, and not be any more proficient than necessary.  These officers tend to view officers who do practice and maintain a high-level of proficiency with disdain......of course this is the kind of officer that's more likely to volunteer with youth as well....remember 'PR oriented'.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 7, 2006)

Sadly, dont you think that those are the types of guys that politicians WANT as police officers?

On the other hand if so many cops are "nice guys" why do so many people complain that Cops are too rough and throw around their power too much like they are on ego trips? Not that I think that thats true. I think that many big ego people dont like being under the authority of the police and to make themselves feel better say that the Cop is the one with the big ego. Just my opinion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Sadly, dont you think that those are the types of guys that politicians WANT as police officers?
> 
> On the other hand if so many cops are "nice guys" why do so many people complain that Cops are too rough and throw around their power too much like they are on ego trips? Not that I think that thats true. I think that many big ego people dont like being under the authority of the police and to make themselves feel better say that the Cop is the one with the big ego. Just my opinion.


 Oh, i'd say you hit the nail right on the head.  

The ones who complain about the fact that cops are 'bullies' are, usually, themselves the biggest bullies around and can't stand the fact that they might have to answer to anyone....like the guy who smacks his wife and kids around, and then fights with the police when they come to arrest him...he gets bruised, banged  up and his pride gets hurt, and he starts whining about police brutality.....Meanwhile his son had his arm broke twice last year and his wife has a black eye and a broken jaw....poor guy.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 8, 2006)

Well, it sounds like an appealing mix of traits...until one learns it's correlated with deaths of officers. Obviously, a balance is needed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, it sounds like an appealing mix of traits...until one learns it's correlated with deaths of officers. Obviously, a balance is needed.


 The balance comes in putting the right officers in the right jobs.  Those who have those traits are great....as DARE officers, Community Police officers, or media liasons or some other PR related aspect of police work.  They aren't necessarily the right officers for working patrol on Friday night in the toughest district in town, or working lone patrol duty on the interstate.

Put simply.....which officer do you want being the only thing standing between you and a violent sociopath?


----------

