Carrying Handguns

[Ed]

We often yell and scream about gun ownership in the usa.

I post the map, below, to help our European (and some US) buddies understand how ubiquitious gun ownership is. The map does not show where guns can be owned, it shows the states where a licensed individual can carry a sidearm concealed. According to the latest issue of the American Rifleman in the 1980's 40 states prohibited concealed carry. Today only five don't permit it.

This does not address the issue of how difficult it is to get a license in the first place. Some states (CT, where I live, for example) cannot, by law, prohibit a person from owning a handgun unless there is a good, specific reason. The prospective licensee does not have to provide a reason for wanting a gun.

The states are a patchwork of laws, in some you can carry the firearm exposed, in CT it must be concealed.

The issue now is reciprocity, that is, is my CT license good in Illinois. Maybe, maybe not. Certainly some consistancy would be nice.

The point is that thinking about firearms in the US as being solely in the realm of a handfull of "gun nuts" is inaccurate. Firearms are truely ubiquitious and their ownership is ingrained. Further, taking a moral high ground vis a vis US gun ownership is so out of touch with reality that serious discourse is impossible with that as a position.

The only way for an outsider to understand is to consider some liberty that they hold dear being removed from them. It would be problematic regardless of the arguments put forth.

Anyway, enjoy.


BTW, a good source is at www.nraila.org

Sorry for the size. Green means OK to carry, yellow restricted, red=no

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Ed
Firearms are truely ubiquitious and their ownership is ingrained.

That's the problem. As well as the sensible, responsible gun owners like Wolverine and Corplinx, people like Richard G, Tony and Bigfig exercise their right to bear arms. And I'm glad I don't live next door to them...

[specious_reasons]

I don't get it. Permission != ubiquity.

[Brown]

In Minnesota, our legislature recently adopted a conceal and carry law, which basically protected people who want to go around armed. The legislature actually purported to give people the "right" to be armed on private property in some circumstances, even though the property owner objected and wanted to prohibit firearms from the property. As a result of this quirk (and others), the law is now being challenged in court.

But that's not the reason I'm posting.

The reason I'm posting is this: Right after adopting this law, the legislature exempted itself from the law. (Shortly thereafter, the courts exempted themselves from the law, too.) In other words, the legislature said that it's great for people to be armed, but not around us.

[Ed]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I don't get it. Permission != ubiquity.

Yes. It would be difficult to get a bunch of cowards, which polititions tend to be, to vote in something like that if they did not believe that the electorate was in favor.

[Richard G]

That map is incorrect. It shows where concealed carry is legal. Ohio, marked in red, has no concealed carry, but its is legal to openly carry. So it should be green too.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


That's the problem. As well as the sensible, responsible gun owners like Wolverine and Corplinx, people like Richard G, Tony and Bigfig exercise their right to bear arms. And I'm glad I don't live next door to them...

You dont have a clue dude. You are in no position to pass that kind of a judgement on me.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Brown
The reason I'm posting is this: Right after adopting this law, the legislature exempted itself from the law. (Shortly thereafter, the courts exempted themselves from the law, too.) In other words, the legislature said that it's great for people to be armed, but not around us.
Well, don't be dense. Obviously, the legislature wants it to be okay to carry guns except where it might be dangerous! Everyone knows that guns are much safer on city streets than they are in the chambers of the government.

Originally posted by Tony
You dont have a clue dude. You are in no position to pass that kind of a judgement on me.

Um... Tony. We have all seen your posts. We know a lot of your positions. You don't like police or anything else that infringes on your "freedom". I think we are all in a very good position to pass judgment on you based on what you have told us. Ian O. has every reason to be afraid of you. Hell, I'm afraid of being in the same city as you. Not that you're a bad guy (you're not), but you just show some monumental lapses of common sense, and I wouldn't want to be around you if you had one while you were "packing".

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky


I think we are all in a very good position to pass judgment on you based on what you have told us.

You cant make an accurate judgement of a person's personality by posts on the internet.

Ian O. has every reason to be afraid of you. Hell, I'm afraid of being in the same city as you.

???Seriously???

Not that you're a bad guy (you're not), but you just show some monumental lapses of common sense,

Like what??

and I wouldn't want to be around you if you had one while you were "packing

If I had one what?

[Cain]

Well, don't be dense. Obviously, the legislature wants it to be okay to carry guns except where it might be dangerous! Everyone knows that guns are much safer on city streets than they are in the chambers of the government.

Knives, chain wallets and tanktops are also banned in courthouses. Actually, let me get the paper: Shorts, tank tops and bare midriffs are banned. Same goes for knitting needles, scissors, knives or weapons of any type not allowed in any court facility (whatever that means).

This is from my jury summons. I have a question, since this will be my first trip to a court house ever (I'm a law-abiding anarchist). If I make really sarcastic remarks, will the judge hold me in "contempt"? If they ask me to swear to God, will it be rude to interrupt, "I'm an atheist"? Also, the dress code thing -- that bothers me. Finally, and this is important, I'm really looking for a live audience to fool with the Irish accent I've been faking. Can I get in trouble for that?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Brown
In Minnesota, our legislature recently adopted a conceal and carry law, which basically protected people who want to go around armed. The legislature actually purported to give people the "right" to be armed on private property in some circumstances, even though the property owner objected and wanted to prohibit firearms from the property. As a result of this quirk (and others), the law is now being challenged in court.

But that's not the reason I'm posting.

The reason I'm posting is this: Right after adopting this law, the legislature exempted itself from the law. (Shortly thereafter, the courts exempted themselves from the law, too.) In other words, the legislature said that it's great for people to be armed, but not around us.

Most concealed carry laws have the following exemptions:

A. no carrying on government property
B. no carrying into a private establishment if the owner posts a visible sign on the door

To be honest, the time I feel most like carrying is when I have to go to the courthouse for a speeding ticket and I have to walk 5 blocks through the worst part of town.

In theory, government doesn't have much to fear from citizens who own gun carry permits. Why fear them more than they fear cops? Cops are not beyond breaking the law. Its the guy trying to sneak an illegally concealed firearm onto the premises who is your worry.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Ed


Yes. It would be difficult to get a bunch of cowards, which polititions tend to be, to vote in something like that if they did not believe that the electorate was in favor.

...or they get a lot more from gun lobbies than they do from anti-gun lobbies.

I would say that the chart above indicates that probably a majority of people are positive or neutral towards pro-gun legislation. It still doesn't imply that gun ownership is ubiquitous.

I am more or less neutral about gun legislation, but I do not own a gun.

Originally posted by Cain

This is from my jury summons. I have a question, since this will be my first trip to a court house ever (I'm a law-abiding anarchist). If I make really sarcastic remarks, will the judge hold me in "contempt"? If they ask me to swear to God, will it be rude to interrupt, "I'm an atheist"? Also, the dress code thing -- that bothers me. Finally, and this is important, I'm really looking for a live audience to fool with the Irish accent I've been faking. Can I get in trouble for that?

I'm sure a lot of that depends on county/state laws. As a juror in a civil case in Cook County, IL, I don't remember taking an oath with God in it.
It probably depends on your judge and your level of sarcasm to get into trouble. Chances are, the judge will just make your jury duty more difficult, like sending you back to the jury pool and leaving you there until the end of the day.

I think you'll only get in trouble with the Irish accent if it's noticably fake. Again, you probably won't get into more trouble than the judge making your jury duty more painful than it already is.

[Richard G]

Most states with CCW legistlation have a provision that allows you to check your weapon at the door of the courthouse, where they lock it up. Check to be sure though. If there is no provision in your state law, its a felony to enter a courthouse armed.

[Iamme]

I'm from one of those states that don't allow you to carry, as of yet. Wisconsin. But they are set to vote on it. All the arguing...the editorials...the Congressman who is authoring the Bill making all his presentations.

Here is the way I look at it: It's a no-brainer. Heck with all the emotional diatribes. I say we go by other states statistics. The stastics bear out that crime rates have been REDUCED by concealed carry.

A lot of people here fear that it will turn out to be the shootout atr the o.k. coral. They fear police will start shooting the wrong person with the gun. More guns/more kids getting shot. And more. But *I* say it is the statistics that should count. Nothing else. All else is just theory.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
That's the problem. As well as the sensible, responsible gun owners like Wolverine and Corplinx, people like Richard G, Tony and Bigfig exercise their right to bear arms. And I'm glad I don't live next door to them...
You Europeans have no idea how paranoid you sound when you tell us you're afraid of being around American gun owners.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by JAR

You Europeans have no idea how paranoid you sound when you tell us you're afraid of being around American gun owners.

No, I think the point is we would be afraid of being around obviously stupid people with guns.

[WildCat]

Things are backward here in Chicago. Here handguns are banned (yet we have the nation's highest homicide rate) for all except the aldermen. And we all know how intelligent and responsible they are. :rolleyes: They have a higher conviction rate than many street gangs, yet are allowed to carry guns. Alderman Dorothy Tillman likes to wave hers around the city council chambers to make a point.

Oh, this goes back a hundred years or so when they passed a city law declaring aldermen peace officers.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


No, I think the point is we would be afraid of being around obviously stupid people with guns.
People in America, who purchase guns legally, tend to not go walking around town holding their guns. They usually only brandish them when they're out hunting. I have never seen a person go walking around town brandishing a legally purchased gun unless the person is in the law enforcement business, in which case the gun is usually kept in a holster.

[Richard G]

You need to come to Ohio. There are people all over the state (civilians) carrying holstered firearms. I'm one of them.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by JAR
You Europeans have no idea how paranoid you sound when you tell us you're afraid of being around American gun owners.
I'd have thought that a person who who lives in the suburbs and keeps guns for protection even when there is no immediate threat would be considered more paranoid than one who didn't.

But then, I don't know jack about guns or psychology.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by WildCat


Oh, this goes back a hundred years or so when they passed a city law declaring aldermen peace officers.

wtf is an alderman?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


wtf is an alderman?

Person on the city council of Chicago. It's a notoriously corrupt institution.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by JAR
You Europeans have no idea how paranoid you sound when you tell us you're afraid of being around American gun owners.

Actually, in light of many utterly ridiculous statements presented by some hotheaded gun-toters on this forum, I understand the sentiment completely. If these folks (pretty sure we all know who they are) are as careful with their firearms as they are with their words, I wouldn't want to be on a range with them.

[KelvinG]

When I walk around downtown Vancouver at 2:00am on a Friday or Saturday night and see the drunken displays of testosterone outside bars I am very grateful that it isn't legal to be carrying around firearms. Personally, I have very little faith in most people to exercise the necessary responsibility to be carrying guns on their person.
And yes, I must agree with others on this forum and say that there are more than a few posters here who I wouldn't want to be with a hundred miles of if they were allowed to carry firearms.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

I'd have thought that a person who who lives in the suburbs and keeps guns for protection even when there is no immediate threat would be considered more paranoid than one who didn't.

But then, I don't know jack about guns or psychology.
The only gun we have at my house is a broken 22 rifle given to my father by my mother's father. My parents are against allowing gun ownership.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

I'd have thought that a person who who lives in the suburbs and keeps guns for protection even when there is no immediate threat would be considered more paranoid than one who didn't.

But then, I don't know jack about guns or psychology.
People don't just buy guns legally because they want to protect themselves, they also buy them because they like to go hunting.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by KelvinG
When I walk around downtown Vancouver at 2:00am on a Friday or Saturday night and see the drunken displays of testosterone outside bars I am very grateful that it isn't legal to be carrying around firearms.

Although I can't speak specifically for every state (but you'll find similar law elsewhere), in Texas, it's not only most illegal to carry a concealed weapon when intoxicated, but a third-degree felony to carry a firearm or any other weapon onto the premises of a bar (not just inside, but also the parking lot, grounds, etc.).

In the latest statistics available from the Texas Department of Public Safety (2001), only 47 CHL licensees out of a total of 222,496 (0.02%) were convicted of violating the law pertaining to weapons carry, accidentally or otherwise, expressed in Title 10, Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code. The statistics do not describe the location of the offenses, so that could cover several areas.

I can understand why the situation you describe might concern some folks, but we've not had problems with that sort of behavior here.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wolverine

I can understand why the situation you describe might concern some folks, but we've not had problems with that sort of behavior here.


I guess Texans are more civilized than Canadians. :p :D

[JAR]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

I'd have thought that a person who who lives in the suburbs and keeps guns for protection even when there is no immediate threat would be considered more paranoid than one who didn't.

But then, I don't know jack about guns or psychology.
The fact still remains, Europeans are paranoid. The immediate danger of being robbed where I live is much greater than the danger of having a person who's a "dumb tobacco chewin' redneck" start shooting at people because he's lost his temper.

I had a leftist teacher in college from England and she said that she didn't feel safe around police officers because they carry guns.

I feel safe around police officers because they do carry guns. I have never been walking around and suddenly had to take cover when a policeman pulls out his gun and starts firing at me. It probably has happened to someone before, but it's so rare that I would be making a lot more sense if I instead worried about being robbed.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iamme
A lot of people here fear that it will turn out to be the shootout atr the o.k. coral. They fear police will start shooting the wrong person with the gun. More guns/more kids getting shot. And more. But *I* say it is the statistics that should count. Nothing else. All else is just theory.

Statistics are easily manipulated, both for and against guns. While it may be true that concealed carry laws reduce certain types of crime (and there is quite a bit of controversy over that), one rock solid statistic that pro-gun advocates tend to ignore is that countries with fewer guns have less gun crime. I realize that because of the US's history and culture, this is not something we can achieve immediately, but I think it should be a long term goal.

It seems a shame that the best way to combat fear of crime is to make criminals more afraid of you than you are of them. As Wolverine points out, many responsible gun owners are uneasy about gun nuts, even though they aren't necessarily criminals.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tricky
As Wolverine points out, many responsible gun owners are uneasy about gun nuts, even though they aren't necessarily criminals.

You mean... I can't be a gun nut? :(

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by JAR
You Europeans have no idea how paranoid you sound when you tell us you're afraid of being around American gun owners.

More paranoid than American gun owners who think if they're disarmed a dictatorial government will take power before you can say 'George Bush'?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by JAR

The fact still remains, Europeans are paranoid. The immediate danger of being robbed where I live is much greater than the danger of having a person who's a "dumb tobacco chewin' redneck" start shooting at people because he's lost his temper.



Thomas Hamilton sure as hell lost his temper. He killed 16 five year olds.

Number of gun murders in Scotland last year?

Three

I know where the danger lies......

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


Thomas Hamilton sure as hell lost his temper. He killed 16 five year olds.

Number of gun murders in Scotland last year?

Three

I know where the danger lies......

Not the whole story. When guns are unavailable to assist in the committing of a crime, criminals simply use other means.

Here's a link to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics' page wherein it makes a year by year comparison of crimes reported and crime rates reported by crime in the U.S. versus England and Wales (sorry, they didn't include Scotland).

U.S. DOJ BJS Stats (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm)

When you look at the crime rates, and the trends in those rates, you can see that the murder rate is clearly trending downward in the U.S. in the 1990s. It remains much lower, but stable in England.

For rapes reported, again the U.S. rate is trending downward, whereas the English rate is rising at a steady increase.

For robbery, we see the same trends, only more pronounced, and again in the opposite directions in the U.S. and in England. Perhaps we will switch shortly and England will have a higher rate of robbery than the U.S. has.

For assaults, again we see a downward trend for the U.S. and an increasing trend in England and Wales. For the last year reported on the chart, 1996, the assault rate in England and Wales was higher than in the U.S.

For property crimes such as burglary and theft, the rates were consistently higher in England and Wales than in the U.S.

Even without guns, the citizens of England and Wales appear to be nearly as violent as those of the U.S., except they just don't kill their victims as often. Americans, on the other hand, could be said to be more respectful of the property of others.

:D

AS

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Not the whole story. When guns are unavailable to assist in the committing of a crime, criminals simply use other means.

Here's a link to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics' page wherein it makes a year by year comparison of crimes reported and crime rates reported by crime in the U.S. versus England and Wales (sorry, they didn't include Scotland).

U.S. DOJ BJS Stats (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm)

When you look at the crime rates, and the trends in those rates, you can see that the murder rate is clearly trending downward in the U.S. in the 1990s. It remains much lower, but stable in England.

For rapes reported, again the U.S. rate is trending downward, whereas the English rate is rising at a steady increase.

For robbery, we see the same trends, only more pronounced, and again in the opposite directions in the U.S. and in England. Perhaps we will switch shortly and England will have a higher rate of robbery than the U.S. has.

For assaults, again we see a downward trend for the U.S. and an increasing trend in England and Wales. For the last year reported on the chart, 1996, the assault rate in England and Wales was higher than in the U.S.

For property crimes such as burglary and theft, the rates were consistently higher in England and Wales than in the U.S.

Even without guns, the citizens of England and Wales appear to be nearly as violent as those of the U.S., except they just don't kill their victims as often. Americans, on the other hand, could be said to be more respectful of the property of others.

:D

AS

When have i argued that gun control would reduce overall crime levels? (which have fallen steadily in Scotland incidentally since its peak in the 90's (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00254-02.asp)

"They dont kill their victims as often"

Yeah exactly..............

The chances of me being murdered by a gun last year were approx 1.7 million to one. Why exactly isn't gun control working?