If we can turn the cultural and political momentum around on gun grabbing, can we do it on big government, too?
We’ll find out. I think that Pelosi, Reid and Obama have awakened a sleeping giant. The “Silent Majority” is finally speaking up.
[Update a couple minutes later]
From a surprising source — liberals should defend the Second Amendment:
while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as “gun nuts.” They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Of course, true liberals (as opposed to “progressives”) have always supported the Second Amendment. But I can understand why those who want government to rule the people wouldn’t like it.
[Update a few minutes later]
There are over 1400 comments, most of them the usual (“but what about nukes and cannons?” dorm-room stuff), but I was amused to see a little side thread among some of the leftists about the relative virtues of .357 versus .44 Magnum, and carryability. Diversity!
true liberals (as opposed to “progressives”)
When will those guys stop misappropriating words so we don’t have to use qualifiers like true or classical or scare quotes? Probably right after they stop stealing other people’s money.
I’m still scared of guns though.
I’m still scared of guns though.
Training will fix that. If you’re ever in the US, you should check it out (I assume they don’t have ranges in the Netherlands?).
I believe they do. You can actually own firearms with a permit. I’m not sure you are allowed to keep them in your home, unless you are a farmer who needs a shotgun or a police officer who needs it in the line of duty.
I can believe some areas in large cities in the US would be safer if more people carried guns. On the other hand, I can contribute one data point: we have very little gun crime in the Netherlands, criminals tend to shoot each other, not ordinary citizens. Knives are a different matter.
The modern American Left is almost as hostile to core 1st Amendment rights, such as political speech, as they are to 2nd Amendment rights. I see no contradiction.
we have very little gun crime in the Netherlands, criminals tend to shoot each other, not ordinary citizens.
That’s true here as well, but we still call it a crime. And more law-abiding citizens get shot here in areas where there’s gun control than in areas where there’s not. That’s what Heller and McDonald were about, in fact.
Of course, you have a different culture over there as well.
Heheh, this will amuse you: if Wikipedia is to be believed firearms legislation was introduced in the Netherlands because the government feared a socialist revolution. Parliamentary minutes reveal an intent to “keep firearms out of the hands of dirty socialists”. 🙂
Well Martijn, I’ve read a few things that argue that gun control was introduced in many American states and cities due to fears of race riots. And some have argued (JPFO, maybe?) that one of our federal gun-control acts lifted language wholesale from a law imposed on Germany by the Nazi regime when it came to power.
I was in a carpark one day where a guy was parked waiting for something and another guy in a 4wd was behind him sounding his horn and screaming obscenities. The parked guy said “there’s plenty of room, just go around me” and the 4wd guy said “I don’t wanna go around you, I want you to move your car!” I thought they were both assholes but the guy in the 4wd was being more an asshole. In an attempt to resolve the situation – as the horn was annoying me and other patrons of the cafe – I went to the 4wd and asked him why he didn’t just go around.. he flat out told me that he was just trying to pick a fight with the guy in front. I told him he was annoying people and should go away.. he refused.. I yelled at him.. he locked himself in his 4wd and held down the horn.
Now, if I had a gun I probably would have pulled it out and threatened the guy. I know that’s the wrong thing to do and wouldn’t advocate it to anyone but I was so pissed off that it was just lucky there wasn’t a brick handy to throw at the guy’s windshield, let alone ready access to firearms.
On the other hand, I’m sure there are plenty of conceal-carry advocates who would suggest I should have been carrying and I should have pulled my gun.. I should have made a “citizen’s arrest” or some such. An armed society is a civil society, we’re told. My question to such people is: what if he was also carrying a gun?
Now, if I had a gun I probably would have pulled it out and threatened the guy.
That would have been an inappropriate use of a handgun.
On the other hand, I’m sure there are plenty of conceal-carry advocates who would suggest I should have been carrying and I should have pulled my gun.. I should have made a “citizen’s arrest” or some such. An armed society is a civil society, we’re told. My question to such people is: what if he was also carrying a gun?
Strawman argument. I doubt such actions will ever become legal, much less considered a good idea. If I ever draw a gun on someone, they are moments from getting shot. I think it is wrong to brandish a gun without intent to kill (either now or if the foe continues in some very harmful pattern of behavior, say they’re trying to kill someone).
I think a key part of the problem above was that you didn’t have an idea of what to do. Getting mad wouldn’t solve the problem. My take is that calling the cops (despite the lag in response) would be more appropriate since they handle stuff like this all the time (even if they don’t catch the guy on the spot, there’s a good chance they’ll want him for something else). Ultimately, being a public nuisance isn’t sufficient cause to shoot someone.
On the other hand, I’m sure there are plenty of conceal-carry advocates who would suggest I should have been carrying and I should have pulled my gun..
Not me. If you would have done that, you would have been guilty of aggravated assault. If you had shot and killed him, you would have been a murderer.
I started carrying a pistol about 5 years ago. What I did not expect, was the amount of crap I was willing to take from people and just shrug off and walk away from went up dramatically. I literally had a feeling of peace come over me every morning when I put my gun on.
Gun banners seem to think that people turn into vicious murder machines when they come into contact with firearms, but this is an ignorant opinion.
Trent,
Wrong. No responsible conceal-carry advocates would support you brandishing a weapon to make your point – that’s not how it works. It is ONLY for defense of you or others in a life threatening situation. Commonly CCW permit holders try to remove themselves from an escalating situation. Your firearm is your LAST resort.
Just wanted to clarify.
I’ll fourth the above answers.
1) If you personally don’t think you’re temperamentally suited to carry – you shouldn’t.
2) No, brandishing a weapon in that situation is still unwarranted.
It shouldn’t be coming out unless there’s an assault, rape or similar in progress.
I thought someone might mention calling the police.. I live in a small town. The police station is literally 1 minute walking distance away and the lady at the cafe said they called the police 20 minutes ago. When I eventually walked away and went to do the shopping, I came back and the guy was still there and no police had shown up.
In regards to not knowing what to do, you’re absolutely right, no-one did, and I never found out what happened.
I’m glad to hear that “no responsible conceal-carry advocates” would advocate trying to make a citizen’s arrest.. that means I’ve only ever spoken to irresponsible conceal-carry advocates until today.. so the question is, what are you going to do with them?
Since these ethereal “irresponsible conceal-carry advocates” seem to only plague you, there appears no need for us to do anything about it.
I’m sure there are plenty of conceal-carry advocates who would suggest I should have been carrying and I should have pulled my gun.. I should have made a “citizen’s arrest” or some such.
I think you’d have trouble finding any, at least any who actually have permits to carry.
So what you’re saying is that I invented the “an armed society is a polite society” argument eh?
I became a bit of a supporter of gun control – for all, a few years back after a friend was held up outside of Logan Airport by a group of gun nuts (Boston police). She had been wearing a breadboard with a couple of LEDs on it in the shape of her name (MIT student…). Someone went hysterical and the police decided they should probably shoot her – and very nearly did. To add insult to injury they were not about to own up to their incompetence and hounded her through the courts until she had to plead guilty so as to get her life back (guilty until proven innocent).
Point being, if not even the police, who presumably are professionals and have extensive training (obviously not enough to know the difference between a bomb and a LED – which probably explains a bit…) do not know how to use firearms responsibly – then why would the average citizen be presumed to know any better?
I trained intensively for some years at a university martial arts club, even after years of training many people do not get the hang of violence and become responsible and rational in its presence. I have little confidence in trained professionals doing the right thing, let alone the average person. Few people are very experienced or have the right temperament when it comes to dealing with violence. Concealed weapons particular bother me – anyone could be a nutter with a gun. Hunting and military rifles are a lot more honest and come with a very public expectation of responsibility. If the situation is that serious (very rare), they can generally be obtained relatively quickly – but they force a few seconds to think the situation through rationally.
Nutters tend to be singular and guns tend to multiply people’s killing power, reducing the relative power of the majority to subdue them. Individuals often go nuts, when they do so in the absence of guns, fewer people tend to die. Obviously I am not as terrified by violence as most, so my perspective may be a little different.
I should perhaps also add that I have some confidence in the capacity of a group of people to react extremely violently should it become really necessary, the fourth of the 9/11 flights being a good example. Guns are not necessary for violence, should violence become necessary.
Trent,
As soon as the guy admitted he was trying to pick a fight, there was no solution short of police presence or violence. He was actrively seeking a violent solution to a rather minor non-problem. There’s not much anyone can do in such a situation.
You just keep on having fun with those strawmen there Trent.
What was your objection to widespread CCW again?
G, and in retrospect I should have either walked away or enacted violence as soon as he said that. Retrospect is so easy.
pdb, widespread responsible CCW? Nothing. In fact, let’s have a simple license that ensures people know what responsible means before they can carry, and a legal culture of removing CCW licenses from anyone who abuses the right. You’ve just gotta get agreement on what responsible means.
In regards to non-carry gun rights, I miss mine. We had a prime minister (for way too long I might add) who took them away. These days you can only have bolt-action rifles, or a weapon that your employment justifies and the requirements for keeping them are ridiculous.
BTW, all of the cool kids carry a Glock 19.
Let me add: If you carry a firearm, you have a responsibility to carry a less than lethal counterpart like OC Spray.
You cannot allow yourself to ever get into a physical struggle with another because you must maintain control of your weapon and you cannot simply shoot someone because you were punched or shoved.
Verbal abuse you should just walk away from.
The continum of force is as thus: Verbal-ingore,leave the area; Assault-OC Spray; Assault with a deadly weapon, attempted rape, death or serious bodily harm-That’s when Mr. Death comes out of his comfy holster. Then and only then.
According to his Blogger profile Trent is in Oz and perhaps can be excused a lack of familiarity with US law. I can’t imagine a reasonable person pulling a gun on a horn honker. In my state such behavior by a licensed gun carrier would be treated as a serious crime and is rare. Law-abiding people who carry guns generally do so for self-defense against threats to life and limb, and are usually the sorts of people who try to avoid fights rather than start them.
“Concealed weapons particular bother me – anyone could be a nutter with a gun.”
It’s the ones WITHOUT a permit you have to worry about and “gun control” won’t work on them.
Jonathan, you don’t have to make excuses for me. I know that “pulling a gun on a horn honker” would be illegal… I was making that argument that arresting someone who is causing a disturbance and trying to start a fight, and using deadly force if they resist, is something that some conceal carry supporters advocate as a remedy for the often non-existent police presence. But apparently those advocates don’t actually exist so clearly we don’t have to think about it.
Pete thinks that because police sometimes misuse firearms the rest of us are not likely to use them responsibly either. But really all that Pete’s anecdote shows is that govt officials with unaccountable power are likely to misuse that power. Does anyone think irresponsible police would be more responsible if they were equipped only with knives, clubs and arrest powers?
And what do anecdotes about emotionally unstable martial artists prove? Not everyone should carry a gun, but empirically the govt, and people like you who seem frightened by your fellow citizens, have been poor judges of who is qualified. US citizens with CCW permits are the most responsible and law-abiding people in the society. The “nutters” you are concerned about are not deterred by laws, and the ordinary citizen’s best means of protecting himself against such people is with firearms.
An armed society is a civil society, we’re told. My question to such people is: what if he was also carrying a gun?
There are specific reasons why an armed society is a polite society. Don’t just assume he has a gun. Assume everybody has a gun and carries it openly. What then happens to impolite jackasses that want to start fights? Eventually they get shot. This reduces the population of jackasses, leaving behind those that are polite to each other. The ladies are also carrying guns, so tip your hat as you walk passed.
Give me cowboys over gang bangers and jackasses anytime.
Trent, you definitely should not have enacted violence in that event. If the police station was only 1 minute walk way, you should have walked there, filed a complaint, asked the desk sergeant or dispatcher why they have not dispatched anybody to deal with this incident only 1 minute away, and then asked for the names of everyone who failed to go or to order someone to go deal with it, and file a complaint against them for negligence and malfeasance in the performance of their duties.
If they still refused to serve you, you then go to your local city council or selectboard meeting and raise the issue there.
That said, I probably wouldn’t have gotten violent on him, but I might have been motivated to knife his tires. Maybe not at that time specifically, but I’d definitely have taken out a camera and started snapping pictures, writing down the license number, etc.
If that motivated him to get out of his truck and come after you, then drawing a weapon and defending yourself would be in order, if your state has a strong castle doctrine in its self defense laws. If it was some place like New York or Illinois, where your right to self defense are rather limited even if you are permitted to own a gun, discretion becomes the better part of valor, and a little night time ops is in order instead.
As for the article Rand cites, I have to say that the author of that piece is the first liberal I’ve seen who actually GETS IT. The 2nd Amendment IS about revolution, about keeping the government subservient to the citizenry and not its master, and tossing it out when it gets too big for its britches.
As for the whole “but the army has jets and tanks and nukes” argument: military people take a certain oath when they enlist. It requires they swear to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
There are a lot of veterans like myself who have for many years considered our federal government to be a domestic enemy of the Constitution. We have a group known as the Oathkeepers that is for veterans and active duty personnel, to educate them about the meaning of their oath, and that any order to use their weaponry against the people, the law abiding citizenry, is an illegal order that violates their oath, and any officer or commander in chief who gives such an order is a domestic enemy of the Constitution who should be removed from office.
So long as the political and judicial processes in our country properly remove from office those who violate these oaths, the Oathkeepers are satisfied.
This group arose a decade ago when surveys of military personnel showed that as many as 80% would obey any order to go door to door disarming Americans and sending them to “domestic crisis” FEMA camps. The Oathkeepers have worked to bring down these numbers so that our volunteer military force can no longer be counted on by would-be tyrants to enforce a totalitarian takeover of our country.
ken, what? I can’t hear you because everyone else says you don’t exist.
Why is it so many foreigners feel the need to lecture Americans about American gun policy?
Perhaps they should visit a resource such as guncite.com before wasting our time. Perusing the information about American states with ‘must issue’ concealed carry weapon licensing would be enlightening.
Brad, who are you talking about? Not me I hope, I wouldn’t lecture Americans about gun policy any more than I’d expect you guys to lecture Australians about cricket. Now space policy, that’s open game.. 🙂
What proportion of gun owners (whether they have a government approved permit or not) could keep their composure even if someone came up to them and punched them in the face? What proportion of gun owners (beyond the militarily trained) can maintain responsible behavior under severe provocation?
What proportion of people get hand guns out of a sense of fear or terror verse a sense of civic duty to keep the peace? Fear and terror does not make for good composed life and death decision making in the heat of the moment – it is not pretty.
Are there a significant number of gun owners who are not experienced in handling violent situations with lethal force?
Is being intoxicated while carrying a concealed weapon in a public place a serious offence?
Why does a civilian militia require handguns instead of rifles to keep the peace and the government honest? Outside the military, what purpose do handguns, especially concealed handguns, serve except to enable violent crime and an arms race to prevent it?
If anyone with a handgun also requires a non lethal weapon to ensure the security of their piece without resorting to lethal force, then what need is there for the handgun?
If someone pulls a gun on you, carrying a concealed weapon is not going to help. There are plenty of other non lethal weapons that can be used for self defense if someone threatens violence without a gun.
It seems to me that the only time a gun is really appropriate is in the midst of a gun battle – and then one mostly wants a rifle. In the rest of the world people tend to own rifles – a weapon of hunting and war, in the US, everyone owns hand guns – a weapon mostly of thuggery. If a situation is serious enough to warrant a firearm, then why is it not serious enough to warrant a rifle? If the country is on a war footing, then should not all the soldiers be carrying their rifles on their person? Just noting the more rigid gun laws of Israel (handguns are for professionals only) where people also have a far more professional approach to firearms and violence in general.
Pete, the simple fact is that people use handguns in the US to commit crimes. The police cannot be (and never are) where the crimes are occurring all the time. I really don’t see how anyone can object to CCWs for the reduction in handgun crimes.
If someone pulls a gun on you, carrying a concealed weapon is not going to help.
Perhaps not, but that’s not the argument.. the argument is that if someone pulls a gun on a clerk in your local convenience store while you’re buying milk you can shoot them in the head.
Actually, if someone pulls a gun on you, carrying a concealed weapon is going to help you a lot more than not having anything.
See, here in the US, we dont have “polite” criminals like you blokes do over in the UK. They don’t like to leave witnesses that can testify against them in court, so if you are being mugged by someone with a gun, they are more likely than not not going to try to use it, if it is actually loaded.
Armed criminals tend to fall into two camps:
a) they are dead broke so much so they couldn’t afford ammunition and/or their “gun” is really a BB gun. Pulling a concealed weapon on this type is going to save your wallet, credit cards, and identity, and remove him from the public for some span of years, at least five and possibly as many as ten years.
b) if their gun is in fact loaded, they are generally NOT someone who is really all that skilled in using it. A handgun isn’t a point and shoot raygun that is easy to handle. I’ve seen shootouts between cops and criminals out in the open, within a few yards of each other, and both missed each other even after emptying an entire magazine at each other (yeah, cops are generally very poor shooters, many pride themselves at never having fired their service pistol, and their skills show it).
Criminals don’t generally hold shooting club memberships, so they don’t really get to practice, and they absolutely hardly ever take training courses like those offered by the NRA and other organizations. So, if you are a gunowner, and have a CCW, it behooves you to join a gun club, get some practicing in at the range to make sure you can shoot something less than 6 inch groups at 20 yards or so. If you are especially interested, there are competitive shooting events where you compete in a “Hogan’s Alley” type environnment that presents many realistic shooting scenarios where both accuracy and speed count. You can’t learn this stuff playing a video game.
So, given that a criminal isn’t going to want to leave live witnesses, you have a choice: get skilled, or get dead. Statistics show that an armed citizen is more likely to survive an armed confrontation with an armed criminal than a citizen who is not. This is a fact.
Gratia Hupp testimony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGxU9GQ6M_g
Tell her she shouldn’t have a handgun for self-defense!
American firearms are rarely used in crime, and Americans without criminal backgrounds rarely commit crimes of violence.
There are over 300 million firearms in the U.S., but fewer than 500,000 violent crimes per year involving firearms. Even if every firearm crime used a unique firearm, then less than 0.17% of all U.S. firearms are used in crimes.
In theory over 99.83% of all American firearms could be eliminated without effecting the supply of firearms used in criminal activity. This is sometimes knows as, the remainder problem. The gun-free utopia dreamed of by the anti-gunners is a logical impossibility.
So-called “assault weapons” (in reality rifles), are so rarely used in crimes that more people are killed in the U.S. by lightning strikes than by “assault weapons”. All rifles combined, are rarely used in crime. More people are killed by unarmed attacks than by rifles in the U.S.
The debate over “assault weapons” is the peak of demagoguery by anti-gun forces. Falsities promoted by the anti-gunners over twenty years ago and since debunked are still repeated today by shameless media organs and other fellow travelers of the anti-gun crusade. Ironically “assault weapons” remains the subject on which the anti-gun forces retain their greatest political strength.
The political battle over gun control in the U.S., though frequently depending on appeals to crime control, is really a cultural battle; with a cosmopolitan anti-gun minority trying to impose their extremism on the rest of the nation by force of law. This faction comprises perhaps 1% of the population. Though wealthy and influential, their voting strength is miniscule.
That anti-gun faction is primarily opposed by the 10% of the population who are firearm enthusiasts, as they own as much as 75% of all the firearms. These gunners comprise the core of political opposition to gun control and form the primary membership of the NRA. Firearms collecting is a very middle-class endeavor, so the wealth of these enthusiasts is limited, but they make up for that in voting power since they are frequently single issue voters.
Statistics show that an armed citizen is more likely to survive an armed confrontation with an armed criminal than a citizen who is not. This is a fact.
Sounds like the odds would be better still if the the citizen was unarmed and there were slightly fewer armed criminals around – and it would be a lot less hassle for everyone. Why are there so many illegal guns, drugs, immigrants, etc., in the US? It almost seems somewhat intentional, vested interests?
For both these criminal types, I still do not see that there is that much of an advantage in having a concealed weapon. The not leaving witnesses thing would be a concern, but just how statistically significant is this? Presumably such people would not likely kill more than one or two potential witnesses and attempting to pull a concealed weapon in such a situation would likely result in them killing one, two or more people in response – it precipitates a gun battle.
As you note, thugs do not tend to be the smartest, best equipped, well trained or most physically capable of people, they also do not tend to be in the majority. They are generally easy beats in the light of day and are generally relatively easy to pick up later in a fairly controlled manner – assuming good police work. They survive on public tolerance, they do not last long if they annoy too many people. There is only one thing more dangerous than a mad man – and that is one who is not.
If I was a cop in the US, not having fired my service weapon would be something that I would be very proud of – though I would think it essential training for any cop to be highly competent with guns in general.
If a significant number of cops never have the need to fire their weapon, does this not suggest that the general public at large does need concealed handguns?
I do not carry a concealed first aid kit around on my person, even though the odds of my needing one are probably significantly greater than of my needing a gun.
I am just not seeing how carry a concealed handgun adds up rationally. The cost benefit ratio just does not seem to be there (excepting certain professions and rare circumstances). They primarily seem to be about compensating for feelings of insecurity – and emotionally insecure people should perhaps not be carrying guns (there are safer less lethal options).
The purpose of the pepper spray is not so much to defend the piece, it is to give me a non-lethal response.
Why do I still need a gun? Because pepper spray is a limited range response. It is also of limited use agains multiple attackers.
Let me get this straight. Is the apparent fact that many cops are proud of never having fired their weapon that simple? I think that given the fact of police being armed, never having fired your weapon “in anger” (quotes because being angry while holding a gun is a VERY bad idea) is indeed something to be proud of.
Never having fired it at all is incredibly irresponsible. As has already been noted, hitting the broad side of a barn with a pistol is difficult if you are trained – and next to impossible if you are not. It’s also much more likely for you to hit something that you’re not aiming at, if you haven’t trained.
It’s also true that firing a pistol is a decaying skill. Can someone tell me how often American cops are required to go to the range?
I used a handgun several times. No crime committed. But then, I live in the United States, and actually know what happens here. I also think anyone that would brandish a gun on a person honking a horn has a lack of creativity attached to a lack of perspective. Personally, I just acknowledge the guy pushing for a fight is an idiot and then go off to find more intelligent people to be around.
I am just not seeing how carry a concealed handgun adds up rationally. The cost benefit ratio just does not seem to be there (excepting certain professions and rare circumstances).
There you go. For a few hundred dollars, you have insurance against rare circumstances where you or someone else can end up dead. Or the more common circumstances when you protect your property. And of course, there are a number of professions (taxi driver, convenience store clerk, etc) where a gun would be more appropriate.
Can someone tell me how often American cops are required to go to the range?
I don’t know the requirement, but there is a sheriff’s range near the house. It’s pretty active all the time.
Most of the “liberals” I’ve met pretty much hate guns. Except in the hands of the State. Then guns are instruments of hope and change! “Kumbaya, peace and love–mother@#$%er!”
No, you’re just misunderstanding it. Mystery solved.
Anyways, what Karl said:
For those of us whose day-to-day lives carry less risk than a CW justifies, we won’t carry them. For those whose lives do, they can have them. Liberty means the individual gets to make that cost/benefit calculation. Chilling Effect means that thugs won’t know who has CW and who does not.
For those of us whose day-to-day lives carry less risk than a CW justifies, we won’t carry them. For those whose lives do, they can have them. Liberty means the individual gets to make that cost/benefit calculation. Chilling Effect means that thugs won’t know who has CW and who does not.
Well said.
I watched one video on Youtube where some gang in Germany was walking around with a video camera and then stopped and focused in on a guy and girl, probably on a date, sitting on the curb talking to eachother. One of the guy ran up and kicked the guy straight in the face. The girl looked like death warmed over as just instantly went into paralysis by fear. The rest of the guys came over and all took their shoots kicking the guy in the face and he had to beg them to stop as blood poured out of his nose. They had to reason to fear him. Why should they? They easily had him outnumbered and laughed as they toyed with him all they wanted. Thugs in America just don’t generally do that kind of crap to random people on the streets over here because they know, or don’t know, if that person will slip a compact 9mm out their concealed belt holster and put a double tap into their chest. Nobodies laughing then…….
what purpose do handguns, especially concealed handguns, serve except to enable violent crime and an arms race to prevent it?
First no arms race needed. Handguns are already sufficient for the job. Handguns have many purposes. One is to allow you to safely get to the rifle or shotgun that you keep stored.
I live in a high crime area. I don’t own any type of gun. As Titus points out, I’m glad to have the choice. It may be that I should purchase a gun, since those rare occurrences are less rare here where I live.
Guns, even if not used, save lives. That certainly doesn’t make the news as often as shootings do.
“It’s also true that firing a pistol is a decaying skill. Can someone tell me how often American cops are required to go to the range?”
Usually once or twice a year.
In contrast, I generally take four courses, at least two with an A-list instructor like Larry Vickers or Ken Hackathorn and have at least twenty-five practice sessions per year. Pretty much weekly during the summer and once a month during the depths of the winter.
Why not cannon? The Framers certainly contemplated privately owned arms all the way up to and including warships, if not beyond.
Ultimately, the courts approach any infringement of a fundamental right by no less than three standards of scrutiny. Under the strictest, where infringement isn’t only tolerated when the state shows a it has a compelling interest in pursuit of its constitutional duties, strict evidence that its action furthers said interest, and can show that infringement is necessarily unavoidable. I’d hope we’d cashier the 12 year old who couldn’t make the case that proliferating weapons of mass destruction runs afoul of the gravest government responsibility of all.
For those of us whose day-to-day lives carry less risk than a CW justifies, we won’t carry them. For those whose lives do, they can have them. Liberty means the individual gets to make that cost/benefit calculation. Chilling Effect means that thugs won’t know who has CW and who does not.
If I was a thug I think I would have a CW (perhaps including a permit). Thugs are more likely to get into a situation that requires a CW than anyone else, so by this cost/benefit calculation they should be the ones to have one. Hence if someone has a CW I would be highly suspicious that they are a thug – and not one that can be safely or easily thwarted by non lethal physical restraint. Hence I would be disinclined to trust CWs on un uniformed combatants, and presumably on a uniformed combatant such a weapon would not need to be concealed.
Thugs without weapons do not tend to kill – their intent is intimidation and power, killing people is rarely their preferred option, especially considering the much longer jail sentences involved. Where they do kill it is almost always the competition – other thugs.