Cops Get National Gun Carry

[turtlespeed 226]

Yes, and you must attend a gun safety course and take a test as well to CC.

Your point is?

Oh yeah, MUTE!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yes, and you must attend a gun safety course and take a test as well to CC.

Your point is?

Oh yeah, MUTE

Right, and then when you don't handle a gun for 5 years and then pick it up again?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Yes, and you must attend a gun safety course and take a test as well to CC.

Not here, not many places.

[turtlespeed 226]

Then at least you still have one.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Right, and then when you don't handle a gun for 5 years and then pick it up again?

Exactly, thats exactly how I shot roughly 20,000rds of ammo in the past 3 years. That's also how I spent a few thousand dollars in training and ammo to become very proficient at tactical handgun defense. I am not the minority in the CCW ranks, either. CCW types are not your average citizen nor are they as pisspoor of a shot as the police.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Exactly, thats exactly how I shot roughly 20,000rds of ammo in the past 3 years. That's also how I spent a few thousand dollars in training and ammo to become very proficient at tactical handgun defense. I am not the minority in the CCW ranks, either. CCW types are not your average citizen nor are they as pisspoor of a shot as the police.

Except, sometimes they shoot an unarmed kid, or flash their gun and claim to be a cop. I am sure there are many good gun owners like yourself Dave. personally, I don't see what is wrong with ensuring that all legal gun owners are.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

personally, I don't see what is wrong with ensuring that all legal gun owners are.

What exactly are you doing "personally" to make sucha change then.

Your statement was ascenine.

AGAIN - you speak of the exeption - not the rule.
AGAIN - a skydiving referance - You and only you are responsible for your own actions.

I respect the fact that you may disagree with owning firearms. So, don't own one.
I respect the fact that you advocate gun regulation, I do not.

But you would have us believe that EVERY gun kills kids and EVERY gun kills cops and commits crimes -

What you fail to see, is that the probability is there that if everyone out there had knowledge that you might have a gun, and they might have a gun, less crime would take place.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But you would have us believe that EVERY gun kills kids and EVERY gun kills cops and commits crimes -

doesn't really jive with what I actually said. I'll quote it for you again:

Quote

I am sure there are many good gun owners like yourself Dave.

next:

Quote

What exactly are you doing "personally" to make sucha change then.

Not living in the US

Quote

What you fail to see, is that the probability is there that if everyone out there had knowledge that you might have a gun, and they might have a gun, less crime would take place.

But isn't that already the case? When I go to Texas, anybody could be carrying a gun. Or in many other states for that matter. So, wouldn't crime already have to be at all time lows?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

But you would have us believe that EVERY gun kills kids and EVERY gun kills cops and commits crimes -

doesn't really jive with what I actually said. I'll quote it for you again:

Quote

I am sure there are many good gun owners like yourself Dave.

next:

Quote

What exactly are you doing "personally" to make sucha change then.

Not living in the US

Quote

What you fail to see, is that the probability is there that if everyone out there had knowledge that you might have a gun, and they might have a gun, less crime would take place.

But isn't that already the case? When I go to Texas, anybody could be carrying a gun. Or in many other states for that matter. So, wouldn't crime already have to be at all time lows?

[url http://www.wireless-home-security-system.us/home_security_texas_crime_statistics.html] It is getting lower.[url]

If this trend continues - It will be obvious to even you.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It is getting lower.

If this trend continues - It will be obvious to even you.

fair enough, but if it doesn't, if crime rates go up, would you then concede that it didn't work?

[livendive 8]

Quote

IT IS TRUE THAT AS A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION, THE CCW-PERMIT-HOLDER DEMOGRAPHIC IS FAR LESS COMMONLY ARRESTED FOR ALL MANNER OF CRIMES. We ARE more law-abiding than the public at large.

Well of course, but that's because the less law-abiding persons aren't able to get CCW's in the first place.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

That is the consequence of lack of reciprocity that I have been repeating over and over here, asking ANY defenders of that aspect of the gun laws to defend it, and so far, no one has. No one has come up with a decent reason for it -- only b.s. like "it's a state's right to decide how they want to restrict people carrying guns." NO comment on why you should be treated differently for going over an imaginary line. NO comment on what makes you supposedly worthy or unworthy -- which SHOULD be the basis for such a law -- depending on which side you're standing on. No one can defend this. No one has really even tried.

I'm a proponent of states' rights to legislate as they see fit. The line is not imaginary, it's real. If you don't like the rules on one side of the line, don't cross it. Do you allow people to smoke in your house? For the sake of argument, let's say you don't. If your circle of friends got together to play poker every Thursday night, and all the other guys allowed cigar smoking while playing inside their homes, should you be compelled to allow the same during the weeks when it's your turn to host? Or would it be better that those who like to smoke cigars while playing either skip the weeks at your house or abide by your rules (no cigar smoking inside the house)?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

IT IS TRUE THAT AS A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION, THE CCW-PERMIT-HOLDER DEMOGRAPHIC IS FAR LESS COMMONLY ARRESTED FOR ALL MANNER OF CRIMES. We ARE more law-abiding than the public at large.

Well of course, but that's because the less law-abiding persons aren't able to get CCW's in the first place.

Certainly, though that wouldn't explain why CCW holders tend to have a crime rate lower than that of many major city police departments.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

- Local man shoots, kills 16-year-old (6'2") prankster outside front door after midnight prank. Man had been victim of local vandals in months prior. Boy found to be unarmed, but man thought he saw weapon in hand. May have been object held by kid.

Thank God this man had a gun, God only knows what could have happened if he didn't have a gun.

Hard to comment with such scant detail, but it does come to mind that if you harass someone in the middle of the night, they might bite back. My concern is more for the well being of the law abiding person in this situation. Doesn't give him open reign to knowingly execute a kid, but you certainly weren't there to see the situation as he did.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

IT IS TRUE THAT AS A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION, THE CCW-PERMIT-HOLDER DEMOGRAPHIC IS FAR LESS COMMONLY ARRESTED FOR ALL MANNER OF CRIMES. We ARE more law-abiding than the public at large.

Well of course, but that's because the less law-abiding persons aren't able to get CCW's in the first place.

Certainly, though that wouldn't explain why CCW holders tend to have a crime rate lower than that of many major city police departments.

You're correct, it doesn't explain that because that's not what I was trying to explain.

If major city police departments have higher crime rates than CCW holders (a fact I've not heard before but wouldn't be surprized by), I'm sure it's for an entirely different reason.
Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'm a proponent of states' rights to legislate as they see fit.

So if one state decided that they weren't going to recognize driver's licenses from any other state, and then started issuing traffic tickets to every out-of-state person driving through the state, for failure to possess a valid driver's license, then that would be okay with you?

Your idea ignores the Constitution, which designates the areas of control reserved for the Feds, and leaves everything else to the states. And to promote uniformity amongst states, it provides this;

U.S. Constitition
Article IV
Section 1
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public act, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State."

That means that each state is supposed to recognize the official acts of all other states. That's why a marriage in one state, is just as valid everywhere else. That's why a judicial finding in one state, is just as valid everywhere else.

But when it comes to gun licenses, no one wants to abide by the Constitution.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I'm a proponent of states' rights to legislate as they see fit.

So if one state decided that they weren't going to recognize driver's licenses from any other state, and then started issuing traffic tickets to every out-of-state person driving through the state, for failure to possess a valid driver's license, then that would be okay with you?

Absolutely. I'm thinking the sudden lack of tourists and more importantly truckers would quickly cause that state to rethink it's position on recognizing other states driver's licenses.

Quote

Your idea ignores the Constitution, which designates the areas of control reserved for the Feds, and leaves everything else to the states. And to promote uniformity amongst states, it provides this;

U.S. Constitition
Article IV
Section 1
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public act, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State."

That means that each state is supposed to recognize the official acts of all other states. That's why a marriage in one state, is just as valid everywhere else. That's why a judicial finding in one state, is just as valid everywhere else.

But when it comes to gun licenses, no one wants to abide by the Constitution.

Do you feel the same way about radar detectors (legal in some states, not in others)? If enough people avoid a state because they can't carry concealed there, the state is likely to change it's stance. In a free, democratic republic, that's how change should be brought about.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's why a marriage in one state, is just as valid everywhere else. That's why a judicial finding in one state, is just as valid everywhere else.

But when it comes to gun licenses, no one wants to abide by the Constitution.

Sorry John - you're claiming states have no rights then. And they do. A judicial finding in one state is NOT binding in another state. A federal appellate ruling within the same circuit would be.

States also regulate alcohol, traffic laws, and a host of other bits. The reason Arizona must allow a trucker from California is the interstate commerce clause.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why would you grant the general population easier access to this than law enforcement? Flipped around, if you could simply grant this to everyone the recent law becomes moot but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

Quade - now that at least two of us responded to you on this, are you going to reply further? Or was that a hit n run attack you did yesterday?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Will you stop flying a parachute because - sometimes - it malfunctions?

Nope, but we certainly mandate training, don't we.

Who does? The U.S. government?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 4]

Sorry about that . . . I was jumping today and ever since they moved my trailer at the drop zone the WiFi just doesn't reach it. Besides which, we were doing back-to-back 20s and, well, there wouldn't have been any time anyway.

So, now I'm at home, reading up on the various threads and since others have responded with approximately what my feelings are, I wasn't all too fired up to make yet another post. Didn't see the need.

Anywho . . . since you all asked . . .

I don't see how any restrictions that states put on individuals to carry concealed weapons is really all that bad of a thing. I would think that permits to carry weapons unconcealed would be a big deal, but I see no logical reason for a private individual to carry a concealed weapon.

The argument is that it is a deterrent to crime, but I would think carrying it where people could see it would be more of a deterrent.

Question, does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to carry a concealed weapon? It may give you the right to bear arms, but does that also mean you have a Constitutional right to conceal them on your persons?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Exactly, thats exactly how I shot roughly 20,000rds of ammo in the past 3 years. That's also how I spent a few thousand dollars in training and ammo to become very proficient at tactical handgun defense. I am not the minority in the CCW ranks, either. CCW types are not your average citizen nor are they as pisspoor of a shot as the police.

Except, sometimes they shoot an unarmed kid, or flash their gun and claim to be a cop. I am sure there are many good gun owners like yourself Dave. personally, I don't see what is wrong with ensuring that all legal gun owners are.

Look, I (staunchly pro-gun) posted those three examples to dispel the myth that we are claiming that nothing ever goes wrong with people carrying guns. If you want to use those aberrant circumstances to try to justify citizens not being allowed to carry concealed guns, then I guess we'll have to trot out the stats on POLICE shootings of unarmed victims.

I personally recall two such instances, one of which involved a guy I took jiu-jitsu instruction from, who later became a Suffolk Co. NY cop. Shot a guy in the driver's seat of his van because he thought the guy was reaching for a weapon. No weapon. The other was a cop who had stopped a college student after it was reported he used a stolen credit card at the Smithaven Mall in Lake Grove, L.I., NY. Apprehended the kid, had him face-down on the pavement, handcuffed, Glock to the back of his neck, and what do you know, "It just went off!" The Glock was analyzed, all of the issue guns now became "suspect," until it was found to be utterly non-defective. The cop had -- gee, guess what -- pulled the fuckin' trigger! That's usually how a modern-manufactured gun "just goes off."

I did not post those bad civilian gun incidents to show that civilians and CCW are a bad mix -- I posted them to keep the pro-gun side (MY side) HONEST. We can easily be honest about any and all bad incidents and STILL show that statistically, civilian CCW is overwhelmingly safe and lawful.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

IT IS TRUE THAT AS A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION, THE CCW-PERMIT-HOLDER DEMOGRAPHIC IS FAR LESS COMMONLY ARRESTED FOR ALL MANNER OF CRIMES. We ARE more law-abiding than the public at large.

Well of course, but that's because the less law-abiding persons aren't able to get CCW's in the first place.

Then I guess the system is working. Great.
The point is (you keep seeming to miss it) that if you check the arrest/conviction rates of CCW holders, and compare it to that of the overall population, CCW holders bring the average DOWN. That speaks nothing but good of CCW holders. It means that the whole population could learn about civility, safety and law-abidingness from those who are carrying guns!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I'm a proponent of states' rights to legislate as they see fit. The line is not imaginary, it's real. If you don't like the rules on one side of the line, don't cross it. Do you allow people to smoke in your house? For the sake of argument, let's say you don't.

The difference between examples is palpable.

In yours, I can definitely claim that bad things come of having the smoke around, be they cancer, emphysema, or just a stink-ass stench of cigars in my house.

The same cannot be said of CCW. CCW LOWERS crime rates, and makes people safer. And at the very least, since it definitely cannot be shown to WORSEN crime rates, there is no call for the neighboring anti-CCW state to be concerned. The statistics exist to back up the claim that they really have nothing to fear from CCW. The only reason there would be any need to try to defend the lack of reciprocity would be if the anti-gun states could show they were keeping out a known bad element by barring CCW reciprocity. That they are not. Their refusal to honor other states' CCW, even if those other states require less training, is a response in search of a problem. They're standing on ceremony, and they certainly have no call to.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Zennie 0]

Quote

So if one state decided that they weren't going to recognize driver's licenses from any other state, and then started issuing traffic tickets to every out-of-state person driving through the state, for failure to possess a valid driver's license, then that would be okay with you?

Something very akin to this happened to me on the way to Bridge Day while driving through Virginia.

I got stopped for speeding. The cop walks up and asks for my driver's license and vehicle registration.

I hand him my license and point to the registration sticker on my front windshield.

He said "No. You have to have a registration document in Virginia."

I politely pointed out that my car wasn't registered in Virginia. It was registered in Texas, and Texas doesn't require a doument, it only requires the window sticker. He replied "Virginia requires a document".

Of course by this point I realize nothing I say is going to stop him from wrtiting me up so I just drop it. Sure enough he wrote me up for speeding and driving without a valid registration.

Needless to say I was NOT a happy camper.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon