Should New York tourists have their lives destroyed because of concealed carry l

[BLADEMDA]

Alabama: Rural or Urban? ‘It Depends,’ According to UA Analyst

April 9, 2012 - Filed under: Faculty & Staff | Tagged: Census, College of Commerce & Business Administration
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — Alabama, when it comes to land area and population, is a study in contradiction.
“Is Alabama an urban state or a rural state?” asks Annette Watters, manager of the State Data Center at The University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce.
“It depends. It’s easy to look around and feel confident that we are a rural state. In fact, 95.64 percent of the land area of Alabama has rural status.
“But, most of the people live in our urban areas. High-population density is one of the criteria for determining urban status. In fact, 59 percent of the population of Alabama lives in urban settings, and 41 percent lives in a rural area. “
Watters’ comments are based on data from the 2010 census released recently by the U.S. Census Bureau about urban and rural areas and how their status is determined.
For example, Watters said, a town that has 2,500 people or more is part of the urban landscape.
“Some people who live in small towns and think they are in a rural area may actually be urban dwellers, by federal definitions,” Watters said.
“So, if you look at Alabama by population, we are an urban state. If you look through the lens of land area, we are a rural state.”
That generalization holds true for most states. Only Maine, Vermont, West Virginia and Mississippi have a greater percentage of rural population than urban population.
And, no state has most of its territory taken up by urban places, according to Watters.
“Even the most densely settled states and the ones with the largest populations have more rural than urban territory,” Watters said. “For instance, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey are small states that contain big cities. They are America’s most intensely urban states. But at least 60 percent of the land area in those densely settled states is rural. As in all states, most of the people live in the cities, and very few people live in the parts that are not cities.”
Watters noted that Alabamians may think of New York as the most densely urban state in the nation, but it is not. New York State has 91 percent of its land area in rural territory but 88 percent of its population in an urban area. New York State is a rural state, with one big city. Georgia has a similar story. Ninety-two percent of Georgia’s land area is rural, but the state has one notable very large city. Seventy-five percent of Georgia’s population lives in an urban setting.
Alabama has seen a steady trend for decades toward becoming more urban and less rural. In 2000, 55 percent of Alabama’s population lived in urban areas. In 2010 that was 59 percent.
“Rural areas remain attractive for their beauty and their heritage,” Watters said. “But, the expectation is that more and more people will continue to choose city life over country life.”

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pgg]

And we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sure, but the discussion has merit.

You're making a similar error in making any sort of separation between those who have CCW and those who don't. Assuming that these two groups will or won't break the law at ANY different rate or incidence. People are people. Gun on hip or not. I fail to agree with your argument that because Mary Jane goes to a CCW class that she is any more likely to handle her weapon with more brains. That class only gets you so far.

The class serves only to ensure that everybody with a permit has been told the law.

But - you're incorrect on a different level. People are not people. The people who make a conscious decision to get a permit, go to the class, comply with all requirements, obey the restrictions imposed by the permit or local/state/federal laws are not the same kind of people as those who just get a gun and carry it.

Same with a one-day class on...INSERT RANDOM ANESTHESIA WEEKEND COURSE. Agreed? I mean, my mother was home one day when my sister and I were in cribs, heard someone trying to enter the house, ran upstairs and fired a bullet into the ceiling. Um, I'm QUITE sure that my father had lectured her EXTENSIVELY on how to use a weapon and how not to use a weapon. He was in fact, as assessor/trainer at his Agency's DC office when they brought in new Agents. A couple times a year he'd head down there to teach the ins and outs Yet my mother threw a round into the ceiling...

Her level of competence with a firearm after a few "lectures" does not reflect the average permit holder's level of competence.

Remember, only a couple % of the population has permits. These are gun owners (by definition) but not anywhere near all gun owners, or even a majority.

But you sort of wish you were, right? Right.

That's a firm maybe ...

First, it's not practical in scrubs. So even if I could, I wouldn't carry while at work. I don't carry in my house, either. Everything's a tradeoff; the risk in those environments is low enough and the PITA-factor for carry high enough that I wouldn't exercise the right.

I do feel compelled to point out that there is a huge difference between not doing something because I choose not to, and being prohibited by law from doing something.

The only reason this is a "maybe" and not an outright "naw" is that - without getting into too many details - I have specific reason to be aware of and concerned about one particular convicted felon's presence in my department. That's another story though, that won't get told on SDN.

1) Post Hockey Game dude who wants to FIST FIGHT you. Do you care if he lives or dies (this attacker as you call him?) That's a yes or no question PGG.

Yes - of course I care. That wouldn't stop me from shooting him though, if an attack was occurring or imminent and I couldn't get away..

Every death is a tragedy.

Once you spend enough time in hospitals, you'll come to realize that closed head injuries from drunken fistfights can be tragic too.

Society as a whole has really moved on from ye olden days when drunken fistfights were laughed off as just good clean fun without serious consequences. We touched on this subject in a recent thread, and the claim was made that in those days people "knew when to stop" ... for multiple reasons, those days are over. These days, if you assume that an attacker doesn't intend to inflict grievous and permanent injury, you do so at your own peril.

To say nothing of the simple fact that nobody is ever obligated to just take a beating because the other guy probably won't maim or kill him.

2) Dude approaches you with a knife, also drunk, and brandishes it because you looked at his girlfriends' ass. He hasn't approached you yet, but brandishes. DO YOU CARE IF HE LIVES OR DIES?

I care. But if he's within what I roughly estimate to be 21 feet of me, he's still getting shot.

ETA - I should qualify this. If he's a distance away, and if all he's done is brandish, then I'd probably be able to just leave, and I would. Hard to answer this scenario because you wrote "dude approaches you with a knife" but then wrote "he hasn't approached you" ... has he approached me or not?

3) Dude pulls out a gun and takes a shot at you, do you care? (I think we know how you'll answer this one).

4) Non drunk dude tries to steal your wallet. You have 500$ cash in the wallet. Things get heated. According to you, you would kill this attacker, correct? YES OR NO? Do you CARE IF HE LIVES OR DIES?

Things wouldn't get heated in the first place. He can have my wallet. I'll call the police. Tomorrow I'll earn some more money. I wouldn't shoot him over property.

While I want to go home at the end of the night, I'll kill if I fear for my life. Not every attacker would, or has in the past, made me fear for my life. You just gave CCW carriers a REALLY BAD NAME PGG. You just basically said, if a dude comes to fight you, you're going to kill him NO QUESTIONS ASKED, NO CARE IN YOUR MIND.

For a guy who was just arguing about putting words in another's mouth ... wipe the spittle from the screen, dude.

A person who assaults me will be shot until he stops. Now, since a gun is a lethal weapon, and I would aim center mass, there's a good chance he would die. However, the intent is always to stop, not kill.

You might not see or care about the distinction, but it's there - and believe it or not, intent is relevant to the law, too.

Yeah, federal property. Park on the street, gun goes in the safe, I go in. It is annoying, but it's the law - and I (like other permit holders) follow the law.

Another ridiculous comment. That all permit holders follow the law.

Are you suggesting that permit holders DO routinely carry into post offices? Knowing that it's a crime, a felony that (if caught) would result in not only the loss of their permit but the loss of all of their gun rights, for life?

You really don't know the first thing about the kind of people who get permits.

This is like trying to explain shades of green to a person blind from birth. You understand the words, but the meaning is completely lost on you.

 

[BLADEMDA]

PGG,

Great responses. D712 chooses not to own a firearm. I respect that choice. But, the second amendment gives law abiding U.S. Citizens the right to bear arms. I interpret that right liberally while others (including at times SCOTUS) put severe restrictions on the right to bear arms.

The taking of a life in self-defense has moral and legal implications. D712 needs to separate those in his argument. Legally, in my state when threatend by a person with imminent bodily harm or he is about to committ a felony (on me) I have the right to "stand my ground" and shoot that person. Morally, I should avoid the confrontation at all costs and not take a life over $500. But, it isn't always easy to know whether the person will ony take your money and not your life.

 

[BLADEMDA]

News Article: http://www.rockdalenews.com/archives/4923/
Verified personal account we acquired from the victim:
"I was at a friend's place getting ready to play Dungeons and Dragons and borrowed my friend's car to head to the nearest grocery store, an Ingles less than a mile away, to pick up some drinks for the night. I had my revolver (a Taurus .357 magnum) in a Fobus paddle holster covered up with an untucked polo shirt at the time. I parked approximately in the third row from the front near the entrance at about 8pm when it was still fairly busy. As I turned off the ignition a man came to the door and asked if I had any money I could give him for gas, after I told him I didn't have any cash he started to walk off as if to ask someone else.
As I proceeded to exit the car, I kept an eye on him, which in hindsight probably was their plan, and I didn't notice the second man come from behind and pull a knife and put it to my throat. The first man came back and tried grabbing the keys from my hand. There was a second or two before I realized what was happening while they were telling me to hand over the keys and my wallet. The first thing that popped into my head was I had to get my revolver out so. I dropped the keys that I was holding in my left hand (I believe the first man might have grabbed them then because I was told they were found several yards away from the car) and grabbed the knife and pulled the knife away enough for me to elbow the man with the knife and get a few feet away.
He must have seen me reaching for something because he came and tried to grab me again just as I managed to draw the revolver and I proceeded to fire three shots until he turned to run away, collapsing after a few steps. I turned around with the revolver still drawn and saw the other attempted thief running away. I then holstered my weapon and dialed 911, only to have an off duty officer pulling in for an unrelated security detail. Some others in the parking lot flagged him down.
I was briefly detained, after having the officer secure the weapon, before I could even finish describing what happened to the dispatcher. With all of the adrenaline it took a few minutes before I noticed I suffered cuts to my hands and wrists as well as one on my neck (requiring a few stitches). After a trip to the hospital and the sheriff's office to fill out a report I was free to go and it was announced that would be no charges for me soon thereafter."

 

[pgg]

Yes on the free speech issue. But add that if I sign an agreement to obey certain website standards, that I can surely be restricted. (on that website). Wink to the SDN mods.

That's specifically not a government restriction. That's a private property issue.

Even in Arizona, where you don't even need a permit to carry, it's unlawful trespassing to carry a gun onto private property after being informed that weapons are prohibited.

Property rights are sacred too. The owner of property has the absolute right to restrict what anyone does there - they're not free to assemble, for instance.


Which is why gripes about censorship being "unconstitutional" on an internet message board are so silly. The gripes about censorship may or may not have merit and could be debated at length (but hopefully not in this thread), but the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

My post was meant to mean: when SCOTUS says it's constitutional, it's frigging constitutional. And, yes, they've ruled, no? (maybe that was a Fed Court, lost track). The MD case with the gun ban, deemed uncons. I also think that by TURNING down cases, SCOTUS is making a case and setting a precedent and that is historically the case.

The MD case was the state supreme court.

By declining to hear cases, SCOTUS is not setting any precedent. There are a lot of factors that go into whether they hear a case or not; agreement with the lower court is just one. In the kind of cases we're talking about, it's usually not just one lower court - it's often two courts with conflicting decisions in different regions. Don't read too much into things when SCOTUS declines to hear cases. They only hear about 75-80 of the 10000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year.

So, you're saying that unless a law has been challenged by SCOTUS, it is NOT constitutional? Careful now, that's pretty thin ice you're standing on. Sure, we agree on semantics I think.

It's neither, it's just a law. You can say the people who matter most (police & prosecutors) act under the assumption that it's constitutional, and I'd agree with that.

 

[loveoforganic]

D712, I know what you were arguing - I was asking an unrelated question into what I had a feeling your not explicitly written thoughts on the matter were - that CCL holders carry and behave in a comparable manner to those carrying illegally. I think that's a silly assumption.

I maintain that carrying pepper spray is a poor idea, if you have the legal right to carry a better tool.

I disagree with you here - I think it's important to have a nonlethal option in your repertoire for escalation of force. I can only think of 2 drawbacks to carrying spray - 1) Not using it in a situation where you deployed a firearm and have that failure to deploy the intermediate force brought up in court (a relatively small concern in my mind) and 2) added weight/bulk. A possible third would be deploying and it being ineffective or deploying and catching yourself with the spray. I think you would agree, though, that anticipating these scenarios is part of proper preparation, just like practicing with a firearm.

 

[pgg]

"I was at a friend’s place getting ready to play Dungeons and Dragons

Awesome

and borrowed my friend’s car to head to the nearest grocery store, an Ingles less than a mile away, to pick up some drinks for the night. I had my revolver (a Taurus .357 magnum)

Friends don't let friends buy Tauruses, but at least it wasn't a Judge

[...]come from behind and pull a knife and put it to my throat. The first man came back and tried grabbing the keys from my hand. There was a second or two before I realized what was happening while they were telling me to hand over the keys and my wallet. The first thing that popped into my head was I had to get my revolver out so.

Reluctant as I am to criticize survival, I wonder if the first thing that popped into his head should've been to hand over his wallet.

 

[loveoforganic]

Blade, why in the world are you keeping up with UA news? You aren't going to come across any weaknesses that are going to be significant enough to lead the gators to anything better than crushing defeat, if that's your goal We're flooded with trophies out here, people are tripping all over them.

 

[doctor712]

Alabama: Rural or Urban? ‘It Depends,’ According to UA Analyst

April 9, 2012 - Filed under: Faculty & Staff | Tagged: Census, College of Commerce & Business Administration
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — Alabama, when it comes to land area and population, is a study in contradiction.
“Is Alabama an urban state or a rural state?” asks Annette Watters, manager of the State Data Center at The University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce.
“It depends. It’s easy to look around and feel confident that we are a rural state. In fact, 95.64 percent of the land area of Alabama has rural status.
“But, most of the people live in our urban areas. High-population density is one of the criteria for determining urban status. In fact, 59 percent of the population of Alabama lives in urban settings, and 41 percent lives in a rural area. “
Watters’ comments are based on data from the 2010 census released recently by the U.S. Census Bureau about urban and rural areas and how their status is determined.
For example, Watters said, a town that has 2,500 people or more is part of the urban landscape.
“Some people who live in small towns and think they are in a rural area may actually be urban dwellers, by federal definitions,” Watters said.
“So, if you look at Alabama by population, we are an urban state. If you look through the lens of land area, we are a rural state.”
That generalization holds true for most states. Only Maine, Vermont, West Virginia and Mississippi have a greater percentage of rural population than urban population.
And, no state has most of its territory taken up by urban places, according to Watters.
“Even the most densely settled states and the ones with the largest populations have more rural than urban territory,” Watters said. “For instance, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey are small states that contain big cities. They are America’s most intensely urban states. But at least 60 percent of the land area in those densely settled states is rural. As in all states, most of the people live in the cities, and very few people live in the parts that are not cities.”
Watters noted that Alabamians may think of New York as the most densely urban state in the nation, but it is not. New York State has 91 percent of its land area in rural territory but 88 percent of its population in an urban area. New York State is a rural state, with one big city. Georgia has a similar story. Ninety-two percent of Georgia’s land area is rural, but the state has one notable very large city. Seventy-five percent of Georgia’s population lives in an urban setting.
Alabama has seen a steady trend for decades toward becoming more urban and less rural. In 2000, 55 percent of Alabama’s population lived in urban areas. In 2010 that was 59 percent.
“Rural areas remain attractive for their beauty and their heritage,” Watters said. “But, the expectation is that more and more people will continue to choose city life over country life.”

Blade,

I presented data that suggest Florida is anything but laughably not-rural (as you suggest). Do with those data as you wish.

D712

 

[pgg]

I maintain that carrying pepper spray is a poor idea, if you have the legal right to carry a better tool.

I disagree with you here - I think it's important to have a nonlethal option in your repertoire for escalation of force. I can only think of 2 drawbacks to carrying spray - 1) Not using it in a situation where you deployed a firearm and have that failure to deploy the intermediate force brought up in court (a relatively small concern in my mind) and 2) added weight/bulk. A possible third would be deploying and it being ineffective or deploying and catching yourself with the spray. I think you would agree, though, that anticipating these scenarios is part of proper preparation, just like practicing with a firearm.

These are reasonable points, but I think the most important drawback is 4) using pepper spray first may cost you the short window of time you have to use the gun.

Once that attacker is within arms reach odds are you're going to get hit/cut/stabbed at least once. The most common regret in documented self-defense shootings in which the person was injured is "I wish I'd shot him a couple seconds sooner" ...


I do have pepper spray, and I do carry it. When I go to the dog park. It's there in case somebody else's dog attacks mine.

 

[doctor712]

That's specifically not a government restriction. That's a private property issue.

Even in Arizona, where you don't even need a permit to carry, it's unlawful trespassing to carry a gun onto private property after being informed that weapons are prohibited.

Property rights are sacred too. The owner of property has the absolute right to restrict what anyone does there - they're not free to assemble, for instance.

Which is why gripes about censorship being "unconstitutional" on an internet message board are so silly. The gripes about censorship may or may not have merit and could be debated at length (but hopefully not in this thread), but the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

The MD case was the state supreme court.

By declining to hear cases, SCOTUS is not setting any precedent. There are a lot of factors that go into whether they hear a case or not; agreement with the lower court is just one. In the kind of cases we're talking about, it's usually not just one lower court - it's often two courts with conflicting decisions in different regions. Don't read too much into things when SCOTUS declines to hear cases. They only hear about 75-80 of the 10000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year.

It's neither, it's just a law. You can say the people who matter most (police & prosecutors) act under the assumption that it's constitutional, and I'd agree with that.

You realize there are ENTIRE Constitutional Law and Supreme Court classes that discuss, at length, the outcomes and meaning of the Supreme Court not taking cases? I know, because I majored in the subject and sat in many of those classes. Seriously, you need to look into this. Turning down a case, with or without comment, is one of the Courts more wide reaching powers.

PoliSci 101.

I'll reply to the rest with you and Blade soon. Goodfellas is almost over...! Only another 6 hours.

Lastly, finally, for once, a discussion that doesn't fall into the abyss. Let's see how long this lasts...

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom



"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman

 

[BLADEMDA]

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

 

[powermd]

Cute, but how often is that realistic?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Cute, but how often is that realistic?

It's not. Most of the time a weapon owned by a CCW permit holder is never fired.

 

[BLADEMDA]

One of the biggest reasons people want to have a firearm is for personal protection, that is, for the defense of themselves, their families, or others for whom they have responsibility. This is no idle dream - in a typical week in the United States there are about 300 murders, 15,000 violent assaults, 1,700 rapes, and 7,800 robberies. These numbers come from FBI statistics.
Does possessing and/or carrying a firearm change the odds? This number is hard to pin down because many cases go unreported. But in a typical week 20,000 or more acts of violence are prevented because the prospective victim is protected by a firearm. In at least 90 to 95 percent of these cases the gun is not fired.
For those thousand or so cases a week where the defender has to fire his or her firearm, the typical one-on-one encounter lasts about three seconds, the defender fires three rounds, and the attacker is less than ten feet away. The defender legally can only fire to stop the threat, not to kill the attacker. However, about twenty percent of the rounds fired at a person in a violent encounter actually hit the person. In about twenty percent of the cases where the person is hit by one or more rounds, the person ultimately dies.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8186

 

[powermd]

In my lifetime, I've been robbed and assaulted. It's tremendously naive to think over the course of my lifetime it won't happen again.

My basic question is why are are you and your concealed carrying compatriots so damn afraid? This response at least partly explains it. Perhaps being in the military makes carrying a gun around socially seem normal, when to this ordinary citizen, it seems paranoid. I'm not afraid of being attacked in my community. Maybe I've grossly miscalculated the odds, but a review of the daily police blotter would suggest otherwise.

Doctor712 did a good job responding to your other criticisms of my original post, so I'll defer on these. Your 9/11 point is well taken. The psychology was different at the time.

 

[pgg]

You realize there are ENTIRE Constitutional Law and Supreme Court classes that discuss, at length, the outcomes and meaning of the Supreme Court not taking cases? I know, because I majored in the subject and sat in many of those classes. Seriously, you need to look into this. Turning down a case, with or without comment, is one of the Courts more wide reaching powers.

Are you really saying that the 10,000+ cases the Supreme Court chooses not to hear at all every year make up some kind of body of precedent comparable to the cases they do hear and write opinions on?

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[doctor712]

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom



"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman

These are excellent quotes. I'm a supporter of 2nd amendment. *limitations noted.

Signed
D712
Year: 2012 (aka. 1787 + 225 years)

 

[doctor712]

In theory, her FEET would protect her best. Bullet could splatter HIV infected blood and tissue in said daughter's eyes...

D712

 

[doctor712]

Are you really saying that the 10,000+ cases the Supreme Court chooses not to hear at all every year make up some kind of body of precedent comparable to the cases they do hear and write opinions on?

I'm saying when IMPORTANT cases come to the court, and they give opinion in not hearing, yes, it is terribly important and powerful. Much like Congress has the purse and can withhold funds, SCOTUS can chose not to hear a case (thereby answering the question of Constitutionality without doing MUCH).

If you don't believe me, PM me and I'll put you in touch with my Cons Law and Supreme Court Prof. I'm sure he'd be happy to explain things to you. (seriously).

D712

 

[doctor712]

I love how you quote the framers and their 2nd amendment words, stating that a well armed militia to protect from G is critical, then follow it up with a case example of a rapist on a city street.



D712

 

[pgg]

My basic question is why are are you and your concealed carrying compatriots so damn afraid?

As has been pointed out, I'm no more afraid of being assaulted than I am afraid of a kitchen grease fire or auto accident. All are risks - tiny ones - and all have things we can do to mitigate them. That we have thought about one of those risks and prepared for it to a greater degree than you have doesn't imply fear.

This point comes up a lot in these discussions.

This response at least partly explains it. Perhaps being in the military makes carrying a gun around socially seem normal, when to this ordinary citizen, it seems paranoid.

On the contrary, the military strictly prohibits any kind of firearm carry on bases in the US, and have extremely restrictive rules for possessing them in base housing. You won't find a more UNARMED segment of the US population than people on military bases.

Believe it or else, the first time I went to Afghanistan, the rule within the Bagram airfield compound was 'no magazines inserted or rounds in chambers' except for the guys specifically on guard duty. We walked around with unloaded guns.

The military has pretty anti individual gun ownership and carry policies.

I'm not afraid of being attacked in my community. Maybe I've grossly miscalculated the odds, but a review of the daily police blotter would suggest otherwise.

Doctor712 did a good job responding to your other criticisms of my original post, so I'll defer on these. Your 9/11 point is well taken. The psychology was different at the time.

I'm not saying you should be afraid, or even that you should carry.

I'm saying you should have the option to carry - today, tomorrow, or at some unspecified point in the future - if you so choose. And if you're not a convicted violent felon or suffer from significant mental illness.

I'm saying that people who do carry are not irrational, or afraid, or crazy. Most of the people I know outside the internet have no idea that I even own guns, much less carry one. And unless you live in NY or SF or Chicago or a similar location I bet there are some people you know and view as rational people who carry.

Finally, one reason I carry and shoot at a range often as I can is because there are aspects to both that are a perishable skill. If the day comes that you need the stuff or the skills, it will be too late to go acquire them.


You may as well ask why people who study Karate are so afraid. They carry those lethal Fists O' Death with them everywhere ... even into Post Offices.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I love how you quote the framers and their 2nd amendment words, stating that a well armed militia to protect from G is critical, then follow it up with a case example of a rapist on a city street.



D712

 

[pgg]

Cute, but how often is that realistic?

Just about never AFAIK, or close enough to never that it's not a significant point in favor.

I think the pro-CCW movement, if you can call it that, does itself a disservice when some of its proponents talk about armed citizens making other citizens safer. There MAY someday be SOME degree of 'herd immunity' if enough people carry in SOME areas, maybe ... but the truth is probably that this is wishful speculation.

I think It's a shoddy argument that distracts from other very simple and valid arguments in favor of individual carry rights.

Carry for rational people is about self defense, not hero fantasy.

 

[doctor712]

Sure, but the discussion has merit.
The class serves only to ensure that everybody with a permit has been told the law.
But - you're incorrect on a different level. People are not people. The people who make a conscious decision to get a permit, go to the class, comply with all requirements, obey the restrictions imposed by the permit or local/state/federal laws are not the same kind of people as those who just get a gun and carry it.

That is a generalization that I will NEVER agree with. Lemme tell you, I've seen some CCW gun nuts, no thanks. I've also seen a ton of NON CCW nut jobs. Point is, I vehemently disagree with your generalization. I find it absurd.

Her level of competence with a firearm after a few "lectures" does not reflect the average permit holder's level of competence.

She was lectured to by a current Federal Law Enforcement Agent with (still standing) yearly arrest records in NYC. Who "lectured" to you in CCW class? Again, ridiculous generalization. *ps. my mom is and always be a nut when it comes to guns. A CCW card doesn't change someone. Nor do I think simply being someone to get a card is limited to law abiding wonderful people. See Ahmedinijad comment above.

That's a firm maybe ...

I was teasing, but thanks for the explanation.

Your words:

"You also seem to care if your attacker lives or not."

Your words:

Yes - of course I care. That wouldn't stop me from shooting him though.

Glad we see eye to eye. Um, when did I say that would stop me from shooting as well?

Once you spend enough time in hospitals, you'll come to realize that closed head injuries from drunken fistfights can be tragic too.

Granted, I've seen some killer fist fights, recently after the Panthers game I mentioned. Believe me, it was best nobody had a gun. And nobody died.

Things wouldn't get heated in the first place. He can have my wallet. I'll call the police. Tomorrow I'll earn some more money. I wouldn't shoot him over property.

But he's assaulted you and you wonder how I would survive without my gun. Yet, you'd do the same, let him have my wallet...

A person who assaults me will be shot until he stops.

Are you sure...? See mugger above...

Now, since a gun is a lethal weapon, and I would aim center mass, there's a good chance he would die. However, the intent is always to stop, not kill.

Police aim to kill. Or so I've been told. So you use your weapon to stop rather than kill? Is that what they teach you in CCW class?

Are you suggesting that permit holders DO routinely carry into post offices?

Not at all. I have no idea frankly. I could find out though?

Knowing that it's a crime, a felony that (if caught) would result in not only the loss of their permit but the loss of all of their gun rights, for life?

Most people that my father arrested knew they were committing a crime and were committed Federal offenses yet they still did it. Are you saying that CCW carriers are a different breed? Let's just get it out with, yes or no? You exempt them?

Honestly, I don't find them any different from you or I, except they have the permit. Period. I don't generalize you for being a gun lover, hater, or any more or less dangerous than me. So, I don't know why you are over there generalizing...

You really don't know the first thing about the kind of people who get permits.

Are you certain about that? Lemme leave this at that.

This is like trying to explain shades of green to a person blind from birth. You understand the words, but the meaning is completely lost on you.

Meh. I think you like to consider yourself on the level with a cop. And that's fine. Perhaps that's you. But you're not a cop, you're a doctor, who carries a gun. Big difference. The generalizations you make are ridiculous, and, perhaps, scarier than the fact that you carry a weapon.

D712

 

[doctor712]

Let's be honest, the Framers were not considering rapists when the AMENDED the constitution to add gun rights. They were fearing a repeat of the past. So, let's just be honest.

You really don't need to quote any more Federalist Paper stuff, or Constitutional Convention stuff or Notes between Jefferson in Paris and Madison in VA. I've read them all. I suggest you read BUT ONE of the Federalist Papers before using them in a manner they weren't ever intended.

You wanna argue about the Constitution, let's discuss substantive due process, judicial review and state's rights. Not just postings of rapist cartoons. Amendments go well beyond #2. Some say this fine country of ours would be QUITE different if states didn't maintain the power they have... (i.e. NYC).

"Rights. With limits." Lemme find a Madison quote to that effect so that it will seem more potent...

ETA: Blade, shotgun to protect your house? Oh man. Just get a Beretta and kill the intruder. Have you seen the HBO doc (from the 80s) Five American guns. PLEASE watch it. So, 4 bedroom house, kids upstairs, you hear noise, intruder antenna's ringing, grab old shotgun (totally unneeded) see shadow and fire. Lights on, OOPS, FAMILY MEMBER standing nearby victim, (god forbid of course) takes your ammo. Gimme a Glock (which is probably what I'll get when I gear up btw). You empty 15 rounds into intruder and he doesn't die, well, that isn't his fault. I would NEVER grab a shotgun in my home for defense unless I see the Nukes flying overhead and I'm starting to ration water and the like. But by that time I'd head to Cheyenne Mountain with Matthew Broderick anyway, so, ya know, I'll be good. To be serious though, I think a shotgun has the potential to do more harm than good.

d712

 

[doctor712]

D712, I know what you were arguing - I was asking an unrelated question into what I had a feeling your not explicitly written thoughts on the matter were - that CCL holders carry and behave in a comparable manner to those carrying illegally. I think that's a silly assumption.



I disagree with you here - I think it's important to have a nonlethal option in your repertoire for escalation of force. I can only think of 2 drawbacks to carrying spray - 1) Not using it in a situation where you deployed a firearm and have that failure to deploy the intermediate force brought up in court (a relatively small concern in my mind) and 2) added weight/bulk. A possible third would be deploying and it being ineffective or deploying and catching yourself with the spray. I think you would agree, though, that anticipating these scenarios is part of proper preparation, just like practicing with a firearm.

Ah, I misread your comment then. No, I would say CCW holders act more along the line of non CCW holders. Unless they are criminal CCW holders at which point they act closer to those carrying illegally.

d712

 

[doctor712]

That's specifically not a government restriction. That's a private property issue.

It was just for the mods. :

The MD case was the state supreme court.

Aha, I thought SCOTUS.

It's neither, it's just a law. You can say the people who matter most (police & prosecutors) act under the assumption that it's constitutional, and I'd agree with that.

I asked my father, who was a Fed in NYC, about gun laws and he mentioned they are indeed heavy handed, but that they have come under challenge many many times and always prevailed. I'll have to do a little research to see these cases. I'm curious.

D712

 

[doctor712]

My basic question is why are are you and your concealed carrying compatriots so damn afraid? This response at least partly explains it. Perhaps being in the military makes carrying a gun around socially seem normal, when to this ordinary citizen, it seems paranoid. I'm not afraid of being attacked in my community. Maybe I've grossly miscalculated the odds, but a review of the daily police blotter would suggest otherwise.

Doctor712 did a good job responding to your other criticisms of my original post, so I'll defer on these. Your 9/11 point is well taken. The psychology was different at the time.

I will also say, somewhere above, I don't wanna dig it out right now - Blade said that I was entitled not to be a gun owner. (or maybe it was a CCW holder). Why would you assume that? Because I think NYC has the right to prosecute silly med students and charge me 340$ for a permit, or that I feel CCW carriers act like normal people, or that I said I don't own a gun, or what? I mean, I can make a distinction between not wanting to Carry and protecting myself yes. So, why the assumption?

Oh, I don't own a gun. But I've been thinking about it, as I mentioned, I'm likely to move somewhere out west that I feel will be a bit more removed from city/suburbs and I would feel safer owning a semi automatic pistol. (i.e. house in the boondocks not near PD versus 10th floor of a NYC hi rise - where nobody will be entering). To the point - for protection OF my house.

And again, within school zones, airports, post offices and other federal properties, does anyone have issue with your lack of ability (and the constitutionality) of the government limiting your ability to walk into the PO to mail a letter? I mean, it's US Taxpayer G property, isn't that a bit closer to your quotes Blade - tyranny of the G, and the framers, rather than some ordinance charging 200$ for a permit in Seattle (for example). Yet, we make perfect sense of that... hmmm.

D712

 

[doctor712]

Who Here has:

1) Been Assaulted?

2) Feared for their Life? (during an assault or similar sticky situation, not bad turbulence on a Delta flight is what I mean)

3) Please share the story if you feel comfy.

4) Your position on Gun Rights and Laws...

Go.


D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

I will also say, somewhere above, I don't wanna dig it out right now - Blade said that I was entitled not to be a gun owner. (or maybe it was a CCW holder). Why would you assume that? Because I think NYC has the right to prosecute silly med students and charge me 340$ for a permit, or that I feel CCW carriers act like normal people, or that I said I don't own a gun, or what? I mean, I can make a distinction between not wanting to Carry and protecting myself yes. So, why the assumption?

Oh, I don't own a gun. But I've been thinking about it, as I mentioned, I'm likely to move somewhere out west that I feel will be a bit more removed from city/suburbs and I would feel safer owning a semi automatic pistol. (i.e. house in the boondocks not near PD versus 10th floor of a NYC hi rise - where nobody will be entering). To the point - for protection OF my house.

And again, within school zones, airports, post offices and other federal properties, does anyone have issue with your lack of ability (and the constitutionality) of the government limiting your ability to walk into the PO to mail a letter? I mean, it's US Taxpayer G property, isn't that a bit closer to your quotes Blade - tyranny of the G, and the framers, rather than some ordinance charging 200$ for a permit in Seattle (for example). Yet, we make perfect sense of that... hmmm.

D712

Whether I like it or not the second amendment was been watered down over the past 200 years. This right to bear arms now comes with many restrictions (as you have correctly pointed out). Hence, my personal opinion aside the law must be obeyed or challenged in the Courts. Each State and some municipalities have the right to make laws RESTRICTING the use and/or ownership of firearms. The Federal govt. is no different in passing laws restricting firearms.

We are a nation of laws. The Constitutonality of those laws must be decided by the Judicial Branch of government.

 

[pgg]

I love how you quote the framers and their 2nd amendment words, stating that a well armed militia to protect from G is critical, then follow it up with a case example of a rapist on a city street.

You're conflating (with Blade's pictoral help ) individual carry rights and armed self defense*, with the other purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

That most (not all) of those quotes concerned resisting a government oppressor, and aren't directly applicable to armed individuals resisting criminals, doesn't mean human beings don't have a basic civil right to armed self defense, or that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect that right too.



*Thus far, SCOTUS has only affirmed individual right to armed self defense in the home; no comment on carry outside the home. Yet.

No, I would say CCW holders act more along the line of non CCW holders. Unless they are criminal CCW holders at which point they act closer to those carrying illegally.

Not a lot of criminals (by definition those convicted of crimes) with permits out there, given the fingerprinting & background checks ...

 

[doctor712]

As has been pointed out, I'm no more afraid of being assaulted than I am afraid of a kitchen grease fire or auto accident. All are risks - tiny ones - and all have things we can do to mitigate them. That we have thought about one of those risks and prepared for it to a greater degree than you have doesn't imply fear.

This point comes up a lot in these discussions.



On the contrary, the military strictly prohibits any kind of firearm carry on bases in the US, and have extremely restrictive rules for possessing them in base housing. You won't find a more UNARMED segment of the US population than people on military bases.

Believe it or else, the first time I went to Afghanistan, the rule within the Bagram airfield compound was 'no magazines inserted or rounds in chambers' except for the guys specifically on guard duty. We walked around with unloaded guns.

The military has pretty anti individual gun ownership and carry policies.




I'm not saying you should be afraid, or even that you should carry.

I'm saying you should have the option to carry - today, tomorrow, or at some unspecified point in the future - if you so choose. And if you're not a convicted violent felon or suffer from significant mental illness.

I'm saying that people who do carry are not irrational, or afraid, or crazy. Most of the people I know outside the internet have no idea that I even own guns, much less carry one. And unless you live in NY or SF or Chicago or a similar location I bet there are some people you know and view as rational people who carry.

Finally, one reason I carry and shoot at a range often as I can is because there are aspects to both that are a perishable skill. If the day comes that you need the stuff or the skills, it will be too late to go acquire them.


You may as well ask why people who study Karate are so afraid. They carry those lethal Fists O' Death with them everywhere ... even into Post Offices.

To Pgg,

What I think Powermd meant, sorry to speak for him/her is that since you are around guns and rifles on base in the field etc, when off base, you are desensitized and think it's just normal to have CCW or weapons at home, on you etc. I could be wrong. I see the argument, but I don't know if it's true or not. Anecdotally, my sister and husband both have a weapon at home. At base, their issued weapons are locked as you mention.

My father keeps more than one at home. (retired)

My brother keeps more than one at home (he's a cop though)

I don't. (or maybe I do... BANG!)

And my mom, yeah, well, no, she doesn't keep one at home. I know this because I check for bullet holes in the ceiling upon entering her residence.

D712

 

[doctor712]

You're conflating (with Blade's pictoral help ) individual carry rights and armed self defense*, with the other purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

That most (not all) of those quotes concerned resisting a government oppressor, and aren't directly applicable to armed individuals resisting criminals, doesn't mean human beings don't have a basic civil right to armed self defense, or that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect that right too.

*Thus far, SCOTUS has only affirmed individual right to armed self defense in the home; no comment on carry outside the home. Yet.

Not a lot of criminals (by definition those convicted of crimes) with permits out there, given the fingerprinting & background checks ...

He uploads, I conflate. It's what we do.

d712

 

[doctor712]

*Thus far, SCOTUS has only affirmed individual right to armed self defense in the home; no comment on carry outside the home. Yet.

See how powerful their lack of taking up a "carry outside the home case" is? They have completely avoided the case (for years and years) thus deeming the current laws Constitutional, and restrictions of CCW constitutional, without even acting. That's how it works my friend!!! :thumb up:

D712

 

[doctor712]

Not a lot of criminals (by definition those convicted of crimes) with permits out there, given the fingerprinting & background checks ...

I was speaking to intent (to partake in a criminal act) here, but point taken.

 

[loveoforganic]

Who Here has:

1) Been Assaulted?

only in the boxing ring

2) Feared for their Life? (during an assault or similar sticky situation, not bad turbulence on a Delta flight is what I mean)

nope

4) Your position on Gun Rights and Laws...

Kind of open ended. Pro-minimally restricted concealed carry

Per your question earlier, the goal for any shooting should be to stop the person being shot from being an immediate threat. Death can be a sequelae of that, but that isn't the goal. This should certainly apply to cops as well. And to address your handgun opinion, shotgun > handgun. Easier to operate well, much greater stopping power. Doesn't penetrate more than 9mm. Both will blow through a whole lot of walls though.

 

[doctor712]

Death can be a sequelae of that, but that isn't the goal.
This should certainly apply to cops as well.

Cops shoot to kill. At least the Agent I just hung up with informs me of that.

And to address your handgun opinion, shotgun > handgun. Easier to operate well, much greater stopping power. Doesn't penetrate more than 9mm. Both will blow through a whole lot of walls though.

Disagree about a shotgun in a house full of kids, or more than one adult. The POINT is that shotguns have more power. A handgun, used appropriately will kill a lot less people. Hopefully, just the one.

D712

 

[loveoforganic]

Planning on shooting them at 30 yards? Shot doesn't spread very quickly. Pistol does have mobility advantage if you're going to try to make your way to kids, but that's really about it. You shouldn't be wandering around your house other than that if you think an intruder is around

 

[doctor712]

I'm not sure what distance I'm shooting them at, or where anyone else in the house is. Shotgun in house is totally excessive. But enjoy your 2nd A rights and lock and load yourself up good if it makes you feel some sort of more-than-a-9mm-safety-threshold.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/15/arts/tv-5-american-guns.html

Sucks when you think you are shooting an intruder, and take out a family member.

D712

 

[pgg]

Disagree about a shotgun in a house full of kids, or more than one adult. The POINT is that shotguns have more power. A handgun, used appropriately will kill a lot less people. Hopefully, just the one.

D712

The perfect home defense gun: suppressed short barreled AR rifle in 5.56


Quiet enough to not cause permanent hearing damage when fired in a closed space.

Accurate.

Low recoil, for accurate follow up shots.

Magazine capacity.

Less overpenetration problems than handguns OR shotguns. Unless you're deliberately using barrier-blind rounds (which would be stupid), bullets fragment upon first contact with anything. It is counterintuitive that a small bullet going 3000 fps is less likely to go through multiple walls than a pistol round or buckshot going 1000 fps or less but that's where the odds really lie.


I can't have my suppressors, SBRs, non-maglocked ARs, or normal capacity magazines in California though, so I make do with a pistol.

I don't even own a shotgun, though one of these days (I keep saying this) I'm going to get myself a Benelli M4.

 

[pgg]

Sucks when you think you are shooting an intruder, and take out a family member.

Know your target and what lies behind it.


Most family members shot in these situations aren't from stray rounds - they're from people who pull the trigger on human-shaped objects in the dark without knowing that the shape is a family member. The problem there isn't the gun or ammo choice.

 

[periopdoc]

With all you gun-toting guardians of the peace walking around I haven't yet heard of a case of one of these gun rampage mass murderers begin taken out by an armed citizen. Fear of that happening doesn't seem to stop these people either.

Ignoring the fact that I carry primarily to protect myself and my family not to be a hero, and that my primary strategy in any defense scenario is evade and escape (even if thugs are vandalizing my home which is much less valuable to me than the life of my family), lets look at the data to see if your supposition that the fear of armed opposition from a citizen failed to stop a rampage.

The raw data is below and only goes back to 1997, but in summary of 31 shootings (38 total minus seven excluded because they were some variant of home invasion/ family on family violence and are thus not applicable to our discussion) 74% (23 took place in locations were concealed carry is banned in one shape or another (11 school shootings, 2 church shootings, and 10 other locations). 0.08% (2) occurred in locations where I could not determine the permissibility of carrying. 0.19% took place in locations where gun carry was at least theoretically plausible. However, 2 of these were in locations where the shooter had inside information that no one could/ would be carrying, and 1 in which the shooter knew that only one of his eight potential victims was armed. There are a grand total of 0.096% (3) where the shooting took place in an area where concealed carry was legal and could have been a factor.

Interestingly 4 shootings were stopped either due to concealed carry individuals or individuals who retrieved there weapons from their cars because they were in locations where concealed carry was illegal. There was an additional situation in Tacoma where the CCW citizen drew, but did not fire. He may or may not have slowed the shooter down. I have bolded these shootings.


You do realize that if an armed citizen takes out "one of these gun rampage mass murderers" early in the game, you would never hear about it being a mass murder don't you?




Raw Data.

- 1997 - Paducah, KY - High school - firearms prohibited

- 1997 - Pearl, MS - High school, firearms prohibited but the Vice Principal retrieved his gun from his car and stopped the shooting.

- 1998 - Springfield, OR - High school - firearms prohibited

- 1998 - Jonesboro, AR - Middle School - firearms prohibited

- 1999 - Los Angeles, CA - Jewish Center - firearms prohibited and the target was specifically chosen because of the lack of armed guards compared to other Jewish centers.

- 1999 - Littleton, CO - High school, firearms prohibited

- 1999 - Atlanta, GA - Two Office Buildings - At the time, Georgia was a shall issue state. So far I have been unable to discover if corporate policy at the time did or did not prohibit weapons in either of the buildings involved.

- 1999 - Fort Worth, TX - Church, firearms prohibited in churches in the State of Texas at that time.

- 1999 - Honolulu, HI - Office building - may issue state, unclear corporate policy

- 2000 - Flushing, Queens, NY, NY - Wendy's restaurant. Firearms prohibited. Unlike Shoney's (Anniston, Alabama 1991) armed resistance could not be offered and 6 were killed.

- 2001 - Santee, CA - High school - firearms prohibited

- 2002 - Washington D.C. - sniper style shootings at multiple locations around the DC area - firearms prohibited.

- 2002 - Grundy, VA - Appalachian School of Law - firearms prohibited but two students retrieved their guns from their cars and subsequently subdued the shooter.

- 2003 - Chicago, IL - Warehouse - firearms prohibited.

- 2004 - Birchwood, Wisconsin - Hunting field - CCW not legal, but the victims would have been allowed to be armed. However the shooter could plainly see that only one of the victims was armed.

- 2005 - Red Lake, MN - High School - firearms prohibited

- 2005 - Brookfield, WI - Church - firearms prohibited

- 2005 - Tacoma, WA - Mall - Gun free zone - CCW holder was present and drew his gun. He did not however elect to fire and was himself shot by the suspect

- 2006 - Nickel Mines, PA - Amish schoolhouse - firearms prohibited

- 2007 - Blacksburg, VA - Virginia Tech - firearms prohibited

- 2007 - Omaha, NE - Mall - Mall policy prohibited weapons, however 3 individuals were carrying concealed weapons. The shooter was stopped by these 3.

- 2007 - Carnation, WA - Private home - Washington was a shall issue state and this was in the home, firearms permitted.

- 2008 - Chicago,IL - Clothing store - Firearms illegal.

- 2008 - DeKalb, IL - Northern Illinois University - Firearms illegal

- 2008 - Alger, WA - multiple locations - Weapons permitted and suspect shot at and killed police officers so the potential of armed resistance was clearly not a deterrent.

- 2008 - Covina, CA - Private home. California is a may issue state. Given that the suspect was at his ex-wife's home he likely knew that no one was armed.

- 2009 - Alabama - Multiple locations - Alabama was a shall issue state which apparently had no deterring effect on the suspect.

- 2009 - North Carolina - Nursing home - Posted no weapons allowed. Ultimately stopped by armed police officer. During the shooting a Vet Coast Guard nurse attempted to stop the shooter and was shot 27 times.

- 2009 - Santa Clara, CA - Private residence murder suicide - guns likely legal, but the shooter would have known if the victims were or were not armed.

- 2009 - Pearcy, AR - Home invasion - (Hardly fits in with the whole "mass shootings" theme as it was a home invasion by 3 armed men against a family)

- 2009 - Binghamton, NY - Civic center - May issue state, but one of the toughest to obtain a CCW. None of the victims could have had a permit to own a weapon in NY as they were not yet US citizens. The shooter was aware of this fact.

- 2009 - Graham, WA - Private residence - All victims were children of the shooter so carry laws would not have stopped him.

- 2009 Fort Hood, TX - Military base - Loaded weapons illegal.

- 2010 - Bellvile, TX - Private residence - All victims were members of the gunman's family.

- 2010 - NY Mills, NY - AT&T store - firearms prohibited - Shooter planned on shooting six, but was shot by a CCW police officer after shooting one.

- 2010 - Manchester, CT - Business - CT is a may issue state that is not gun friendly, but obtaining a CCW is fairly straightforward. I am sure the shooter knew no-one carried there since he worked there and was stealing from them.

- 2010 - Appomattox, VA - Residence. CCW would not have deterred this individual as he fired on armed and identified police during the episode.

- 2011 - Tuscon, AZ - Public venue - The presence of armed individuals did not deter the shooter. CCW is legal in the state.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Are you really saying that the 10,000+ cases the Supreme Court chooses not to hear at all every year make up some kind of body of precedent comparable to the cases they do hear and write opinions on?

They aren't precedent (case law), but they are based on laws that have equal validity in our system. Laws are presumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise by the courts. The largest source of law in our system (by far) is legislative at the federal, state and local levels. All laws are "THE LAW" until successfully challenged. If a court declines to hear an appeal of a particular law, it is in fact affirming its validity.

I'm saying when IMPORTANT cases come to the court, and they give opinion in not hearing, yes, it is terribly important and powerful. Much like Congress has the purse and can withhold funds, SCOTUS can chose not to hear a case (thereby answering the question of Constitutionality without doing MUCH).

If you don't believe me, PM me and I'll put you in touch with my Cons Law and Supreme Court Prof. I'm sure he'd be happy to explain things to you. (seriously).

D712

This analysis is correct. Precedent (law decided by courts) is equal to laws from other sources (legislative, administrative, etc).

Personally in the middle of a large lawsuit, trying to create new precedent (aka "case law"), so intimately familiar with this concept. Plus, have a degree in political science with concentration in con law.

 

[pgg]

She was lectured to by a current Federal Law Enforcement Agent with (still standing) yearly arrest records in NYC. Who "lectured" to you in CCW class?

The point was that no "lecture" makes someone competent with a firearm. I find it hard to believe that an experienced federal LEO would think that he could "lecture" competency into anyone.

Police aim to kill. Or so I've been told. So you use your weapon to stop rather than kill? Is that what they teach you in CCW class?

This is actually an interesting area of discussion.

Police may tell you, privately, off the record, that they shoot to kill. Some gun owners will also tell you, privately, off the record, that they would also shoot to kill - because dead people don't file civil lawsuits. No reason to disbelieve either.

Put either in front of an investigator, jury, or the press after a shooting, and both will say they shot to stop/end the threat.

All I can really say to the shoot-to-kill crowd is that you better not get caught pulling the trigger on a person who is no longer a threat, because you'll go to prison for murder regardless of how the incident started.

Well, if you're a cop, you'll probably get off, but the point stands.

Most people that my father arrested knew they were committing a crime and were committed Federal offenses yet they still did it. Are you saying that CCW carriers are a different breed? Let's just get it out with, yes or no? You exempt them?

Exempt them from what?

Of course they're a different breed. They're consciously making a genuine effort to follow the law, they've passed a background check, their guns are owned legally, and (depending on the state) they've had at least some level of instruction on the laws and/or passed some basic qualifying exam with the gun.

Honestly, I don't find them any different from you or I, except they have the permit. Period.

That's like saying a truck driver with a drivers license is no different than one without a license.

Is the license an ironclad guarantee he won't plow into a school bus while high on meth? No. Licenses do mean something though. Not a great analogy for several reasons of course, not the least of which is that driving isn't a civil right.

Meh. I think you like to consider yourself on the level with a cop. And that's fine. Perhaps that's you. But you're not a cop, you're a doctor, who carries a gun. Big difference. The generalizations you make are ridiculous, and, perhaps, scarier than the fact that you carry a weapon.

After the multiple times I've specifically pointed out in this very thread that I carry for self defense and have no hero/savior/sheepdog complex - and moreover, that I think that line of thought/justification for CCW is very flawed - you think I have a cop complex?

It's like you're not even reading what I write.


For a guy who doesn't own guns, doesn't have a carry permit, you have some awfully strong opinions on what sort of people own and carry guns.

 

[pgg]

They aren't precedent (case law), but they are based on laws that have equal validity in our system. Laws are presumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise by the courts. The largest source of law in our system (by far) is legislative at the federal, state and local levels. All laws are "THE LAW" until successfully challenged. If a court declines to hear an appeal of a particular law, it is in fact affirming its validity.

I'll take your and D712's word for it as you both seem to have a stronger background than me in that area.

I can't help but remain skeptical though, that of the 10,000 cases per year that SCOTUS declines to hear (99% of them!), the reason they're declining to hear the cases is that they're affirming the lower court decisions.