The Concealed-Carry Fantasy

[liberal N proud]

The more that sensational gun violence afflicts the nation, the more that the myth of the vigilant citizen packing a legally permitted concealed weapon, fully prepared to stop the next mass shooter in his tracks, is promoted.

This foolhardy notion of quick-draw resistance, however, is dramatically contradicted by a research project showing that, since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense. Tellingly, the vast majority of these concealed-carry, licensed shooters killed themselves or others rather than taking down a perpetrator.

The death toll includes 29 mass killings of three or more people by concealed carry shooters who took 139 lives; 17 police officers shot to death, and — in the ultimate contradiction of concealed carry as a personal safety factor — 223 suicides. Compared with the 579 non-self-defense, concealed-carry shootings, there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was determined to be a factor.

The tally by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, is necessarily incomplete because the gun lobby has been so successful in persuading gullible state and national legislators that concealed carry is essential to public safety, thus blocking the extensive data collection that should be mandatory for an obvious and severe public health problem. For that reason, the center has been forced to rely largely on news accounts and limited data in 38 states and the District of Columbia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/the-concealed-carry-fantasy.html?emc=edit_th_20151026&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=45299538&_r=0

[ileus]

1. Thanks anyway but I'll keep my progressive 2A rights.

[Human101948]

3. So you subscribe to the concealed carry fantasy?

or are you just "clinging to your guns and Bible?"

[Human101948]

17. You subscribe to the concealed carry fantasy as well?

Can you focus on the discussion please?

[Human101948]

23. Exercise your freedom of thought...

Where does it say that you have a right to concealed carry?

[michreject]

32. Laws don't tell us what's allowed

Only what is prohibited. If it's not illegal, you're good to go.

[Human101948]

39. However, if it is not a guaranteed right then...

there is no problem with restricting the practice.

[jtuck004]

41. Perhaps one should worry about restricting the criminals and leave law-abiding people alone. n/t

[Human101948]

43. Thank you Mr. NRA spokesman...

Yes and we should focus on mental illness instead of the insane number of guns floating around that criminals have access to because of lax gun laws and irresponsible gun owners.

[jtuck004]

48. Lol. You are so far off, but if that comforts you, then I have done my work.

You just made my point, btw.

[Human101948]

49. Another response devoid of content...

keep on humping those guns!

[GGJohn]

50. Talk about devoid of comment.

Just couldn't resist the sexual innuendo could you?
What is it with the gun controllers and sexual innuendo's?

[Eleanors38]

110. Sort of... Popped right out, there, didn't it. "Oh, darling! I didn't realize!"

[Lizzie Poppet]

60. Ironic, from someone resorting to a tiresome cliche.

But why not go all-in? Surely there's a small penis comment or two in your repertoire...

[Big_Mike]

100. My wife thrived on the small penis jokes

She'd generally embarrass the hell out of the fools that made the statement.

[Lizzie Poppet]

116. I have fun with those, too.

When receiving that sort of thing online, I love responding with some variation of "Yes, I have a very small penis, indeed. It's called a clitoris. Perhaps you've heard of them?"

[beevul]

87. Other than the tens of millions who will hold the restricters accountable for it at the polls.

Or do they not exist in your world?

[Eleanors38]

109. The Second recognizes a right to keep and Bear arms...

A state may prescribe the manner in which a weapon is carried (taking care not to load up the method with all manner of expensive restrictions, delays, or elite favoritism). Most states recognize concealed, some recognize both open and concealed, and CA at one time recognized open carry only. But a state cannot deny "both" means of carry.

[AlbertCat]

44. I subscribe to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution

which is to own a flintlock if you are in a well regulated militia (there's a reason that comes 1st in the amendment) so you can fight the British when they come back to claim their colonies....which they already did in 1812.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. "flintlock" is not contained in the 2A and...

...the law of the land has, since 1792, recognize the "unorganized militia" as pretty much everyone who is considered an adult. This has been expanded to include women and minorities and covers about everyone up to an age I don't recall. I believe it was initially 45.

Consider Madison's Federalist #46: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/federalist_no_4.php
...to get a sense of who the militia was intended to be.

[AlbertCat]

117. "flintlock" is not contained in the 2A

"Arms" are. What are "arms" in 1792? They didn't even have spiral bore yet!

Why do 2A advocates pretend to be so obtuse?

[gejohnston]

125. I'm guessing by spiral bore

you mean rifling, as in a rifle? They did. The British military simply didn't use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#Historical_overview

Of course, not all militaries used flintlocks or firearms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

[sarisataka]

126. The proper term is "rifled"

and was invented in the 15th century- before Columbus sailed to the west.

One great advantage the colonials had was the Kentucky rifle which was fairly common. It gave them a range advantage over the British troops using smoothbore muskets. The muskets were effective to only 50 yards, 100 in mass volley. By contrast a skilled rifleman could hit a target at 200+yards.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

129. You probably have no real idea but...

...firearms of the day often use ammo over .50 cal which is illegal today. One of the available "arms" was the Cookson Rifle. A repeating rifle which was produced with magazines holding 7 to 9 rounds. Included as "arms" would be swords and sabres, cannon loaded with explosive balls or even grape shot, explosives, lances and spears, halberds and various axes and maces and morning stars.

Rifling dates back to the mid-16th century.

So by your reasoning does the NSA's collection of "metadata" not require a warrant as there were no cell phones in 1791?

It's been only 50 years since the Miranda ruling. Do we need to back up on that as well?

The Founders would not be at all surprised by the performance of today's small arms.

[Marengo]

133. And why do people demonstrably ignorant of the subject discussed...

Believe they should be taken seriously?

"They didn't even have spiral bore yet!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle

"Rifled firearms saw their first major combat usage in the American colonies during the Seven Years war"

Unless the Seven Years War occurred after the War of Independence, it appears you're wrong

[DonP]

73. The irony is thick on that post

Using a computer and the interwebz to exercise your 1st amendment right to freedom of speech, to insist that the 2nd needs to be held to 1791 standards.

Hand cranked printing presses and town criers too?

Ironic, funny, short sighted, choose one.

[AlbertCat]

118. There was nothing like a computer in the 18th century.

There were "arms" tho' and their 18th century idea of arms is what they meant.

A hand cranked press produced a piece of paper with words on it just like lithography with the same effect. Arms today have a slightly different effect.

What a lousy absurd analogy!


Besides, we've passed laws about the way you can use computer, no? And the availability of what is printed.... even if it's on aa hand cranked press. Porn for minors anyone?

Again....why do 2A advocates act so obtuse? Why do they ignore context?

[DonP]

128. "Again....why do 2A advocates act so obtuse? Why do they ignore context?"

Density of thought maybe?

No wonder gun control fans continue to lose in court, in elections and among the general population. 25 years now since the last federal gun control laws were passed. Keep up the good work.

Equating freedom of speech with the tools available in 1791, makes about as much sense as the stupid Flintlock analogy, so beloved by the benevolently less informed.

[Eleanors38]

111. And you sent this by posting a print copy? I mean, "press" IS THE TERM USED.

[Jester Messiah]

30. You certainly seem invested in framing it as a fantasy.

Alas, repetition does not equal truth.

[Human101948]

40. Thanks Mr. Truthgiver...

The reference was to the article and the respondents who are not addressing the article. And that is truthful.

[Jester Messiah]

52. Look closer at the URL

I think you'll find it clearly tagged as "Opinion." Though I'm sure it aligns with what you'd like to consider true.

[GGJohn]

54. It's an opinion piece, nothing more, nothing less,

others have differing opinions, should those be held as the truth also?

[ileus]

19. are you a bitter clinger type???

[Darb]

7. The 2A doesn't say what you think it says and you know it.

Keep pretending, and try not to shoot off your toe and keep your toys out of the hands of your kids and criminals and loonies.

[GGJohn]

11. Sure it does,

and the SCOTUS has confirmed it.

[daleanime]

28. And they have confirmed that money is speech....

and that corporations are people.


So what's you're point?

[GGJohn]

29. Exactly what my post said.

The SCOTUS has confirmed that the 2A is an individual right not connected to militia service.

[daleanime]

31. And money is speech....

and corporations are people. Have you found your point yet?

[michreject]

34. That may be so

Bit it doesn't change the fact that the 2A is an individual right.

[daleanime]

38. To join a militia?

Works for me, as long as it "well-regulated".

[AlbertCat]

46. To join a militia?

Yes, a well regulated one! There is a reason that's the very 1st words of the amendment.


Then there's that pesky issue of the definition of "arms".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. What were the federal regulations concerning the militia when the 2A was ratified?

[AlbertCat]

90. What were the federal regulations concerning the militia when the 2A was ratified?

18th century ones.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. That means nothing.

Controllers keep saying "a well regulate militia" allows them to create gun laws but they cannot cite what "well regulated" means.

[AlbertCat]

105. "well regulated"

Who cares what it specifically meant in the 18th century? Besides 'well regulated" means it's regulated.... with regulations.

This is the 21st century. That's why we make laws to tweak things and make them viable for today.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. "Well-regulated" meant "well-equipped and proficient with their arms"

Perhaps what we need are federal subsidies for purchasing military grade rifles and getting military aged males enough range time to become proficient.

[AlbertCat]

115. "Well-regulated" meant "well-equipped and proficient with their arms"

Prove it!

Besides, it's still not the 18th century and "Arms" do not mean the same thing as it did then. You don't get to use 18th definitions in the 1st part and 21st century definitions in the last part.

Good grief, 2nd amendment nuts are ridiculous.

[sarisataka]

119. Do you apply that standard

to the First and Fourth Amendments? Specifically electronic communications are not protected under freedom of the press and your electronic data is not secure against against unreasonable searches and seizure, only "papers"?

It's not the 18th century, "press" and "papers" do not mean the same things as they did then.

[AlbertCat]

120. The press is not the same thing as a gun

Obtuser and obtuser.....


The way something is printed does not have major effects on the reader.



But go ahead... pretend the Founding Fathers meant any bozo can buy an uzi in some gun show in rural OK.

[sarisataka]

122. Obviously

but it is beyond obtuse to say one Amendment is limited to exactly what was available at the time of writing the BoR but other Amendments include modern technology.

Just as a modern computer is analogous to a hand cranked press, a modern rifle is analogous to a flintlock musket.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

124. You're very wishy-washy about when the standards you choose get applied.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

121. "You don't get to use 18th definitions in the 1st part and 21st century definitions"

Prove it!

And you can only use a moveable type printing press.

[AlbertCat]

123. And you can only use a moveable type printing press.

Oh enough with the unrelated printing press baloney!

You guys are ridiculous.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

127. I'm not the one arguing only 18c. technology applies; you are.

If "press" encompasses more than 18c. moveable-type printing presses and includes modern mass media then how is it "arms" should not include modern military small arms?

You're picking and choosing words and redefining them not based on any objective standard but only to satisfy your agenda.

[Eleanors38]

138. Damn, cat, the First specifically mentions a technology: "Press."

That's more specific than "arms."

I'm willing to grant that "press" should be expansive to include other forms of communication. You should grant that "arms," already a much more general term, should be more expansive.

Talk about being obtuse!

[MillennialDem]

33. The RWNJ supreme court (most right wing in nearly 100 years) that will change soon?

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. Possible, but unlikely.

It's pretty rare for the Court to violate stare decisis. Moreover, even without legal considerations, the language of the amendment is such that the "militia only" argument is invalidated, as the RKBA is ascribed directly to "the people" (and not a subset thereof).

[Big_Mike]

101. And perhaps needful to say, that even Justice Stevens

in his dissent, stated that all the Justices believed that the 2A is an individual right. His dissent was to allow regulation by states and cities.

[Godot51]

42. That doesn't mean...

.. that the Supreme Court isn't full of shit on this issue (and many others) and that it cannot be changed to follow what the Constitution originally said. Sure, all the idiots want to ignore the original intent and purpose of the amendment and the Supreme Court writ lets them get away with it but it's not what was written.

[Big_Mike]

102. OK, so is the court also full of shit on abortion and gay marriage???

Either you accept current reading per SC decision and work to change what you disagree with, or you simply blather on and on online.

Hmm, seems choice made.

[secondwind]

36. Justice Scalia has already said that the 2nd "undoubtedly" has its limitations.. n/t

[ileus]

18. guns kill people I know...

[Human101948]

21. The 2nd Amendment says what the NRA and right wing SCOTUS says it does...

The NRA was for reasonable gun control laws until the right wing loonies took over.

[Lizzie Poppet]

55. Neither of those entities influence my take on the 2nd Am in the least.

While the SCOTUS has the final say in legal terms, in linguistic terms, they're a non-entity. Linguistically, the language of the amendment quite clearly ascribes the RKBA to "the people," not the militia (or any other subset of "the people&quot . It ascribes the right to the entire set, thus causing all individual members of that set to possess the right. Any attempt to move to a "collective right" scenario would require alteration of the language of the amendment.

[Jerry442]

37. Is there any gun restriction you would favor?

Let's say that tomorrow, a practical, reliable gun were developed that (along with its ammo) was totally invisible to security scanners.

Or... what if some micro-ammunition was invented that would let handgun carriers go about with 1,000 lethal rounds in one clip?

Or... what if some sort of ammo (rocket-assist?) were invented that would be effective through six inches of concrete?

All covered by 2A?

(And before you say how ridiculous these examples are, compare a 9 mm. automatic with a high-capacity magazine to a musket.)

[gejohnston]

62. easy

Let's say that tomorrow, a practical, reliable gun were developed that (along with its ammo) was totally invisible to security scanners.

Theoretically, already illegal to have in the US. However, that does not prevent the vast majority of gun makers from making them, only exporting them to the US. Assassins and terrorist would take advantage of the train station loophole, like the Charlie Hebdo killers got their machine guns.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11818920/French-train-attack-Belgian-station-is-close-to-notorious-weapons-supply-line.html

Or... what if some micro-ammunition was invented that would let handgun carriers go about with 1,000 lethal rounds in one clip?

Yes.

Or... what if some sort of ammo (rocket-assist?) were invented that would be effective through six inches of concrete?

I think it would be a destructive device under the National Firearms Act.

All covered by 2A?

Just like websites.

(And before you say how ridiculous these examples are, compare a 9 mm. automatic with a high-capacity magazine to a musket.)

Yet repeating weapons existed and were not that unusual at the time.

[Snobblevitch]

74. You must be referring to a Glock 7.

[Logical]

68. You sound so silly. "cold dead hands" LOL

[ileus]

69. you and your NRA talking points.

[Logical]

78. Your "rights" shit is NRA BS. nt

[ileus]

79. from 1791....yup.

[beevul]

86. You don't believe people have the right to carry a gun?

Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 10:45 PM - Edit history (1)

(On edit, I had the context confused)

[underpants]

2. A lot of facts there

[EdwardBernays]

4. There are no facts

that will make a difference in 2015...

In 10 years or so - after another 100,000 citizens are murdered - maybe society will be different enough to allow responsible citizens to simply overrule the gun activists, but ... not now.

Happy, as a US expat, that this stuff is not even on my kids radar... they've never even heard of a school shooting... heck, we can leave our car unlocked and have left our front door unlocked over night so many times - accidentally - and aren't panicked by it...

No armed home invasions, no police shootings, no school shootings, no gun rampages... nothing... great feeling....

[jtuck004]

47. A place where none of this touches - in other words, another fantasy. ROFL.

There are some insignificant places that don't accomplish anything where little happens, but I would hardly hold those up as a model for a nation. More like hideouts where people can pretend.

The people here have guns because they know what kind of country they have built, and they are afraid.

Until you fix that, and the people give up their guns voluntarily, there will be no change. You will drive it underground and make it even more dangerous.

Prohibition has never worked.

[EdwardBernays]

61. Prohibition does work

but it can't work 100% of the time...

Alcohol prohibition is not a good benchmark for a variety of reasons:

- the vast majority of Americans drink
- people can - and did - widely make their own booze
- drinking is frequently a social thing - by and large owning a gun is not

We HAVE prohibited many things to GREAT success however - here's two easy examples:

- pedophilia
- military weaponry in civilian hands

Other things we have GREATLY reduced by making them a lot harder to sustain, such as cigarettes.

Laws DO work, to a large degree, and many people would NOT break the law to own a gun, for obvious reasons.

I do find it funny that the same people that are for the death penalty as a deterrent claims that laws are meaningless.

[gejohnston]

63. even before the National Firearms Act

there wasn't a market for military weapons.
However, people who don't break gun laws also don't break laws against armed robbery and murder. People who do break laws against armed robbery and murder, are not going to be deterred by gun laws.

I do find it funny that the same people that are for the death penalty as a deterrent claims that laws are meaningless.

the two aren't the same thing.

[jtuck004]

64. "We HAVE prohibited many things to GREAT success howeve" < Your definition of great success leaves

a lot to be desired.

Parents often mistake what they have taught their child when they punish and prohibit. Mostly what they teach them is to not get caught.

There is pedophila, and the posession of military hardware, all around us. I can drive 20 miles from here and buy a hand grenade, for cryin' out loud. We didn't stop anything, just moved it elsewhere.

One can pretend things are not like they are, but the rest of us have to deal with the world as it is.

You ban cigarettes, but 15% of the people are still addictive types. Despite all the hype and all the years of bans, about 15% of the population still smokes. Ban them completely, and they will find something to smoke or inject or swallow while you go off and pat yourself on the back.

Fuck, marijuana was not only banned, but in the rush to purse racist policies, they lied about it and put it on a schedule with heroin. Yet I can buy weed at the junior high across the street.

I find it funny that people believe themselves when they think anyone listens to them as they try to prohibit something. Especially their kids.

“With guns you can kill terrorists, with education you can kill terrorism.” 
― Malala Yousafzai

You can beat people up, chain them, keep them in jai, shoot them, blow them up, and they will still find a way to do what they want.

If you use education, and THEY decide to stop it, then it will end. Not before.

[EdwardBernays]

91. here's the thing about all of that

some things, things like weaponry - like hand grenades - are extremely hard to get in most places where they are banned... you may know some guy, but I can guarantee that I don't know anyone in America that does know someone that can get me a grenade.

If I could buy them over the counter at a gun shop they'd be used in these school massacres.

Prohibition has worked.

Cigarettes... we've reduced usage by almost 60%, by education, tougher laws, and particularly higher prices, making them prohibitively expensive. You say there will always be 15% addicted, well... imagine if we could lower gun violence by 60%. How many 10s of thousands of lives would you save in a decade?

There's also NOT pedophilia all around you, relative to non-prohibited sex. Pretending that prohibiting pedophilia hasn't made it less common is a bit of a joke.

Laws DO work. Obviously. If you banned hand guns the number of people willing to illegally have handguns would be MUCH lower than the percentage that legally do have them now.

I always laugh at the tired old idea that nothing can be stopped by the law, because of criminals, like all of society of criminal. It's not. Most of society if not interested in hand grenades, bootleg cigarettes or murder. And most of society would not be interested in illegal handguns... in the same way that most gun owners didn't secretly buy black market assault weapons during the AWB - and bit of prohibition that worked.

[gejohnston]

92. you are missing the point

the people who obey the law are not the same people who are likely to do drive by shootings. The people who do murder, rob etc. are not going to obey gun laws anymore than they do anywhere else. You either don't understand the concept because of blindly following an ideology like a religion, or you are really about a culture war and not about saving lives.
BTW, heroin deaths still doubled over the past two decades.

[EdwardBernays]

104. nonsense

most shootings are not drive by shootings... you should watch the 72 hours hooting tracker for a few days and see exactly what's going on...

Heck a TODDLER shoots someone in America EVERY WEEK:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

So, the whole notion that it's just criminals shooting people in America is nonsense... a HUGE percentage of shootings is also domestic violence... and MANY people are first time murderers...

I do find it funny that all pro-gun advocates are happy to link gun ownership and heroin addiction... lol.

[gejohnston]

108. this is the guy that used

VPC's bogus "concealed carry killers" as an only source? That isn't journalism. It fact, it violates journalism's code of ethics. His source is also full of shit. Did you look at the source he used? Himself without a link. Problem was, most them were not CCW holders. Not only is he unethical, he is either stupid or dishonest. I lean towards the latter.

According to the FBI and other valid criminology studies, most shootings are criminals are killing each other usually gang related.

Most killers and victims have criminal records. How many of those DV shootings are the abuser being the shooting victim?
Every murderer is a first time murder at one point.
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf

Do you mean the shooter tracker? It is ran by a couple of guys on Reddit in a forum called "guns are cool". Basically, their mission in life is demonize legal gun ownership.
The FBI defines a mass shooting as four dead victims in one incident and a firearm was used. Shooter tracker well, here is an audit
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3o9adl/auditing_the_mass_shooting_tracker/

BTW, meet the guy that runs the website
https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/380c0o/welcome_to_our_new_mods/crrau5k

Sorry dude.

[GGJohn]

93. What!!!!

in the same way that most gun owners didn't secretly buy black market assault weapons during the AWB - and bit of prohibition that worked.

Assault weapons were not banned during the AWB, all the firearm manufacturers did was very slightly change the design and rename the product.
You could still buy AR-15's, AK-47's, etc during the so called AWB.
Just like you could still buy hi cap mags, they cost a little bit more, but there were millions of them still for sale on the market.

[beevul]

94. That assertion was so disconnected from reality...

...in the same way that most gun owners didn't secretly buy black market assault weapons during the AWB - and bit of prohibition that worked.

That assertion was so contrary to fact, so disconnected from reality, it boggles the mind.

[GGJohn]

95. What it proves to me is that the poster has no clue

of what he/she is talking about.

[beevul]

96. Not just you, everyone else that DOES know what they're talking about as well...

Not just you, everyone else that DOES know what they're talking about as well. Funny thing, that. There are a few antis hereabouts that actually know what the story is with the AWB, yet are they here correcting their grossly mistaken colleague?

Nope.


The silence is deafening.

[jtuck004]

97. I think you are too faith-based to have a worthwhile conversation with. You have no data, and the

proof that contravenes what you say is all around us. As well in research docs and government reports.

That you choose to deny it, split hairs, play silly semantic games and just move goalposts so that you can never be wrong suggests that your ego is more important than the facts. So...

go waste someone else's time.

[hack89]

106. CT has an AWB - Adam Lanza's AR-15 was not legally an assault weapon.

His rifle would have been perfectly legal to buy and own during the federal AWB.

[randys1]

76. So gun ownership IS about fear, thought so.

[virginia mountainman]

67. How will you "overrule"

Millions of armed people, that desire to keep their guns, and does not give a rat's ass about what a suit in a far off city says??



BTW, my cars and front doors are unlocked all the time as well. That does not make one special. Just "normal' around here.

[beevul]

98. The suit be very very angry with them...

The suit be very very angry with them, and will write them a letter telling them how angry he is...on maig stationary no doubt.

[virginia mountainman]

99. I wonder if said MAIG stationary would have a "drink ring" from a 32oz Coke on it?

That would be HILARIOUS

[beevul]

131. It would indeed.

Last edited Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

What would be better though:

A campaign of some sort against Bloomberg/newtown, using letters written on cut and flattened supersize drink cups:


Something looking like that.

[GGJohn]

5. Violence Policy Center?

They're about as believable as World Nut Daily.
As soon as I saw VPC, I quit reading it.

[Darb]

9. So you've got nothing? Got it.

Do you know where your toys are?

[GGJohn]

10. I've got lots more than you do.

Toys? I'm a grown man, I don't have toys, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[OldRedneck]

13. What a load of crap ol' "GGJohn" is spreading

First, before you start in on me as a "gun grabber," you need to know:
-- I own and use guns. Lots of guns. Two gun safes full.
-- I hunt and shoot competitively.
-- I have carry permits from four states.
-- ALL my guns stay locked in the safes, with trigger locks, and the ammo is locked separately.
-- I'm a retired Army infantry officer who has forgotten more about guns than you'll ever know. The last time I carried a firearm was as an airborne brigade commander in Desert Storm where I was in the company of about 3,500 young lads, all of whom were packing lots of heat.

Second, you need to know that, NO, SCOTUS did not say any such thing. You gunnuts like to cite Heller v. DC as saying you have an individual right to carry all the firearms you want, anywhere you want. Not true. None other than Justice Scalia wrote, in Heller v. DC, that nothing in this decision should be interpreted to mean that local governments do not have the right to limit the sale, possession, and use of firearms -- Scalia's opinion recognizes and gives full force to that "well-regulated" part of the 2A that you gunnuts like to ignore.

[GGJohn]

15. I seriously doubt you've forgotten more about firearms than I'll ever learn.

I never said SCOTUS ruled that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right, what I've said many times is that Heller v DC ruled that the 2A confers an individual right to own a firearm not connected to militia service.

I'm also a retired Army officer, I flew helicopters in Vietnam, I commanded a squadron of Apache's during Desert Storm.

[Human101948]

25. Seriously, I would challenge him to a duel!

Sir, your honor and reputation for gun knowledge have been impugned!

[GGJohn]

26. Naw,

he has his opinion, I have mine, no need for violence.

[DashOneBravo]

65. Which brigade sir?

I was a 11B2P and on jump status at the same time.

And I'm not a gun nut. Just a gun owning Democrat.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. Being retired military imparts no especial wisdom about guns, as see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026915839

That was the one and only time to date that we have been gifted with the self-proclaimed
firearms expertise of that particular poster

I'd also point out that you having been infantry, *not* JAG, your opinion in re firearms law
is that of an interested layman, no more and no less...

[Marengo]

132. With "two gun safes full" YOU are a gun nut, at least according to the metric...

used by many here at DU. So, zero points for that.

You gunnuts like to cite Heller v. DC as saying you have an individual right to carry all the firearms you want, anywhere you want

How about some links to back your claim, or at least to suggest a majority believe such a thing?

I'm a retired Army infantry officer who has forgotten more about guns than you'll ever know. The last time I carried a firearm was as an airborne brigade commander in Desert Storm where I was in the company of about 3,500 young lads, all of whom were packing lots of heat.

I'm a veteran and a competitive shooter as well, and the amount of ignorance I encountered in the service regarding firearms was nothing short of remarkable.

[DashOneBravo]

134. Bump

Maybe you missed my post.

Which Airborne Infantry Brigade did you command in Desert Storm?

[DashOneBravo]

139. Still waiting

Which Airborne Infantry Brigade did you command?

[friendly_iconoclast]

140. I suspect we've seen the last of that poster here

I've noticed over the years that antigun posters that loudly claim to be ex-military tend
to disappear when asked awkward and/or inconvenient questions...

[DashOneBravo]

141. Probably true

I hate posers.

They always claim to serve in units that they either don't have the courage to serve in or weren't good enough to make it.

[ileus]

72. I'm a grown man and I have lots of toys....dirtbike, kayak, Jeep...

Heck I even consider my snowblower and lawn "tractor" toys...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Allow me to inject a few facts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann

In 1988 he founded the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit educational foundation working to reduce gun violence in America.
Sugarmann has been credited with popularizing the term "assault weapon".



http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/02/the_quintessenc.php

Josh Sugarmann, head of Violence Policy Center, has a Federal Firearm Dealer's license.

[The Wizard]

14. Glock fondlers

still have leverage in Congress.

[GGJohn]

16. What the hell is a Glock fondler? eom.

[Human101948]

22. When is the last time someone grabbed your gun?

There are a lot of silly expressions being thrown around.

[GGJohn]

24. Nobody has ever grabbed my firearms,

that's not something I'm worried about in the least.
Most of the silly expressions being thrown around are from the extreme gun control faction, not from the pro 2A side.

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. A term employed by someone with no relevant argument. (nm)

[ileus]

81. You're not one of those "Glocks are the only firearm" types are you.

There's dozens of great manufactures of pistols reliable enough to bet your life on.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. "The death toll includes 29 mass killings of three or more people"

The FBI defines a mass shooting as 4 or more. Why the revision of terms?

since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense

Why 2007?

Over an 8 year period that is less than 100 per year. How many questionable shootings are perpetrated by the police each year? If we're going to abolish things based on statistics we should abolish the police -- but then who would enforce gun control?

What the article is speaking to is essentially negligent

there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was determined to be a factor

That would be meaningful except --

1) Not all self-defense involves the discharge of a weapon, let alone actually shooting and/or killing someone. Considering the CDC estimates there are as many as 70,000 DGUs annually (or more) what we're seeing is that whose who carry for protection want that protection but they are not eager to shoot and kill.

2) The stat is dubious because the next statement reads --

The tally by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, is necessarily incomplete

"because they have already been shown to manipulate statistics to paint the conclusion they need for their political advocacy, i.e. redefining mass-shooting from 4 down to 3 to elevate the number of mass-shootings," is how the sentence should have read. If the tally is incomplete it is because the VPC finds the record to be too inconvenient to its narrative.

The VPC goes on to further lie that funding on research is blocked. No, it is not blocked. The CDC and FBI both conduct research in this area, the VPC is just stomping its feet that they cannot get public money to lobby for laws that affect the public.

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. The definition of "mass killings" has become quite flexible...

...depending on the agenda of the person employing it. Seen it on both sides of this long-running debate...

[gejohnston]

35. using the VPC as a source

is like using the Center for Medical Progress as a source when discussing Planned Parenthood's medical ethics.

BTW, the NYT publisher has a concealed carry permit.

BTW, his basing on news accounts, you should read them. Most of the time there is no evidence of these killers, or suicides, having an happened in the home where it would be relevant. The only ones that we know are CCW holders are either justified or listed as "pending adjudication"

[gejohnston]

51. it isn't an article,

it is an opinion piece written by the editorial staff. Article implies objective research and reporting. Of course, ethical journalism is dead if it ever existed.
An Op Ed is just that, opinion.

"transforms people into superheros"? That is the stupidest sentence from a paper that is getting worse each year. What it does do is give you a better chance of surviving a really bad situation.

Since the editorial is basing all of claims on a single source, an organization ran by an antigun zealot, I get to use my biased source as a counter.
http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2015/02/12/new-york-times-freaks-about-concealed-carriers-forgets-math-and-common-sense/

BTW, Sugarmann's FFL number is 1-54-000-01-8C-00725, which he is maintained for the past two decades.

[deathrind]

53. CCW should be banned.

If one thinks they need to carry a gun with them they should have the intestinal fortitude to show it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

57. "Intestinal fortitude" is irrelevant.

I don't carry to show what a badass I am. I'm a 5'3", 112lb woman...and I find overt displays of "guts" to be tiresome. I carry for personal protection, and making oneself an obvious threat (read: target) of someone with bad intent is tactically idiotic.

[ileus]

71. the regressives are already skeert of the 3 people that Open Carry...

Imagine how nuts they'd go if everyone was to start open carrying.


I wouldn't mind OC since I normally carry OWB.

[Logical]

80. Open carry is just showing off, CC covers all the gun needs. Nt

[ileus]

82. But the poster wanted OC only no CC.

[randys1]

77. In most cases, not all, the very fact that you are applying for a conceal carry permit is why you

should not have one. The type of person who doesnt need this but still wants it, I worry about that person, we all should.

The only time it makes sense is someone who carries large amounts of cash, like maybe a bail bonds-person.

I dont know if they do that anymore, carry cash.

When I worked retail and you have to deliver cash to the bank, that would arguably be a reason but the vast majority of time carrying the weapon is creating more danger than not.

[sarisataka]

85. So a valid use of lethal force

Is the protection of money? Isn't the usual advice to give a robber what he wants? Does that only apply however to an individual's money, not a corporation?

A person concerned with protecting themself is someone to worry about?

[Eleanors38]

113. "Large amounts of cash:" Like the editor of Mediamatters & hiz armed bodyguard?

[Eleanors38]

112. Actually, states have the power to regulate the manner of carry.

[sarisataka]

66. Violence Policy Center

"a gun safety group"


Monsanto
"a GMO safety group"

This whole article is summed by this

[beevul]

88. The VPC? Please.

Citing the VPC about guns is the equivalent of citing a fundamentalist muslim as an authority on gay rights.

[Kang Colby]

89. In other news, Exxon released a new "study"

refuting climate change.

[Eleanors38]

114. Sorry, I will retain the right of concealed-carry...

Does Sulzberger have only a permit for a home gun, or does he have one for CC?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

130. Of the 579 shootings, how many took place in a "gun-free zone"?

Gun free type laws are obeyed by mostly all CC licensees and ignored by most criminals.

[DonP]

135. Oooops! "Police: Customer with concealed carry license kills robber at corner store"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-1-dead-in-shooting-at-gage-park-business-20151031-story.html

"A robbery was thwarted at a Southwest Side corner store Saturday night when a patron with a concealed carry license shot and killed an armed robber, authorities said.

Citing preliminary information, police said a man walked into a store in 2700 block of West 51st Street in the Gage Park neighborhood around 7 p.m., announced a robbery to an employee working behind the counter and displayed a handgun.

Another employee came from the back of the store and the gunman pointed his weapon at her, police said. He then made her go to the back of the store, which also serves as a currency exchange.

After that, a customer who was also inside the business pulled out a gun and opened fire at the robber, killing him, police said. The robber, believed to be in his 40s, later died. Police said the shooter has a valid concealed carry license and a valid firearm owner's identification card."

Somebody break the news to Shannon Watts, she'll be heartbroken.

[GGJohn]

136. Was this in Cook County?

Home of Sheriff Tom Dart?

[DonP]

137. Yup, Chicago South Side. 51st street. Amazing the paper picked it up

Tom Dart will have a serious sad and need to find a parking ticket to arrest this gun owner for right away.

And I checked the report....

He didn't shoot any bystanders.

The police didn't shoot him in the confusion, thinking he was the criminal.

He had his Il CCL and his FOID card.

Not in the news reports yet, but ... according to posts by the cops, the legal gun owner was a Hispanic male!!! You know, the people that don't want to own guns.

According the reports available so far (This just happened last night at 9:15PM) he didn't draw and shoot until the armed robber started ordering people into the back room.

Now we wait to be told by our moral betters that; it's just one rare instance, just lucky no one else was shot, blah, blah, blah, and anecdotes don't count ... unless you want to report any criminal with a gun, as if that represents the entire universe of gun owners, then it counts.