BSK

go to the link and type in fee. there is a paragraph of what has to be done after the class

Another Drew

With people like you, I can understand why Md makes it tough :P

CC Rider

But let me say there's a big difference in the number of people obtaining permits and "everyone hiding a gun in their shorts". It doesn't take critical thinking to see the stretch there.

#1) According to <a href="http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm">this site</a>, in 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

#2) According to <a href="http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html">this site</a>: <i>According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.</i>

This statistic is in dispute, so I therefore submit statistics #3.

#3) According to <a href="http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt">this site</a>, the number of defensive gun uses in the U.S. is 108,000 per year.

Using the conservative number from #3 above, there were 108,000 incidents where a murder, rape, robbery, or other (probably) violent crime was prevented due to the defensive use of a gun. In other words, the "victim" used a gun to prevent the crime. Compare this to the number of gun deaths in 2002, and you see that over three times as many people were protected by guns as were killed by them.

Clearly, a large number of people have good reason to hide a gun in their shorts.

Speaking subjectively, without the support of statistics, I will say that everyone is responsible for their own protection. Police do not prevent crimes and murders from happening.

Some people prefer to be prepared for any circumstance. Some of those people carry guns. You could argue that you shouldn't need a gun to feel safe. On the other hand, you can't control your environment or all of the people that you come into contact with. If you could, fewer people would be robbed, raped, and murdered. If you knew where all the bad guys were, you simply wouldn't go there. But that's not realistic.

People that stand around and wait for the police or the government to take care of everything risk getting the New Orleans treatment.

I'd rather have another option.

HighPSI

you just gave me #'s from three different studies, from 3 different years(2002, 1994, 1997), used a "projected"(lol) state from FSU, and compared them as if they were all in 2002, wtf?

your subjective argument, i can sympathize with to an extent, but i just dont see allowing anyone who can cough up 50 bux and a couple weekends of they're time for the class as an answer...i can protect myself from N.Orleanish events, just by keeping a firearm in the home...

but since police dont prevent crime and murder, i guess we can just do away with them or limit their jurisdiction to traffic and civil offense?

CC Rider

But I tried. So add to the list that I don't do critical thinking and none of the stats I can find are of the same year. I guess everything I say is suspect.

Listen, I understand these aren't the same year. And I knew you or someone would debate the "projected" statistic. That's why I dug up a second one. In fact, I didn't even use the projected one in my later examples (otherwise the 3x would have been almost 100x).

It's true that anyone with $50 can obtain the permit, provided they:
1) Pass a gun safety course
2) Submit paperwork to undergo a background investigation by the State Police
3) Wait up to 45 days
4) Prove they live in the county
5) Submit fingerprints in some cases (this changes from one county to the next)
6) Have not been convicted of a felony
7) Are not otherwise restricted from having a permit (due to restraining orders, etc)

I don't see what more you could reasonably expect.

If you are going to LOL, then LOL at your argument that amounts to: since I don't need to carry a gun for safety, no one does.

I asked for stats, you balked. I provided stats, you balked. I'm having a hard time being convinced of anything.

HighPSI

and say guns had a net benefit of ~70,000 lives in 2002...

i didnt balk, if i were doing a research report, id spend the time, im not basing my argument on facts and stats from a pre-conceal carry society, im making an argument in a practicality sense...im not against the right to bear arms and all that mumbo jumbo, but somebody allowed to carry a 9mm into the mci center under their coat during tyson's next fight, just because they havent been caught or convicted of a crime yet, and b/c they paid $50, etc...is not right...if people are gonna have the right to carry guns around on their person anywhere, then i should have the right to know it as that might be useful information to me when making my own safety decisions...

nowhere did i say if i dont need to, noone does

this issue seems near and dear to your heart, id expect you to have historical figures...but when you change the rules, those historical studies all but go out the window when your talking about the possibility that any joe shmoe can carry...

fwiw, i wasnt meaning to laugh at you, i didnt think you realized the years were all different, and i was laughing that the FSU study thought they conduct a useful study projecting how many people might try to defend themselves with gun the next year

CC Rider

1) We can accept them as close enough for arguments sake, and say that a lot of defensive gun uses happen.
2) We can argue that the years are different and therefore have nothing to discuss.

If you want to take path #2, then we have nothing to really base out arguments on.

Note: The MCI Center is in DC. No one is allowed to carry concealed there except with permission from the Mayor. For all intents and purposes, it's not available to the average Joe. If the MCI Center were in VA, you could not carry concealed there because they serve alcohol. Not to mention the pat-down checks at most events there.

If it makes you feel more comfortable knowing that no one is legally carrying a concealed weapon in a certain place, then so be it. Try not to think about the fact that criminals carry concealed wherever they please, regardless of restricted zones.

Second note: A major point of concealed carry is that criminals do not know who is carrying and who is not. Therefore, they must think twice about who they victimize, lest they find themselves up against an armed citizen. Criminals don't like armed citizens. It makes their job dangerous. If we advertise to you who is carrying, then the people that are not carrying just got a big sign on their back as far as the criminals are concerned. That sign says "Pick Me. I'm not armed."

What we should really do is reconvene this debate in a few years. San Francisco just voted (yesterday) to make handguns illegal to possess in the city. If this really makes it into law, then no one will be allowed to carry or legally own a handgun there. The results will be relevant to this debate. I don't expect criminals to obey that law. I expect gun related crime to go up. It's a sad forecast, but I believe it will happen.

HighPSI

i follow your reasoning, i just dont think its how it will play out...one innocent person dead because of a mistake by someone like you (dont mean it in a derogatory sense), means conceal-carry is a failure and the rights of the public supercede that of the individual, thats all im saying im talking risk/reward and i dont see any additional benefit or value added, people feel generally safe as it is

CC Rider

All people are not created equal. There are people of smaller stature, handicapped, women, that are prime targets for victimization. There are stalkers and criminals that cannot be ignored. I don't need or carry a gun, and neither do you, but I at least acknowledge the need for some people. I would not tell someone they don't need a gun for protection. That's up to them.

The general benefit to you specifically is that criminals don't know who is carrying. If a person bent on committing a crime such as robbery is going to choose a victim, it makes his job that much easier if he knows the victim is unarmed. Criminals do not want to be shot any more than the rest of us do. The uncertainty about who is carrying gives them pause, and that's a good thing.

One last point I want to make is that concealed carry is not a new phenomenon that started this year. It has been legal for quite some time. If your worst-case scenarios were going to play out, they would have happened by now. Believe me, the media would not hesitate one second to jump at the opportunity to make a shooting the top story of the day, everyday. Concealed carry has not turned our society into the wild west.

Now if you really want to slam my statistics, ask me why there are a claimed 100,000+ defensive uses of guns every year, yet you haven't seen even one of them on the evening news. It hardly seems possible that these stats could be true, given the news coverage.

ILMA_Revo_Stage_2+

Ha Guns are out of control. Every Joe Schmoe can pick up a gun now.