Constitutional Carry Is It A Good Idea?

[bearcreek]

Now, having the right to carry is a completely different issue from actually carrying. I'm still opposed to the promiscuous carrying of guns where there isn't an articulable need.

Just so we're clear, what exactly are you saying here? I'm opposed to people drinking high sugar beverages, eating at McDonalds and shopping at Walmart. I'm not suggesting that any of those things should be made illegal though......

 

[bearcreek]

The people in my social circle would ostracize anyone who was known to carry a gun. No problem with people owning guns. I think this attitude is quite common in northern Virginia. (One of the wealthiest areas in the country, btw.)

There are social circles where people who think they are cats are taken at face value.......

 

[tws3b2]

Every Driver today is supposed to be Trained, Tested and Licenced. Wan't to count the accidents, injured, dead, And the number of thoses that still don't follow the laws or rules on the highway today.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I didn't say they should. I was just making an observation. If you lived in northern Virginia you'd know what I was talking about.

My brother lives in VA. He's very proud of how pro CCW and pro 2A they are over there. He gives me a good natured bad time about it.

In a lot of my circles, even here in CA, we all carry. In the circles that don't, they support those of us who do.

My own observations.

 

[rust collector]

Enacting more laws is not the answer, since they can't be enforced.

After all these years, something we can agree upon. I am all for universal training, preferably in homes but perhaps backed by a field day for demonstrating basic skills. Beyond that, restrictions affect only the law-abiding, who are not the perps the media screams about in every headline.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I actually agree with all of this. The next step, however, is once you have the right, do you exercise the right? Why does it follow that you must carry if you can carry? It would be better for society if fewer people, rather than more people, are walking around carrying. We are currently seeing the results when every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going around armed. Simple arguments -- or simple misunderstandings -- escalate into deadly encounters. The presence of the gun is the key to that escalation. Please, leave the guns at home.

The RKBA exists REGARDLESS of whether a person chooses to carry or not.

The key here is that this is a personal choice. Not something that is to be dictated by others.

"Simple arguments" are also a matter of choice. So is the escalation of such.

Life is full of choices and the common factor in all of them is the fact that choices are personal. Meaning it's the individual people responsible for making them.

Not the inanimate objects they may or may not possess when they make them.

Those choices have consequences. Make bad choices then reap bad consequences.

All this leads up to the concept of "personal accountability". People who make bad choices should be held accountable for the consequences of THEIR actions.

When we demonstrate the holding of people accountable, then overall the number of people who choose to make poor choices decreases.

This is because they learn from other people's mistakes.


BUT LET'S TAKE THIS TO THE OPPOSITE EXTREME.

Going with your idea that it would be better for society if fewer people were to go about armed, let's disarm the whole of society.

What you have left is an armed government (because disarming those in power will never happen) and an "unarmed" population.

Completely ignoring the armed government, the "unarmed" population will, itself, have dangerous wolves far stronger and less inhibited about the use of violence against the sheep they live amongst.

And the vast majority of the unarmed population will not have tools with which to effectively defend themselves against these wolves.

Firearms are the ONLY weapon which levels the playing ground against stronger attackers. They are ranged weapons which virtually any person can use which does not require lots of strength or training to use and which can be used outside the effective physical range of an attacker.

All other weapons tilt in favor of the strong. Swords, knives, bows, spears, slings, etc.

No, this does not work either.

 

[GEM]

The Right to Self-Defense Against the State
Jasmine Rae Straight - https://philarchive.org/rec/STRTRT-7

This is an excellent paper describing the right and correlating it with self-defense also. It's behind a pay wall which my job gets me access to, sorry. It's a good read though.

Here's one good quote for fair usage review:

Someone could object that concealed carry restrictions are not relevant to my claim
of self-defense against the state, because an individual having a right to concealed carry
would be irrelevant if tyranny were to arise; the relevant issue would be whether or not
the individual had a gun at their disposal. But this objection fails to realize two key
points: (1) the ability to defend yourself against the government is not restricted to only
being able to exercise that right in the home and relatedly, (2) a person’s right to selfdefense
against the state is not only applicable in cases of tyranny, but is also present in
cases that are smaller in magnitude, such as crooked cop cases. The right to conceal
carry helps secure the right to defend yourself in these smaller-magnitude cases that can
occur outside of the home. It is also worth noting that tyranny is not like a switch—one
day we are free and the next day it is full-blown tyranny—tyranny often builds through
many smaller-magnitude cases, so the ability for a person to carry concealed in order to
defend themselves in these cases is critical, not only in individual cases, but in the
overall fight against tyranny. Furthermore, while concealed carry laws may seem
unrelated to the concern of tyranny, it is precisely this kind of restrictive law that (1)
increases the chances of tyranny, and (2) works on incrementally eroding the right to
bear arms; a government that destroys the right to bear arms improves their odds of
becoming tyrannical by reducing the chance that they will be met with armed resistance.
Governments often become tyrannical through increasingly restrictive laws
enacted over time; the right to bear arms is typically not stripped from a citizenry in
the passing of a single law, but rather through sufficiently small restrictions that
incrementally lead to elimination of the right. By making it more difficult to obtain a
gun, the government reduces the chances of armed citizenry being able to revolt against
itself. If taken on its own, each gun restriction appears innocuous, but taken together,
the restrictions ultimately destroy the right to bear arms. Concealed carry laws may
appear to be a reasonable restriction, but they are the kind of restriction that increases
the chances of a disarmed populace and they are the kind of restriction that helps lay the
foundation for more restrictive gun laws.

 

[sisyphus]

I said that I'm in favor of the right to carry. I also said that too many people (possibly without suitable training or temperament) are carrying, and I questioned the wisdom of carrying unless there's a specific identifiable threat. These two statements, taken together, mean that people should restrain themselves voluntarily when it comes to carrying guns. Yes, I understand the need for personal self defense. I also understand society's need to clamp down on the spate of irresponsible shootings that we've seen lately. Gun owners, out of self-interest, should be at the forefront in doing this.

Bottom line: temper your carrying or risk losing your guns entirely. This is how backlashes work. Unless you know that someone is gunning for you, leave your guns at home.

 

[tws3b2]

Restrictions are like tater chips. You can't have just one. Restrictions lead to fees, taxes, higher cost and more restrictions. And, Only the honest, law abiding will except the restrictions, pay the fees and cost.
On the other hand. If our govs and judges would do the job they were elected to do and keep the non-law abiding trash where they belong So Many People Would Not Feel The Need To Carry Guns.

 

[AlexanderA]

Just so we're clear, what exactly are you saying here? I'm opposed to people drinking high sugar beverages, eating at McDonalds and shopping at Walmart. I'm not suggesting that any of those things should be made illegal though......

I'm saying, first of all, that more gun laws are not the answer. In fact, some of the existing laws should be rolled back. They are not effective in stopping crime, and only penalize the law-abiding.

On the other hand, we need to think long and hard about how we use our guns. I don't think that carrying a gun provides much security. But if a large number of people are carrying, the kind of incidents we read about in the paper are going to multiply. That's just human nature. Road rage incidents, etc., are becoming more common. I tell my wife, who is an aggressive driver, not to cut people off or give them the finger, because they might be armed. OK, 99% of armed drivers might restrain themselves, but what about the other 1% ?

 

[Kleanbore]

But if a large number of people are carrying, the kind of incidents we read about in the paper are going to multiply. That's just human nature. Road rage incidents, etc., are becoming more common.

What about car-jackings, robberies, rapes. other assaults, kidnappings, etc.?

 

[Poper]

New shooters should feel compelled to get instruction from someone who knows what they are doing. But they should never be forced to by government as part of the permit.

It is impossible for me to argue with this statement. Well said!
I visualize advertising campaigns by NRA, JPFO, SAF, et.al. And I would support such efforts. Educating the general public about their rights and responsibilities would be a good thing.
Advertising works. If it didn't, there wouldn't be so much of it.

 

[Poper]

So, we have to calibrate not according to the majority who are rational, but according to the minority who are prone to going off the rails.

Soooo, dumb it down to the lowest common denominator?
I don't think so. One does not raise I.Q. scores by lowering the passing grade standards.
How about we hold the bad actors strictly responsible for their bad acts? A novel idea that the "Three Strikes" laws where enacted and enforced had dramatic, positive results. As did "Project Exile" in VA.

 

[AlexanderA]

What about car-jackings, robberies, rapes. other assaults, kidnappings, etc.?

Keep in mind that the malefactor always has the initiative. Once he begins his attack, if you attempt to deploy your weapon, in most cases all that will accomplish is to get you shot.

The "bad guys" are not stupid, and, these days, most of them are armed.

You best defense, on the street, is situational awareness, and being the "gray man" that nobody notices.

 

[Poper]

That's just it, you won't know. Your entire argument is predicted on the belief that gun owners are not to be trusted. You say you are all for the exercise of a right and then in the next breath you say we should do that very thing because someone may try to take away our guns. Guess what, we've played all your games and made all your compromises and you are still coming for our guns.

IL, CA, NY, CO, WA...all have banned or are trying to ban firearms across the board or make it nearly impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. And you want me to temper what I do in the exercise of MY rights? It is mindsets like that that will lose this fight. If we just give them one more thing they will leave us alone. If we give them permitless carry they will leave us a lone... Nothing could be more misguided.

The whole, I support the 2nd Amendment but stance is tiresome and weak. You either support it or you don't. And if you don't, that's fine, just be honest with yourself. You like guns, but with restrictions and only if the right people have them and they are used under stri[ct]sic. guidance. That's not freedom and that is not a right...

You know what, Robert? I often find myself disagreeing with you on many things and, usually, that has to do with moderation.
However, this nugget of a post is most excellent!
Thank you for this!!

 

[Kleanbore]

Once he begins his attack, if you attempt to deploy your weapon, in most cases all that will accomplish is to get you shot.

Do you have a basis for that assertion?

 

[mljdeckard]

Without reading the whole thread, I'm sure I am late to this,

No, there's nothing wrong with expecting a minimal amount of training before someone buys a gun. I have helped many noobs get started.

The problem is, that as soon as we say that the .gov is allowed to impose a 'reasonable degree of training' on gun ownership, the red states will immediately impose a bar so high, it cannot be met. For your 70 year-old mom to carry a gun for personal protection, she will be required to travel out-of-state to some name-brand training site, spend thousands of dollars, and demonstrate proficiency before she is allowed to carry. Remember, this was the intent of the NFA. It wasn't to make an annoying $200 fee per item, it was to be so expensive that no one could ever afford it.

We as a gun community need to step up and volunteer our time to make sure that WE are the first line of training for noobs. When you see a guy in a store buying a gun, and they obviously don't know what they are doing, weasel your way into the conversation and offer to help them out. When you see the guy at the range struggling to load the gun, offer to help them before they put (even more) bullet holes in the overhead baffles. When schools say they would love to have some teachers trained to carry, step up and volunteer to help. Volunteer at your local range.

In order to prevent the .gov from demanding that they be allowed to place a restriction, we need to be able to say that we already have it covered.

 

[Poper]

The "bad guys" are not stupid, and, these days, most of them are armed.

Most of them ARE stupid, otherwise they would be making an above average living in a lawful, civil way. Just because they are stupid, it does not mean they are not intelligent, though.
BEWARE OF THE STUPID PERSON!

 

[tws3b2]

I'm saying, first of all, that more gun laws are not the answer. In fact, some of the existing laws should be rolled back. They are not effective in stopping crime, and only penalize the law-abiding.

On the other hand, we need to think long and hard about how we use our guns. I don't think that carrying a gun provides much security. But if a large number of people are carrying, the kind of incidents we read about in the paper are going to multiply. That's just human nature. Road rage incidents, etc., are becoming more common. I tell my wife, who is an aggressive driver, not to cut people off or give them the finger, because they might be armed. OK, 99% of armed drivers might restrain themselves, but what about the other 1% ?

OK, Soo, Punish the 99%? Tell me, Exactly What have you done about the 1%??? That's the problem in this country. It's so much easier to punish the 99%. Do you honestly think that if you punish the 99% that the 1% won't still be there disobeying the rules, law And restrictions?

 

[codytrucker]

Seems like the old arguments against "shall issue" vs "may issue" are rearing their heads again . And from our own community , no less . ( It's gonna be a blood bath , dodge city all over again , every argument will lead to gun play , etc .

Well , just like with shall issue , constitutional carry hasn't lead to that . Trying to hold up a very few instances , that may or may not of taken place in constitutional carry states , or that occurred at residences, not in public , and again not in C.C states as examples of why to infringe on the rights of millions of citizens is just not a realistic argument .

Depending on who's stats you use we know that there are between several hundred thousand to millions of instances of lawful use of firearms annually . And as crime rates go up it stands to reason these instances will go up , too . So , the outlier cases that make the news will increase . We currently live in a time where people elected to prosecute criminals are adamantly apposed to doing so , but more then willing to go after law abiding citizens for defending themselves . Lets not make the anti's job easier by infighting amongst ourselves

Again , the Second Amendment is not a second class right . While we can't make every one be a responsible citizen , we can hold every citizen responsible for their actions , and that's all we can do .

 

[Old Dog]

Keep in mind that the malefactor always has the initiative. Once he begins his attack, if you attempt to deploy your weapon, in most cases all that will accomplish is to get you shot.

So why bother then, right? Just comply, offer no resistance and hope that the bad guy doesn't worry about leaving witnesses.

The "bad guys" are not stupid, and, these days, most of them are armed.

Of course, we don't want any good guys armed, then. Too many guns on the streets. Why should the good guys have the means to resist and defend themselves?

Here you are, on an RKBA forum, arguing against carrying firearms with arguments as illogical as the anti-gun folks.

 

[Poper]

I tell my wife, who is an aggressive driver, not to cut people off or give them the finger, because they might be armed.

They might be armed with a length of pipe or baseball bat, too.
If people would be polite (even to those who are not polite) such confrontations would be a rarity. However, parents seem uninterested these days in teaching their offspring manners and decorum to be expected of citizens in a civil society. Tit-for-tat is NOT a polite method of interacting with your fellow citizen.

 

[CapnMac]

But if a large number of people are carrying, the kind of incidents we read about in the paper are going to multiply.

Well this presumes that there are not a lot of people carrying right now, that any relaxation of onerous rules would dramatically increase the number.

Even where allowed, the actual number of carrying people is not that great. At least, not among the lawful.

If lawful people were creating newsworthy incidents, they would be reported in every news media.

Incidents "in the news" are virtually always about the unlawful. The unlawful, by very definition are unlikely to obey any law.

Which is is the primary flaw in the presupposition that "gun control" must needs result in "crime control." All "gun control" does is create new kinds of criminals.

 

[wayneinFL]

I didn't say that.

Then I don't know what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're asking gun owners to preserve their rights by declining to exercise them- just keep your guns at home, because you never know when you may lose control and shoot someone in a road rage incident. That any one of us could be a nut job and don't even know it yet.

I mean I've been carrying for 20 years. I've been cut off before without shooting anyone. Hell, I've been robbed without shooting anyone. But yeah, I suppose I should stop carrying because... why, again?

The very people inclined to commit that kind of violence are not the ones inclined to heed your advice anyway.

Those people may be more inclined to heed your other advice about carrying when they perceive a specific threat- they'll go out there and start a fight because they have some kind of a beef with somebody.

I know I'm not going to change your mind. But I'm trying to understand why or how you think that's going to work. There has to be some kind of logic behind it in your head, but I can't understand what it is.

 

[The Night Rider]

Please explain to me how this idea would be a backdoor tax on owning a firearm? I have looked at it from every angle I can think of and don't see how providing people with tax funded discounts on firearm ownership is taxing firearm ownership.

I mean, the answer is right in front of you, all you have to do is look for it