The result of 'concealed carry laws'.

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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