Concealed Weapons (or more specifically, handguns)

[Sesshoumaru]

I'll preface this by saying that all I really wanted was a poll in the general section, but I couldn't figure out how to make a poll, so if anyone could help me with that I'd appreciate it (alternatively, if polls have been disabled, then I can live with that, I guess).

Anyways, as the title says, I'm interested in what you all think about the current concealed carry laws in the US, and your views on the subject in general. Personally, I'm a firm believer in the intrinsic right to self-defense, which logically means I'm a firm believer in the right of people to have the means to exercise that right.

Currently, only 37 (I think, if its not 37, its close) states allow for non-discretionary licensing for concealed carry (called ‘shall-issue’ because local authorities aren’t allowed to deny you a permit simply because they feel like it), which means that as long as applicants meet the criteria (non-felon, no history of mental illness, age requirement is usually 18 or 21, most states also have a training requirement) the license has to be issued. 2 states (and DC) do not allow for concealed-carry by private citizens (unless you have political connections, of course), Alaska and Vermont do not require a permit (so if you’re legally allowed to own a gun, you can carry it, except where state or federal laws prohibit it), and the rest have may-issue, which means you can be denied a permit for any reason (although it varies by locale, with rural jurisdiction more prone to issuing permits than more urban areas).

So, now that you have a (very) basic idea of the subject, what’s your opinion? I’ve done a bit of research on the matter, so I’ll try to answer any further questions any of you might have.

[Mesden]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's a pretty good opinion. I think.

I mean, I understand that if you've had proper records of abuse with firearms, you may not be able to obtain one (Break the law, lose your freedom and such), and mild regulations can be applied just like most other freedoms, but I do not so much get where states go about outright banning them.

Alaska and Vermont got it right.

[Demetrius]

Living in Vermont, where I have a couple guns, as do my neighbors and their kids and just about everyone else, I think concealed weapons are fine, I could care less, just be an ass with the thing and hurt/get hurt, then your toys and freedoms tend to get restricted.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

First as a statement of my background I live in a country where one cannot acquire guns except with massive regulations. I do not know anyone who owns a gun. And I feel safe. If people want to kill me they are going to have a much harder time about it. Well that and there is little violent crime around here anyway.
But my problem is I'm not sure how much of a defence a gun is anyway. The person shooting you has the advantage of surprise. He has the gun out, it is prepared, he is ready to shoot someone, he's aimed. Unless you carry your gun at all times, primed and ready to shoot in your hand, I don't see how you are going to prevent someone else who is ready and prepared to shoot you first. If the attacker had say, a knife, they have to come at you, they have to attack you lots with the knife. There is a chance to defend yourself. Not so with a gun.

[42PETUNIAS]

I would personally feel much safer if the ability to carry a concealed gun was decreased. Making someone take a basic psych test and have weapons training would help me feel that much safer. The second amendment doesn't really cover this, considering the fact that this isn't about careying a gun. It's about being legally allowed to hide an object on your person, an object that is meant to cause death. Rifles and such don't really bother me, because you can't really use those well for mass shooting, but the idea of someone being able to purchase an automatic weapon, or hide a gun on themself really makes me a little scared.

Also, only mods can make polls. If you asked one of them, you could probably get them to add a poll here.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

I would personally feel much safer if the ability to carry a concealed gun was decreased.

Exactly how?

How is making a law to limit guns for the sake of protecting people stop criminals from committing another crime in illegally accessing a gun much easier than they legally could?

I've never gotten that string of logic.

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

The second amendment doesn't really cover this, considering the fact that this isn't about careying a gun. It's about being legally allowed to hide an object on your person, an object that is meant to cause death. Rifles and such don't really bother me, because you can't really use those well for mass shooting, but the idea of someone being able to purchase an automatic weapon, or hide a gun on themself really makes me a little scared.

First and foremost, the Constitution does not lax on anything. It does not specify a kind of weapon because a kind of gun does not need specification, only, in their eyes atleast, they should be one of the things every law abiding citizen should be able to have.

And, inasmuch as someone being able to 'hide' a gun goes, if someone was openly showing their gun at all times, how would that stop them from committing mass shootings? How is it any less scary seeing a guy carry his big ass gun around at all times? As 'concealed' as it is, that's not really an excuse as to why we're putting more and more restrictions on the guns.

Finally, as much as it may 'scare' someone, our personal comfort levels should not infringe on peoples' rights.

And on a lighter note: Large guns are concealable in large jackets!

[Sithdarth]

I haven't looked at the guns laws specifically in New York state but I'm pretty sure they are harsh on concealed guns considering it isn't even legal to have a pair of nunchucka in New York state. But really even the automatic weapon thing is somewhat defeating the purpose of the 2nd amendment. To be totally and completely honest the 2nd amendment it absolutely worthless now anyway. Its purpose was to allow states or just local militias to oppose the government should the deem it necessary. With the state of the modern military any insurrection would be blown to tiny bits very very quickly.

That's not to say we should get rid of it, but maybe we should think about modifying what it says. Of course I have no idea how to make it better and certainly don't think we can ever get back to its original meaning. Maybe the circumstances we have now are as good as its going to get. The genie is out of the bottle and its not going to go back in no matter how hard we try. The only thing I can see making things better is like a phaser with a stun setting, or other viable non-lethal option, so law abiding citizens can protect themselves without killing their attackers.

[Sesshoumaru]

Well about automatic weapons, they've been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1935 (it might have been '38, I"m not sure off the top of my head), and subsequence additions have extended that regulation to cover anything that can be converted to an automatic weapon with a reasonable amount of effort (such as the first model of the TEC-9, which was prompltly pulled from circulation, contrary to waht the media might have told you). And when I say heavily, I mean heavily, federal license, state license, lots of background checks, and you have to get another if you want to transport it anywhere. Plus the cost of full-auto has been steadily increasing since the Weapons Control Act of 1989 prohibited further manufacture of automatics for civilian use.

As for the defensive uses of guns, every credible study has shown that victims resisting with a gun are less likely to be injured than victims who try to flee, or behave passively, and resisting with a weapon other than a gun, or no weapon, actully increases the likelyhood of injury. Oh, and despite what the media may have implied, the majority of violent crime (witht eh exception of murder) is committed without any weapon at all (something like 60% of rapes, 50% of robberies, and nearly 80% of aggravated assaults).

*Oh, and one of my favorite quotes: "If you make having a gun a crime, only criminals will have guns."

[Demetrius]

I think automatics are legal in Vermont again, I know that supressors are again as of last year.

As for Mesden's response, I totally agree. It's like the theory of locked doors; they only keep honest people honest.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Exactly how?

How is making a law to limit guns for the sake of protecting people stop criminals from committing another crime in illegally accessing a gun much easier than they legally could?

I've never gotten that string of logic.

Yes I agree there. Banning guns doesn't really work when everyone already has guns. Eventually the supply would run out and then you would be ok but you would have problems for ages.
In NZ, where I live, we banned carrying weapons back in the 1880's once our wars were over and we had lots of problems, especially with violent labour strikes up until about 1900 but since then gun crime is not really an issue. It makes the paper when someone shoots someone over here and the last shooting I can remember was about 1996 when a man holed up in his house with a hunting rifle. Though we have had people go on rampages with samurai swords.....
I'm not sure how much people would smuggle guns into the country to commit crime. Sure it would be hard to control the supply of guns if one did manage to outlaw guns but it's a lot of effort to smuggle guns. Sure full time criminals might do so but a lot of violent crimes are crimes of passion and those are the situations where a gun can turn an angry confrontation into a lethal one.
We have no cases in NZ of people trying to smuggle in guns to commit crimes. The only gun crimes committed are with hunting rifles, which take ages to get, and are about 10 years apart.

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

As for the defensive uses of guns, every credible study has shown that victims resisting with a gun are less likely to be injured than victims who try to flee, or behave passively, and resisting with a weapon other than a gun, or no weapon, actully increases the likelyhood of injury.

But only if the attacker is armed with a gun.
But I don't think outlawing guns is going to solve any problems when everyone has them.
And man would it be hard to invade America by land when everyone is toting firearms.