Although I got pissed off, I recognize the error was mine in not anticipating how contested geographical definitions are.

I moved here from a "city" of 8,500.



The former is in the distant suburbs of NYC, the latter would probably be the exurbs of the Twin Cities. I was among the corn and soybeans, but could be in downtown Minneapolis in about 45 minutes. Now the Metro-North commuter train can have me at Grand Central in about 75 minutes.



If it doesn't crash, and if that antique drawbridge in Norwalk isn't stuck again.



The best way to solve the question would be a population-density map. If you're in THIS color, you're rural, if you're in THAT color you're suburban, and if you're in THAT OTHER color you're urban.

But then you'd need a link to a cartography site that carries such things.

The Census Bureau has one, I think. I poked around a little on the Census website for your, but there doesn't seem to be a simple lookup feature or a map-making one.

Wikipedia articles on towns and cities gives a population density. If you live in the country (rural) you could use the county's average density, I guess.

Where I live is nearly 2,000 people per square mile. Where I used to live was a bit over 1,000 p/mi². The average of the county I live in now is 1,465 p/mi² , and the one I used to live in is 71 p/mi².

I've lived most of my life in the city. I lived for seven years in Palm Beach county, FL, and everything there is suburban. I lived in a town of 29,000 for 9 months and in a suburb of Minneapolis for four. I see urban, suburban, and small town as very different, but everyone's perceptions vary.

That requirement should address practical skills in firearms-handling, the legal ramifications of self-defense in all forms, and conflict management/avoidance techniques. I also think there should be no arbitrary or excessive fees to create a barrier to receiving a permit, nor any other requirements intended to discourage applicants - the regulation should be stringent but focused solely on valid questions of qualification...

Is the organizing you all are doing in the gungeon promoting such training and testing? Was that in the IL legislation you all celebrated?

That seems to surprise some people.

I've seen here on DU make me think that that's a good place to find examples and ideas on how this ought to be done in general...

Don't snatch purses.

is the way CCW is handled in Minnesota. I believe Wisconsin law is similar as well. My Korean War era army veteran father and my Iraqi War veteran nephew took the CCW class together. (I don't have a CCW.) They said much of the classroom time used by the instructor telling them the shitstorm they will start and be in the middle of if they ever pull their gun in public, let alone fire the gun and/or injure or kill someone.

unless that is redundant...

I support shall issue with the caveat of a training requirement. I like the MN classroom requirements, they are fairly comprehensive on skills and legal issues. I would like to see a tougher practical test. Currently all you have to do is shoot in a general direction to pass; I would like to see a scored system in it's place.

My state requires a CCW to take a pistol to a range or buy ammo. I have never used it to carry it on myself. You need it just to put a pistol in the trunk of a car. To get it, you need to take an NRA certified safety class (law specifies that), pay $40 for fingerprinting and background check by local town, get issued town permit, then go to state police, pay $70, and get state permit.

as they go about their business. It sounds like CT has far more careful laws than most. This whole thing arose out of a thread in the gungeon where members were happy about a law requiring Chicago to lift it's handgun ban and allow at will concealed carry. They then sought to mobilize members to extend at will everywhere. So it has to do not just with what you want for yourself, but what you think should be the law elsewhere. I suppose you could select the other response and say you think it should be up to localities, if that is what you believe.

The law has to be shall issue since it's a basic requirement of pistol ownership. You still have training in gun safety as a requirement. As for local vs state, I support a state law only because leaving it to localities would create a patchwork of laws, and that would just trip up otherwise innocent people driving to a range or to a competition. Almost every High School in the region has a rifle club (It's an Olympic sport) and they compete in marksmanship statewide.

It should be possible for non-NRA connected orgs to provide safety classes.

To teach a class, you need a certified instructor. And much like ASME and IEEE provide standards for components and engineering design, the NRA does it for firearms safety courses.

here in AZ there is no law, anyone (other than prohibited persons, and specific locations) can carry whenever and where ever they want and the results are completely unremarkable. cops hardly ask if there is a gun in the car anymore, its just assumed there is.

just wondering.

Oh wait. You can't.

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is some info from Mother Jones.

Texas: Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
Texas keeps and publishes those stats. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

For the year 2011:
Crime------------------------------------Total Convictions----CHL Holder Convictions---------------CHL Holder Percentage of Total
Agg Assault W/ Deadly Weapon-------------2,765---------------3------------------------------------0.1085%
Deadly Conduct (Includes non-fierarm)----1,353----------------9------------------------------------0.6652%
Deadly Conduct, Discharge Firearm-----------244----------------2-----------------------------------0.8197%

In 2011 there were 518,625 CHL holders. 2012 had 584,850.

As you can see there are a lot of us that have CHLs, but the offenders in that type of crime are in the single digits. None of them rise to 1% of the convictions. That is a far cry for your claimed 480% difference.

SYG & homicides. You assume that all homicides are wrong. Yes, SYG does lead to an increase in JUSTIFIED homices. That is to be expected. Criminals are more likely to suffer catastrophic failure of their victim selection program resulting inpermenant total system shutdown for the criminal. You slant the statement by omitting the word "justified".

The Philly study has been debunked numerous times, including here on DU. Here is my standard reply to it:
Guns Are Not Bullet Magnets
Gun controllers love to trot out so-called scientific studies that show that carrying a gun makes one more likely to get shot.

Common sense says that is pure bullshit. Guns are not bullet magnets. Bullets don't curve in mid-air to go to a person carrying concealed. Thugs don't hunt for concealed carriers to shoot them on sight. You don't get shot because you have a hidden gun on you.

The ONLY reason why a person might get shot is that they are engaging in a behavior that will cause someone to want to shoot them, or they have the bad luck to be a victim of a random shooter or other criminal. (Examples of the latter would be mass shootings, serial shootings, gang initiation shootings, etc.) Merely carrying a concealed handgun will not make someone a target as nobody knows that you have the gun, therefore you can't be targeted for having a gun.

So the real question that should be asked is not if the person had a gun, but what were they doing when they were shot? It is well known from FBI statistics that over half of all murder victims were themselves engaged in a criminal enterprise. But criminals do not make up over half of our population, so one draws the reasonable conclusion the being a criminal is dangerous. Certain crimes would be more dangerous than others. Drug dealing and gang banging would be more dangerous than being a business embezzler. The dangerous criminals are well aware that they are targets for other criminals and are extremely likely to be armed. Naturally, those who style of crime is armed robbery are going to be armed. All of them will be engaging in behaviors that have a high risk of drawing gun fire, either from other criminals or from armed citizens.

The law-abiding person who is legally carrying will not be engaging in any of those activities. His behavior won't change (with very rare exception) from what it was before. So he won't be a target unless his luck runs out and a violent criminal targets him. Then his gun gives him the ability to fight back.

None of the so-called studies have ever made any attempt to separate the legal from the illegal carriers but instead have lumped them all together as if they were all legal carriers. Until a study makes such a differentiation they will all be useless and will discover nothing except that being a violent criminal is dangerous.

Then when I reread how I'd written it I understood you meant it entirely seriously.

already corrected by replacing literally with seriously.

and if you think carrying s gun makes you safer, what are you going to do when there's a gun pointed at you, play cowboy?

If a criminal is going to attack you, he will almost always go though a series of steps. If you are alert and spot someone taking those step regarding you, then you try to avoid the situation by escape, let him know that you are ready if you can't escape (NO, you don't draw the gun yet.), finally - draw and fire if he produces a weapon, or otherwise attacks you.

Critical to his attack is isolation and approach. They will rarely attack you with a lot of others around. He will try to trail you to an isolated spot, or wait in ambush. Be alert for anybody following you, or waiting, as you go to an isolated area, such as a parking lot.
Observe their posture and body language, looking for pre-assault indicators. (That's a police term for that type of body language.) There are web sites and DVDs to learn them.

If you think someone has targeted you, escape if you can. If you can't, make eye contact, and use your own body language to let him know that you are armed. He WILL read it and understand. He is a criminal and that skill is part of his livelihood/hobby. Usually he will abort the attack at that moment. (Be alert, he may have accomplices)

Don't talk if he tries to engage you in conversation. Say, "Stay away." When he starts to talk to you is called, "the interview". He is in the final part of selecting you as a victim. He isn't sure yet. You want to fail the interview. It is OK to be impolite to strangers in dangerous situations. Take control of the situation. He has a script for a play and you are supposed to play a certain role. If you aren't following his script for you it presents him with a situation in which he can't be sure of what you will do. Experienced criminals will back off and look for easier prey. At this point you have also put you hand under your clothes and on the gun, ready if things go south.

If he attacks or then pulls a weapon, you are also ready.

This has been a brief summary. There are detailed books and videos on the subject, many used by law enforcement for training.

Far more often people are killed by crossfire. Why would a killer track you? Are you a drug dealer? Killers don't go around tracking men with guns. What happens is there is a shooting between rival crooks, a drive by, or something like that. Shooting at them only worsens the situation because you would draw the fire away from their intended target toward you. It also increases the casualties of innocent by standers.

The only way the argument you post makes sense to me is if you were a woman concerned about rape, but you're not.

If you are targeted for deliberate assassination, you are screwed. Defense against such would be a different topic. I was writing about how to avoid and deal with the common criminal who would use force to rob you.

If there is a drive-by, take cover. CCWers don't commit drive-bys, so don't blame us for the actions of criminals.

You misunderstand much about legally carrying a gun. My gun does NOT make me an almost-cop. Its purpose is to help me survive a very bad violent situation if I can't avoid it some other way. Muggers and common criminals target people who look like they can't fight back. Since I am a senior citizen with a mild disability, I can't win a fight against a young man who may have decided that he is willing to hurt and possible kill me to get my wallet that usually has only a few dollars in it. But by being alert to the signs that I have been targeted as a potential robbery victim, and being able to deal with it if it happens, I can avoid being a victim.

Or have public shootouts? Really? Because Geckosfeet is chomping at the bit to have such an option. Those in support of universal CC obviously want anyone to be able to have a gun on them.

So your plan is to kill someone who plans to rob you? Here I thought you were concerned with your life. In that situation, I would simply give the thief my money. Your chances of having that gun used on you are pretty high, as Mother Jones demonstrates. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

You said, "So your plan is to kill someone who plans to rob you?" Not quite. My plan is to kill someone who credibly threatens to kill or greatly harm me as part of robbing me. Notice the difference between what you said and what I said. If he is going to threaten me with deadly force then I will respond with deadly force. Disparity of force and the situation will come into play.

I looked at that article. There are a lot of falsehoods in the article. I have already pointed out some of them in another post, responding to you. Nowhere in the article does the author claim that my gun will be used on me. If that were true, and known to be true, would police be placing themselves in greater danger by being armed? Gun-controllers frequently seem to assign criminals with super-ninja powers against the intended victim. If I do my part of situational awareness right, he won't get the drop on me. If I do my part of telegraphing to him that I am armed (Without drawing my gun.) then he will be very likely to leave me alone. If things go all the way south, and he presents a credible threat then I will defend myself. No more warnings. I will fire as quickly as I can draw and put the gun on target. (A little under one second at a distance of 9 feet. Over 50% of self-defense shootings are at distance of less than 9 feet, IIRC.)

I do not want universal CC. To carry in public a person should have training. I went into more detail in another post.

but the search "concealed carry, 'drive by'" yielded zero instances of drive-by's committed by ccw permittees.

One thing about facing a mugger. If you have a gun, you still have the option of complying! However, if you have been denied the right to bear arms for your own self-defense, all you can do is comply and trust yourself to the good graces of a violent felon.

Body language and actions.

Or were you looking for a more incriminating answer? Perhaps you want him to say a hoodie, skittles, and iced tea?

That would fit the narrative better than sound advice on situational awareness.

I've been to enough shooting competitions to know that moving targets are a heckuva lot harder to hit.

That said, if running weren't an option (eg I'm standing between an attacker and my little boy) I have a hard time seeing how "playing cowboy" is a worse option than being shot unarmed.

Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

nuts.

but it is a damn good idea 99% of the time

I also think most gun toters are afraid they might pull a Zimmerman and not want responsibility or to have the the possibility of tracing weapon.

"One size fits all" doesn't work for conflict situations...

seriously, that is one sad f*ck...

I would start retreating immediately

Disassemble the gun and throw the pieces into the bushes in one swift motion.

You did

It says you WILL not "could" as you say in your post. Totally laughable. And just because someone remembers your hilarious post (as someone else did in this very thread with your tales of bean cans and bicycle wheels) does not make it "stalking" you. You give yourself a lot more importance than you really have.

Not much else -- trying to stay out of trouble. Apparently there exists an "alertsalot" group to go with the other *alot group.

Do you want? Should you get to take out three of us a year, six, ten?

... even by modern standards.

per year. Presumably the gunners would conceal their guns to go into neighborhoods like mine where they can kill people of color, women, and children--those of us, who one member pointed out, have no right to life. I'm assuming that's what the NRA will next assert that gun owners have a right to kill anyone they want. After all, that's what stand your ground is about. Then there is the guy in TX acquitted for killing a woman because she wouldn't have sex with him. I'm sure there was great celebration about that in MRA quarters. Look how many parents get rid of their kids by leaving loaded guns laying around, while the NRA lobbies to defeat measures requiring gun safes and instead advocates storing weapons in children's bedrooms. I don't know why they hate their own offspring so much, but there is no understanding the depths of that kind of evil.

Seriously... Is this how you go through life on a daily basis? You are assuming that everyone with a gun thinks this?

I don't. It was based on the hypothetical free kills scenario, which as I pointed out is not too far from reality as it stands. I have read enough posts form gun folk on this site to know that many think a great deal about killing people.

... where concealed carry advocates express their desire to travel to other neighborhoods to attack people of color, women and children to the exclusion of everyone else?

That wasn't serious. Even the question wasn't serious. For heaven's sake. But if you want examples of gunners thinking about killing people, this thread is a start.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023031723


I do believe gun policy is racist and that some elements would like to see guns in the cities to wipe out the population of color. That's why I call the NRA the new KKK. I don't, however, think any legitimate Democrat holds that position. So it's quite possible that some Republican trolls on this site would like to see that, but I don't believe that is the desire of pro-gun Democrats.

As for the original question, the guy wants universal concealed carry, meaning anyone can carry a gun around with them, regardless of who they are. That is obviously a recipe for homicide.

... by legal restrictions on whether or not they can carry a weapon concealed?

If not for CC, Trayvon Martin would still be alive, as would the kid killed by the guy who shot him because his music was too loud.

They don't care about killing people but do care about whether or not the law says they can tuck a pistol in their pants... wow...

keep denying them. Obviously there are a lot of people here who don't care about killing people, since they've specified conditions in which they would do just that. If you plan on using a gun for self defense or to keep yourself from being robbed, you plan on killing.

You deny reality. There are many, many cases of CC holders committing murder. But you deny facts and that make up some bullshit excuse. If you don't plan on killing someone, WTF are doing carrying around a gun in the first place? That's the whole point of the thing. What a tangled web you weave.

I love it when people take that VPC headline and don't look at the internals. First, they started counting in 2007 and accumulate the numbers. So that is six years worth, instead of an annual rate. That is a deceptive practice to enable them to use the most alarming number possible.

Go to the VPC page you linked, click on the total killed box, scroll down to Michigan. You will find that they list people with CCWs who committed suicide, killing no one but themselves. There is no listing of method, so some of those would be by means other than a gun. How many? Unknown. Now look at the numbers, 29, 43, 28, 29, for a total of 129 suicides of undetermined means. Do you really believe that having a CCW made any difference to those people? VPC shamelessly uses their deaths (some by pills, some by hanging, etc.) to push the number higher.

Further, remember that a CCW is NOT a license to merely own a gun, it is a license to carry one in public. So if the murder happens at home, where the offender could have a gun anyway, in what way does having a CCW contribute to the act? Even without a CCW the offender would still have a gun and still commit the crime. The CCW is irrelevant in those cases.

Some CCWers do go bad. I posted the stats for Texas DHL convictions for murder/manslaughter. There are over 1/2 million CHL holders yet we make up a very tiny percentage of the total state-wide convictions. 1.047% is our percentage. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

Nationally we estimate that there are over 12 million people in the country with CCWs, and the number is growing daily. Out of 12 million people, some will go bad, but the number each year that do go bad is very small. After all, it has taken VPC six years to reach the number that they have, and they had to cheat to get that number.

... saying that their lives "don't count" and other emotional blackmail vs the statistics of the situation and realizing that out 300 million people, 10s of millions of gun owners and millions of people who conceal carry every day, that 508 is not that bad.

This is the part where you claim that I don't value any human life and why don't I think of the children!!!

Followed by the part where I ask why you don't put as much emphasis and emotional angst into everything that kills more than 508 people...

Can we just go to the end where you make an actual point?

Yes, it is truly horrible to provide evidence of just how wrong you are. You said no CC holders kill, a point that is obviously ludicrous. I provide evidence of cases where CC holders have killed, and you become angry.


The point is you relentlessly promote policies that result in the highest homicide rate in the First Word. You pretend the death count is irrelevant. When you advocate for war, you own the deaths. That's as true for domestic as foreign war. You have the America you want, full of blood and violence. Be proud. You've worked hard for those achievements.

Look how stand your group is applied.

SYG is NOT a license to kill. It only means that you don't have to retreat if you have a legal right to be there, nothing more. If you shoot someone and claim SYG, all of the elements of self-defense still have to be met. In Texas, as in most states, all shootings have to go before a grand jury where they are found to be justified, or charged. If the elements of self-defense are not met, then it is murder or manslaughter charges.

To pretend otherwise is a bullshit. All one needs is a fear, and gun toting paranoids fear people of color. Therefore they are allowed to kill any person of color. Has their ever been a case where a black man successfully invoked a stand your ground defense against a white man? I doubt it.

But defend them. I would expect nothing else from you.

self defense shooting are intra race. I'm willing to bet that is true in general since this corresponds with crime in general, meaning the victim and the attacker is generally the same race. If I am going to be a crime victim, statistically, the attacker is going to be white. If I shoot him, he is still going to be white.

In Iowa, although it doesn't have SYG, an Asian man did prevail in a self defense claim against two white guys. I don't look for race in the papers. BTW are you saying California's common law SYG is also racist? Are you saying it is racist to defend yourself? Or have laws defending yourself? There is another possibility, but it makes you sound kind of............

Honestly, I have a hard time wrapping my head around how you might have come to that conclusion.

AT least that is what the press coverage surrounding Zimmerman has said. You are talking here about all shootings.

Do you actually deny that our justice system is racist? Would you contend the death penalty isn't racist, or that prosecution and punishment more generally isn't racist?