TX Gov. Perry: Allow concealed handguns everywhere.

[homesick_american 1]

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Well, seeing the number of gun-related deaths in comparable countries with very limited access to guns in relation to the daily slaughterfest that goes on all over the US where every moron and his uncle can carry a piece kind of supports the notion that more guns will translate into more deaths.

I don't think concealed carry permits are the culprits though. They allow law-abiding people to carry a gun, and these are people who aren't really of a criminal mindset anyway. People who want to carry guns with them no matter what the law says have always done so and will continue to do so whether a state has a concealed carry law or not.

It's not that people can carry pieces; it's that guns are very easy to buy on the black market or via the private sale loophole, and it's sort of embedded in American culture now that a gun is a good way to solve a problem.

I think it's sort of time for people to give up on taking guns out of peoples' hands; it just isn't going to happen. If they passed a law tomorrow banning handguns I wouldn't really care, but I'm not going to waste my time actively campaigning to ban handguns. It's just not practical. The best option is to pass laws requiring more restrictive background checks, perhaps a ceiling on how many firearms an individual may legally own, bans on certain types of weapons/ammunition, etc. We can't ban them but we can do our best to control access, calibre, etc. We need to be realistic. Banning guns isn't a war we can win.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Well, seeing the number of gun-related deaths in comparable countries with very limited access to guns in relation to the daily slaughterfest that goes on all over the US where every moron and his uncle can carry a piece kind of supports the notion that more guns will translate into more deaths.

I don't think concealed carry permits are the culprits though. They allow law-abiding people to carry a gun, and these are people who aren't really of a criminal mindset anyway. People who want to carry guns with them no matter what the law says have always done so and will continue to do so whether a state has a concealed carry law or not.

It's not that people can carry pieces; it's that guns are very easy to buy on the black market or via the private sale loophole, and it's sort of embedded in American culture now that a gun is a good way to solve a problem.

I think it's sort of time for people to give up on taking guns out of peoples' hands; it just isn't going to happen. If they passed a law tomorrow banning handguns I wouldn't really care, but I'm not going to waste my time actively campaigning to ban handguns. It's just not practical. The best option is to pass laws requiring more restrictive background checks, perhaps a ceiling on how many firearms an individual may legally own, bans on certain types of weapons/ammunition, etc. We can't ban them but we can do our best to control access, calibre, etc. We need to be realistic. Banning guns isn't a war we can win.

More guns = More Death - concealed carry whatever. The equation stands.

[homesick_american 1]

More guns = More Death - concealed carry whatever. The equation stands.

I did not think I would find myself in the position of defending gun owners or concealed carry permit holders, but I have never seen a shred of evidence that suggests that issuing concealed carry permits increases crime. Permit holders are far, far less likely than the average person to commit a violent crime either involving or not involving a firearm. These are the wrong people to be afraid of.

What bothers me is the fear that these people feel...they're so afraid that they think they must be armed at all times, wherever they go. I don't feel that fear, and I feel sorry for those that do. I'm not afraid of them, though.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

the women who packed were usually excruciatingly careful with their handbags, i.e. they were afraid if they dropped their bag or set it down hard, the gun would go off. Personally I think it's stupid to go everywhere cocked and locked, but that's just me.

actually, the ones that would go off if dropped just right are usually revolvers with one under the hammer. for cch, a semi-auto is recommended but it's the owner's preference for carry.

i can see carrying locked, as in a magazine inserted and one under the firing pin with safety engaged. i can't see the hammer cocked though, that's asking for trouble.

that said, half cocked is a safety feature on the model 94 winchester 30-30.....as it can go off if dropped.

Isn't it a bad idea to carry around a gun with a loaded magazine tho, since all that pressure wears out the spring and instead of it firing when you need it, all you hear is *click* *click* *click*? I'm talking about people who cram 15 rounds into a magazine, slam it into a 9mm, then don't fire it for a year or two.

If I had to carry a handgun for self-defense but knew I wouldn't be using it often, I'd rather carry a revolver for the reason I stated above.

that's considered normal wear on a magazine, precisely why one should fire their pistol on at least a monthly basis to ensure that everything is working and no jams occur.

mags can be had for about $15-20 for most guns. just a minor annoyance.

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Well, seeing the number of gun-related deaths in comparable countries with very limited access to guns in relation to the daily slaughterfest that goes on all over the US where every moron and his uncle can carry a piece kind of supports the notion that more guns will translate into more deaths.

excuse you? every moron and his uncle? are you attempting to paint cch holders in a negative light?

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

I think it's sort of time for people to give up on taking guns out of peoples' hands; it just isn't going to happen. If they passed a law tomorrow banning handguns I wouldn't really care, but I'm not going to waste my time actively campaigning to ban handguns. It's just not practical. The best option is to pass laws requiring more restrictive background checks, perhaps a ceiling on how many firearms an individual may legally own, bans on certain types of weapons/ammunition, etc. We can't ban them but we can do our best to control access, calibre, etc. We need to be realistic. Banning guns isn't a war we can win.

agreed - ban guns, then watch them come in by the truckload via the borders. our government can't even stop illegals from crossing and drugs too, guns would just be a new business plan

[homesick_american 1]

I think it's sort of time for people to give up on taking guns out of peoples' hands; it just isn't going to happen. If they passed a law tomorrow banning handguns I wouldn't really care, but I'm not going to waste my time actively campaigning to ban handguns. It's just not practical. The best option is to pass laws requiring more restrictive background checks, perhaps a ceiling on how many firearms an individual may legally own, bans on certain types of weapons/ammunition, etc. We can't ban them but we can do our best to control access, calibre, etc. We need to be realistic. Banning guns isn't a war we can win.

agreed - ban guns, then watch them come in by the truckload via the borders. our government can't even stop illegals from crossing and drugs too, guns would just be a new business plan

They can't even keep them out of the UK...a country that has no land borders and where handguns are illegal. What makes them think the USA has a prayer?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Well, seeing the number of gun-related deaths in comparable countries with very limited access to guns in relation to the daily slaughterfest that goes on all over the US where every moron and his uncle can carry a piece kind of supports the notion that more guns will translate into more deaths.

I don't think concealed carry permits are the culprits though. They allow law-abiding people to carry a gun, and these are people who aren't really of a criminal mindset anyway. People who want to carry guns with them no matter what the law says have always done so and will continue to do so whether a state has a concealed carry law or not.

It's not that people can carry pieces; it's that guns are very easy to buy on the black market or via the private sale loophole, and it's sort of embedded in American culture now that a gun is a good way to solve a problem.

I think it's sort of time for people to give up on taking guns out of peoples' hands; it just isn't going to happen. If they passed a law tomorrow banning handguns I wouldn't really care, but I'm not going to waste my time actively campaigning to ban handguns. It's just not practical. The best option is to pass laws requiring more restrictive background checks, perhaps a ceiling on how many firearms an individual may legally own, bans on certain types of weapons/ammunition, etc. We can't ban them but we can do our best to control access, calibre, etc. We need to be realistic. Banning guns isn't a war we can win.

I agree with that - but we've already seen attempts to do that get shot down or end up so watered down that they're basically useless - of which the Federal Assault Weapons Ban would appear to be a case in point.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the women who packed were usually excruciatingly careful with their handbags, i.e. they were afraid if they dropped their bag or set it down hard, the gun would go off. Personally I think it's stupid to go everywhere cocked and locked, but that's just me.

actually, the ones that would go off if dropped just right are usually revolvers with one under the hammer. for cch, a semi-auto is recommended but it's the owner's preference for carry.

i can see carrying locked, as in a magazine inserted and one under the firing pin with safety engaged. i can't see the hammer cocked though, that's asking for trouble.

that said, half cocked is a safety feature on the model 94 winchester 30-30.....as it can go off if dropped.

Isn't it a bad idea to carry around a gun with a loaded magazine tho, since all that pressure wears out the spring and instead of it firing when you need it, all you hear is *click* *click* *click*? I'm talking about people who cram 15 rounds into a magazine, slam it into a 9mm, then don't fire it for a year or two.

If I had to carry a handgun for self-defense but knew I wouldn't be using it often, I'd rather carry a revolver for the reason I stated above.

that's considered normal wear on a magazine, precisely why one should fire their pistol on at least a monthly basis to ensure that everything is working and no jams occur.

mags can be had for about $15-20 for most guns. just a minor annoyance.

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Well, seeing the number of gun-related deaths in comparable countries with very limited access to guns in relation to the daily slaughterfest that goes on all over the US where every moron and his uncle can carry a piece kind of supports the notion that more guns will translate into more deaths.

excuse you? every moron and his uncle? are you attempting to paint cch holders in a negative light?

Where did I suggest that?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

More guns = More Death - concealed carry whatever. The equation stands.

I did not think I would find myself in the position of defending gun owners or concealed carry permit holders, but I have never seen a shred of evidence that suggests that issuing concealed carry permits increases crime. Permit holders are far, far less likely than the average person to commit a violent crime either involving or not involving a firearm. These are the wrong people to be afraid of.

What bothers me is the fear that these people feel...they're so afraid that they think they must be armed at all times, wherever they go. I don't feel that fear, and I feel sorry for those that do. I'm not afraid of them, though.

Why is everyone hell-bound on debating a point that I did not make? All I am saying is that the more guns you have rotating in the population the more gun-related deaths you'll have.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the women who packed were usually excruciatingly careful with their handbags, i.e. they were afraid if they dropped their bag or set it down hard, the gun would go off. Personally I think it's stupid to go everywhere cocked and locked, but that's just me.

actually, the ones that would go off if dropped just right are usually revolvers with one under the hammer. for cch, a semi-auto is recommended but it's the owner's preference for carry.

i can see carrying locked, as in a magazine inserted and one under the firing pin with safety engaged. i can't see the hammer cocked though, that's asking for trouble.

that said, half cocked is a safety feature on the model 94 winchester 30-30.....as it can go off if dropped.

Isn't it a bad idea to carry around a gun with a loaded magazine tho, since all that pressure wears out the spring and instead of it firing when you need it, all you hear is *click* *click* *click*? I'm talking about people who cram 15 rounds into a magazine, slam it into a 9mm, then don't fire it for a year or two.

If I had to carry a handgun for self-defense but knew I wouldn't be using it often, I'd rather carry a revolver for the reason I stated above.

that's considered normal wear on a magazine, precisely why one should fire their pistol on at least a monthly basis to ensure that everything is working and no jams occur.

mags can be had for about $15-20 for most guns. just a minor annoyance.

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Well, seeing the number of gun-related deaths in comparable countries with very limited access to guns in relation to the daily slaughterfest that goes on all over the US where every moron and his uncle can carry a piece kind of supports the notion that more guns will translate into more deaths.

excuse you? every moron and his uncle? are you attempting to paint cch holders in a negative light?

Where did I suggest that?

Going back to Almaty's point earlier - it seems clear that there some legally bought weapons are in the hands of people who are immature and totally unsuited to the responsibility. So every moron and his uncle would be about right - as thanks in part to the NRA - there are few bars on those sorts of people (or indeed undiagnosed nutcases / closet pyschopaths) from getting their hands on them

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

the women who packed were usually excruciatingly careful with their handbags, i.e. they were afraid if they dropped their bag or set it down hard, the gun would go off. Personally I think it's stupid to go everywhere cocked and locked, but that's just me.

actually, the ones that would go off if dropped just right are usually revolvers with one under the hammer. for cch, a semi-auto is recommended but it's the owner's preference for carry.

i can see carrying locked, as in a magazine inserted and one under the firing pin with safety engaged. i can't see the hammer cocked though, that's asking for trouble.

that said, half cocked is a safety feature on the model 94 winchester 30-30.....as it can go off if dropped.

Isn't it a bad idea to carry around a gun with a loaded magazine tho, since all that pressure wears out the spring and instead of it firing when you need it, all you hear is *click* *click* *click*? I'm talking about people who cram 15 rounds into a magazine, slam it into a 9mm, then don't fire it for a year or two.

If I had to carry a handgun for self-defense but knew I wouldn't be using it often, I'd rather carry a revolver for the reason I stated above.

that's considered normal wear on a magazine, precisely why one should fire their pistol on at least a monthly basis to ensure that everything is working and no jams occur.

mags can be had for about $15-20 for most guns. just a minor annoyance.

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Well, seeing the number of gun-related deaths in comparable countries with very limited access to guns in relation to the daily slaughterfest that goes on all over the US where every moron and his uncle can carry a piece kind of supports the notion that more guns will translate into more deaths.

excuse you? every moron and his uncle? are you attempting to paint cch holders in a negative light?

Where did I suggest that?

bolded

need i add that cch holders are carrying a piece?

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Going back to Almaty's point earlier - it seems clear that there some legally bought weapons are in the hands of people who are immature and totally unsuited to the responsibility. So every moron and his uncle would be about right - as thanks in part to the NRA - there are few bars on those sorts of people (or indeed undiagnosed nutcases / closet pyschopaths) from getting their hands on them

just because you have a dislike for guns does not mean you should paint gun owners like that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Well, seeing the number of gun-related deaths in comparable countries with very limited access to guns in relation to the daily slaughterfest that goes on all over the US where every moron and his uncle can carry have a piece kind of supports the notion that more guns will translate into more deaths.

excuse you? every moron and his uncle? are you attempting to paint cch holders in a negative light?

Where did I suggest that?

bolded

need i add that cch holders are carrying a piece?

Getting hung up on words? Okay, so I changed it.

Edited May 3, 2007 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Going back to Almaty's point earlier - it seems clear that there some legally bought weapons are in the hands of people who are immature and totally unsuited to the responsibility. So every moron and his uncle would be about right - as thanks in part to the NRA - there are few bars on those sorts of people (or indeed undiagnosed nutcases / closet pyschopaths) from getting their hands on them

just because you have a dislike for guns does not mean you should paint gun owners like that.

Paint them like what? There are idiots in every walk of life. That's not exactly a revelation... It's not aimed at you - and I specifically didn't say "all" in my post - so why take offence?

The exact same point applies to people who drive recklessly or under the influence of drink and drugs. Point is some people are a danger to themselves and others. Again not a revelation.

Edited May 3, 2007 by erekose

[slim 1,533]

so now, not only will americans have a bigger probability of shooting a family member instead of a criminal inside their house, but now outside too? jeez..

That is simply not true.

Isn't it a bad idea to carry around a gun with a loaded magazine tho, since all that pressure wears out the spring and instead of it firing when you need it, all you hear is *click* *click* *click*? I'm talking about people who cram 15 rounds into a magazine, slam it into a 9mm, then don't fire it for a year or two.

If I had to carry a handgun for self-defense but knew I wouldn't be using it often, I'd rather carry a revolver for the reason I stated above.

The reason stated above isn't good enough to make the switch from semi to revolver. That's a personal choice that each individual should make depending on a variety of factors including; fit/feel, performance necessities, concealment space, frequency of use, etc., etc., etc. Charles pointed out that the gun should be fired regularly, but if that's not possible (due to living in a city, just being busy, etc.) an easy way to avoid having the springs inside a magazine lose their "spring" is to store them without ammo in them, and switch them out regularly with the one that's carried "loaded". So, tell your sister-in-law that she should buy at least one (if not two or three) extra magazines and keep one loaded in her gun, and the other one (or two, or more) empty at home next to her cleaning kit. (Which I'm sure she probably doesn't own either, unless it came in the box with the gun.) She should swap magazines every month or two. She can use the same ammo (for a long time, provided it stays dry and in good shape).

Another tip that I've heard for semi-autos is that it's not good to load up all 15 rounds, at least not on the one that's loaded and carried. It's not really wrong to do it, especially if the magazines are switched out so they retain their "spring", but it does increase the probability for a failure to feed. Taking out two or three rounds will almost guarantee that even a magazine that's lost some "spring" will feed correctly.

There have been thousands and thousands of reports on the "average" shootout, but in most cases of "self-defense" scenarios in which a person carrying concealed faces an armed adversary, they last less than three seconds, and less than six rounds are fired, by both sides! (With only one or two hitting it's intended target.) When more rounds are fired, the probabilty of a hit doesn't increase, as a matter of fact, it decreases! So, the difference between carrying 15 rounds and 12 rounds is not necessarily going to help her "hit the bad guy." It could help her gun jam though!

Revolvers are absolutely more reliable than semi's, but modern semi's (Beretta, Sig, Glock, etc.) are almost as good as revolvers, to the point that the debate on reliability is outweighed by the capacity to hold more ammo. 99% probability with 6 shots, or 98.5% probability with 12? Easy choice.

Either way, have fun telling your sister-in-law that you know something she doesn't!

I think it's sort of time for people to give up on taking guns out of peoples' hands; it just isn't going to happen. If they passed a law tomorrow banning handguns I wouldn't really care, but I'm not going to waste my time actively campaigning to ban handguns. It's just not practical. The best option is to pass laws requiring more restrictive background checks, perhaps a ceiling on how many firearms an individual may legally own, bans on certain types of weapons/ammunition, etc. We can't ban them but we can do our best to control access, calibre, etc. We need to be realistic. Banning guns isn't a war we can win.

Best post by a "non-supportive" gun person yet. An actual solution, not "guns kill. Get rid of guns." Good job!

But, here's the opposition to that:

More restrictive background checks: Criminals don't get checks. Sure, they may stop a wacko from "legally" obtaining a weapon, but is that going to stop them from "illegally" obtaining one? Killing people for no reason is already against the law, but that doesn't stop wackos from doing it. A stricter background check won't either.

A ceiling on how many firearms an individual may legally own: Regardless of numbers of firearms owned, most people only have two hands! (And if your argument is for them to not own so many so they can not sell so many, once again, the "legally" part comes into play here. It's already illegal for people to buy/sell guns in numbers without a license.)

Bans on certain types of weapons/ammunition, etc.: This is probably the most debatable (and thusly, most realistic) ban possible. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Remember the "Brady Bill"?) imposed restrictions on certain types of weapons, ammo capacity, etc. What it did do was stop people from "legally" obtaining prohibited weapons. What it did not do was reduce gun violence with those types of weapons because most gun violence is done by those that "illegally" obtain weapons. (and in a related note.... can someone please give me an account of an incident where an American was "bayonetted" to death in a crime?)

You see, you cannot reduce gun-related crime by passing laws that restrict those who choose to follow them. Those people aren't criminals! You can reduce gun related crime by ensuring those that break the laws have more severe punishment, by taking away the underlying causes of gun violence, and by training and educating people about guns.

A few pages back, there was a post about not needing a gun because the "threat of violent crime is so low, it's not necessary." (erekose, I believe?) I would almost agree with that, as you almost agree to having a gun "for home defence" but here's why I'll have one:

Because you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

If someone's breaking into my house at night, trying to harm my wife or myself, I'm not going to shout "get out, I'm calling 9-1-1" while I'm trying to stab them with a kitchen knife. I am, however, going to put a .357 magnum hollow-point through the door (at about crotch-level) and calmly call 9-1-1 saying "yeah, someone's trying to get in my house, I think they need an ambulance."

I hope I never "have to" use my gun. But I sure feel a helluva lot better knowing I have it. Am I scared I'm going to be a victim of a violent crime? Not really. But if I am, I have a feeling I'm going to be less of a victim than my counterparts that "will not own" a .357 magnum.