CCW Permit

[Chase Race]

I know that gun control debates never change minds, and most people are talking and not listening. But this one is at least starting out to sound like a reasonable exchange between reasonable people.

Wait, what?

You can get the permit first, THEN go learn how to safely handle a firearm?!? :scratch:

You, my friend, live in one fucked up country. :salute:

While the fucked up country part may be true for a large number of reasons, you should at least know that gun laws, including concealed carry, differ between states. Example: in Nebraska, where I'm from, it's legal to carry a sidearm with no permit as long as it's visible, but carrying a concealed weapon requires a permit. In Washington, where I live now, carrying a visible firearm is illegal and considered "brandishing". Carrying concealed requires a permit.

EFFECTIVE Gun Control (for me) would be accountability for EVERY weapon, from the moment it's stamped out on the assembly line, to the moment that it is deactivated/destroyed.

The only problem with this (although it is sound in theory) is that it would never work. Government is not effective or competent enough to pull off something to this degree. Like you said:

Canada's Gun Registry was an attempt at this, but failed miserably due to piss-poor management and procedural flaws.

Diggity has a handle on governments capabilities, too.

Obviously the government is INCAPABLE of protecting us... so it's my mindset that it's my duty to protect myself.

My feeling is that when in doubt, we should err on the side of freedom and choice being left to the individual. We should err away from government sticking its fingers into everything and providing little utility while becoming a drain on everybody.

With that said, I've thought about concealed carry for the simple reason that it's better to have a gun and not need it than the other way around. But I don't want to ever feel naked without a gun.

I'm interested to hear the answer to Savvy's question. Can't carry a gun into a bar in Washington, either.

[DiggityBiggity]

Hey Diggity...
A question on your permit.
I too have a Pennsylvania concealed carry permit.
Had it for 34 years now.
But I was told, that it was good for anywhere in PA EXCEPT bars and the entire Philly County.
And now, after a lengthy court battle in neighboring Jefferson County, not allowed in the court houses either.

Does Philly have a seperate permit?

Certain places are illegal, yes. Court Houses, Post Offices... Basically all Federal Buildings. As for Philadelphia, I haven't read my little booklet yet, but I think since I don't live in Philly, I am allowed to conceal carry there... some kinda loophole. I'll read the book tomorrow

[DiggityBiggity]

hey Brian, what are the details on the safety course? I might be down for going.

The course is $85... I think it's held twice a month, usually on Sundays.

[DiggityBiggity]

I quickly briefed the booklet, no mention about Philadelphia, however, any establishment which serves alchohol I CANNOT carry.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Example: in Nebraska, where I'm from, it's legal to carry a sidearm with no permit as long as it's visible, but carrying a concealed weapon requires a permit.

Virginia is like this as well.
Pretty wild that Washington won't let you do it, though. What about hunting rifles/gun racks, etc?

I quickly briefed the booklet, no mention about Philadelphia, however, any establishment which serves alchohol I CANNOT carry.

That's pretty standard.

[Mach10]

Makes sense, too...

Guns + Booze == Bad Idea.


Chase: It's an ideological thing. I don't think I'll ever understand this fascination with guns, and the conviction that they are somehow vital for personal security.

With the rest of the world standing as clear example, weapons have historically and traditionally caused more problems than they are purported to solve.

I view your standard long-arm as a tool. I haven't been hunting yet, but I enjoy a good hunk of venison. As stated, my own permit is (in theory) en-route, and I have a nice Savage 300 Winchester Mag. waiting for me at the local gunsmith.

It's not that I'm a pacifist. just that if everyone is packing heat, things escalate rapidly.

Without guns, people freak out and get into fist-fights, grab beer-bottles, pool cues... ANYTHING to satisfy that rage. And frankly, I don't believe that your average human being is rational enough to have that decision left up to them. If it's available as an option--even a bad one...

This doesn't apply to everyone. Hell, I've never hit anyone out of anger in my memory. All my fights started with the other guy rushing me. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'm sure there's a fair amount of rational, calm individuals who pose no threat to themselves or anyone else with a knife, handgun, machine gun, RPG, or even an ICBM.

The question is which ones are appropriate?

Freedom isn't being able to buy whatever you want. That's materialism.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I think materialism is viewing acquisition as its own end.

My take on personal security is that I can deal with ANY single attacker within arm's reach, no matter how he's armed. How do I deal with multiple armed attackers? How do I deal with a guy who has a weapon and is outside of arm's reach?

If you use a Navy-style operational risk management grid, the chances of this happening is minimal, but the consequences (potential loss of life) are severe, so preparation for this eventuality is appropriate, IMNSHO. I was a good boy scout.

I also value the deterent effect of a firearm. When I draw, I'm ready to put a bullet in someone. That doesn't mean that I will *need* to. Guns work opposite knives in this regard (you want to keep the fact that you have a knife secret until you cut the person you're fighting).

[Indy]

Makes sense, too...

Chase: It's an ideological thing. I don't think I'll ever understand this fascination with guns, and the conviction that they are somehow vital for personal security.
.
.
Freedom isn't being able to buy whatever you want. That's materialism.

I think your focusing on the wrong ideology here. The apparent fascination with guns is a result of the view that you should be able to provide protection for yourself, your family, and those around you. Here, home invasions (especially in the country) simply don't happen, and this is because that thieves know that 90% of homes here have a gun and a person inside willing to use it to protect their family.

Freedom is the right to take responsibility for your own life.

[Mach10]

Will: Exactly my point.

Indy: I'm not trying to be offensive, but that's just an excuse. Home invasions always have, and always be an issue, and they almost never happen in the country anyway. It's not sound to believe that crime dips (and security increases)along with gun ownership. For one thing, it's not at all evidenced by the numbers. For another, crimes are NOT committed by people that are all that much concerned with consequences.

I don't want to crash this thread with another hyperlink. I've got data I collected the other day based on DOJ crime stats. If you want to see it, I can email the file to you.

It boils down to a large group of people justifying their obsession with fuzzy logic and specious reasoning. The reality is that nobody NEEDS a gun. The reality is that people WANT a gun.

If it were otherwise, the US would have the lowest crime stats in the world, and the UK would have the highest.

[The Dark Side of Will]

It's not sound to believe that crime dips (and security increases)along with gun ownership.

So? A home invasion into an unarmed house or an assault on an unarmed person is just as much of a crime as if the victims were armed. However, armed victims have a better chance of defending themselves.

[Mach10]

Granted. I don't know what I'd do if I thought my family was in danger. Probably go spare. The police would be prying a claw hammer out of my blood-soaked fingers while photographing a half-eaten home invader.

But what does it say if the overall statistics for home invasions don't seem to change regardless of gun ownership?

I won't argue that a gun can be used for self-defence. What I WILL argue is that owning a gun doesn't seem to (statistically) make any kind of positive difference.

And if there is no tangible social benefit to arming the general population...

You see what I'm getting at?

[The Dark Side of Will]

I see your point, but I disagree.
While a firearm has a deterrent effect, just like any weapon, it's purpose is not deterrence. It is not an ICBM with a nuclear warhead. It's purpose is to be *used* as a weapon.

The point to which I was alluding above is that crime rate and safety aren't quite the same thing. In order to understand how guns affect safety I think it would be more appropriate to look at the percentage of assaults/invasions of armed persons/homes in which the victim prevailed or escaped harm/loss of property compared to the same statistic for assaults/invasions of UNarmed persons/homes.

Deterrence only affects those who consider the consequences of their actions... home invaders in general don't fall into this group.

Does the ability to have/carry a gun reduce crime rate? Maybe not. It DOES, however allow potential victims the ability to keep themselves from becoming victims.

The other thing to consider is that people don't compile statistics for their health. Who puts together stats on crime rate in area with/without guns, what are they putting in, what are they leaving out and what are they trying to show?

Also, the causality of legal weapons vs. crime rate needs to be considered. A causal link from legal weapons to crime rate may not exist, but a connection in the other direction probably does. Maybe high crime rate causes a high rate of weapon ownership in some cases.

[Kohburn]

A causal link from legal weapons to crime rate may not exist, but a connection in the other direction probably does. Maybe high crime rate causes a high rate of weapon ownership in some cases.

exactly - chicken and the egg - IMO the rate of gun ownership is increased everytime there is a violent crime. I expect the gun owneship in southern virginia and many college areas to increase.

sure these days if criminals didn't exist then there would be no need for guns except for hunting and protection against wild animals int he country. (no handgun necessary) - but criminals do exist - and they will always be able to get guns if not from stealing from other then imported from poor countries looking to make a buck.

and as long as there are bad people with powerful weapons then there HAVE to be good people with powerful weapons also - otherwise we ALL become victims.

[Mach10]

Will,

I understand what you're saying. Those stats I dug up were different from what I expected. I don't collect for my health, I collected because I was curious.

For the consideration of victim prevention, it is a tough call since an abortive crime won't fall under normal statistics.

The thing is that if guns WERE that efficient at preventing crime, you would see a fairly consistant dip in crime rate in places where gun ownership is prevalent.

I had in fact considered that higher crime + gun ownership was causal (more crime means people buy more guns). Difficult to prove either way given the resources I have.

What IS certain is that in areas where gun ownership is more prevalent, the number of violent offences involving firearms goes up too. This could be reactionary, but I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

In my mind, the more prevalent "gun-culture" is in society, the less people fear and respect them. That which is domestic holds no fear, right?

I--personally--believe that gun ownership increases because people DO believe it grants them security, even if the numbers say otherwise.

[Kohburn]

in the discussion of chick vs egg, gun vs crime -- there's a simple pattern to follow from the early 1900's. Cops bought revolvers and shot guns, criminals bought Thompsons and BARs, cops followed. Police bought body armor, criminals bought AK-47's with AP rounds. Cops bought automatic weapons and APC's, what's next for the criminals to buy? It's gone round and round cops vs criminals but those who want to do harm will do harm.

[Kohburn]

Will,
What IS certain is that in areas where gun ownership is more prevalent, the number of violent offences involving firearms goes up too. This could be reactionary, but I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

so does that statistic count a person defending themselves with a gun into the gun related crime?

like if someone has an attempted mugging but uses a gun to stop the mugger. is that a gun crime?

[Kohburn]

I should add that while I am firmly against the gov't making it difficult for citizens to get a gun. I do supoort the efforts to keep guns out of the criminals and mental peoples hands, and I have no problem with the gov't requiring real gun training classes before purchasing. basicly not a background check but actually getting a handgun lisense that requires more than a stupid book test.

not because it will keep guns out of more peoples hands (if they want a gun they'll get it leggally or not) but because it will make the people who have guns more likely to be able to effectively use and control their weapon.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I don't collect for my health, I collected because I was curious.

Did you sift through raw data to assemble those stats? I was referring to who did that, who decided the criteria for what to count as which, etc. Those are the people whose motivations you have to consider

[DiggityBiggity]

Let's look at Australia

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets ... &issue=015

[Kohburn]

Let's look at Australia

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets ... &issue=015

yep - and that is exactly what would happen in the US if the govt removed legal guns from their owners

I would actually support the pre 1997 australian laws require the phot id and all. except for certain reservations like that "after invading, Nazis used pre-war lists of gun owners to confiscate firearms, and many gun owners simply disappeared. Following confiscation, the Nazis were free to wreak their evil on the disarmed populace"

nobody says it has to be an invading force, it could just as easily be out own government.