Concealed Carry Permit holder crime record

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Why is the gun debate in the US so retarded?

Mostly because the "anti" arguments are..... so retarded.

Originally posted by Nashwan
Do people really suggest that guns commit crimes on their own?  

Almost. They routinely say, not suggest, that any gun is immensely dangerous and that the only solution is to confiscate all of them. They come very close to saying possession of a gun inevitably "causes" the owner to commit gun crime.

In fact, in moments of candor (or stupidity) the heads of the various anti organizations like Handgun Control will admit that total ban/confiscation is their ultimate goal and that they will never give up.
 

Originally posted by Nashwan
Or is that simply an appeal to ridicule, used because the facts aren't convienient?
 

Generally the anti's appeal to ridicule or outright lying because the facts destroy their arguments. Like Lazs contention that Concealed Carry laws, once passed, are almost always followed by a drop in gun crime. It's obviously not that former criminals get a CC permit and then decide to no longer use a gun in their crimes. Nope. It's that criminals don't know who's packing and take their business elsewhere.

Originally posted by Nashwan
Is it really suprising that making people apply for permits, screening out those who have a criminal record, will not result in them immediately becoming criminals?

Nope. What is surprising is the argument that Concealed Carry will result in wild west shootouts on the streets or vigilante justice committed by those with CC licenses is routinely made by the antis. It never has happened, in fact the evidence is completely to the contrary; gun crime decreases. But it's surprising that the antis make this argument in every state when CC comes up on the ballot. I guess that is because facts aren't convenient.

Originally posted by Nashwan
It just seems a bit childish to me.  

It is. However, the antis are far past the point of rational discussion on guns and admit that only total bans/confiscation will sastify them.

So, we're stuck with their childish behavior, I guess.

[Toad]

Nash, no I don't carry a weapon.

In the first place, I rarely feel the need.

In the second place, Kansas does not (yet) have a Concealed Carry law.

In the third place, if I felt the need (and there have been times I've been carrying mucho dinero to/from places far apart) I "carry" without a permit.

But then, Kansas is a very low murder state, especially if you remove the murders between/among criminals like dope deals gone bad. Folks out here use guns for real; they know what happens when you pull the trigger and it's nothing like what some folks "know" from their extensive research of gun use done by viewing Hollywood movies. I personally think that makes a big difference.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by eagl
When my Dad (retired cop) carries, it's concealed but he could still fire an aimed shot within about 1.5 seconds.  Some people who take this sort of thing seriously can get off an aimed shot within about 1/2 of a second from a concealed holster.

It's all about intent, not the gun or where it's kept/carried.

Exactly why pratice is so important with a concealed handgun- an assailant armed with a knife can get 15-20 feet closer to you in that one second.

to your Dad, I hope he's enjoying his retirement- he's damn sure earned it.

[midnight Target]

Seems to me the "pro-gun' guys are arguing with some phantom Americans who don't exist on this BBS....

Typical Neocon BS... make up an enemy then rally against it.

[Toad]

Yes, oh yes... we're making it all up.

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
 
       -Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum. The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

"My general counsel tells me that while firearms are exempted from our jurisdiction under the Consumer Product Safety Act, we could possibly ban bullets under the Hazardous Substances Act."
 
-Richard O. Simpson, Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 1973

"Gun violence won't be cured by one set of laws. It will require years of partial measures that will gradually tighten the requirements for gun ownership, and incrementally change expectations about the firepower that should be available to ordinary citizens."
 
-New York Times, December 21, 1993

"Gun registration is not enough." Attorney General Janet Reno, December 10, 1993

(Associated Press)

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno

"Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it's the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safer." - Los Angeles Times

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns." Major Owens, US Representative

"In fact, only police, soldiers -- and, maybe, licensed target ranges -- should have handguns. No one else needs one." - Michael Gartner, president of NBC News /

"I'm convinced that we have to have Federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest.

Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal!" - Nelson T. Shields, founder of HCI

"The Constitution is a radical document... it is the job of the government to rein in people's rights." - Bill Clinton

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!" - John H. Chafee, US Senator

"I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution." - Michael Gartner, president of NBC News

"And it never, ever was interpreted that the Second Amendment meant individual's right to bear arms" - Rosie O'Donnell, Million Mom March speaker and talk show host

"I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law--and I know this is extreme--that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns. It's ridiculous." - Rosie O'Donnell

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison." - Rosie O'Donnell

“You need the will to disarm the civilian population. If we can do it in Somalia, we can do it here.” - Mary McGrory, Arizona Daily Star

“I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” - Howard Metzenbaum, US Senator

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare [ban on guns] is true..." - Charles Schumer, US Representative

"Until we can ban all of them [firearms], then we might as well ban none." - Howard Metzenbaum, US Senator

“If it were up to me we'd ban them all [guns]” - Mel Reynolds, US Representative

"With a 10,000% tax we could tax them [guns] out of existence." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan, US Senator

“You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state.” - Michael Dukakis, then governor of Massachusetts

A-yup. Phantom Americans.


Yeaaah... THAT'S the ticket.

[Yeager]

I have a permit to carry concealed but about the only time I have a pistol on me is when I go out for my walks.  Its to protect me against the possibility of being attacked by a viscious dog.  I swear if I am attacked by a pitbull or other aggressive dog I will shoot the damned thing.  Im not about to get torn up like that.

[Nashwan]

No, they really seem to think having a gun handy will turn and the average normal law abiding person into a crazed lunatic shooting at anyone for any slight.

Are you sure? Do you have any quotes to back that up?

I'm not disputing it, it just seems such a stupid idea, I'd like to see the evidence to support the claim that that's their position.

so nashwan.... Does that mean that you are all for concealled carry?

I don't see anything wrong with it, if guns are widely available anyway.

I've never thought guns turn people into criminals. (I just believe guns turn criminals into more dangerous criminals)

Be aware that to get the licence you normally need do no more than apply and maybe take a 4 hour course

I see no problem with that.

. Before the guys like you got ahold of the laws... kids got more training than that in school by the NRA.

Guys like me?

I see nothing wrong with teaching people how to shoot, if lessons had been offer in my school, I'd have jumped at the chance.

So you are saying that.... that what? Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealled?

In the states? Yes.

In the UK? No.

Why? Because guns are rare here, and I'd rather keep it that way. How many concealed weapons are lost each year? Or stolen from cars etc?

But if you've got a glut of guns, as in the states, then it's a good idea, I'd have thought.

You are doutlessly being logical and noting the drop in crime in the states that allow concealled carry right?

No, I just don't see any harm in it. I'm sure large numbers of your criminals are carrying concealed weapons anyway, because criminals tend to ignore the law.

As to drop in crime, the US had a large drop in crime in the late 90s anyway, didn't it?

According to the Brady campaign (I just went and looked) crime fell less in the states that allowed more widespread concealed carry than those where it didn't.

Certainly in the UK we've heard a lot about the drop in crime in New York, they don't allow CC in the city do they?

Who would have thought that you were so logical? I thought that you believed that banning guns was the solution.

No, I believe making it harder for criminals to get guns is a partial solution.

I just don't see any way to do that without gun registration at least.

Mostly because the "anti" arguments are..... so retarded.

But are they? Genuine question, because I don't tend to visit US pro or anti gun sites.

The quotes you've posted show a desire to ban all guns, not a belief that guns make normal people into deranged killers, or that guns are sneaking out and commiting crimes on their own.

Saying that banning guns will make it harder for criminals to get guns, and that will reduce the murder rate doesn't seem retarded, even if it might be wrong. It is at least a logical position.

Almost. They routinely say, not suggest, that any gun is immensely dangerous

Well guns are dangerous. Not on their own, of course.

They come very close to saying possession of a gun inevitably "causes" the owner to commit gun crime.

If that is the case then they truely are retarded.

In fact, in moments of candor (or stupidity) the heads of the various anti organizations like Handgun Control will admit that total ban/confiscation is their ultimate goal and that they will never give up.

I'd say that's a fair enough position. Whether or not you (or I) agree it would help reduce murder, and whether or not you (or I) think that much restriction on law abiding people's right to do as they wish is worthwhile is another matter. (I don't personally think that's a sensible position)

Generally the anti's appeal to ridicule or outright lying because the facts destroy their arguments. Like Lazs contention that Concealed Carry laws, once passed, are almost always followed by a drop in gun crime.

There's been a large drop in crime in the US anyway. Whether that has anything to do with concealed carry is debatable, and quite honestly I've learned not to trust the information put out by the US gun lobby at all. More on that  below.

Nope. What is surprising is the argument that Concealed Carry will result in wild west shootouts on the streets or vigilante justice committed by those with CC licenses is routinely made by the antis.

That doesn't seem like a very sensible position. Whilst I've no doubt such things do occasionally happen, I'm sure the concealed carry owner occasionaly stops a crime as well.

It is. However, the antis are far past the point of rational discussion on guns and admit that only total bans/confiscation will sastify them.

Is it just the anti though? Or even the antis at all? As I said, I'm genuinely asking, because all I know of the US gun debate is what's posted on boards like this, and they all seem to be pro gun.

But one of your quotes sums up the attitude to the truth of the pro gun lobby as well. I'll get to that at the end, if that's ok.

Nash, no I don't carry a weapon.

In the first place, I rarely feel the need.

In the second place, Kansas does not (yet) have a Concealed Carry law.

In the third place, if I felt the need (and there have been times I've been carrying mucho dinero to/from places far apart) I "carry" without a permit.

But then, Kansas is a very low murder state, especially if you remove the murders between/among criminals like dope deals gone bad.

Kansas is actually a fairly high murder state, 4.5 per 100,000 according to the FBI.

Yes, oh yes... we're making it all up.

    quote:"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

    -Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum. The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

That quote struck me as so outrageous it couldn't possibly be true, so I went looking to track it down.

It's repeated fairly frequently on the web, all seem to be pro gun or right wing sites.

So I looked on Google groups, to find the earliest reference.

It's attributed in your quote to the "National  Educator" magazine, Jan 1994.

However, it first turns up on google's usenet cache in 1993, and then it's attributed to "machine gun news, June 1991, volume 6, p5", in a column by Dan Shea.

The "National Educator" is also listed by the ADL as an anti-semitic publication,  (see http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/adl/armed-and-dangerous/armed-and-dangerous Nizkor is a site about the holocaust, not a pro or anti gun site)

After searching for Dan Shea, I came across this:

This quote did not originate with me. It came from a Class 3 Dealer in Indiana, who said the "Quote" at Knob Creek, with a big circle of other Class 3 dealers, who all became outraged. After he said it, I asked him for the source, and he gave me one that sounded credible.... later, after it went into print, and everyone got all excited about it, I called him for the source again... he waffled, and said he really didn't know where it came from, but "It sounded like it would be true, didn't it?"

I got quite an education on that, it was the first time in 15 years that I had ever let something that important go without writing it down first.... and yes, it did "Sound like it would be true" in that time period. Very embarrassing, but a good insight into the birth of an "urban legend."

Dan Shea
Gen Mgr, Small Arms Review magazine (http://www.smallarmsreview.com)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bogus_ds.html

Guncite is actually a pro gun site, isn't it?

Regardless, I'd say that "quote" attributed to Sarah Brady is bogus.

[Dago]

I think a little of why the framers of the US Constitution guaranteed the Right to Bear arms was because we wanted to make sure we weren't left helpless to the whim of the government.

This is one of the things they were escaping in emigrating from England to the USA.  

You keep your laws, we will keep ours.

Look into the history of Scotland, see what the Kings of England tought about the citizens of Scotland being allowed access to weapons.

dago

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
As to drop in crime, the US had a large drop in crime in the late 90s anyway, didn't it?

According to the Brady campaign (I just went and looked) crime fell less in the states that allowed more widespread concealed carry than those where it didn't.

[/b]


The Brady Campaign as unbiased?

OK, then I'm sure you'll accept this from the NRA-ILA site :

More RTC states, less crime.

The nation`s violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 and in 2002 hit a 23-year low.  

In the same period, 17 states adopted and 13 states improved RTC laws. RTC states have lower violent crime rates, on average: 24% lower total violent crime, 22% lower murder, 37% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault.

The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI)

RTC and crime trends.

Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.

If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....(T)he estimated annual gain from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion....

(W)hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent." ("Crime, Deterrence, and Right To Carry Concealed Handguns," 1996.)

Originally posted by Nashwan
I just don't see any way to do that without gun registration at least.

I just don't see anyway to allow registration without it inevitably being followed by confiscation/ban at some time in the future.

I didn't personally source the Brady comment, however, here is a sourced one from the founder of Handgun Control. Brady's predecessor, if you will.

The July 26, 1976 issue of The New Yorker magazine contained an interview with Nelson T. Shields, III. "A Reporter At Large - Handguns", page 53.  

Mr. Shields (also known as "Pete" Shields) was a founder of the National Council To Control Handguns, which subsequently changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI).  On pages 57-58 of The New Yorker article, Mr. Shields was very forthright as to the ultimate agenda of his then-fledgling organization:

       "We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest.  Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law.  The problem is solved.'  And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.

So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again.  Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.  

Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time.  My estimate is from seven to ten years.  
The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.  

The second problem is to get all handguns registered.  

And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."

This would totally violate the 2nd Amendment and would take a change to the Constitution to implement. Because of this publicly stated goal, the line in the sand is drawn. I'll go no further because I know they won't stop. Ever. So, no point in giving into them in the least.

The quotes you've posted show a desire to ban all guns, not a belief that guns make normal people into deranged killers, or that guns are sneaking out and commiting crimes on their own.

[/b]

I wish I had saved some of the vitriol from the KC Star during Missouri's right to carry debate. That kind of BS is routine. Not to worry, it'll be coming up again in the Kansas Legislature soon. I'll link those. I'm sure we'll still be discussing guns then.  

[bSaying that banning guns will make it harder for criminals to get guns, and that will reduce the murder rate doesn't seem retarded, even if it might be wrong. It is at least a logical position.]

[/b]

Might be wrong? Let's see.. we've banned illegal immigration. We've banned importation of bales of marijuana, we've banned importation of blocks of cocaine, a long time ago we banned liquor.

Easy to see what all those bans have in common. One, they were/are total failures. Two, criminals are and were actively involved in all of the.

So it's logical to presume banning guns would make it harder for criminals to get them? As hard as a criminal getting some coke, ya think?

Well guns are dangerous. Not on their own, of course.

[/b]

So what's the key part of your statement? That it takes a PERSON to make a gun dangerous. Obviously, we should ban persons. Persons are REALLY dangerous.

There's been a large drop in crime in the US anyway. Whether that has anything to do with concealed carry is debatable, and quite honestly I've learned not to trust the information put out by the US gun lobby at all. [/b]

Yet you trust Handgun Control and Brady to make accurate data reports? Again, see the NRA-ILA data on concealed carry and drop in crime.



That doesn't seem like a very sensible position. Whilst I've no doubt such things do occasionally happen, I'm sure the concealed carry owner occasionaly stops a crime as well.

Kansas is actually a fairly high murder state, 4.5 per 100,000 according to the FBI.

[/b]

In 2003 (Kansas Bureau of Investigation stats) Kansas had 121 murders. 18 of those were in Wichita, 16 were in Topeka, 39 were in Kansas City, Kansas. The next highest locality was Johnson County with 5; JoCo is an extension of the Kansas City metroplex. Lawrence, home of the Univerisity of Kansas was next with 4.

I'll leave it to you to deduce what those locales have in common. Most truly rural counties have either 0 or 1 in the murder column.

I'll suggest that the murders take place in areas where the Hollywood school of firearms has the most sway.

Suffice it to say that although I live in JoCo, I rarely find myself in an area where arguments are settled with firearms.

[midnight Target]

Wow Toad... all those people post on this BBS?

Cool!

[Toad]

Nope, didn't say they did.

However, they are certainly on record as espousing what many of us here on the BBS say the antis espouse.

There's no Phantoms out there saying that stuff. It's real folks, some of them in the seats of power.

Is there any wonder the pro-gun side has taken the "no mas" position?

[midnight Target]

Well, you were answering this

"phantom Americans who don't exist on this BBS"

you even quoted a portion of it.

But then a lot of those other quotes are probably out of context too.

[Toad]

If I were bored enough, I could probably search this bbs and find posters who have stated those positions or something equally as stupid.

And I think you know it, too.

Nonetheless, those views are espoused in the good old US every day.

[Masherbrum]

Grew up in a family of which I would have gotten my a** kicked had I even a BB gun or Knife.  

I now own a HK USP .45 and a SigArms SHR-970 .30-06.   I enjoy shooting, most anti-gunners won't last in a "debate" face to face for more than 4 minutes.   Typing in here to some of you is like talking to a snail, in the hopes having the thing move faster, it doesn't work.

Keep trying to force me to turn in my handgun because you chose NOT to excerise your 2nd Amendment right, I think those of you who do this are some of the most pathetic, pond-scum eating, yellow-bellied, ball baby, pissants on the planet.  

Karaya

[Sox62]

Originally posted by Nashwan
According to the Brady campaign (I just went and looked) crime fell less in the states that allowed more widespread concealed carry than those where it didn't.

In 2004,the first year of concealed carry in Ohio,the murder rate fell by 20% in Columbus,the states largest city.

The murder rate fell by 12% in Cincinnati,after five straight years of increases.

As to stopping crime,if it happens,great.But concealed carry is about ones right to self defense,not about stopping crime.