Mayor Daley considering insurance requirement for gun ownership ...

[spin]

May 19, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- Within the next five weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on a challenge to Chicago's 28-year-old ban on handguns.

It's believed the court will rule that the law is unconstitutional. ABC 7's Paul Meincke talked with Mayor Richard Daley about what the city might do next.

Conventional wisdom is that the handgun ban will not pass constitutional muster. Mindful of that, the city has been -- for some time now -- formulating plans on what it does next. The mayor says there are plans in place still being refined. But a strong hint of what Chicago will do requires only a look at the nation's capital.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court declared Washington DC's handgun ban unconstitutional, saying that residents have a 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. But the court also said that right is not unlimited and local governments are free to enact reasonable gun regulation.

"We'll be looking at local ordinances. We'll have to wait for the decision to come down and what they will say in the decision," said Mayor Daley.

What Chicago does may be patterned after what Washington DC has already done. Its new gun control laws -- now a year old -- say that prospective handgun owners must register their guns after undergoing more extensive background checks, including giving fingerprints and photographs.

The gun they buy must first be given to police for ballistics identification. An owner must complete a training course -- four hours in the classroom, one on a gun range. And, among other restrictions, you can register no more than one gun a month, and you must undergo background checks every six years.

***snip***

ABC 7's Paul Meincke asked the mayor if the city is looking into a package of laws that would deal with many of those things Washington DC is now doing.

"Yes, we're looking at that and maybe looking at expanding that for the protection of first responders, and neighbors as well as liability," Daley said.

On that score, the city is considering requiring gun owners to carry a level of liability insurance.

"You'll have to show that you have insurance before you can purchase and register a gun, somewhat similar to what you do before you buy a car," said Prof. Harold Krent, Kent College of Law dean.

Much of what the city is working on is still on the drawing board, subject to the specifics of the high court's opinion. Whatever Chicago enacts will be challenged in court by opponents who argue that local government is just trying to subvert the Constitution with ineffective hoops and hurdles. emphasis added

***snip***

The one-gun-a-month provision would require state legislative approval for it to occur in Chicago, and the votes have never been there for that. Washington is a bit different in that it's a federal enclave. Its new gun regulations have already been challenged in federal court, and the district court in DC has ruled that they do satisfy the Constitution.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7451247

[katmondoo]

1. at first glance it sounds good to me

[spin]

4. If you want to make sure that most citizens can't own firearms ...

it would look good.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Poll taxes sounded great to the KKK too.

(Note, I am not associating you with the KKK directly, but we are talking about a civil right here, and a roundabout way of infringing upon it, that has very, very uncomfortable historical parallels.)

[DissedByBush]

84. Insurance will be priced high

To continue to ensure the little people can't exercise their rights, while the privileged will have protection from us.

[shadowrider]

2. I don't need auto insurance if the vehicle never leaves my private property

[spin]

3. I have a concealed weapons permit without an insurance requirement ...

I'm not sure if such insurance even exists and it could be very expensive.

Obviously that's the plan. Daley intends to put as many hurdles in the way of gun ownership as possible. In Chicago, if Daley has his way, only the rich and politically connected and the criminals will own firearms.

[gorfle]

8. Such insurance would be insanely cheap.

I'm not sure if such insurance even exists and it could be very expensive.

Such insurance would be insanely cheap.

Why? Because actuaries would determine what is already common knowledge: lawful firearm owners are hardly ever involved in crime. If you are going to go to the trouble to comply with Chicago's gun laws, obviously you are a law-abiding citizen and do not have an extensive prior criminal history that would disqualify you from owning firearms in the first place. As such, you are highly, highly unlikely to be involved in firearm crime.

It would be very cheap insurance, because the liability risk would be extremely low.

[spin]

9. Don't count on it ...

Daley would probably approve the only companies allowed to sell the insurance. Knowing how Chicago works he would get an enormous kickback.

[Nailzberg]

16. But if it was mandatory to have that insurance by law, they could jack it up.

You're right that the numbers should dictate a low rate on this, but I think insurance companies would milk it.

[shadowrider]

18. Here, I fixed it

but I think insurance companies Daley cronies set up as insurance companies would be required sources for this insurance. THEY would milk it.

[Nailzberg]

24. LOL. You have a very good point that there will be cronyism involved.

As a native, I cannot disagree.

[gorfle]

21. You don't see this with car insurance.

In most places, car insurance is required by law for vehicles operated on public roads, as most are. Yet there is adequate competition to keep prices reasonable, based on demonstrated risk.

[Nailzberg]

25. True, but almost everyone has a car, gouging would not stand.

I was just trying to make a quip remark, but as I dive in deeper I do worry the premiums would not reflect the stats if Daley and friends get a mandatory insurance law.

I don't see auto insurance as a good comparison, cause no one is trying to ban autos, despite the fact that they kill more people thatn firearms.

The gouging could come from the insurance companies, but the more I consider it, it would likely come from the legislation. Look at auto insurance - state laws mandate the minimum amount of coverage a driver needs to carry. What's to say the firearms coverage required by the legislation won't be disproportionate to the actual financial risk?

[YllwFvr]

26. True gun owners are more safety oriented

and less likely to commit a crime, but thats nationwide. This is Chicago we are talking about here. Two shooting in the last week and a cop killed the week before. The whole city is corrupt.

Rates are low in car insurance because of the competition, as you correctly pointed out. But there will be far fewer gun owners in Chicago than car owners, or even motorcycle owners. Besides what insurance company will dare dip its toe in that frigid water? Also what will it be used for? The law abiding will (most likely) use it on the criminals only. Will the insurance pay for the crooks medical expenses or funeral? That would be insane. The criminals wont have insurance anyway so what, is the insurance for if the gun owner gets shot? The whole thing is a mess.

[krispos42]

5. Insurance for what, exactly?

For what specific actions? In case my gun is stolen, so I can't be sued by the family of the c-store clerk that a criminal killed?

In case I have to shoot a home invader? Why am I liable if I'm shooting a home invader who's threatening me?


Maybe Illinois needs a Castle Doctrine law instead.

[DonP]

6. He just wants to make sure only "the right kind of people" are allowed to own guns

Seriously?

How stupid do people have to be, and insanely blind about gun ownership not to recognize what is clearly a racist suggestion?

Daley has just said he basically wants to make it too expensive for poor people to have a gun to defend themselves. Guess who the poorest people in Chicago are and what color their skin is?

If this idea had come out of Dick Cheney's mouth everyone here would be screaming about how racist this obviously will be. But since Daley has a "D" behind his name there are actually people praising the idea.

Otis MacDonald is a retired engineer living on his pension and social security in Morgan Park. How much should he have to pay in phony insurance premiums to Daley's designated insurance companies (and don't doubt for a moment that there will only be a few "approved" insurance vendors that are coincidentally donors) to have a handgun in his home?

If guns were really any kind of liability risk, you can be damn sure the home insurance companies would have tacked on a tidy $$$ extra premium for every gun owners home. Neither they, nor the life insurance people think gun ownership increases the risk to your life or home.

Have any gun owners, or even non-owners, ever had an insurance agent ask you about your guns, how many, what kind, etc and added to your premium costs because of them?

This is a crappy, phony idea by a guy that;s not only a poor loser but obviously a racist pig too.

Hell, maybe a nice, reasonable poll tax too, while we're at it. Since Daley wants to act like Bull Connor, why not go all the way.

[Callisto32]

30. Is there disparate impact under the equal-protection clause?

No?

There oughta' be.

[spin]

7. It's obvious that the Brady Campaign and Mayor Daley ...

can't allow large numbers of the average law abiding citizens of the last bastions of draconian gun law to own firearms.

If the crime rate dropped significantly in Washington D.C. and Chicago, the lie that draconian gun control works would finally be totally exposed as the foolish idea that it is.

In desperation, the Brady Campaign and Mayor Daley are laying awake at night trying to dream up new hurdles for potential gun owners to jump. Their plans will make legal gun ownership so difficult, time consuming and expensive that few people will even try.

The sad part is that many honest people whose lives might be saved if they had access to a firearm will remain prey to the criminals who ignore all law.

[proteus_lives]

10. More elitist and racist crap from Daley.

That guy is a POS.

[damntexdem]

11. Sounds quite reasonable.

It might even make it past this RW SCOTUS.

[X_Digger]

14. Are poll taxes reasonable, too?

Expensive licenses to pass out leaflets and ask for signatures for a petition?

From an article in Sept 2009, relating the experience in DC (on which Chitown appears to be modeling its law)- "It took $833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836_pf.html

You'd be outraged if it cost that much to vote, or go door to door seeking signatures.

[slackmaster]

12. If owning a gun carries a risk of causing unjustified injury or death, then WHY THE FUCK...

...don't insurance companies offer "gun-free home" discounts for liability policyholders, or charge higher premiums for people who do own guns?

If anyone is able to quantify such a risk, surely the insurance companies could.

Any risk must be so slight that it's not worth their time to try to account for it on a policy level.

[YllwFvr]

27. I think that is a politically charged subject

and no insurance company dares deal with it. Progressive has already lost customers because the owner is very anti gun and spends his money to further that agenda.

A few people have sent the execs emails saying they have used the money they saved using Progressive to buy lots of new guns. Let that burn his ass.

[PavePusher]

32. I did not know that about Progressive.

I used to have motorcycle insurance throught them.

Got a link?

[YllwFvr]

33. Here is a few

George Soros, money man behind progressive. Some about him from the NRA
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=151

Not an html expert so lets see if this image works!



I keep seeing references to Peter Lewis, former owner of Progressive being rabidly anti, but after a rather boring biography and several dozen fruitless web pages and forums that just claim he is I cant be certain he is. The NRA website was the first one I found about Soros, and the sign I can verify was real. I suppose thats not rock solid proof but there is something there at least.

[oneshooter]

34. That sign is not valid in Texas

There is a very specific sign (30.06), both in wording and size that is needed in Texas to deny entry to a CHL holder.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

37. Thanks!

I knew about Soros being anti-gun, didn't know he had links to Progressive.

Food for thought.

[DonP]

15. OMFG!!! Daley hopes for a SCOTUS Crime!

This guy is actually more of a sociopath than I thought he was.

Here's some commentary this morning from a real gun control hero that has 24/7 armed security for himself, his family and all the aldercritters.

In the following article Daley makes a total Ass of himself three separate times. I'm starting to think he's a Psychopath as well as a dictator and I bet that at least one Chicago reporter agrees with me today.

First, he hopes that a member of SCOTUS gets robbed at gunpoint or shot, to change their mind about gun rights.

Then he admits that, no matter what they decide, he'll find a way to block their decision.

Finally, he picks up a gun and threatens a reporter that asked him an obvious question about why his gun bans aren't working.

From the Chicago Tribune's Clout Street

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...rt-ruling.html


Daley: City ready to act if Supreme Court overturns gun ban
Share

<snip>

It's defeatist to prepare new gun laws ahead of the court's ruling, which should come before the body recesses at the end of June, Daley said.

"You have to have confidence in the Supreme Court, Maybe they'll see the light of day," Daley said at a City Hall news conference. "Maybe one of them will have an incident and they'll change their mind over night, going to and from work."

The mayor said if the court overturns the Chicago ban, as expected, he'll quickly present new legislation to the City Council.

"Whatever the details of the court's ruling will be, we will always find new ways to keep guns off our streets," he said.

<snip>

During the news conference, Daley reacted with the help of a prop when a reporter suggested the city's handgun ban has been ineffective, given the number of shootings that still occur in Chicago.

"It's been very effective," Daley said, picking up a gun from the dozens displayed on a nearby table. "If I put this up your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. Let me put a round up your, you know."

<snip>

Preserving the handgun ban has been high on Daley's agenda during his two decades as mayor. For years, Daley also has pressed state lawmakers for tighter gun control laws, including an assault weapons ban,but has found only limited success in a state where gun owner rights are closely guarded downstate.

Posted at 10:08:46 AM in Mayor of Chicago

[jeepnstein]

19. Those kinds of threats work in some settings.

"You have to have confidence in the Supreme Court, Maybe they'll see the light of day," Daley said at a City Hall news conference. "Maybe one of them will have an incident and they'll change their mind over night, going to and from work."

I don't know where he gets off making the suggestion that if one or two of the Justices get robbed or something on their way to and from work that they'll "see the light". I don't care who you are or what your politics are, that is downright un-American and reprehensible.

[armueller2001]

20. Funny, sometimes it takes

a person to be a victim of a violent crime before they see the necessity to take responsibility for their own safety and not rely on the police or the government.

I agree, maybe if one of the Supreme Court justices gets mugged on the way home, they will see the light and favor a national concealed carry law. If I'm not mistaken, judges can already carry though...

[Callisto32]

31. "I'm starting to think he's a Psychopath..."

It took you this long?

I'm convinced he is LITERALLY drunk on power. How else do you explain a guy threatening to sodomize a reporter with a rifle?

Megalomaniacal, methinks.

[Remmah2]

17. But my handgun "is" my insurance policy.

Same as my fire extinguisher.

[Tejas]

22. More kickbacks from insurance companies to Daley, nothing to see here folks. nt

[DonP]

23. I'm sure it's just an incredible coincidence ...

... but guess whose nephew owns one of the largest insurance brokerage offices in Chicago?

Here's a hint, they also carry the policies on McCormick Place, Navy Pier and several other major venues, as well as handling the brokerage for several unions.

Next question, guess which agency will have the exclusive rights to gun insurance sales for at least the first year or two as well?

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. More insanity from Daley Jong-Il

Chicago is a corrupt dictatorship run by a nutcase who got the job from his dad and has his family on the payroll.
And the common people pay the price for it all.

IOW, no different than North Korea.

[Callisto32]

29. Like when you buy a car that you are going to DRIVE off the lot?

Sorry, epic fail. This is NOT the same as buying a car. If you are going to transport the car on a trailer, and not on the public roads AS an AUTO-mobile, no insurance necessary.

[Ter]

35. He needs to be impeached

For crimes against the Constitution.

[Hoyt]

36. Good idea. Not sure his motives are pure, but

Victims deserve compensation if somebody who feels they need to tote in public ends up shooting innocent people (by accident or while trying to play hero), or having their gun stolen and used in a shooting, etc. Insurance is one way to do that. And yes, I realize criminals don't carry insurance. But, licensed toters should.

Sorry to offend those that don't want to -- or can't -- venture out without a gun strapped to their leg or tucked in their pants.

[PavePusher]

38. So I, as a lawful Citizen...

need to be responsible for what a criminal does?

I have never understood this "logic".

[Hoyt]

39. Not exactly.

A lawful citizen who carries into public for whatever reason they can dream up should be insured against any damage they cause if they pull their gun out and start shooting. If you hit a bystander, either you or your insurance company should be responsible. If someone grabs your gun (that you probably should not have been carrying in public) and commits a crime with it -- you have some responsibility. Insurance seems a good way to ensure the public is covered for damages a toter might cause.

Sorry, but that seems pretty easy to understand. Gun ownership, and particularly toting in public, carries some responsibilities.

[X_Digger]

40. Should you be responsible if someone steals your car and mows down a pedestrian?

Should someone be responsible if a criminal steals their jewelry to buy a gun and shoots someone?

How far up the chain are you wanting to blame the victim of a crime (theft) for what the criminal does subsequently?

[Hoyt]

41. Not Necessarily.

But if you are going to walk around with a gun, you gotta pay the price if someone takes it and uses it. Admittedly, holding the gun owner responsible for a thief's actions is probably a stretch on my part. But it is not a stretch to require insurance for the inevitable day when some law abiding permit holder plays Wild Bill and drops a few innocent bystanders in the process.

Point is, most folks don't need to tote and should leave their guns at home under lock and key. If somebody can't do that, then I like the idea of requiring them to insure the public against any damages. Of course, that's just one person's opinion and you are entitled to your opinion.

I will say that I have known a few folks who have a license/permit but have no business carrying a gun in public. And those people are the problem.

Like I've said before, I think most gun toters on DU are responsible and are not of great concern to me. Problem is, there are a lot of folks out there just waiting for an opportunity "to save the day" and will likely be a bit quick on the trigger when it's not necessary. Watching a few videos and shooting targets (or bottles off tree stumps with an assault weapon) is not proper training for a person to carry -- and perhaps use -- a gun in public.

[oneshooter]

42. You know somebody that owns a full auto assault weapon

and shoots "bottles off tree stumps" with it"? WOW thats an expensive plinker!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[X_Digger]

43. If there was such a problem, why don't insurance companies..

.. offer a discount for a household being gun free?

Actuaries have ran the numbers, I'm sure (they run the numbers on this year's colors of cars versus last year's, etc) and no insurance company offers a discount for not having a gun in the home.

If there were such a risk, do you think the insurance companies wouldn't charge extra (or offer a discount for their absence)?

We've had concealed carry in Texas for 15 years, there are 400,000 active licenses. (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2009.pdf)

Yet, there were only 164 licenses revoked in 2009 (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/2009Calendar/ByRace/CY09R-SLicRevoked.pdf) and only 160 convictions of CHL holders in 2007 (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf)

What makes you think that the risk of a CHL holder shooting an innocent bystander is great enough to require all of them to purchase insurance? Or is it just a means to make it more expensive so that fewer will be able to avail themselves of the license, eh?

Disparate impact, anyone?

[Hoyt]

44. If the risk is as low as you think, the rates for toters won't be much.

It is obvious, that the risk of a toter shooting an innocent bystander is much greater than the risk posed by a non-toter. Hence, insurance is a good idea.

By the way, what were those 160 convicted of in 2007? It wasn't protecting the public. Your link indicates 11% of the multiple killings were by licensed toters. That's a lot. Did you also notice that licensed toters had a lot of sexual assault convictions? What's with that? In any event, it is obvious the permit process is not keeping guns in public toters' pants. It will only get worse as more folks get permits, tote into bars, etc.

[X_Digger]

45. As a percentage?

CHL holders are 6.8 times less likely to commit crime, over 3 times less likely to commit a gun crime.

Did you conveniently forget the column to the right showing that 0.26% of the 62,000 convictions were by permit holders?

[Hoyt]

48. I'm just pointing out that permit holders are a risk.

The stats show that.

We'd all be better off without folks toting in public, IMO. I really cannot see how anyone can argue against that. But clearly you/they do.

[oneshooter]

49. The stats also show that you are more likely

to be hit and injured/killed by a drunk driver, than shot by a CHL holder.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

92. We shouldn't tolerate drunk driving either.

[PavePusher]

55. Sure they are a risk...

but that risk is so low as to be insufficient to justify your suggested infringements.

[X_Digger]

60. Clearly they're less of a risk than the general public by a factor ot three to seven

Has anyone claimed all permit holders are angels?

We'd all be better off without folks toting in public, IMO.

We haven't even begun to discuss the benefits, merely weighing the risks.

According to the DOJ's interviews with felons-

Wright and Rossi reported that:
81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.
74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot.
57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.
40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.
57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.
34% of the criminal respondents said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., Daly, Kathleen, Under the Gun, Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1983.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., The Armed Criminal in America, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., Armed and Considered Dangerous, a Survey of Felons and their Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1986.

[SteveM]

105. Smells like a poll tax to me.

Any measure, especially seen in the context from which it originates, that restricts a constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. So-called insurance policies are obvious subterfuge, a way to restrict the Second Amendment. Such will not pass scrutiny in federal courts.

[PavePusher]

46. Your wording and statements indicates a considerable bias...

and lack of understanding of the Second Amendment.

"...keep and bear..."

It is a Right, not a priviledge.

Since you are so concerned about it, perhaps you can offer some evidence that Citizens "hitting a bystander" or having their guns "grabbed" by criminals is actually a significant problem in public places?

[Hoyt]

47. I think you left something out.

And I am recalling from memory: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed."

Exactly, what "well regulated militia" are you and other toters involved with?

I have little problem, if you are in a well regulated militia (to me, "well regulated" means lots of training and subject to punishment if the militia members can't keep the gun in their pants). But Joe the Toter ain't well regulated or trained, or even in a militia.

The chance of a bystander being harmed by those toting is probably greater than the chance of most toters really needing a gun (except, maybe, from a psychological/fear standpoint) when they are out in public.

Just my experience and I've been around guns and shooters all my life. Even have a few at home, but I would not think of carrying in public. Nor, do I think the Constitution guarantees that right.

[oneshooter]

50. "Well Regulated" in that time meant that

The weapons of the Militia were of the current caliber and type of the Armed Forces. In other words the Militia had to have the same arms as the standing Army. Many supplied their own arms, if they did not have one( they were somewhat expensive) then a musket would be issued from the Armory. Some, like the Corps of Riflemen, carried the Jaeger or Kentucky Longrifle. They were the backwoods men who were the snipers of the time. The British much feared them as the took down Officers first.
Read a little History, it would help.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

58. Today, we don't need snipers. The Constitutional language is about state militias.

Not about "unregulated" folks carrying the same weapons used in the Arms Forces into bars or shooting British officers.

That interpretation reads like something out of the a 1958 issue of the American Rifleman.

I'd suggest reading some about the revisions to the original language in that Amendment during the Constitutional Convention. It still leaves me -- and a lot of others -- with the impression the Second Amendment is not about the private citizens having a right to carry guns onto playgrounds and such. But hey, that's what makes history interesting -- different interpretations.

[PavePusher]

66. *cough*Heller*cough* n/t

[jazzhound]

51. Fortunately legislation isn't based on your unstudied speculation.

The chance of a bystander being harmed by those toting is probably greater than the chance of most toters really needing a gun (except, maybe, from a psychological/fear standpoint) when they are out in public.

It's sad that we have to keep repeating facts like this over and over again, but the number of states that allow for concealed carry has been steadily (and rapidly) increasing since 1986. Do you really think that this would be the case if your "theory" was correct? The fact that you use the word probably speaks loudly to the fact that you can't be bothered with the most pedestrian research. Liberal Democrat Dr. Gary Kleck has a book you need to read: "Targeting Guns -- Firearms and Their Control". Honest folks have the guts to confront their biases. Do you?

[Hoyt]

52. Actually, I do. People are irrational about their guns.

Do you think 400,000 permit holders in Texas will ever need their precious cold steel other than to shoot snakes or rabid coyotes on their land? I don't. But 400,000 folks in Texas (plus, probably another big chunk of folks without permits) can't go to Chuck-e-Cheese without that gun in their pocket. Maybe those folks need to confront their irrational fears.

[jazzhound]

54. "Maybe folks need to confront their irrational fears."

Couldn't agree more. Perhaps folks like you need to confront your irrational fear that a concealed carry permit holder will "snap" ---- since statistics show that this is an extremely rare occurrence. Significantly more rare than criminal assaults in public. But don't let facts get in the way of that first rate speculatin' of yours.

I notice you didn't respond to my comment about the ever-increasing number of states that disagree with you.

Thirteen years ago there were an estimated 17,000,000 Americans who carried concealed. Of those, roughly 800,000 were guilty of committing a violent act with the gun.* So do the math ------ violence was committed by .047% of permit holders.

Time for you to stop speculating and start reading.


* page 209, Dr. Gary Kleck "Targeting Guns"

[PavePusher]

56. Note that that doesn't mean 800,000 people were shot...

by concealed permit holders. Someone would have noticed that by now.

My guess is that the vast majority came out as improper brandishing or threats, perhaps some unjustified discharges.

[jazzhound]

57. Thank you. Should have underlined that. n/t

[Hoyt]

59. That 0.047% that we don't need carrying guns into bars, onto playgrounds and around my kids.

Besides, while I don't have my calculator, I don't think 800,000 is .047% of 17,000,000. I think it is 4.7% and that is a lot. Maybe it would have been .047% or even zero if all the Joe the Toters had not had such easy access to his rod when someone made him mad.

In any event, Joe the Toter ain't trained well enough to be carrying in public. I'm sure Joe thinks he is, and probably pats his gun when he takes that last look in the mirror before leaving home.

[spin]

63. I think the 800,000 figure is in error ...

Every month the state of Florida publishes a report on concealed carry that can be viewed at:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

This report covers a time span of 22 years from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2010. In that period of time 1,787,628 concealed weapons permits were issued and 729,103 are currently valid. Only 167 licenses have been revoked for a crime committed where a firearm was utilized.

167/1,787,628 is just a little less than .01%. That's 1/100th of 1 percent.

That my friend is a VERY small number.

[jazzhound]

82. "That my friend is a VERY small number."

Yes it is........I obviously posted my figures with undue haste and faulty recall.

Pretty hard to argue the credibilty of the source ---- thanks for the correction.

[jazzhound]

81. You are correct..........it is 4.7 ---- never slid the decimal point because I

recalled some other concealed carry stat involving .04.

Actually, the recent stats from the states of Texas and Florida which X_Digger has repeatedly posted indicate significantly lower incidences of violence among concealed carry holders. I imagine he'll stroll on by before long and submit them once again.

In any event, Joe the Toter ain't trained well enough to be carrying in public.

Pity for you that the lack of problems associated with concealed carry have led legislators to disagree with you.

I'm sure Joe thinks he is, and probably pats his gun when he takes that last look in the mirror before leaving home.

Well, there it is ----- the proud flag of surrender. You always see it pop up right around the time the slurs start flying. Stereotyping on the basis of race, gender and sexual preference -- non-progressive. Stereotyping on the basis of firearm ownership -- perfectly alright. :eyes:

[jazzhound]

91. See post #89 for correction of statistic. It is .08% -- NOT 4.7

[spin]

61. I once asked a man why he always carried ...

and his reply was, "I don't have a way of putting a reminder on my computer that tells me that I need to carry on a certain day. If I did, I just wouldn't leave the house on that day."

Chances are slim that a person will ever have to use a weapon for self defense, but they do exist. If you just happen to be in a Chuck-e-Cheese at the wrong time, you might find yourself in a situation where a concealed weapon might save our life or the life of someone else.

People differ and to you what you feel is an irrational fear may to many others seem a potential problem that requires serious consideration and preparation. Some people depend on luck and statistics, others prepare for any eventuality.

I have no problem with your decision not to carry a firearm for self defense. It's your choice and perhaps in your shoes it is a wise one. Guns are NOT for everybody, nor is concealed carry. For example, you might be unwilling to actually use your firearm to injure or kill another individual even if he was attacking you in a manner that would lead to serious injury or death. If you don't honestly believe that you would be willing to kill another individual if absolutely necessary, then you should not own a firearm for self defense. Only a fool would do so.

I carry a concealed weapon not because of irrational fear but merely because I have invested time, money and considerable practice in qualifying for a concealed carry permit. I obtained the permit so that I could carry, so why should I leave the weapon at home. That makes little or no sense.

I carry an S&W snub nosed .38 revolver in a pocket holster. I merely grab the holster with the revolver and drop it into my front pants pocket on the way out the door. The revolver is extremely light and comfortable to carry.

I don't go looking for trouble and I practice situational awareness to avoid problems. I doubt if I will ever have to use the weapon for legal self defense. I don't have to carry a weapon, but as I have said I went through the effort to get a permit so that I could carry it. So I do.

[Hoyt]

68. Somehow, I find no comfort

in knowing toters are carrying their 38 into Chuck-e-Cheese to protect me.

It's like I told my gun toting neighbor who said he'd protect our neighborhood and was prepared to shoot anyone trying to break into our homes when we are gone -- "Don't Cowboy, if I or my family are not home, there is nothing in that house worth killing someone over."

I just don't think anyone -- including those who pride themselves in being ready to use a gun if the situation arises -- needs to be carrying in public. If you are in law enforcement, that's a different story because you are periodically trained and reminded when to pull a gun and when it is better to leave it holstered. I sure don't want a bunch of crotchity ole men (like myself) walking around in a Chuck-e-Cheese with a gun in their pants. It's a prescription for trouble. Those kids can drive you nuts.

Again, I'm not totally against guns. If need be, put the gun in your car. If you have to go into an abandoned house at midnight, by all means take it with you. Otherwise, I just don't think we are better off with folks walking around in public packing.

You feel differently. Anyway, you return to the old west guys have worn me down tonight.

[spin]

72. Wrong. I don't carry to protect you ...

I'm not a cop.

I carry to protect myself and my family. If I were in a Chuck-e-Cheese and a couple of bad guys decided to rob the joint, I would merely observe until they proved they intended to severely hurt or kill people.

After they shot you, I would decide that it was time to take some action to save my ass and protect my family. Wouldn't be a lot of question then.

You have a strange neighbor. If someone breaks into my neighbors home while they are not there, I just call the cops. I don't get paid to fight crime in the streets. Homie don't play dat.

I carry the gun into the Chuck-e-Cheese because:

1) I hate leaving it in a car where it might be stolen.

2)Parking lots are not always safe places

3)Pulling a weapon from a holster in public often attracts attention and also increases the chances of an accidental discharge. A holstered weapon is safe.

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. All those assault facts and high-capacity cites just too much for you, eh?

A gentle hint for later use:

Don't bring a faith-based argument to a discussion of fact. It usually doesn't end well for the person of faith.

Also, you might want to consider this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome

[Hoyt]

79. I hardly believe the millions who can't walk out of their house without a gun

to protect themselves from some unfound fear like they are going to get robbed in public are dealing with facts. If you are that concerned about protecting yourself, you ought to carry a defibrillator -- the odds of someone having a heart attack in public is far greater than getting robbed.

[spin]

87. Not a bad idea but a defibrillator is harder to carry than a firearm.

and I'm not sure that I could use one on myself while I was having a heart attack.

[jazzhound]

77. "Anyway, you return to the old west guys have worn me down tonight."

Well, speaking just for myself, having to read nonsensical and dishonest slurs like this with such frequency takes some stamina.

Let's just ignore the facts that none of the gun rights advocates in this forum would relish the violent society you describe and that there has been no evidence of "wild west shootouts" in a single state that has allowed for concealed carry.

It's like I told my gun toting neighbor who said he'd protect our neighborhood and was prepared to shoot anyone trying to break into our homes when we are gone -- "Don't Cowboy, if I or my family are not home, there is nothing in that house worth killing someone over."

Sounds like you --- like so many of the antis --- lump all firearm owners into one class. How very progressive of you.

It's a prescription for trouble.

So what............at some unspecified future date and for some unspecified reason human nature will suddenly & radically change and problems with concealed carry will begin to develop where none have existed before? Care to explain the "reasoning" behind your statement?

[SteveM]

106. In one swoop you call 400,000 Texans "irrational." But, hey, prohibition...

is about condemning the practice/thing, then condemning those who practice or have the thing. It's all about animosity, isn't it?

[PavePusher]

53. Read the Heller case, that settles your militia requirement.

Then you allude to the phallus substitution fallacy. For the fail.



"The chance of a bystander being harmed by those toting is probably greater than the chance of most toters really needing a gun (except, maybe, from a psychological/fear standpoint) when they are out in public."

Again, some evidence would help your assertion, but you know that there isn't any, so you just keep repeating yourself. Fail again.



Citizens carrying weapons legally, for legal self-defense, have a very good track record for safety. Unless your precognition is very much better than mine, and you can tell people exactly when and where they will need a weapon for self-defense, it is not your place to deny them a Civil Right.

[Hoyt]

62. The Heller case does not really address carrying guns into public.

Nor does it address the OP regarding a proposal to have permitted gun toters buy insurance for when the 4.7% shoot somebody.

In any event, the dissenting opinions in that case make more sense to me. I suspect the Heller case is not the end of it. But, the "have to tote" crowd can rest easy with the knowledge that no one is going to take away their handguns. Now those assault weapons that some think they need, that's a different story.

[PavePusher]

64. Actually, the 'bear' part was addressed...

albeit very briefly. And implied a Right to bear existed.

Next, please define 'assault weapon', and explain why they should be taken away from Citizens? (You might want to explain the how on that too.)

And again, where is your evidence that legally carrying a firearm is a distinct danger to the public? (Nice avoidance...)

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

78. Any other rights you feel qualified to judge the suitability of exercising?

I suppose you'll be trying to strip those teabaggers of the right to vote next?

Or possibly muzzling those 'political radicals' by stripping them of their first amendment?

[Hoyt]

80. Yea sure. I don't think arguing about untrained people

carrying guns onto playgrounds is anything like that. Of course, with teabaggers we are talking untrained and disturbed.

[X_Digger]

95. Keep and bear.

I know, I know, you just can't cotton to some people you don't like having the same rights as everyone else, but hey, that's how it works.

[PavePusher]

100. And again with the avoidance.

So predictable.

[SteveM]

107. Corrections needed to your post...

If you are concerned about "owning the things," then you should be intellectually honest enough to define your terms. "Assault rifle" is a recognized term (used by armorers, gun writers, the military, etc.) to denote a hand-carried short barrelled rifle (carbine) capable of full-automatic fire, and usually firing rounds considerably smaller than "rifle-sized" ammo, but of longer range and accuracy than pistol-sized ammo. The term "assault weapon" was popularized by gun-controllers/banners to confuse the knock-off replicas of AK-47s, and AR 15s (both semi-auto versions of the "real thing") with assault rifles. This was an intentional confusion to better get the public to accept a ban on what is essentially a semi-auto carbine of medium power. (A Remington Model 742 in .30-06 is far more powerful than the average AR-15 and AK-47 clone, and has been sold for generations to hunters.)

Sir, it is YOU who need to change your opinion if you intentionally perpetuate this slight-of-hand by saying: "A pretty high percentage have no business even owning the things much less putting people in danger by carrying them into public." Clearly, you have defined "the things" by not using a definition at all: you call any type of gun an "assault weapon," any time you want, and under any circumstance which support you view. This is pure dishonesty on your part. You need to change THAT before you have any credibility with your arguments about "gun nuts." Please note that is unacceptable to the moderators.

[spin]

67. If 4.7 percent of CCW holders actually shot someone ...

without reason, the states that passed concealed carry laws would have repealed them.

I suggest you find a reliable source for your statistics.

I'll use the monthly report published by the State of Florida on concealed carry at:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Only 167 concealed weapons permits have been revoked for a crime involving the use of a firearm after licensure out of
1,787,628 licenses issued over a period of time from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2010.

If 4.7 percent of CCW permit holders would have shot someone without reason (as you suggest), 84,000 licenses would have been revoked.

If that had happened, Florida would have changed its laws on concealed carry years ago and I wouldn't have my current license nor would any other Floridian.

[Hoyt]

70. Your toter buddy came up with the 4.7%. Not me.

Actually states would not change the laws because the gun toters would go ballistic if they thought they'd have to leave their weapons at home or in the car.

That's where I give Chicago credit. At least they have the guts to address the issue.

[spin]

74. I don't have a copy of the book he referenced ...

but I suspect a serious error. I might buy 800,000 incidents if criminals who carry concealed were part of the statistics.

If the info my "toter buddy" provided was indeed accurate, than Florida has an EXCEPTIONALLY law abiding group of concealed weapon permit holders. Considering the state's reputation, that is highly unlikely.

[jazzhound]

85. Thanks for the correction........and see post #82

Based on the unimpeachable stats provided by Texas and Florida, it's clear that something is very wrong with my citation.

[spin]

88. I planned on asking you to recheck your source ...

it could be a misprint. I did check on Amazon.com to see if I could possibly preview the section you mentioned but unfortunately the publisher doesn't allow this.

http://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Firearms-Control-Institutions/dp/0202305694

I have considered ordering this book, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Social Institutions and Social Change).
It's not cheap at $24.90 for a paperback.

Is it worth the price?

[jazzhound]

97. Yes -- I believe that Targeting Guns is well worth the price.

TG is an updated version of Point Blank ---- less technically oriented and modified to be more accessible to the lay reader. There's still plenty of technical information........charts, graphs etc. for those who are inclined in this direction.

You may be aware that it was Point Blank that earned Kleck the Michael Hindelang award for excellence in research from the American Society of Criminology. He's the only member of the gun "control" debate to have earned this award, the highest that the ASC bestows. (come to think of it, you've probably read the reviews on Amazon.) It was in Point Blank that Kleck presented the National Self Defense Survey which demonstrated the high incidence of defensive gun use. Here's a link to one of his papers: "Armed Resitance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self Defense with a Gun"

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

You're probably also aware that EuroMutt has cited Kleck as a major influence on his thinking, so you may wish to ask his opinion about Targeting Guns as well.

[spin]

102. I decided to order the book ...

It should be an interesting reference book.

[jazzhound]

111. I think you'll be glad you did. n/t

[jazzhound]

89. O.K. -- found the problem with the statistic.

Looks like I broke one of my own rules re. posting under the influence. (of study-induced fatigue) Here's the full quote from page #209 of Kleck's tome:

"At least 17 million U.S. adults carry a gun for protection each year, carrying on over a billion different person-days, while under 800,000 instances of gun carrying result in the carrier committing a violent act with the gun."

When you calculate based on the total number of annual gun carries (1 B) you end up with a .08% chance that the carrier will commit an act of violence with the firearm.

Kleck goes on to say: "There are about as many defensive uses of guns by crime victims carrying guns as there are violent crimes committed by gun-carrying criminals."

[spin]

94. That sounds more realistic. (n/t)

[jazzhound]

83. For what it's worth, I don't "tote".

Since I live in California, which is for all intents and purposes a "no issue" state (at least in urban SoCal) I obey the law and I don't carry.

But of course I can't wait for the day when someone breaks in to my pad and I can blast him to gelatin with my 12 gauge! :sarcasm:

[jazzhound]

93. Post #89 corrects the stat ------ it's roughly .08%

[X_Digger]

69. While not the central question, it was addressed-

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[X_Digger]

65. Here, just for you..

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is _why_ protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution.<15> It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791.<32> Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.<55>* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."<56>

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."<89>**

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.") or Presser v Illinois (""the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.")

[Hoyt]

71. I'll bet my rear, Alabama did not extend those rights to slaves.

I appreciate you efforts, but it does little to change my belief that most toters are not trained well enough to be carrying guns into public. Shoot, I can still breakdown a 1911 blindfolded, but I should not be carrying in public. Nor do I think we are better off when others do.

[X_Digger]

73. Wasn't intended to address the points you raise (aka, nice dodge.)

I'll take that as an admission that the right belongs to the people, unconnected to service in a militia.

For what it's worth, rights aren't "extended" to anyone. They are inherent in being human. They are infringed, to various degrees, by different governments, against different people, throughout history.

[spin]

86. Being able to break down a 1911 blindfolded is impressive ...

but has little to do with carrying in public.

I can just visualize you putting a blindfold on and pulling your 1911 in a public area and disassembling and reassembling it.

Somehow I see lots of cops with drawn weapons surrounding you.

Years ago I agreed with your argument but statistics have shown me that those who have carry permits are a lot more qualified and safe than I ever imagined.

Strange but true.

[Hoyt]

90. Problem is,

We won't know whether the toter is able to handle a situation -- as unlikely as it may be -- until it is maybe too late. Only then will we know if the toter will shoot himself in the foot because he is nervous, shoot someone because of some misplaced fear about the person's "looks", or God forbid, shoot some innocent bystander while playing cowboy under the influence of too much adrenalin. There is no way to train most toters for these situations. I know, most toters can't accept that -- but it's true. I believe we should leave such things to law enforcement. Sure they won't be around sometimes. But a bunch of untrained "cowboys" ain't going to protect any of us in the long run.

You obviously missed my point about the 1911. I know something, perhaps as much as some of you, about guns. I also know that once that trigger is pulled, there ain't no taking that round(s) back. And I've known folks who have a permit who are a danger to society when walking around in public with their peashooter -- as much a danger as a criminal.

Be safe.

[X_Digger]

96. So how prevalent is it? (shooting themselves in the foor or a bystander)?

I mean, there are over 6M people with carry licenses.

I'm sure if it were such a problem, you'd be able to find a stat with statistical relevance, no?

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. I doubt you know as much as the State of Florida. And they don't seem to agree with you

I quote the poster of the OP, spin, from another thread (Emphasis mine):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=320576&mesg_id=320647


.....Every month the state of Florida publishes a report on concealed carry that can be viewed at:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

This report covers a time span of 22 years from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2010. In that period of time 1,787,628 concealed weapons permits were issued and 729,103 are currently valid. Only 167 license have been revoked for a crime committed where a firearm was utilized.

Obviously those who have concealed carry permits in the United States are not as dangerous as you fantasize (end quote)

[jazzhound]

99. Your diagnosis: The Gun Control Reality Distortion Field has completely

destroyed your brain. Prolonged exposure to the GCRDF has impaired you beyond even the hope of being saved by the world renowned brain surgeon Dr. Stephen T. Colbert.

http://wikiality.wikia.com/Factose_Intolerance

Tragically, your condition is terminal.

We won't know whether the toter is able to handle a situation -- as unlikely as it may be -- until it is maybe too late.

Common among the gun "control" supporters who suffer from terminal Factose Intolerance is the bizarre notion that at some unspecified time, and for some unspecified reason, calamity (blood in the streets) will result from concealed carry -- despite the fact that for decades this has not been the case.

My heart goes out to you, sir. I hope your transition to the next plane will be peaceful.

[Hoyt]

101. Thanks. It is nice to have avoided the need to tote fear the gun lobby has instilled in you guys.

What real training has prepared you to handle one of the highly charged situations toters conjure up to justify millions of Americans walking around in public with guns strapped to their legs?

And why should we not demand toters post a bond or purchase insurance to cover the public? If the risk is so small, the insurance/bond will be cheap.

[derby378]

103. Would you demand that Republicans carry proof of insurance in order to vote?

I wouldn't. Freedom of speech, including the right to vote, is a Constitutional right. So is the right to keep and bear arms.

Neither one should be subject to the control and the whims of a private corporation. Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold up.

[PavePusher]

104. Let's reverse the question...

What/How much training do you think should be mandatory? And how will it be paid for?

If it is required by the State/Government, in order to exercise a Right, it should be paid for by that body as well. Good luck with that one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. The same reason we don't demand a permit or insurance to express opinions.

Like it or not, keeping and bearing arms is a civil right. You are free to disagree with that, but it is the
law of the land and the Daley Jong-Il notion of requiring insurance for a civil right belongs in the circular file next
to poll taxes, literacy tests for voting, and the Stamp Act.


Frankly, we've been more than patient with your little screeds here considering that your prejudices against people legally bearing arms were just shown fairly conclusively not to be congruent with reality.

[jazzhound]

110. There's the fear canard again.

Couldn't possibly be calm, methodical preparation in your narrow bigoted universe, could it?

What you dishonestly describe as fear is in reality the absence of arrogance. Specifically, the arrogance that assumes that one of the many violent assaults guaranteed to occur every year will happen to the other guy. And how about the irrational fear that you possess given years of real history and unimpeachable government statistics which prove that concealed carry permit holders are less of a threat to you than citizens who don't carry?

Yet another faux-progressive outs themselves in spectacular fashion.

[SteveM]

108. Gun control laws have their origins in the South's gun control laws...

I'm glad you pointed out how the modern controller/prohibitionist has merely updated on Jim Crow, after the old bird moved north.