Gun Control

[gapi]

I am a professional investigator licensed and state qualified for weapons carry open or concealed and I am aware of the good and bad of weapons.

I'll be as short and blunt as I can with my opinions and thoughts.

I read lots on the issue and what I do not get is how people seem to be reversed in their fears.

Instead of fearing the person with a weapon they fear the weapon and want to ban it. Ban the weapon and the problems go away. Not.

Make all the gun ban or control laws you want but know this....... only law abiding citizens with follow them.
A criminal or deranged individual has no concerns with the rules of society and will beg borrow and or steal a gun, period.

Take away our guns and only the criminals will have them.

The gunman that killed 8 people in the Seal Beach salon in LA recently may have been killed himself if there had been at least one individual that was licensed to carry and had a minimal amount of training. Granted he may have killed her first before she knew what was happening but there may have been a chance, and if more than one had been carrying......

My only concern with citizen concealed carry is the ones with no real training. By training I do not mean crawling through mud in boot camp, just safety and the concept.

Georgia is one of the states wising up. An example is a transit system used to ban weapons carry and criminals made it a frequent target. This has been changed. Now the criminals are aware and the problem has substantially reduced.

99% of the time shooters and criminals nter establishments or workplaces knowingly the people inside are not likley to be carrying. Go figure.

For those who agree I want to remind you to train. Its easy. If you carry in the car train yourself to access it. Under the seat or in the glove box is where they will find it if you are attacked and injured or killed.

Ladies, keep it on top or in a dedicated pocket on your purse. Practice at home accessing it. Malls have the largest numbers of robberies and its like the Movie Jaws, they keep it quiet so people will keep coming to the beach. A good firearm ladies like to carry is the Smith & Wesson 642 air weight. If it is too heavy, takes too much effort to cock or load, and has complicated safety levers she will leave it at home.

With today's economy a number of good people are going to become desperate and do bad things. Crime will always be on the rise.

For the most part if I'm awake I am carrying. To need it and not have it is my largest fear.

Forbid I see a sick individual on a spree and cannot help or protect myself of mine......

 

[RottnJP]

... Crime will always be on the rise.

...

Actually, I have to disagree with you on this... Violent crime rates have continued to drop even as the economy worsened.

Interestingly, this trend coincided with the increase in "shall issue" permit legislation around the country, and research has shown a strong correlation between these factors when studying the crime data county-by-county.

It could be argued, then, that there are an awful lot of "free riders" on the increased responsible carry of firearms. Criminals don't know who has a firearm, so they are deterred from committing violent crimes against everyone, even though it's a small minority of citizens who choose to exercise that right.

...So, Gentle Reader, if you are one of those who chooses not to carry a concealed firearm, that is also your right- But don't forget to thank someone who does.

 

[Frisco]

My only concern with citizen concealed carry is the ones with no real training.

And along with the needed training, a thorough background check with FBI fingerprint check is needed.

Also, the training has to include when NOT to draw, brandish or shoot a weapon. Laws in the state where the license is issued, along with precedent cases, etc must be covered. It's not just about the shooting range for accuracy and weapon functionality, etc. It's all got to be a part of instilling in the permit holder the sense of obligation and responsibility, in my opinion.

 

[RottnJP]

And along with the needed training, a thorough background check with FBI fingerprint check is needed.

Also, the training has to include when NOT to draw, brandish or shoot a weapon. Laws in the state where the license is issued, along with precedent cases, etc must be covered. It's not just about the shooting range for accuracy and weapon functionality, etc. It's all got to be a part of instilling in the permit holder the sense of obligation and responsibility, in my opinion.

No disagreement there...

The next challenge on the issue of background checks is mental health issues... I would like to see us do something to try and prevent the Seung-Hui Cho's of the world from getting permits.

But how do you do that in a manner consistent with medical privacy? Also, I feel you need to do something to not make a mental health history a permanent disqualifier. But then that means you need to have it really clearly spelled out, or you're going to run into problems or abuse of the system.

 

[Frisco]

The next challenge on the issue of background checks is mental health issues...

I get yelled at by NRA types for my opinions about that, and other firearm related notions I harbor.

I'd rather the licensing entity erred on the side of being too strict than being too lenient. Medial records are private, so it's a tough part of the issue, because unlike medical records, police records are generally public information (not 100%, but generally).

So, if the licensing entity has access to mental health records, they'd have to find a way to deny the permits without disclosing publicly the reasons, which is something that some already do unless that info is needed in court for other reasons.

 

[RottnJP]

Well, I'm an "NRA type" too, but I won't yell at you, at least for that. For one thing, yelling rarely seems to help much, unless the issue is needing to be heard over an extended distance in the absence of modern telecommunications devices. For another, I don't disagree with the *goal*- No one wants mentally unstable people to be armed. I just think you have to be very careful about the implementation.

Everyone has to give a little bit to make room for rejection for reasons that aren't publicly disclosed. The reason still needs to be disclosed to the applicant of course, and there needs to be a viable appeals process. So appeals hearing may need to be closed- So you have to figure out how you ensure impartiality in a closed process.

I think at the end of the day, it will have to come down to some degree of voluntary disclosure. You have the right to prevent government access into your medical records, and you have the right to carry a concealed weapon. But you have to pick one- Can't have it both ways. ;-) Maybe that's an approach.

For that kind of notion to work, you have to be really careful about the internal controls you build into the process to ensure the information is used only for its specific intended purpose here.

Not an easy system to set up. It will take some thoughtful cooperation on both sides. Unfortunately "thoughtful cooperation" seems not to be one of our government's core competencies, so we'll prolly all just keep yelling at each other.

 

[Frisco]

Nice post. +1 to just about all of that.

 

[OstrichSaK]

I'd rather the licensing entity erred on the side of being too strict than being too lenient.

I'm in agreement with most of this thread until this part right here. Remember we're talking about someone's rights here so erring on the side of being too strict isn't acceptable. That's like saying that erring on the side of higher conviction rates is acceptable because it keeps everyone else safe. That sounds good until you're the one condemned. Our judicial system is set up to allow 10 guilty people to go free to prevent even one innocent person from being convicted and while this seems like it could be more dangerous that's just how things have to be. There's a balance between safety and liberty and this country was founded with a STRONG lean towards liberty which means sometimes safety takes a back seat. I happen to like the idea that we live in the freest nation in the world.

Now, if we're erring on the side of more leniency then that means it's easier for law abiding citizens to get handguns and learn to protect themselves from potential threats.. including those who may have undiagnosed mental conditions that 'snap' at some point. Not to mention some people who value their right to protect themselves wouldn't report mental issue they were experiencing which may otherwise be easily treated if tended to immediately. We can't treat all people like criminals or mental defects until they've actually done something wrong. That's how the bill of rights reads.... these are the rights everyone is born with until they are convicted of something serious enough to infringe on them. If you're convicted of a felony you lose your right to own firearms, vote and other things that are otherwise inalienable rights. Until that, every person should be free to do as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. Potential for infringement doesn't qualify.

 

[IOWA]

And along with the needed training, a thorough background check with FBI fingerprint check is needed.

Also, the training has to include when NOT to draw, brandish or shoot a weapon. Laws in the state where the license is issued, along with precedent cases, etc must be covered. It's not just about the shooting range for accuracy and weapon functionality, etc. It's all got to be a part of instilling in the permit holder the sense of obligation and responsibility, in my opinion.

Brandishing is a non-issue. Open carry ftw.

 

[Frisco]

Brandishing is a non-issue. Open carry ftw.

It was brought up in our CC permit training class. The center point was the safety issue of never point a weapon at a living thing you don't want to kill.

As that point was explored during the lecture and q and a with us students in the class, it came around to when is it necessary to draw the thing, period. And the answer to that was, "only if you intend to shoot in defense of your life or the life of another innocent person."

I've seen long, rather fierce debates in handgun forums about the issue of "scaring somebody off" to save your life, as opposed to only drawing to shoot if you have decided at that instant that the person is attacking you.

I can't come to a conclusion about it, and I said so in class after the discussion came around to individual takes on the issue. My reasoning is that each situation has the potential of being so varied that it's just impossible to come up with a strategy as a perfect theory. The laws and court cases are all over the place on this.

In Kansas a while back, a man was arrested in his home for pointing his handgun at another man who had gotten drunk and was behaving in a threatening manner. Meanwhile, in Minnesota a guy was not even arrested after shooting to death an off duty cop who threatened to "blow his brains out" if he looked at his wife again.

All I know is that when I carry I have my mind made up to do everything reasonable to calm a situation, if possible. If there is an instant when I feel truly no ability to remove myself from a deadly threat to me or another person (gun, knife, baseball bat, tire iron, etc) I will draw and fire a nice big 45 slug into the chest of the assailant, at least once.

But again, life isn't tv or movies, we have to make quick judgements and be skilled, etc, but strange things happen and I don't pretend to have a pat answer on the brandishing issue. I just know I doubt if I would brandish now that I have a permit to carry, because brandishing seems to imply that the situation doesn't even require deadly force in the first place if you've got time to threaten rather than having to shoot to save your life.

 

[RottnJP]

If you draw your firearm, it damn well better not be as a threat- It must be out of necessity. Doing otherwise is a great way to get your firearm taken from you and shoved up your arse until it comes out your nose.

Even reaching for it, putting your hand under your shirt, etc. can be argued as threatening actions which escalated a situation, if said situation was not already a life threatening one.

In some places you may have more leeway on that, but up here in New England, we have to be very clear on the need... We have a lot of anti-gunners who would be more than happy to make an example of someone doing something that could be portrayed as irresponsible carry.

 

[Frisco]

If you draw your firearm, it damn well better not be as a threat- It must be out of necessity. Doing otherwise is a great way to get your firearm taken from you and shoved up your arse until it comes out your nose.

Even reaching for it, putting your hand under your shirt, etc. can be argued as threatening actions which escalated a situation, if said situation was not already a life threatening one.

In some places you may have more leeway on that, but up here in New England, we have to be very clear on the need... We have a lot of anti-gunners who would be more than happy to make an example of someone doing something that could be portrayed as irresponsible carry.

+1 on all of that (in theory ).

Here's another niggler in the whole thing: in a situation we're describing, is there a point where we have a decision about the weight of the consequences of doing the wrong thing "legally" might still be the best thing to do in order to save your life? Or the life of an innocent person in the scene?

I've seen it expressed in these debates that "the law be damned, I'm willing to go to jail over being willing to lose my life because I was worried about an aspect of the concealed carry laws."

 

[batgeek]

i'd rather be alive in jail, than dead.

 

[RottnJP]

Well, there's an old saying from the days when concealed carry was on... "shakier legal ground" shall we say, in many states/jurisdictions.

That saying is, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six."

That's a very personal decision, however, with potentially very serious consequences, including mandatory prison time in some jurisdictions.

Of course, I would never advocate illegal carry of a weapon, or any other illegal activity, nor should anyone else on a public forum.

 

[9to5cynic]

...
That saying is, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six."

I really liked that.

I don't really have a (valid) view point on this as I don't have a concealed weapon. But I do remember hearing that areas with next to no guns (IE: England I believe) have far less gun violence. But again, I'm one who thinks that criminals will still find ways to get guns (of course, I live in a media centered world, so that might be it).

But I do like the topic that was brought up (by Frisco I believe), if it is okay to show your weapon to scare someone off. Very interesting, and something I've never considered before.

 

[IOWA]

I really liked that.

I don't really have a (valid) view point on this as I don't have a concealed weapon. But I do remember hearing that areas with next to no guns (IE: England I believe) have far less gun violence. But again, I'm one who thinks that criminals will still find ways to get guns (of course, I live in a media centered world, so that might be it).

But I do like the topic that was brought up (by Frisco I believe), if it is okay to show your weapon to scare someone off. Very interesting, and something I've never considered before.

Let's just put it this way. I can get a firearm in any country, any state/province, any city, regardless of gun laws. People who register their guns and do it through the system don't plan on using them from crimes.