Is it right or wrong to carry a firearm?

[cnorman18]

Is it right or wrong to carry a weapon--specifically, a handgun--as a means of defense for oneself and others?

Self-defense seems to be almost universally accepted as a legitimate and moral use of force. If that is true, what could possibly be wrong with having the means to carry out such defense?

In most states in the US, if one passes the required background and medical history investigations, one may obtain a permit to legally carry a weapon. In every state where this law has been instituted, the rate of violent crime has dropped, sometimes precipitously. It has been observed that such a law benefits even those who do not carry weapons, since criminals are more reluctant to prey on citizens when they cannot know who is armed and who is not.

Also: The number of permit holders convicted of weapon-related crimes has remained statistically insignificant for decades. In spite of predictions of a Wild West atmosphere and frequent gunfire in the checkout lines at Wal-Mart, there have been virtually no instances of shootings over trivial matters--but a very great many instances of crimes stopped or prevented by privately owned and carried guns.

Still, there are some who believe that it is immoral and even uncivilized to own, let alone carry, a firearm. Considering the state of society at present, I personally find that hard to credit.

Opinions?

[cnorman18]

Hi, cnorman.

I was not expecting a great deal of support for my views.


I have never heard this before, but having no evidence to the contrary I will take your word for it until such time as I have more information (violent crime is posible without the use of any weapon)*. Even if you are correct, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that it was the banning of handguns which led to the increase in violent crime in the UK. One factor I would like to offer, for example, could be that more people are reporting such crime than they did previously.

Possible; the increase may indeed be coincidental.

Or not.

I believe that there are indeed gangs of Burberry-clad youths (Chavs) who hang about causing trouble, vandalising and fighting. I have never seen this happen, but I agree that it probaby does. I do not, however, see how allowing citizens to bear arms will improve this situation. In fact, I can see that it might make it worse. These gangs do not seem to be in possession of guns themselves if they are having to resort to beating people senseless.

A good point. The fact that the UK is an island, without the prevalent culture and tradition of gun ownership that has existed in the US since Colonial times, makes it more difficult there than here to obtain firearms illegally.

Whereas in our recent history, I can only think of two massacres, and only one in a school- the other being the Hungerford Massacre - both of which were perpetrated by people who it was deemed were fit to legally own guns.

True; whereas here, most such atrocities are committed by those who were not and obtained their guns through the black market.

No, and indeed they do not. Murder is illegal, so the means of perpetration are hardly likely to matter. However, I would argue that murder is often committed without the use of firearms - if you are going to kill someone you will find a way, and if it's as easy as using a gun you already own, you don't have to look very far to find that way.

On the other hand, finding an adequate way to defend oneself is sometimes rather more problematic.

"Gun control" has occasionally been defined here as asserting the right of a 110-pound woman to fistfight with a 240-pound rapist.

We had a case here where a man killed a 16 year old boy and injured a man who broke into his house, he said, in self defence. The killer was found guilty of murder, later reduced to manslaughter. What are your thoughts on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

[/quote]

In American law, even here in Texas, Martin would have been convicted as well. A fleeing criminal is not a threat to one's life, and the shooting was not justified in either law or logic.

I myself was personally involved in a precisely similar confrontation. Two individuals broke into my home in the early morning hours. I did not even see them; when they heard me rack the slide on my pistol to chamber a round, they made tracks in a hurry. I did not pursue them; there was no need for that. They were gone. Martin, too, should have allowed the criminals to escape unharmed and left the matter to the authorities.

Do members of the general public usually go out to dinner with a gun strapped to their waist or tucked into their purse? I'm genuinely curious.

The short answer is, there is no way to know.

The percentage of people licensed to carry in the US is quite small, typically on the order of one or two percent. Those who do carry may or may not carry at all times. If one is going to a place where guns are prohibited, e.g., a bar or school, one leaves the weapon in one's car or at home.

Further, the gun must be concealed, and that means not visible. That is a matter of law. The privilege of carrying is rather easily and permanently lost, and licensees are generally careful to obey the rules. Therefore, one could dine at a restaurant and have no idea who is armed.

When I carry, I wear a small .380 pistol in a pocket holster. Even a close examination will not reveal that I am armed. I do not discuss it nor refer to it, since that is also against the law.

All that said, there is a saying popular among licensees: "Carry 24-7 or guess right."

I have deleted the statistical studies; as you indicate, they are all but worthless in the debate, since everyone--even, or especially, government--has an axe to grind. It's remarkable how the same data can be manipulated to support either side.

[cnorman18]

I, too, have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, as does my father and my sister. (My brother is in the military, so ...) It's called a "CCW permit" here. That said, I have several issues.

A) Ten hours of instruction is not exactly 'extensive.' I have a grasp of the intellect of the average American...

Do you? Whenever I see statements like that, they seem to carry the implication that "the average American^ is an idiot. Considering the infinitesimal percentage of licensees convicted of (or even arrested for) gun-related crimes, I don't think that holds up very well in this instance.

and I can confidently state that in ten hours, I doubt anyone is going to learn the intricacies of anger management or conflict resolution, let alone the law.

Intricacies, no; basic principles, yes. I think requiring licensees to become certified counselors, or anything like it, is a bit much.

Driver training classes in high school were eight weeks, 30 hours per week, to learn to use a machine I had been riding in and watching various operators use daily for 15 years.

The operation of that machine is rather more complex that that of a firearm, and the laws are rather obviously much more complicated and numerous. That is, in short, a specious comparison.

B) I just picked up a box of 50 rounds the other day for $19.47. I can't imagine what you all are buying for $100 in Texas.

You are quite right; I multiplied when I should have divided. The correct figure would be $25, not $100. If I were attempting deception, it would not be on something that stupid.

Besides, I don't believe shooting 50 rounds is enough to qualify anyone to carry a handgun in public. It's not even enough to become comfortable with one's weapon.

The test is not for instruction, but to demonstrate proficiency, and it does just that. One is required to hit one's target, sometimes with multiple shots, within very restricted time limits--not just fire the weapon. Many applicants are rejected for failing the range test, and would have to obtain more instruction on how to handle a firearm before being tested again. Besides, I doubt that many who apply for a license have never handled a gun before;

And I don't believe $290 (instruction and permit fees) is pricey. That's two days' pay, to entrust me with the lives and security of myself and others.

So you would mandate a fee high enough to effectively reserve the right of self-defense to the wealthy only?

C) Background checks are background checks, no matter how long your particular bureaucracy takes to complete them, and they're based on the information provided by the applicant. If I say I've never been treated for a psychological condition, they have to take my word for it. With HIPAA regulations, all that can be verified independently is involuntary mental evaluation ordered by a court.

Hardly. I was required to waive privilege and allow access to all of my medical records.

They can check arrest records, but if I committed a crime and got away with it, it won't show up on any record checks.

And how, exactly, would you solve that problem?

D) Lower gun violence rates in other countries may not be so much the glorification of violence in America, but the outstanding prevention methods used in those other countries. If every American were required to complete a couple of years of military training and service upon reaching the age of majority or completion of secondary education, perhaps the youth of America would have more respect for weaponry and the destruction it causes. Other countries screen the same movies we do, they have the same music available, they have the same internet. The differences are more socioeconomic, educational, and proportion of 'free time.'

You don't think cultural differences play any role at all? Do "gangsta" pictures, e.g., have as big an audience in Norway and the UK as they do in America?

E) As for statistics, we can all be given any set of facts and figures, and each of us could make a case for any point of view. Statistics are always skewed.

Agreed. See my last post.

That doesn't change the raw data, though. People in America are killed with handguns at a greater rate than in most other industrialized nations, whether they're white, black, old, young, walking, sleeping, educated, impoverished, land owners, renters, whatever.

Why do you think this is?

More to the point, does the fact that virtually no criminal activity on the part of CCW holders has been recorded have any relevance to this discussion, which is, after all, about licensed carry?

'Gangbangers' should be included with legal gun owners, because gun violence is gun violence. Any time a gun is used to cause a death, it is gun violence. The mother of the dead person doesn't care who pulled the trigger or why or how; all she cares is that her baby is dead.

Again: doesn't the fact that the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners are decent, law-abiding, and never use their guns for any criminal activity--and the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by those for whom the possession of guns is already illegal--have a place in this debate? One might as well argue against the private ownership of automobiles by citing the number of highway deaths while ignoring the fact that more than half of them are caused by drunk drivers.

I was going somewhere with all this, but I took a Vicodin just before I started, and, well, I lost my train of thought.

Vicodin is why I don't mind going to the dentist. A nice buzz over the next few days makes it all better.

(And no, I don't carry while buzzed, I don't even leave the house.)

Back to the OP, the second question asked was something along the lines of "could it be wrong to have the means to defend oneself."

I have a permit to carry a weapon, but I don't take it out to dinner with the me.

Considering that most assaults in public occur in parking lots, why ever not?

I wouldn't use it in a crowded restaurant if it were robbed. I wouldn't use it if I were the victim of a carjacking. The only time I would ever use it would be if I feared for my life or the lives of my children, and I can't think of a situation where I would rather fight than give up mere possessions and put us in that position, with the exception of military invasion or something along those unlikely lines.

With all that I agree wholeheartedly. A mere robbery is not a threat to anyone's life. Only when a criminal is actively engaged in murder, as in the Luby's case I referred to earlier, would the use of deadly force be justified.

You seem to believe that all CCW holders other than yourself are likely to be trigger-happy nuts. Again, the numbers don't seem to bear that out.

It frankly appears to me that, while you have judged yourself to be a capable, responsible, law-abiding and sane individual worthy of holding a concealed-carry license, you would prefer to deny a license to anyone else who makes a similar judgment about himself or herself. I find that just a trifle arrogant, not to say hypocritical.

If you really think that gun violence per se is the problem, and that no one should be allowed to possess a handgun, fine; that position is at least consistent. But only if you give up your own. Do you decline? So do I.

Otherwise, the requirements for obtaining a CCW permit seem to me to have proven adequate over the last decade or so.

[Furrowed Brow]

Just today my 17 year old son came home from college to tell me that three boys has been arrested at the college gates today for carry a gun. 25 years ago when I used to hang around that same college guns were completely absent. they just were not part of life. So I’d have to admit the picture is not rosy.

However, the increase in gun crime in the UK has absolutely nothing top do with the 1997 ban. Other than farmers, the odd member of a gun club, and a minority of hardened criminals (armed bank robbers and drug dealers) no one owned guns in the UK prior to 1997. The only group curtailed by the 1997 hand gun ban are about three Olympic pistol shootists.

Any increase in gun crime has everything to do with the explosion of a drug culture, a trend in certain areas for youths and young men to carry guns as part of their street and gang culture, and since the collapse of communism a steady tide of cheap illegal guns mainly from Eastern Europe. Gun culture has also been imported with the arrival of new immigrant gangs from around the world.

In 2006/7 there were 61 firearm homicides and a further 413 incidents in England and wales. Source

I believe these figure as percentage of population are still considerably below the US average.

[spiritletter]

I am a licensed to carry a pistol, but I do so only on the way to the range. If I were to feel that my life was in danger, I might carry it more often.

I think that people have a right to protect themselves, especially in a time when the police are impotent to control crime.

That said, I don't spend a lot of time fantasizing about scenarios in which I might shoot somebody.

One of the things that is missing in this discussion is social class. Poor people live in the most dangerous parts of any city and spend a lot of time in terrific amounts of fear. With women, the situation is worse.

I think these people should be better protected than they are, that their social ills should be energetically ameliorated.

[cnorman18]

Just today my 17 year old son came home from college to tell me that three boys has been arrested at the college gates today for carry a gun. 25 years ago when I used to hang around that same college guns were completely absent. they just were not part of life. So I’d have to admit the picture is not rosy.

Agreed. We live in a very different world than the one we had just a few decades ago.

However, the increase in gun crime in the UK has absolutely nothing top do with the 1997 ban. Other than farmers, the odd member of a gun club, and a minority of hardened criminals (armed bank robbers and drug dealers) no one owned guns in the UK prior to 1997. The only group curtailed by the 1997 hand gun ban are about three Olympic pistol shootists.

Well, you live there and no doubt know better than I; but that is not entirely true. I have read posts on some of the firearms forums I frequent from gun hobbyists and collectors in the UK who were forced to give up their guns and were not happy about it.

Besides, if no one owned guns, what, exactly, was the point of the ban? Seems an obvious question...

Any increase in gun crime has everything to do with the explosion of a drug culture, a trend in certain areas for youths and young men to carry guns as part of their street and gang culture, and since the collapse of communism a steady tide of cheap illegal guns mainly from Eastern Europe. Gun culture has also been imported with the arrival of new immigrant gangs from around the world.

So you are now overrun with gun-carrying thugs, while the law-abiding citizens remain disarmed. That doesn't sound like a happy and secure situation to me...

It also doesn't sound like the ban is working very well, now does it?

In 2006/7 there were 61 firearm homicides and a further 413 incidents in England and wales. Source

I believe these figure as percentage of population are still considerably below the US average.

As we have already seen, the statistics are arguable. Check out a couple of the references in the posts above.

[spiritletter]

The UK population is much smaller than the US. It is therefore reasonable that their gun crime is lower. You can fit the entirety of Europe down into the US and still have plenty of room left over.

[cnorman18]

I am a licensed to carry a pistol, but I do so only on the way to the range. If I were to feel that my life was in danger, I might carry it more often.

It's often said that "a liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet." I hope you never have cause to regret your practice of not carrying.

If I may ask; if you never carry, why did you bother to obtain a permit to do so?

I think that people have a right to protect themselves, especially in a time when the police are impotent to control crime.

I quite agree.

That said, I don't spend a lot of time fantasizing about scenarios in which I might shoot somebody.

LOL! No more do I. I have been in a real one, and that was quite enough. See above.

One of the things that is missing in this discussion is social class. Poor people live in the most dangerous parts of any city and spend a lot of time in terrific amounts of fear. With women, the situation is worse.

I think these people should be better protected than they are, that their social ills should be energetically ameliorated.

Which is why I have never opposed the sale of cheap guns, aka "Saturday Night Specials."

There is in most large cities an effort to increase police presence in poor areas with high crime rates; unfortunately, this is being thwarted by an intense "Don't Snitch" campaign among thuse who need police protection the most, inner-city young people. I have seen kids wearing hats and T-shirts that say "Snitches get Stitches" and the like; the idea that cooperation with the police, at all and under any circumstances, I to be punished with violence.

Here in Dallas, there are frequently crimes committed in broad daylight with plenty of witnesses--but no one at all will come forward, and in fact many will sneer at the suggestion that anyone should. It's hard to help people fight crime when law enforcement itself is held in contempt.

[spiritletter]

cnorman: the situation is very very bad. I heard a discussion the other night on the theme of the commandment, "Thou shall not kill." The true translation from the Hebrew is, "Thou shalt not murder."

It is, as in all things, a matter of intention.

[Furrowed Brow]

Well, you live there and no doubt know better than I; but that is not entirely true. I have read posts on some of the firearms forums I frequent from gun hobbyists and collectors in the UK who were forced to give up their guns and were not happy about it.

Well Ok 3 Olympic shootists and half about 1000 people in the whole of the uk who ever belonged to gun clubs . You might maybe able to dig up a more accurate figure than 1000, but really, honestly we are talking about a very small minority.

Besides, if no one owned guns, what, exactly, was the point of the ban? Seems an obvious question...

The ban was a response to a single crime - the Dunblane massacre. Thomas Hamilton, a gun club enthusiast killed sixteen children and one teacher as revenge for his perceived grievances against his local community. The ban had absolutely nothing to do with gun crime in any wider sense. The parents of Dunblane campaigned for the ban.

As we have already seen, the statistics are arguable. Check out a couple of the references in the posts above.

61 shot dead by guns is not an argubable figure. The population of England and Wales is approximately 52 million. The population of the US is approximately 300 million. In 2006 10,000 were killed by firearms in the US. Even taken the larger population into consideration you are still approximately 27 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the US than the Uk. source

In 2005/6 there were 765 homicides (all methods - guns, knives, candlesticks) in total in the England and Wales. So the chances of being murdered are approximately 68,000 to 1. Compared to 20,000 to 1 in the US.

You guys should seriously consider hanging up your guns.

[cnorman18]

Well, you live there and no doubt know better than I; but that is not entirely true. I have read posts on some of the firearms forums I frequent from gun hobbyists and collectors in the UK who were forced to give up their guns and were not happy about it.

Well Ok 3 Olympic shootists and half about 1000 people in the whole of the uk who ever belonged to gun clubs . You might maybe able to dig up a more accurate figure than 1000, but really, honestly we are talking about a very small minority.

Besides, if no one owned guns, what, exactly, was the point of the ban? Seems an obvious question...

The ban was a response to a single crime - the Dunblane massacre. Thomas Hamilton, a gun club enthusiast killed sixteen children and one teacher as revenge for his perceived grievances against his local community. The ban had absolutely nothing to do with gun crime in any wider sense. The parents of Dunblane campaigned for the ban.

Well, the people of the UK govern themselves, and they are free to make their own collective decisions, of course. But from my point of view, "One member of a gun club has proven to be a dangerous maniac, therefore they all might be" does not strike me as a reasoned response--especially since, as you proved yourself, the ban has proven to be ineffective.

As we have already seen, the statistics are arguable. Check out a couple of the references in the posts above.

61 shot dead by guns is not an argubable figure. The population of England and Wales is approximately 52 million. The population of the US is approximately 300 million. In 2006 10,000 were killed by firearms in the US. Even taken the larger population into consideration you are still approximately 27 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the US than the Uk. source

In 2005/6 there were 765 homicides (all methods - guns, knives, candlesticks) in total in the England and Wales. So the chances of being murdered are approximately 68,000 to 1. Compared to 20,000 to 1 in the US.

You guys should seriously consider hanging up your guns.

Sorry, I decline. My own guns have saved my own life three times to date, and I have never fired a shot in anger. If I had hung them up, I would not now be writing this. You can insist all day that I would be safer unarmed, but I know better, and have proven it by my own personal experience.

Those who campaign for the outlawing of firearms invariably forget or omit the issue of guns being used for defense. Such incidents happen hundreds of times every day here, but are rarely, if ever, reported in the national or international press. I know this for an absolute fact, because such incidents have happened to me.

I do not regard the right of self-defense as one "granted" by the US Constitution; I regard it as a matter of natural law, as did the Framers of our Constitution who merely acknowledged it. I doubt very much that a gun ban similar to that in the UK will ever happen here; but if it is, American gun owners will not be inclined to submit as peacefully.

We have a saying here, two Greek words attributed to King Leonidas of Sparta. When the 300 were commanded by the Persians to lay down their arms at Thermopylae, he replied, "Molon labe."

"Come and take them."