How many have concealed carry permit to carry a gun ?

[dave1949]

As IT would ask; of all the factors (there must be hundreds) where is your data identifying the gun as the cause of the behavior, and working exclusively on limiting them would impact the statics what so ever, and since the people have the rights to carry them, why waste time and effort focusing on the guns, unless your real objective is to attack the right and not impact the behavior. HS.

Because, the reality is that peoples' behavior is the core issue, no argument there. But, the NRA opposes any legislative measures designed to reduce risk from peoples' behaviors where guns are concerned. And as IT mentioned, the NRA has made it difficult or impossible to attain the data needed to build insights on those behaviors which could lead to identifying effective but minimal controls.

The NRA's school shooting solution is a perfect example. They are explicitly saying that some of those folks with the right to bear arms are going attack your school so you should prepare for that. Never mind that those wacky arms bearers are enabled by the NRA; that is not their problem and they take no responsibility for their own culpability. Reducing the abilities of those attackers to have access to weapons will reduce the risks of those attacks taking place. Identifying those at high risk of becoming the attacker and having a legal means of preventative intervention would also help.

The NRA hangs its hat on the 2nd Amendment simply because they have no other effective or ethical arguments. That is why the NRA fights tooth and nail on the 2nd A. The 2nd A. is antiquated, taken over by events. Mass shootings with a muzzle loader likely never entered the Founder's minds because it is not possible. The Founders could not have foreseen other factors in our society such as a large subculture of violence, or minds altered by the stew of chemicals present in the environment and our food, or purposely ingested recreation-ally.

The rationale for the 2nd A., that people need to preserve the ability to defend themselves from tyranny of the government, has rarely if ever been realized, certainly not successfully, in our history. The 2nd A. rationale has become a fantasy that in the current age of weaponry and conflict capabilities, your deer rifle or hand gun is going to defend you. You will need a lot more than that. The constant, daily realized gun deaths due to violence, crime, mental instability, etc., are unintended consequences serving a fantasy. Those unintended consequences could be lessened without impairing the right and ability to defend against tyranny.

 

[k0ua]

How about this Doc? is this new enough news for you? Its from yesterday.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Gun owners and advocates scored another big legal victory Wednesday in their quest to loosen restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in California.

A divided federal appeals court kept in place a ruling requiring the San Diego County sheriff to issue concealed weapon permits to most law-abiding citizens who apply for one, a standard that all California sheriffs and police chiefs must also follow.

Police and county sheriffs have the authority in California to issue concealed weapons permits. The applications process has, for the most part, been left to sheriffs.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February struck down the San Diego sheriff's requirement that applicants must show a "good cause" beyond self-defense to obtain a permit as an infringement of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

The 9th Circuit said requiring applicants to show they were in immediate danger or otherwise had a "good cause" for a permit was too restrictive. If the ruling stands, concealed weapon permit applicants will still have to pass background checks and undergo training.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris asked the court to reconsider that ruling after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal. Harris argues that loosening concealed weapon permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.

On Wednesday, the same three-judge panel by the same 2-1 vote barred Harris and the advocacy group the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence from intervening in the case. The court said Harris and the Brady Center waited too long to try to interject themselves in a case originally filed in 2009.

C.D. Michel, a guns right lawyer who often represents the National Rifle Association, said the ruling striking down the "good cause" requirement "was a long overdue recognition of the right to obtain a license to carry a firearm to defend yourself."

David Beltran, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, said it was reviewing the 9th Circuit ruling to determine its next step, which could include a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The attorney general has also asked the 9th Circuit to reconsider a separate, but similar, ruling that struck down Yolo County's concealed weapons policy as too restrictive. The 9th Circuit hasn't ruled on that matter.

After the February ruling, concealed weapon applications spiked and counties have reacted differently.

Orange County has issued hundreds of concealed weapons since February without requiring "good cause," but other counties such as San Diego have been waiting for a final court ruling before approving applications listing only self-defense as a reason for wanting to carry a concealed weapon.

San Diego Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Janet Caldwell said the ruling Wednesday was being reviewed.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, was also barred from intervening in the case. Center director Jonathan Lowy said his organization is also considering its next steps.

Legal experts said the initial ruling by the appeals court relied heavily on a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that law-abiding citizens have a fundamental right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. The U.S. Supreme Court didn't address whether that right extended outside the home. The 9th Circuit panel concluded it did.

"A right to bear arms is no right at all if you need to demonstrate a need to carry that firearm which satisfies the police," said Joyce Malcolm, a law professor at George Mason University law school.

 

[houstonscott]

Because, the reality is that peoples' behavior is the core issue, no argument there. But, the NRA opposes any legislative measures designed to reduce risk from peoples' behaviors where guns are concerned. And as IT mentioned, the NRA has made it difficult or impossible to attain the data needed to build insights on those behaviors which could lead to identifying effective but minimal controls. The NRA's school shooting solution is a perfect example. They are explicitly saying that some of those folks with the right to bear arms are going attack your school so you should prepare for that. Never mind that those wacky arms bearers are enabled by the NRA; that is not their problem and they take no responsibility for their own culpability. Reducing the abilities of those attackers to have access to weapons will reduce the risks of those attacks taking place. Identifying those at high risk of becoming the attacker and having a legal means of preventative intervention would also help. The NRA hangs its hat on the 2nd Amendment simply because they have no other effective or ethical arguments. That is why the NRA fights tooth and nail on the 2nd A. The 2nd A. is antiquated, taken over by events. Mass shootings with a muzzle loader likely never entered the Founder's minds because it is not possible. The Founders could not have foreseen other factors in our society such as a large subculture of violence, or minds altered by the stew of chemicals present in the environment and our food, or purposely ingested recreation-ally. The rationale for the 2nd A., that people need to preserve the ability to defend themselves from tyranny of the government, has rarely if ever been realized, certainly not successfully, in our history. The 2nd A. rationale has become a fantasy that in the current age of weaponry and conflict capabilities, your deer rifle or hand gun is going to defend you. You will need a lot more than that. The constant, daily realized gun deaths due to violence, crime, mental instability, etc., are unintended consequences serving a fantasy. Those unintended consequences could be lessened without impairing the right and ability to defend against tyranny.

You have failed to connect gun rights and the criminal behavior at all, plus you pass judgement that the second amendment intimating it is not necessary to remain free, I disagree. Negotiating away rights to bear arms or letting government "infringe" on those rights, are not going to be tolerated by the American people for ANY reason. I believe it's the sole reason we have survived as a republic. Let me push your liberal button, I believe if you want to stop this type of violence, I would criminalize atheists, and require Christian church attendance. Lack of a religious base being identified as cause. Let's just tramp a different right, it maybe more beneficial. At least separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. HS.

 

[Raw Dodge]

Ive had my CCW permit for 20yrs,I think anyone living in a rural area without carrying is a fool,I work outside and in the woods,and you never know when your life may depend on you having a force to equalize something much bigger and with less to lose than you. Here in NY our rights are being infringed on,thanks to dictator Cuomo,many hunting rifles have been banned,they are after anything semi automatic,no more than 7 rounds and no magazine bigger than 10rounds, or forced registration,which means you cannot pass the gun onto your children or sell it,it needs to be turned into a FFL dealer ,my personal hunting rifle passed onto me from my dad ,i cannot add anjustable stock to or it becomes an assault rifle even though its only a 3 +1 capacity,its a semi auto with a removable magazine...

 

[KiotiKowboy]

BS HS. If they are not related then why is the NRA's brain-dead solution to school gun deaths the weaponizing and hardening of targets? It is a defacto argument that people have the right to bear arms and use them on other people--whether that be the perpetrator or victim.

Interesting attempt to spin an illogical response .....

By declaring weaponizing and hardening useless tactics, I suppose you have contacted the US military to advise them of their error as well?

 

[TripleR]

Obama issued an executive order lifting the ban on gun research by the CDC and they received 10m to do the research. Google or Bing it as any source I post may be called into question, it does appear to contradict earlier research. I don't trust CDC or many studies, but some might find it interesting.

 

[dodge man]

Interesting thread, to much for me to read. I have a couple of comments.

I live in Illinois and it was the last state to pass carry laws. Even then it was only done because a court order forced it. I got mine not just to defend myself from people but also dogs. Through my job I have had a couple of close calls with dogs.

Second, I found Jix's opinions interesting. I remember a previous thread about guns and a person from Australia weighed in. His opinion seemed similar to Jix's in the fact he was onboard with the restrictions by the government. I don't agree with these opinions but I do respect them. I think its important that we understand why they feel that way. To me it seems like people feel safer in those countrys.

 

[KiotiKowboy]

To me it seems like people feel safer in those countrys.

But, this really isn't about "feelings" is it?

And, one has to understand the purpose of the reiteration of the right to bear arms in our Bill of Rights. This is not "just" about sports, or collecting, or even personal safety. It is about the peoples' ability to resist their own government if/when it becomes necessary. So, feeling safe really takes a backseat to BEING secure in your freedom and liberty.

I would also submit the definition of "safe" by those who attach that to the absence of personal firearms is far from being logically defensible. When those "safe" people find themselves under threat - who do they call? Police! Different people with guns! Proving that firearms are simply tools that can be used for good or bad.

As an aside, when persons were called upon to serve in the militia - they were expected to show up with arms suitable for that service. That concept should still be understood and respected today.

 

[DABSGT]

That was the article. I didn't write 32K I just clipped the article that I linked and pasted it.

Firearm deaths are not only accidents. A large number of domestic homicides are committed with easily accessible firearms. The data from CDC on the risk of a wife/domestic partner being shot by her mate were rather striking. Of course he could have beaten her to death with a wet sponge (name whatever implement you like) but gunshots are more efficient and harder to survive.

Point is that firearms cause a lot of deaths in this country. Approximately as many as MVI. We study automobile accidents to make cars safer and to educate drivers (eg wear seatbelts). We should do no less to understand firearm deaths.

Island tractor, maybe having access to a firearm for a homicide makes it the tool used but if someone doesn't have one and want to kill the will use other means. If someone wants someone dead they find a way. As far as accidental deaths caused by firearms I have seen and investigated more accidental deaths from illegal drug use, accidental OD, than accidental gun shot wounds. The White House, liberal politicians and even news media call drug use and selling drugs a Victimless crime I have seen the parents, family and friends of someone who dies with a needle in their arm.

 

[aczlan]

BS HS. If they are not related then why is the NRA's brain-dead solution to school gun deaths the weaponizing and hardening of targets? It is a defacto argument that people have the right to bear arms and use them on other people--whether that be the perpetrator or victim.

IMO, it is a recognition that guns are NOT the only threat to schools, there are enough guns out there that even a "you must turn in all guns tomorrow" edict would be lucky to get 50% of them and that in this day and age, it makes sense to control access to our schools. Someone at the school with a gun can help stop a guy with a gun, or a club or a knife, or a parent going through a custody battle who kidnaps their kid, or, or, or.
For years teenagers drove to High School with a long gun (or two) in their car or truck and nobody thought anything of it. Now they would be arrested for doing that.

Aaron Z