Growth chart of right to carry

[hack89]

This was locked in GD.

As of 1986, slightly less than 10% of the U.S. population lived in states where there were objective and fair procedures for the issuance of concealed handgun carry permits. About a third of the population lived in states where there was not even a process to apply for a permit. The majority of the population lived in states where issuance in permits was highly discretionary, and many issuing authorities refused to issue to ordinary law-abiding citizens.

By 2014, the percentage of people living in the Red states, with no possibility of even applying for a permit, has declined to zero. Illinois’ 2013 reforms ended the problem of states not even having an process theoretically available. (The problem persists in DC, but this chart is only for states.)

As of January 2014, about 2/3 of the population lived in a Green state, with a Shall Issue licensing statute. The Yellow states (arbitrary permitting) were the national norm in 1986, but they are now outliers. Unless the 9th Circuits’ decision in Peruta is overturned, California and Hawaii will have to become Shall Issue states.

The six hold-out states are increasingly isolated. Not counting tiny Rhode Island and Delaware, the four larger hold-out states each are all bordered mainly by Green states. (Mass. by upper New England and Connecticut; NY by Penn., Vt., and Conn.; NJ by Penn.; Maryland by Penn., Vir., and WV). It should also be noted that in two of Delaware’s three counties, permit issuance is often approximately what a Green state would do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/17/growth-chart-of-right-to-carry/

Good background on how concealed carry has grown over the past 30 years.

[Lizzie Poppet]

1. Hilarious (and revealing) that this got locked in GD.

Of course, GD threads with an anti-gun slant that are also not "big news" get a pass. Gotta love the blatant hypocrisy...

I've seen this chart before, and it's gratifying, to be sure.

[sarisataka]

2. It is all of gunners

appealing to host to lock threads...
as we so often hear about

[Lizzie Poppet]

7. the less I say on that matter the better.

Got my first hidden post in almost a year when I spoke just a tiny fraction of my mind to the, um...person who thinks it's okay to out alerters in public threads (against Skinner's explicit wishes). If DU actually had freedom of speech, it would have been fun to let them know how I really feel. Like I could have done most anywhere else on them interwebz...

[sarisataka]

9. I have observed

That trend you mention and alwaya note the similarities with a political party that thinks they can pick and choose which rules shou be followed...

Like you say, 'nuff said

[Eleanors38]

41. The banners ARE in charge of GD. Wouldn't be a concern if the TOS

was changed to allow all matters guns, but the feeble guns exception is maintained so that the Bansalot's doctrines of demonizing gun owners, and promoting anti gun ideologies are the ONLY acceptable gun posts in GD. In this manner, the controller/banner can dictate content and policy -- their goal all along. The disallowed OP is clear evidence of this.

[upaloopa]

4. You don't get that people carrying guns is the

exception?
I don't think most people would see this as a possitive trend.

[gejohnston]

6. It is neither a positive or negative trend.

That said: Like a woman's right to choose, protected by the ninth and 14th amendments. To be logically consistent, you have to be pro choice and pro gun, or anti choice or anti gun.
http://daviddorer.com/the-law-that-killed-gun-control-protects-abortion-rights/

[upaloopa]

10. The Second Amendment and abortion have nothing in common.

But there is this. The right to privacy is what the abortion ruling is based on. There is no absolute right to privacy and there is no absute right to guns.

[gejohnston]

13. as the link indicated,

They operate on the same concept.
both are protected under the 14th Amendment and ninth. I think "may issue" violates the equal protection clause of 14th. Registration violates privacy under the ninth.
I interpret the ninth as a right to healthcare, food, clean water, and clean air, means of self defense as being part of a right to life.
DOMA and national CCW reciprocity don't have much to do with each other either, but I think both violate the 10th Amendment.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. Of course I "get" that.

However, if "most people" considered the expansion of must-issue CCW policies as a negative trend, don't you think there would be substantial advocacy of repealing those laws in multiple states? No such effort is taking place.

[upaloopa]

11. The gun industry money is what

Keeps things as they are.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. Gun industry money stops people opposed to the law from advocating for its repeal?

Do tell?

I could accept that argument if there were significant movements to repeal must-issue CCW laws, but those movements were being ignored by state legislatures. It would be reasonable to assume that gun industry lobbyists and their deep campaign contribution pockets were stymieing those efforts.

But no such efforts are taking place. How would gun industry money prevent those movements from arising?

[upaloopa]

19. Money given to elected officials you know what I mean

One thing about your side that is clearly evident is the need for living in denial and the need for propaganda.
You do a good job of arguing for your side but it isn't based in reality.
It is obvious also of the organization and that is also a result of gun industry money. Without that money you would stand naked in the debate figuratively.

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. Of course...but you're dodging the point.

No one, myself included, is arguing that gun industry money doesn't greatly influence gun control legislation nationwide. That's not even open to debate. Your insulting (and ironic) assertions about "living in denial" don't alter that one iota.

But that hasn't a thing to do with the point at hand, which was your assertion that "most people" don't want must-issue CCW laws, along with your assertion that gun industry money was somehow impeding repeal of those laws. I pointed out that there are no significant, large movements advocating those repeals...a very good indicator indeed that "most people" don't in fact oppose those laws.

Again, if elected officials were ignoring large numbers of constituents opposing those laws, it would be a clear indication of money serving to thwart democracy. That scenario may well be playing out in other gun control matters (universal background checks, for example, which the majority clearly favor), but it is NOT in the matter of must-issue CCW regulations.

Feel free to wander off on yet another tangent...

[upaloopa]

26. Who is insulting who?

I am not insulting you one bit.

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. You are...obviously.

"One thing about your side that is clearly evident is the need for living in denial and the need for propaganda. "

Using the term "your side" includes me in the group to which the rest of the sentence applies. Accusing someone of "living in denial" and needing propaganda is an insult.

Duh.

And still no response to the actual point. I think we're done here.

[upaloopa]

28. Yes we are

[pablo_marmol]

44. Along the same lines, another thing that's revealing

is that the New York Times has yet to utter a peep about the recent ruling by the 9th District Court of Appeals.

Interesting, yeah?

[Lizzie Poppet]

46. Wow, that's really surprising.

Said no one, ever.

[upaloopa]

3. As a whole what has the increase in people carrying guns

done for the country.
How am I better for it?

[hack89]

5. Expansion of civil liberties shows a healthy society

the stronger the Constitution and BOR, the more confidence people have that their rights will be respected in America.

And btw - what harm has it caused you?

[upaloopa]

12. Well I feel bad about all the gun violence in this country.

Maybe we would be better served if we all just stuck our heads in the sand.

[hack89]

15. There are plenty of ways to address your concerns

without indiscriminately restricting people's civil rights.

And the fact of the matter is that people who go through the CCW process are the least of your worries. Criminals and illegal guns are the problem. How about limited, tailored laws that address the actual problem?

But we know that will never happen - the problem in your mind is those evil gunz and all those pre-criminal gun owners.

[upaloopa]

17. Just about every shooter lately including today's

shooter outside of the day care was not a criminal.
I worry more about the guy next to me with a gun than I do about some criminal.
Some people with guns feel the need to use them not only in self defence.
It is not a healthy society that feels the need to carry guns.
The rights argument has two sides. There is an over arching right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
I don't buy that the 2nd amendment begins with an individual right. The gun lobby and the right wing were instrumental in putting right wing judges on the SCOTUS. It won't stay that way.

[hack89]

18. Both President Obama and the Democratic Party platform say it is an individual right

the old "NRA, ALEC, RW, !!!!" schtick doesn't survive contact with reality.

It will stay that way. Just remember how long the RW has been saying that a conservative court will overturn Roe v Wade. How many decades have they been waiting?

The trend in America is the expansion of civil rights, not their restriction. Look no further than gay rights. And guns.

[upaloopa]

20. Again the gun industry money is speaking. You so conveniently ignore that.

Why is that?

[hack89]

21. So the gun industry has bought off the President and the entire Democratic party?

you really believe that?

It is impossible that they simply think the 2A is protects and individual right out of principle?

[upaloopa]

23. I don't believe that it is because of a belief in gun rights.

They are picking their fights. And it isn't Obama and the whole Democratic party. I am a Democrat you are talking about politicians. If there was public financing of elections you would really hear the people speak.
Again you are living in denial if you think gun lobby money isn't propping your side up.

[hack89]

24. So why put it in the party platform with all our other core beliefs? nt

[spin]

29. Possibly the fact that the violent crime rate and the violent firearm crime rate have fallen ...

the levels last seen in the late 1960s.

Of course this fact is rarely mentioned by either the gun manufacturers or the gun control advocates as the statistics do not show that every American should run out and buy a gun for self defense or that we need to implement draconian gun control laws to stop the wave of violence in our nation.

There is no doubt that firearm sales have absolutely skyrocketed in recent years and there are probably 10 to 15 million citizens who now have a license to carry who did not have the this right 30 years ago when the violent crime rate was approaching its peak.

Surely if the number of firearms in civilian hands and the number of people who legally carry has increase dramatically and these were important factors in the violent crime equation,we would see a significant rise in violent crime.

Imagine that you are a criminal. You decide to invade an occupied home and find yourself facing an armed homeowner or you decide to mug some fool in the street and he draws a handgun. If you survive by running you tell your criminal buddies what happened or if you don't, they send flowers to your funeral. The word gets around that breaking into an occupied home or mugging a person on the street can be hazardous to your health. Therefore you and your buddies decide that it is wisest to break into unoccupied homes and avoid mugging people on the street because they just might kill you. You don't become an honest citizen but you do become a nonviolent criminal as the work environment is far safer.

[upaloopa]

30. Please today a man killed his ex wife outside a day care

There are multiple killings everyday and we can know that if we chose to open our eyes. Your statistics may make you feel good in the paradigm you live in but in the face of the news of daily shootings it is an insult to repeat it !

[DonP]

32. Is that your standard?

As long as anybody, anywhere is killed with a gun, we must need more gun control?

Trends and facts be damned I guess.

Thankfully, no one is really listening to your side of the discussion.

[upaloopa]

34. Trends and facts however real or not do not comfort a mother

who lost her son today. They don't give me comfort and I doubt your sources.
Give me the site where you get your facts

[spin]

42. I might have been here today to make this post ...

if my mother would not have had a small .22 caliber revolver in her purse when she was walking home from a bus stop back in the 1920s.

A man who had been hiding behind some bushes rushed her. Fortunately she had her hand in her purse holding the revolver. She drew it and fired two shots over her attacker's head and he ran.

Those who oppose gun ownership and allowing honest citizens to legally carry handguns usually point out examples where some fool used a firearm and a tragedy resulted. Rarely do they ever mention the fact that firearms can be used in legitimate self defense to save lives.

Unlike those gun control advocates I mentioned, I am willing to admit that firearms can be used for evil purposes. That's why I support some reasonable improvements to our gun laws and also the rewriting of some of the castle doctrine and SYG laws in many states to insure that they are interpreted properly by our legal system.

[upaloopa]

43. I know I would not be here if a cobra gunner and a Huey gunner

hadn't kept the VC off my back on Feb 2, 1968.
So we are both lucky.

[spin]

33. What few on the strong gun control side often mention ...

Last edited Tue Feb 18, 2014, 08:52 PM - Edit history (1)

is that firearms can and do save lives in cases where they are used for legitimate self defense.

How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense?
By Paul Barrett December 27, 2012

***snip***

So how often do Americans use guns to defend themselves? If it almost never happens, then the NRA argument is based on a fallacy and deserves little respect in the fashioning of public policy. If, on the other hand, defensive gun use (DGU) is relatively common, then even a diehard gun-control advocate with any principles and common sense would admit that this fact must be given some weight....emphasis added

***snip***

As with everything else concerning guns in this country, the DGU question prompts divergent answers. At one end of the spectrum, the NRA cites research by Gary Kleck, an accomplished criminologist at Florida State University. Based on self-reporting by survey respondents, Kleck has extrapolated that DGU occurs more than 2 million times a year. Kleck doesn’t suggest that gun owners shoot potential antagonists that often. DGU covers various scenarios, including merely brandishing a weapon and scaring off an aggressor.

At the other end of the spectrum, gun skeptics prefer to cite the work of David Hemenway, an eminent public-health scholar at Harvard University. Hemenway, who analogizes gun violence to an epidemic and guns to the contagion, argues that Kleck’s research significantly overestimates the frequency of DGU.

***snip***

The carping back and forth gets pretty technical, but the brief version is that Hemenway believes Kleck includes too many “false positives”: respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU. Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate....emphasis added
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

Let's use the lowest reasonable figure of 250,000 times per year that firearms are used for legitimate self defense which would work out to 685 times every day. Even if you feel this figure is totally unreasonable and only 10% of the incidents are actually true self defense then that would mean that on an average 68 times every day a honest citizen saves himself or someone else from serious injury or death with a legally owned firearm. Most incidents do not even involve a shooting as the attacker frequently flees when he discovers his victim is armed.

Many of the multiple killings you mention are caused by criminal activity or are a result of our failed War on Drugs and the fact that drug gangs fight over turf in our nation. A few are indeed tragic and are often a result of excessive consumption of alcohol, severe mental illness or domestic abuse.

Many who advocate strong gun control here on DU would love to see all firearms confiscated. Even if that were to happen by some miracle and everybody would willing turn in all their firearms (unlikely at the best) it would not eliminate all violence in our nation. Machetes, knifes and baseball bats can be lethal and an unarmed homeowner or someone on the street attacked by a mugger would be at a significant disadvantage.

[upaloopa]

35. Well you are right there. Air bags are good to at saving lives.

But we aren't satisfied yet with vehicle safety nor should we accept gun violence

[spin]

36. So should we ban air bags because they occasionly malfunction and cause an accident ...

or can injure people when they deploy?

I agree that we need to do our best to stop all gun violence but does that mean that we have to disarm honest citizens who then might not have the ability to stop an attack from a person who was determined to put them in the hospital for a long stay or six feet under?

[upaloopa]

37. I don't want to ban guns

Not everyone who is for gun control wants to ban guns.
I happen to like single action pistols and rifles.

[spin]

38. I prefer double action revolvers over pistols. ...

and bolt action rifles over semi-auto rifles.

Still I can see why many like modern technology.

But then I also prefer to use a safety razor over a five bladed Gillette Fusion.

You sound like you might prefer a straight edged razor.

[upaloopa]

39. I use plastic razors

Never tried a straight razor

[spin]

40. I doubt if i will ever try a straight razor. ...

I just grew tired of paying an enormous amount of money for the five bladed Fusion cartridges.

For the price of a pack of 8 cartridges for the Fusion I bought a quality safety razor, the Edwin Jagger De89lbl. I had to add the cost of a synthetic brush and some shaving soap.

I was somewhat surprised to find that this setup gave me as close a shave as I had obtained with the Gillette Fusion but it did require more time. Since I am retired, this presents no problem and I find the experience enjoyable as it reminds me of the first times I started to shave using a safety razor back in 1959 when I was thirteen years old. Unlike many, I have suffered no nicks or cuts. I feel the trick is to let the weight of the razor do the work and not to hurry or press hard.

I get five shaves off of a good double edged blade which costs about ten cents when bought in quantity and I usually let my beard grown for three to five days before I shave.

I also shave my head as I am growing bald and I got tired of paying for a haircut. I plan to use my Gillette Fusion for this task but may decide to try my safety razor when I run out of Fusion blades.

[msongs]

16. 2A only applies to governmental agencies nt

[hack89]

22. Not familiar with McDonald v. Chicago I take it? nt

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

[oneshooter]

31. 1A only applies to governmental agencies.

WOW that was easy, but like your statement is untrue.