Skip to main content

View Diary: The opposite of fear is called B-A-N (247 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Without commenting... (18+ / 0-)

    ...on the main topic of this diary, let me just say that "the permitting process and the training" does really do much to persuade me that all the concealed-carry folks know that much more about guns than, say, the average 8-year-old.

    In Colorado, the firearms course that somewhat takes before acquiring a concealed-carry license can be as short as an hour, taken as long ago as a decade, and does not require that the applicant actually fire the gun s/he plans to conceal nor require that s/he has EVER fired ANY gun at ANY time.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:23:58 PM PST

    •  I much prefer Michigan's course. (9+ / 0-)

      Range time, a written test, and a legal section.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:25:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Delaware's much tougher (6+ / 0-)

      Strict training requirement, required range time, and the AG's office spends weeks on the background check... both for the initial permit and each renewal.

      Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

      by Tom Seaview on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:27:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Correx: does NOT do much... (7+ / 0-)

      ...and firesarms course that someone takes...

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:30:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And do these different standards... (7+ / 0-)

      seem to have any correlation to crimes commited by permit holders?

      •  After the Aurora (Colorado) theater shooting... (12+ / 0-)

        ...many people said that the situation could have been remedied — or at least would not have been so devastating — if there had been concealed-carriers in the audience. One of those is a guy who I took a firearms course from in California. In fact, in Colorado, that theater could have been filled with people who could have made matters worse give how little training and skill they are required by law to have. I wrote about the fantasy takedowns in Wannabe Wild Bill Hickoks fantasize heroic gunplay.

        Colorado isn't the worst. Many states, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, Washington, Mississippi, Alabama and South Dakota have no training requirement. Some states with training requirements (say Texas) have reciprocity agreements with states that don't (say Georgia). Meaning someone with zero training could carry a concealed pistol in a state that requires extensive training. The NRA is pushing for all states to have reciprocity agreements.

        The point I am making has nothing to do with bans; it has to do with the idea that all the states with "shall issue" concealed-carry licensing laws have permitting processes and training that at least have the possibility of making them safe handlers of firearms. Many of them definitely do not.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:14:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If the statistical frequency of firearm related (4+ / 0-)

          crime or accident for CCW permit holders is far below national averages, why is this a particular concern?

          A permit holder is much less likely to pose either a personal or public safety risk as seen in the data and anecdotal interactions with the LEO community.

          •  I responding, as I have repeated, to the claim... (6+ / 0-)

   the diary that the concealed-carry licensing process is one in which those seeking such permits get training to make them a responsible handler and user of firearms. The fact that "only" 500 murders (including some of police officers) have been committed by concealed-carry licensees in the past five years is not an issue in this particular concern of mine. As for gun-related accidents by concealed-carry licensees, I would love to see some statistics on that. The fact is there are no national statistics that break out accidents that way.

            What I am amazed at is that there seems to be actual opposition to ensuring that concealed-carry licensees get adequate training.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:54:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Correx: I *am* responding...n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ancblu, zett

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:55:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  If ccw permit holders (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

              are less of a public risk statistically, a reasonable inference can be drawn that they are more motivated without obligation of increased regulation to be better trained and/or responsible.  

              There is no data correlation of which I am aware between the points you are drawing a relationship between and instead the data would tend to lead one to the opposite conclusion -- and that is my only point ... not that there should be no classroom or range training.

              •  Perhaps the training issue may be a workable (3+ / 0-)

                interface between the pro and anti 2A crowds?  I can see both points.  On one hand we're saying some places have require no training which would at least be a step towards making sure someone who carries understands their responsibilities.  On the other we're saying that those who make the choice to get a permit are already aware of them and don't need to be told by the nanny state.

                If getting training would help settle the issue and put an end to this perpetual equating lawful gun owners with criminals and targeting them for restriction I might go along with it.  Such training programs would still have to be inline with the 'shall not be infringed' concept and can't be used to effectively tax ownership out of people's reach.  Along with that we would need to get rid of MAY issue, making everywhere SHALL issue and incorporate national reciprocity without preemption (e.g. no municipality such as NYC may ban).

            •  And for statistical comparability (0+ / 0-)

              The evidence would need to be for peer groups (i.e., the same training, criminal and mental health background as may be required for those seeking a CCW permit): one group with CCW permits and one without.

              I seriously doubt any statistics exist that show CCW permit holders have a "statistical frequency of firearm related crime or accident...far below national averages" when compared to their peers.

              Those suggesting such statistics exist should have no problem providing them.  From an authoritative source, of course.

              Lacking such evidence, claims such as those ancblu and the diarist have made should be considered to be the worthless imaginings of someone desperately trying to justify their predilection toward firearms.

              •  Your "serious doubt" about a recognized negative (0+ / 0-)

                correlation would be alleviated by less than 5 minutes worth of research on your part.

                But from your own demonstrated ignorance you leap to "worthless imaginings" of that which you know nothing.

                Notice your transparent agenda and lack of intellectual rigor in both of your assertions?

                In any case, here's a start for you Sparky:

                This is an analysis of arrest data for Texas concealed handgun licensees that was performed on data from the subsequent years of 1996 - 2000. A comparison was made with the arrest data for the entire Texas population for the same time period, showing that, on average: male Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than male Texans with a CHL; and female Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.5 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than female Texans with a CHL.

                There are more available, but it's time you make an honest effort.

                But here's my own speculation ... next from you will be the sound of crickets.

                •  Hardly (0+ / 0-)

                  Did you even read my comment? And if you did, did you understand it?

                  Tell you what -- why don't you read up on the concept of self-selection and get back to me with a relevant response?


                •  If it helps you understand (0+ / 0-)

                  Perhaps this analogy might help.

                  Imagine stumbling across a statistic that says police are far less likely to commit unlawful violent acts than the average population. To the dim-witted or gullible, that might be pretty darn impressive.  Bravo for the police.

                  But a more discerning mind might realize that the "average population" includes mentally ill people, people with long histories of violent behavior, drug addicts, gang members, and so on. None of these type of people are likely to be police officers but they may be more prone to acts of violence. Consequently, it's an invalid and misleading comparison.

                  A far more representative comparison would be compare the rate of unlawful violent acts committed by police to, say, firefighters. Those are two groups that of similar ages, similar occupation, similar training, and so on.

                  You might just find the reverse: that police commit a statistically higher rate of unlawful violent acts than do firefighters. Now: I'm not saying that's the case, because I haven't looked up the statistics. But it's plausible.

                  To make your statement convincing, you would need to produce a study from an authoritative source that compares the rate of violent acts (and accidental injuries or fatalities) committed by CCW permit holders compared to other people who have similar, comparable qualifications yet do not have a CCW permit.

                  Although I haven't seen such a study, and I suspect none exists, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the level of violent crime or accidental injury/death is higher for CCW permit carriers than for their peer group.  

                  Understand now?

                •  Well, you were right about one thing (0+ / 0-)

                  Them there crickets eventually did show up.

        •  MB, with the greatest respect.... (0+ / 0-)

          that claim

          In fact, in Colorado, that theater could have been filled with people who could have made matters worse give how little training and skill they are required by law to have.
          has been made countless times.

          And never substantiated in real-life situations.

          Please, find a better argument.

          •  The original claim that had concealed carry... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...been allowed in that theater, the shooter could have been taken down was made by someone well trained who I took a class from and whose shooting skills are prodigious but who I saw miss targets under ideal conditions. Colorado's concealed carry training requirement means that people who do not have anywhere near as good of skills could have been in that theater. It's not I who made the argument that shooting back would have been a good thing for all concerned. I just pointed out that it was bullshit. The pro-carry-in-the-theater folks are the ones who should find a better argument.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:14:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So, no actual events to support your assertion. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Got it.

              •  I'm late to the party, work will do that. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, Otteray Scribe

                Aurora - we imbue the Holmes with mystical powers of the almighty Bushmaster.  He's invincible, due to the aura of the Bushmaster.  Paleface modern-day Ghost Dancer.

                Cho, Lougher, the same.  Glock talisman, nothing anyone could do.
                Lanza - back to the Bushmaster.
                More on why they're so good, and everyone else is powerless, later.

                I'm in-favor of "training to competence".
                That your firearm (handgun) should be such that you, at typical gunfight distances*; can draw, fire, and keep rounds 8-ring or better for an entire magazine.  I don't mean to imply that your entire arsenal needs to be tested, just pick a "CCW" gun and make certain you're competent.
                If your one-gun is a match-grade .22LR and that's all you have?  Fine.  IF you're testing with that, and carrying a .45 cal derringer, I call foul.

                I agree with Ernest, raw numbers are meaningless.
                Compare CCW holders who have gone through a cursory background check with other persons, like school teachers who have done the same.  Parity.
                Low-level Security Clearances, such as DoD contractors perform on employees.  Parity.  Until then?  We're not using the same size mesh to screen our results.

                Assailants have a single great advantage.  
                It's not entirely surprise, that's a factor in reaction time only.
                It's not some mystical power imbued by a Glock, or a Bushmaster.  If it was, NYPD cops would be better shots.

                Assailants, and mass shooters to a greater degree, have the advantage of not caring about collateral damage.
                These people are not 9 feet tall, so to fire at them, makes everyone around of similar stature, a potential victim of your gunfire.  Example:
                NYPD, and the Empire State Building shooting.

                A good firearm instructor will HAMMER this into you.  

                There is no bullet dogwhistle, which can call stray rounds back; so fire only-if you have CERTAINTY of hitting your target alone.
                Holmes went into the movie theater with what intention?
                Kill everyone he could.

                Did a one of them say:  

                "Oh, shit... better not shoot, that person's in the way. Oh no...that girl is behind the person I want to kill, and I might miss."
                To fire-upon any of these gunmen, you need to be lower or higher then them, and fire at such an angle to LESSEN the chance of innocent persons being killed or injured.
                When that's not available, you need to close distances.
                When that's not available?  Either hold your fire, or make a determination that waiting longer, will result in more deaths than firing your weapon too.

                That's what the cops at the Empire State Building shooting were concerned with.  Known homicidal gunman, escaping and free to kill again, more.  That day, they were heroes.
                The next day, they were assholes.
                The day after, who called for all NYPD cops to be disarmed, as it's proven they can't be trusted to use a firearm competently?

                *typical gunfight distances in Simunition® training:  3,7,11,21,35 feet

        •  Why pick on Pennsylvania? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          43north, theatre goon, KVoimakas

          We here in the keystone state do have a lot of guns.

          We have to harvest near 330,000 deer every year just to keep up with population growth. Nearly triple what is hunted in iowa. That takes a lot of guns in a lot of hands.

          We have shall issue, by the county sheriff. And not any old sheriff, you have to go to the one for your county. Some counties, you walk in and walk out with the laminated card (after the typical FBI NICS BACKGROUND CHECK!)

          We used to have shall issue to non-residents, I know of folks who got their shall issue non-resident license to carry concealed in the mail less than a week after their form left their hands. Now you have to show up in person, so if your plane delay is long enough you can have it mailed to you at home. They can pick and choose which sheriff to go see. I suggest centre county, for those who prefer to have no added delay beyond the FBI NICS background check.

          And our "No Guns Allowed" signs do not hold the force of law.

          Furthermore, in PA you do not even need the license in order to carry a gun - as long as it's open carry. The general rule is, if you can possess it then you can carry it. Yes I've heard of the dreaded bloodlust-causing AR15 being open carried in PA.

          So if you're going to get all cranky about lax restrictions, as if such laxity is going to cause problems, then where are the problems? I just laid out a whole laundry list of things that could make most gun-phobics clutch their chest in cardiac arrest, so if there were obvious problems with the situation you'd think the consequences would be blinking red alarms all over the place. So where are they?

          And you cannot even point to philadelphia, because philly is an island of gun CONTROL in this sea of lax gun laws. And they are right across from camden NJ, which is an area of even tighter gun control!

          So if you're going to pick on PA for our "No specific restriction means it is legal" stance, you need to have something to back it up that happens in those lax-law areas. Otherwise, it sounds to me as if you are just blindly throwing PA into the pile without even a care. That's quite offensive to me.

          It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not more gun control, it's people care.

          by JayFromPA on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:34:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Utah tops Colorado easily. It's not only cheap and (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness, aitchdee, kharma

      painless, it has the widest reciprocity in the US. Oh, and less than half of the people who hold a Utah Permit are even Utahns. I'm surprised that we're not giving them out in Cracker Jack boxes. (So, of course, we have one fool in the legislature who wants to top even the status quo and go "Constitutional Carry" - carry concealed or open, no paperwrok of any kind required.)

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:59:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  In NC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

      Eight hour class and range time. Test and targets have to be maintained by the trainer for five years in case they are needed in court.

      "In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. " James Webb, Sep 02

      by ParaHammer on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:49:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's why there should be a rigorous (0+ / 0-)

      training standard that includes a range test. And the class should also cover the legalities of firearm use in society. When a defensive gun use is allowed, when it isn't, address the fact that if you shoot someone even in legal, legitimate self-defense you'll still initially be taken in and questioned because that is the procedure; that a license does not make you a cop nor should you try to enforce the law, etc.

      In other words, the "well regulated" part.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site