Hoplophobia

You're correct of course. I can't help but think of poor Dru Sjodin, the missing woman from North Dakota. Had she been armed, she may very well have b een able to prevent her abduction, and almost certain murder, at the hands of a predator. It's not bad guns but bad people that scare me.

Barry doesn't trust anyone (except, apparently, for some reason, police officers) and doesn't want anyone to carry lethal force around with them.

I'm curious - is there a particular reason you don't trust police officers?

All you have to do is watch the news and you'll see stories every single day about nuts shooting up schools, churches, movie theaters, bus stops, hospitals, work places, &c. That scares the crap out of me when I think about it! The police don't show up to draw chalk outlines until it's all over, but if I were there and I had a gun there might be something I could do. Maybe not, depending on the circumstances, but maybe yes. At least I'd have the best possible chance.i>

That's a best case scenario for why carrying a weapon might be beneficial. But, with your permission, consider this variation on your statement:

All you have to do is watch the news and you'll see stories every single day about nuts threatening people at schools, churches, movie theaters, bus stops, hospitals, work places, &c. That scares the crap out of me when I think about it! The police don't show up to draw chalk outlines until it's all over, but if I were there and I had a gun there might be something I could do. Maybe not, depending on the circumstances, but maybe yes. At least I'd have the best possible chance.

You see the difference in the scenarios? The first supposes someone's actually started shooting. The second just means someone's threatening. In the first the danger is current, the second it's potential. While I'm sure you and most of the other people currently engaging in this debate would have no trouble knowing when to engage and when not to engage, it's also entirely possible someone who's carrying might not. And there's where another tragedy could happen.

I would submit that, statistically speaking, there are 10x as many "threatening" situations where violence is implied but not yet begun, than "violent" situations where violence is actually at that moment occuring.

(And I count somoene holding a gun to someone's head, or holding someone up not as threatening, but actually violent. I would define threatening as using harsh language, verbally threatening, etc - something that doesn't involve the offending person truly brandishing a deadly weapon and intending to use it.)

There's a judgement call that would have to be made in every moment of such an encounter. Do you have the training and wisdom to understand the situation? I'm assuming you do. Do I feel like every person carrying a CCW has the wisdom to make that judgement? So far, maybe so. But as the number of CCW users grows, the potential for mistakes will grow as well. And that's what I fear.

Barry: I didn't mean to attack you with this post, so I hope you don't see it that way.

Why don't I trust the cops? Uhhhh, I live in Los Angeles. I've had encounters with cops. Once I was pulled over, and while the cops were writing me a ticket they got a call on their radio that there had been a shooting a few blocks away. They said they'd respond, and then spent another five minutes working on my ticket and searching my car. Since they didn't find anything on me they finally left, screeching away, sirens blazing, but at least five minutes after the shooting.

If I saw someone waving a gun around at a crowd, and I was armed, I'd shoot him. (Depending on the circumstances, of course, and how I ascertained the situation.)

Mr Williams:

If your worst 'negative' encounter with Law Enforcement, was the one you explained then you have little justification for complaint. You have no idea what other units were responding to the call (there could be at least ten or more); you were not privy to the police radio information; you do not know if this 'shooting' was reported as 'possible' or 'actual'; you do not know if the officers with you were directed to the scene or not, which may have been out of their division. In fact you know very little about the circumstances, other than what you perceived - otherwise I assume you would have incorporated it. But it makes for good cop-bashing conversation or blogging.

I strongly urge you to consider a ride-along, for an evening. Before further complaint it would benefit you to at least walk a few baby steps in someone elses shoes. In fact, it should be mandatory for ALL CCW permit holders as part of the application process.

"...Why don't I trust cops?" Yet you rely on them to make an informed decision about your qualifications and stalwart citizenship for a CCW permit, just a little hypocritical don't you think?

And I seriously hope you were joking about shooting the guy waving a gun around in a crowd. Under those circumstances, even law enforcement would have major difficulty providing justification. That kind of stuff gets officers fired, both he and his department subject to civil penalty and even jail is not inconceivable. Or is it just that you live in Los Angeles which gives rise to the omnipotence?
Or maybe the opportunity to fire your weapon is so overwhelming it's worth the risk.

I generally agree with Barry's concerns and sentiment. Clearly you have the right to defend, but the circumstances may be ambiguous with unintended consequences, potentially putting his welfare at risk. What if he is one of the guys in the crowd and your well intended shot(s) just miss their target? One sixteenth of an inch barrel deviation translates to several feet over a fairly short distance. And this guy is moving, not like the stationary targets in the range, where you managed a perfect score.

Plug: I did hear the radio conversation, actually, in its entirety, and there were no other units responding. Presumably an ambulance was on the way though.

The whole point of these posts is that I'm forced to rely on the cops to give me a CCW, I don't have any choice on the matter. I explicitly do not trust them to make a wise decision. Anyway, I wasn't talking about Hawthorne PD, I have no doubts that they're good at what they do.

As I said, it would depend on the circumstances. But if it looked like the guy was about to shoot someone, I'd probably try to shoot him first, if I thought I could hit him, &c.

Do I perceive a little back pedal, because of your application...? Just in case the Hawthorne Police Chief reads this blog...? nah, say it ain't so! Though I guess, if that were the case, you would have been smart enough to edit it in the first place.

In general, all of sworn Law Enforcement in California undergo the same basic training - A P.O.S.T. (State) mandated curiculum. L.A.P.D. has an extensive training program, which far excedes State minimum. Though, I accept they and L.A.S.O. have an earned reputation of doing things 'their way', which has created cultural differences, often perceived in a negative vein by fellow officers and citizens in general. Other non-L.A.P.D. / S.O. police departments , can pull the same crappy stuff and it never gets reported. These two depts. are media targets and often, overly criticized.

However, many local departments, may have as much as 20% of their personnel made up of lateral transfers, from those two departments. So to say, "Hawthorne P.D. are good at what they do." , when you have no explicit knowledge of its culture, demographics, code of ethics, work product, or enforcement protocols is somewhat extemporaneous. What difference does that make, in any event? Surely your intention would be to carry a firearm outside the City of Hawthorne, not just limit yourself to its boundaries? What about the other 40 plus departments in the Greater L.A. area? Is it that you don't trust ALL police officers, their departments in general or is it just L.A.P.D. you have a problem with? That's something of a broad brush you are painting with...seemingly based on a relatively minor negative experience. I assume your other contact(s) were even more minor than this one, otherwise they would have been the example(s).

It's really a good job Law Enforcement doesn't have the same opinion about the citizens it is protecting and serving. If I had been offended by you during 'our' traffic stop, (though I doubt that could never happen), I would have no-one to complain to about your attitude and would henceforth live my working life to make every public contact a miserable one. I would even blog about it!

In my department, on average, an officer may respond to 25-30 calls during an evening shift. Minimally thats over 5000 direct public contacts a year, per officer. Most officers go through a full career with only a handful of citizen complaints about their conduct, professionalism or work ethic. Each one being investigated by a supervisor(s) or Internal Affairs. The greater percentage of citizen complaints are usually 'unfounded' or lack justification. i.e. The officer's actions / inactions were within department rules and regulations.

Michael - I didn't think you were attacking me. While frustrating, I've learned a lot from this debate and you've been straight up and non-insulting from the beginning.

Here's one reason I believe we diverge in our thinking:

If I saw someone waving a gun around at a crowd, and I was armed, I'd shoot him. (Depending on the circumstances, of course, and how I ascertained the situation.)

and later...

As I said, it would depend on the circumstances. But if it looked like the guy was about to shoot someone, I'd probably try to shoot him first, if I thought I could hit him.

It's precisely these ambiguities that scare me. I don't have the bad experiences with police that you and others undoubtedly have, and - perhaps naively - trust that in the vast majority of situations, due to their training and experience they will do the right thing under whatever circumstances.

I also would likely trust you and some others like SayUncle to do what's right, but as you say yourself there are lots of options and circumstances and situations where you might do one thing and not another - wait, don't wait, chance of hitting, chance of missing, etc. Others may make the wrong decision and cause the situation to become worse.

I hope you see it's the untrained populace reacting to situations in ways that they should not that leads me to conclude it would be better for them not to be armed in the first place.

Unfortunately by leaving the law abiding untrained populance unarmed, you put them at the mercy of the criminal populance. I would favor mandatory firearms training for at least CCW permit holders, so they can at least hit what they are shooting at. All I then have to do is trust them to pick their targets well.

Barry, you are worried that with CCW permits you have no way of knowing whether someone is carrying, and if someone is carrying you have no way of knowing if they are safe to be around. But have you ever thought that *without* CCW permits you have no more knowledge about whether someone is armed, but you can *KNOW* that if they are armed they are a criminal, and you can *KNOW* that if something starts *NOBODY* who is not a criminal will be nearby and armed. I'd rather trust Joe Random than Billy Thug with my saftey, and I'd much rather have the option to trust myself.

However, this has nothing to do with my comfort level, as MW said, the ability and willingness to defend yourself is the core of freedom. Without it you must either accept death, or accept whatever "freedom" others will give you.

I will say this, Barry, if you do not trust yourself with a weapon, I'm just as happy you aren't carrying one.

Plug wrote: "Do I perceive a little back pedal, because of your application...?"

Actually, what you failed to perceive is called "sarcasm". In the end, it's immaterial to me how good the police are at their jobs. That's a red herring, and has no relationship to my right to defend myself.

Barry: Thanks, I try to be respectful and honest.

Again, even though I do think that allowing people to carry concealed without any sort of permit would make society safer, that's not my main concern. I'm not as much worried about being safe as I am about being free. Millions of people around the world over the centuries have borne great risks and given their lives for freedom, when they could have instead had safety and slavery. My choice is freedom, even if it makes me less safe.

I just thought I would share this with you...

The other day, I was driving along a back country road with my family. The youngest age was under two and my SUV was full. It was late afternoon, and somewhat shaddowy.

Suddenly, around a bend I came upon a fight in the middle of the road (2 lane highway). There were no homes nearby, no addional traffic. We were some distance from real habitation. Five adult males were involved. Two vehicles were parked on one side of the road with doors open and a dirty, beat up large truck parked directly across from them (my side). This all played out directly infront of me and I had a full, clear and unobstructed view at all times.

Two males were most aggressive toward each other, pushing and pulling, trying to knock each other down. On my side, one male was being chased by another around the rear of the large truck. The fifth male just seemed to be looking on, not really taking any action, but slightly more involved with the fight - he seemed to be trying to keep out of the way, yet be involved at the same time. I slowed down to a stop, about 30 feet away because the fight and vehicles, literally blocked my path.

I then noticed one of the men involved in the 'two-man' fight was holding a semi-automatic pointed, at times, directly at the other but also trying to avoid the other man's attempts to grab it. At the same time this male (with the gun and free hand) tried to trip the other man up and, for a few seconds, it was all very confusing. They were kicking out at each other, landing a few blows and tumbled against one of the parked cars. Within a relatively short time, about a minute, one man got the better of the other, grappled him to the ground and kneeled on him, putting his handgun to the mans head. The lone man, previously 'assisting from a short distance', also pulled out a firearm - though he may well have had it in his hand the whole time - and also pointed it at the man now on the ground.

During this time, the men around the rear of the truck also began to fight, punching, pulling kicking out and one man was thrown / tripped to the ground. The man who had done the tripping, backed a off a little and withdrew a firearm. The man on the ground 'spread-eagled' himself. The gun holder pointed his weapon directly at the man on the ground, just a few feet from his head. It looked, for a brief moment that I was about to witness a homicide or two. All the men involved were yelling curse words at each other and there was obviously some very heated exchanges. My windows were up and I couldn't hear distinctly.

During all this my wife was screaming (at me). "Oh my god, he's going to kill him...do something. Back up, they've got guns." She, and my kids were extremely frightened (crying) and urged me to back up, or drive through them - though there wasn't much room. I reached for the weapon in my glove box (locked for safety of course, with the key in the ignition). I began to back up but other vehcles were now behind me, stopped and the driver's obviously wondering what the hell was going on. My wife was yelling to the vehicles behind to back up, also. But I'm sure all they saw was a frantic female, waving her arms in the are.

As I continued to make as much mental note as I could about this unfolding turn of events, I began to realize some of the manner and demeanor of the men was familiar to me. I looked for other possible indicators of Law Enforcement.

Three of the men, as it turned out, were undercover officers, attempting to take the other two into custody - (truck driver and passenger) who were resisting. I later saw badges and subsequently identified myself, leaving a business card in case they needed a front row witness. The undercover officers, (Narcs) were disguised from being law enforcement - beards, long hair, jeans, leathers etc., dirty appearance, and looked more like 'bikers' - no disrespect. The 'suspects' were marijuana growers, delivering a small load in the truck. The 'suspects' were Hispanic males, about 30 yrs, dressed in working clothes.

I took no action, other than described above. I remained in my vehicle, prepared to protect my family by removing them from a hostile environment. I intended to be a very good witness. But I wonder how a regular citizen, with a CCW, might have reacted, not having the knowledge and insight into recognizing Law Enforcement behavior, as I did.

Even if they had stepped outside their vehicle, with their handgun and nothing but good intentions, it may well have distracted the officers, just long enough for them to lose control of the situation and the tables turned. What if the officers, in the heat of the moment, saw that 'new gun' on the scene, believing the carrier was coming to the aid of the suspect? What if, the CCW holder totally misread the situation and 'drew down' on the officer? I at least had my badge to identify myself as a 'friendly'.

So, my point is, there is more to carrying a CCW than defense - there is the responsibility of safety to others, even when acting in good faith with nothing but the best of intentions. Believe me, this is a true story and happened to me, Thanksgiving week-end.

Plug: I believe you, that sounds like a scary incident. Good thing you had your gun with you, in case you needed to use it to protect your family. I'm glad that wasn't the case.

I have no doubt that there are confusing situations like you describe, but it seems like you were able to handle it well. Do you think you're that much smarter and more experienced than the rest of us, that you should have the option of carrying a gun in your glove-box and others shouldn't?

(In California, at least, it's illegal to carry a gun in the glove-box, particularly if it's loaded, whether the compartment is locked or not.)

The point is, of course, that another person in the exact same situation may have reacted completely differently and cost the lives of himself, his family, or the officers.

Until you can convince me that everyone would have reacted in a safe and responsible manner you won't be able to convince me that allowing unqualified civilians to carry concealed weapons is worth the risk to the public.

And by unqualified I mean, of course, not trained as an officer of the law.

Until you convince me that everyone licensed to drive a car will always use it in a safe and wise manner, you can't convince me to allow non-race-car-drivers behind the wheel. &c. &c.

There are no guarantees in life, so your requirement for being convinced is nonsense.

Mr. Williams:

No, not smarter...probably a lot dumber. In fact you don't have to be very smart to carry a gun. Often the opposite is true...

However, "...more experienced...? Certainly. More so than the average citizen, who have not been exposed to similar training and experiences as myself and most other Law Enforcement personnel. But really that's not the issue, whether I handled the situation well, or otherwise. Even that can be debated a multitude of ways. The point is, that there are a variety of different reactions from any number of citizens. Even those not armed.

Only training and exposure to situations and scenarios, daily...at least weekly, provides something of a level playing field. Ideally everyone should react in the same safe way (not necessarily my way), but of course that's just not going to happen.

Should you then, be denied access to a self defensive weapon? Absolutely not, but show me where anything says that 'weapon' is defined as a 'concealed handgun'. You definitely have the right to protect yourself, I offer no argument. Only against the 'choice' and what goes with making that choice a safe one for all concerned.

And of course you are correct about the 'glove box'...for those interested, CA penal Code sections 12020 - 12040 apply (specifically 12025 which makes no reference to the handgun being loaded or not).

Another aspect of this is that, even with all my training, knowledge and experiences, in the heat of the moment, foolishly, my handgun was absolutely no use to me. I do not make a habit of using the glovebox, it's usually too full of junk/toys/sugar/napkins etc.to be practical. Anyone who has kids will commiserate. But circumstances, that day, dictated. I just went a little out of a normal routine (so easily done), which could have had negative consequences. I was on a day out with the family, having a good time, and not immediately prepared for what presented itself around that bend in the road.

'Mr'. Barry, I applaud your sentiment, courage and point of view. We seem to be in the minority.

Plug: So why don't you carry pepper spray and a tazer instead of a gun? It'd be safer for everyone around you, wouldn't it?

Mr. Williams:
Yes it would and is...However,
I carry pepper spray, more often than I carry a concealed (off-duty) firearm. I don't carry a tazer (stun-gun) because I'm too cheap to buy one, though I do think they can be an effective means of self defense. Actually 'tazer' is only available to Law Enforcement, but Stun Guns - which operate in a similar manner, but at arms length, are available to the general public. However, I rarely carry anything, off duty - contrary to my dept's. recommendations. I personally don't feel the need. Nevertheless, I still 'qualify' and regularly train with my concealed weapon of choice, as well as my 'issued' weapon, per my dept's. Standard Operating Procedures.

Hope your Christmas is a safe and joyous one.

Very interesting discussion ya' all. And I very much appreciate a reasoned discussion without uneccessary flaming and insults back and forth so I commend you all for keeping your cool.

I would like to throw in a few of my own comments if I might.

The way I see it things are really very simple.

1. Thugs and others are probably armed and I and others do not know who is or not a thug and subsequently who is and is not armed. Let's call these the "bad" folks.

2. The police and other law enforcement personel are armed and can protect us but only when they are present ahead of time. As such we cannot reasonably rely on their protection in time of need since they most often respond to calls not pre-empt them.

3. Restrictions on CCW permits in Calfornia prevent many law-abiding people ("good" folks) from carrying their own firearms to protect themselves in case of need.

Now the above are generally the facts and I think most of you would agree with them.

Aside from Constitutional considerations, to deny good folks the opportunity to carry leaves these facts as they are which in turn leaves good folks defenseless against bad folks.

That doesn't make any sense to me. At all.

To say that allowing more CCW holders will endanger society more is to ignore the danger to society from the combination of facts #1 and #2 above. In such a way that nothing is done to decrease the danger to society!

From a societal standpoint alone I would rather see multitudes of CCW holders on the streets, with the risk of a very, very small percentage misusing their firearms than to see the continued and every increasing reduction of the public safety through the above facts being the case.

The risk of being wrongfully shot by a CCW holder of any kind verses the risk of being shot by a bad person is so far less (with respect to the CCW holder) that it's absolutely insignificant.

If one cannot stop violent criminals from acquiering guns and if the police can never be there ahead of time realiably then one must either arm the populace or leave them helpless.

That's the real crux of the issue folks. Arm the populace and give them a chance or keep them defeseless and at the mercy of the nearest mugger.

Whatever the risks or perceptions of increased or decreased safety to society as a whole aside that's really what it boils down to.

The police won't protect us the way we want them to. Muggers and other bad folks don't care about us. We are left to fend for ourselves.

It's either carry (legally or otherwise) and have a reasonable chance of at least having the same power at your disposal that a mugger might or else not carry and leave yourself and your family at the mercy of muggers and the efficacy of the police.

Let me put it a different way. If the citizens of a given city in Iraq are being mugged, killed, robbed, raped, and what have you by some with AK-47's and if the Provisional Authority or local police cannot get there in time to stop these bad folks what are the citizens of that city to do?

To force them to wait on the recognized authorities to solve the problem would be ridiculous. And grossly unfair. Better to allow citizens to have their own firearms to protect themselves.

While the situation in the States is certainly not the same the underlying principles are.

Unless government is willing and able to correct a situation where the populace is at risk and unable to defend itself then it is left to the populace to defend itself. No and's, if's, or but's about it.

How will not giving out CCW permits increase the safety of our society when every day crime seems to get worse and worse? Much faster than the risk from an increasing throng of CCW holders would decrease the safety to society (assuming there was any significant risk from CCW holders to society which is definitely debatable).

Statistically there is simply and absolutely no justification at all for the view points that an increasingly armed society (in the form of CCW holders) will cause a greater risk to society than not. In fact the opposite is true. Statistically wise from places that allow CCW permits and actually give them out.

Any arguments to the contrary are based on pre-suppositions or thoughts on what might happen. Not on facts based on sound statistics.

We cannot let our personal fears, prejudices, or otherwise influence our reason against statistical facts.

Increasing the CCW carries decreases crime or has no effect on the crime rate. That is a fact for anyone who cares to look at the statistics.

Increasing the CCW carries does NOT increase the number of gun related incidents. That is a fact for anyone who cares to look at published reports.

There simply are no facts on the side of not allowing CCW carries. None! At least that I know of. All objections to CCW are based on conjecture or unfounded fears or otherwise. Not facts.

Carlos

Carlos

Plug,

You seem to me to be in a position similar to a doctor who does not believe people should practice medicine without a license, but who does believe that first aid is appropriate.

You argue that pepper spray, stun guns and Tasers ("they're legal to carry in most states without permits (including California). Restricted from citizen use in MA, RI, NY, NJ, WI, MI, HI and certain cities and counties" according to Taser International, Inc.) are good "first aid" but concealed carry firearms are not.

Is this a good analogy? It occurs to me that I have recieved nothing but good care and professionalism from all the doctors and police officers I've ever encountered, and I will readily call either when there is a problem, but I really don't want to be around either one. (Is that an irrational fear, Kevin Baker?)

I (and others) am arguing from a human rights standpoint. Our contention is that disarmament will eventually lead to slavery as shown by numerous historical examples. I believe we the God-given right to hunt, self-defense and revolt, and to possess and carry personal firearms for those purposes.

I can't see how to reconcile our respective concerns, but I will note that both Theodore and Eleanor Roosevelt carried concealed firearms.

Plug, can you see how to reconcile our concerns?

Yours,
Wince

Could someone please explain to me why, when the subject of 'self defense' arises, a hand-gun is thought to be the panacea. When, in reality, its use to protect one from crime, is extremely rare. Granted it may well happen, but so might being struck by lightening. Do we all carry around our personal 'ground' in a rainstorm, trusting that we will be saved? No, but we may take alternatives. Similarly in other aspects of danger, society looks for and utilizes alternatives whenever possible. But when it comes to 'Crime' the first, and usually only, thought is toward a handgun. I refer back to previous arguments about 'need to' versus 'want to' carry a concealed weapon.

During my lengthy service, I have encountered hundreds of thousands of members of the public, who go about their daily business, who have never been armed and have no desire to be armed. They are perfectly content and, perhaps once in a greatwhile may become a victim of crime. Nonetheless, the odds, even in a vast metropilitan area, such as Los Angeles, are small. They are even smaller at being the victim of violent crime, even smaller, where any handgun they carried would have prevented the crime and even smaller still to have the opportunity in being able to use that handgun in self defense. Does that mean therefor that no-one will be the victim of violent crime, whereby the use of a handgun may have saved lives or further injury? Of course not. But lets not pander to irrational fears, using our desire carry a concealed weapon to justify them. The 2nd Ammendment, gives a right to bear arms but omits any reference to their concealment.

I accept that Law Enforcement is unlikely to prevent all victimization and should not be relied on in that regard. I also accept that each citizen has his own responsibility in self-preservation, but it just doesn't boil down to "...therefore I have to use a concealed gun".

Statistically, in L.A., being a victim of violent crime is something in the range of 1 in 100,000 and that's including specifically targeted individuals, known to the suspect. It is significantly smaller than that, where a handgun or other deadly force was used in the commission of the crime. Such weapon/use of force would be required for the victim to lawfully justify using their own handgun.

Violent crime can be defined as any form of weapon, including; hands, feet, bats, blunt instruments, caustic or corrosive liquids, chemicals, vehicles, knives, other blade type weapons, and guns and ANY THING which might result in injury or violent trauma.

Taking all this into consideration, gun owners still suggest they want to carry a firearm as a means of self-defense, but in reality, they are unlikely to be a victim in the first place and their 'fears' are either misplaced or misguided. Especially if they take a few common sense precautions to minimise risk or danger. I have also encountered met several avid gun owners who have carried weapons illegally, and who purposefully went out looking to become a victim. Putting themselves in harms way, so that they might 'justifiably' use their concealed handgun.

If you want to carry a firearm because it makes you feel good and safe, say so, but don't use irrational fears of being victimized to justify your desires.

If you have a morbid fear of being a victim, then I suggest a gun does not be long in the hands of any person exhibiting paranoid behavior or tendencies. If you can justify your fears and have documented evidence, then in California, you may well be granted the appropriate CCW permit.

Furthermore, I do not object to anyone carrying a concealed firearm as long as go they through on-going and rigorous training. As required by law enforcement; to protect the public, - both innocent and guilty, provide a modicum of safety for the individual, fellow officers and citizens, and minimise liability. The State mandates it...Why should the general public be regarded differently? Simply to go through the motions of getting a permit, background checks, and to satisfy a few (in many cases minimal) range requirements etc, is inadequate. Most States, require very little ongoing training, other than a relatively uncomplicated 'range qualification'. In many ways it is hypocritical for The State to require extensive and rigorous training for one class of citizen in the performance of their duties, yet expect no similar experience from an unqualified individual perhaps making the same life or death decision.

The occasional and extreme unlikelyhood of ever having to use the weapon, breeds complacency, increases liability and thereby provides danger to the user and innocent bystanders. But somehow, many of those wanting to carry a firearm are unwilling or fail to recogize those issues. Furthermore, the public at large, who may have no desire to be anywhere near a firearm - in good or bad hands - will be jeopardized by irresponsible use.

It is analageous to being a cigarette smoker - unwilling to accept their own demise and not accepting that those in the same smoke filled room, have health concerns also. It is egocentric and egregious for them to say, "...get over it" or "...leave the room".

Mr. Wince: I wasn't aware that firearms were around at the time, for 'God' to give them to you as a 'right'.

Mr. Carlos: As for CCW NOT increasing the number of gun related incidents is wildly mis-stated. Clearly, and undisputedly, the more guns there are, the greater liklihood of injury - whether by accident or otherwise. Such accidents would not necessary be made into statistics, and would more likely go unreported in many States.

You bring up some good points Plug.

Among them it is certainly true that irrational fears can be had by those who are pro-gun just as much as those are anti-gun. I use these terms very loosely to refer to those who support people in general carrying a gun in public and those who don't.

You also bring up a truth in saying that the number of people who actually end up getting shot by thugs and otherwise is really very, very small.

To be sure I would not under all circumstances feel a need to carry around a gun. For example I wouldn't feel any need to carry a gun inside a mall. Or in Wal-Mart. Or in any other locale where there are an abundance of people. There really would be no need. Even if something were to happen in such a place the chances of me and my family personally being singled out from everyone else to be shot by a mugger would be so small as to be almost insignificant. Not that it couldn't happen mind you but certainly not enough for me to feel a need to carry around a gun.

On the other hand I will be selling hot dogs shortly in Phoenix. My business is such that I will be collecting a lot of cash from customers and only cash. My plates will be Canadian - and legally so - though I am a U.S. Citizen. As such some might look upon me as easy pickings given that Canada has such restrictive gun laws making it very unlikely that an average Canadian would be armed or even know how to use a gun well. I will be closing down at about the same time every day and not varying the route to my truck very much or to the nearest ATM. Which again will tend to make me easier pickings than most businesses if a robber is inclined to stalk me and learn my routine.

Furthermore I will be camping out in deserted areas outside of Phoenix on occassion since I will be living out of my truck and will want to save camping fees. Not always mind you but I will want the option to camp at the side of the road. My hot dog cart will be with me. And any potential thief only has to add two and two together to come up with the possibility that I am more likely to have cash money on hand than others of the public.

As such I feel a need to carry a gun. Not just for my own sake but so as to prevent my wife and family from living out the rest of their lives without me. Should I be robbed and killed.

Now it is possible that my concerns might be overly inflated. I'll grant you that. But I would rather feel safer with a gun than without.

The point is that I should have the freedom to choose. Whether to carry a gun for self-protection or not. Not be forced not to.

Here in Canada I cannot legally carry a gun into the back country to protect my family and me when hiking in the woods. Not to even mention the problems inherent in transporting a gun to where we are going to hike. If I happen to meet a Grizzly who wants to eat one of us for lunch ... well that's just too bad. One gets the distinct impression that Grizzlies are considered to have just as much of a right to walk around in the woods if not more than humans have. And that it is unfair to have a gun to protect one's self. I say poppy cock! But at least in Canada there is not much I can do about it - other than to carry around an 8 foot spear I guess :). Or maybe a sling. Or just don't go hiking.

Regarding the use of handguns and such and the need for training...I think this need is highly exaggerated. In Revolutionary war times everyone and their next door neighbor had guns. To be able to use a gun was as much the norm as being ablel to build a fire and cook. It was no big deal.

Although I will readily admit that this common use of guns is no longer the case and that as such some training would be called for, I do not think the training needs to be perceived as absolutely essential and ongoing and from professional sources type of thing. I mean goodness gracious. How much training does it take to learn to pull a trigger and shoot a gun? I shot guns in Boy Scouts and in training to be an officer in the U.S. Military during ROTC and it's no big deal. To learn to shoot and propertly take care of a gun. Using it responsibly.

The part that is much tougher is being able to be familiar enough with shooting a gun as to make it less likely that one will hesitate to use when if and when needed. It is learning how to distinguish between those situations where a gun might be the best defense and those where one might be better off not pulling it out.

In this sense the police have much greater experience. That's for sure. And I doubt any civilian will come closoe to having the sharp benefit of experience that police do. Some maybe but not many.

Still I would want people to freely choose whether to carry guns or not.

The statistics still stand. Sure perhaps the published reports and statistics don't reveal all that would be beneficial to know. But the published material overwhelmingly supports the belief that carrying a gun does not add to crime or otherwise make the general populace less safe.
Indeed much of the literature can be looked upon as outright supporting the belief that it actually makes all of us safer is people carry.

I want to live in a free country. With all the risks that freedom entails. Even if that means that there is an increased risk of a gun related incident occuring - which I am not saying there is - but even if there was, I would rather live with that increased risk and the freedom that allows that risk than not.

I feel safer in Canada but much less free. I feel safer not just because guns in general are outlawed in the sense that they are legal in the U.S. but more so because the kinds of situations in which people are more likely to use guns are generally absent here.

I don't have poor ghettos around anywhere. There are no black neighborhoods to speak of (nothing against black folks mind you) where there are more young black men full of testorene wanting to prove themselves. Little of any of the dangerous kind of drug trading as goes on in the U.S. Stable communities of people who are less inclined to committ crimes. Much less in the way of transient populations. An almost non-existant homeless situation.

I feel safer precisely because there is generally little need for the kind of self-defense that one might use a gun for.

But not in the States! I lived in Florida for ten years and the atmosphere was completely different there. I lived close a bad neighborhood and I had to constantly be on the lookout. Aware of my sorroundings. A good thing regardless.

But I wasn't married then. If I had been and had found cause to be out and about in dangerous environments you bet I would have wanted a gun.

The issue is freedom. Do we want to live as free people? Free to choose to be responsible or not? Free to protect ourselves and our family? Free to make informed choices within the bounds of not infringing on the rights of others to do the same?

Or do we want to cower behind our government and live in fear? Trusting them to protect us? Trusting them to protect us from ourselves.

I want to live in freedom. To be considered someone responsible enough to make my own informed choices in life. Without having those choices forced upon me by a government who doesn't trust me to make right choices. I want to be free to make mistakes and suffer the consequences of those mistakes. If I indeed make them.

I am really looking forward to going to Arizona. In investigating the gun carry issue there I have been left with the impression that their gun carry laws are only a reflection of the greater freedom enjoyed by Arizonian's overall.

I say again...it's not about carrying guns or not. Carrying guns should be no big deal. Like cooking, or driving, operating heavy machinery or doing any other thing. Things which responsible citizens should have the freedom to do if they so choose to do so.

It's about freedom. Like I said I feel safer in Canada but most certainly not more free. And I would rather live in freedom to choose what I do and do not do ... in this discussion regarding self-defense with a gun ... than to live in a society that forces that choice upon me. Because I along with my fellow citizens are not trusted to make those choices for ourselves. I don't call that freedom. I call that being babysat by whatever government makes these rules up.

The U.S. is a great country but what made it great and what continues to make it great is that it is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This implies that the people can be trusted to govern themselves in regard to the choices they make in every day life. They can be trusted to make wise choices with regard to how they allow themselves to be governed.

It is no coincidence that the U.S. has led the world in freedom. I for one want it to remain that way and I see the gun carry issue as simply a reflection of how free we still are. A reflection of whether a people look upon themselves to govern their own conduct and behaviour or whether they have given some of that freedom up to allow their government to make choices for them.

I don't want anyone or any government to take away my opportunity to be a responsible adult. Able to make informed choices and to live with the consequences of my choices. Even if that means suffering as a result of wrong choices I might make. I want the same freedomn for my kids.

Where they must learn to be responsible in an atmosphere where they are free to choose and to suffer either the benefits of their wise decisions or the consquences of their bad one's.

I want all of us to have the freedom to choose whether to carry a gun or not. For whatever reason that does not infringe on the freedoms of others. And I want our government to stay out of making those choices for us while punishing those who commit crimes with a gun or otherwise.

I will move anywhere to live in greater freedom. I hope the U.S. does not loose the freedoms it has so long enjoyed and that have made it a beacon of hope for so many of the world's oppressed peoples.

Carlos

Mr. Carlos:

You also have raised many points, which we are on common ground over - yet - there are many with which I will disagree. Not necessarily for myself, but for the unspoken voice of the public, who I encounter on a daily basis.

You say: "...wouldn't feel the need to carry a gun inside a Mall..." etc. Because of "...an abundance of people." Your strategy and consideration is well founded, but just what do you do with your 'concealed weapon' you have previously been carrying, prior to your shopping experience? Leave it in your vehicle? Heaven forbid the vehicle be stolen, with yet another handgun inside. And, leaving the Mall is probably the time when you might need the gun the most...then what? Just when do you decide, there is no need to carry the handgun? Those 'on again' / 'off again' decisions make you vunerable and dangerous when you do.

Re. Selling hot dogs in Phoenix ... here in California, the penal code allows you to carry a handgun at your place of business, without a permit. Under these circumstances, where, you may be subject to robbery or worse, certainly a handgun is an option - but not the only one. You say it is impratical for you to vary your route etc. I say, you run an extreme risk and are foolish if you don't. Number One rule: NEVER BE PREDICTABLE.

Re: Camping in deserted areas...DON'T.

Your statement of "..feeling safer with a gun, than without" Goes hand in glove with responsibility toward others..

Re: Training (a biggie in my book) You say, "...is Highly exaggerated." and in Revolutionary war times, "...no big deal." Further..."training not absolutely essential...how much training does it take to pull the trigger and shoot a gun." Any child, at about 2 years of age, can pull a trigger and master pointing a gun (some)in about one minute flat. That's not the issue - though of great concern - Training is not so much as how to shoot, as knowing when not to shoot. That, sir, takes a conscious thought process, perhaps in a nano-second, that only training, exposure, and experience(s) can provide. Mistakes happen everyday by well trained individuals, heaven knows what would happen if the untrained and inexperienced came into the arena. I estimate, fully 80 percent of Law Enforcement training, beyond weapon familiarity and ability to hit a target, is restraint. Oh, and I forgot...we are not in Revolutionary war times, or anywhere close to them.

You say..."I feel safer (in Canada) precisely because there is generally little need for the kind of self-defense that one might use a gun for." In my experience, that is certainly not true for the Canadian cities I have visited. (Toronto/Galgary/Vancouver and many others). In fact, the only time my wife has ever been the victim of street crime, was in Toronto. So your 'feeling safer' is just that. You desire to carry a handgun here in the U.S., and can, because laws are more lax than Canada. I am not minimising the need to make you 'feel safe' but I question the rationale. In the U.S. you might change your statement to, "I, and my fellow citizens, feel safer precisely because there is generally little need for the kind of self-defense, that one CAN, use a gun for."

Regarding your issues of 'Freedom' expresed in a variety of ways. Do you not consider that 'your freedom(s)' may be to the detriment of others? However, they, as law abiding innocent victims of an accidental or wayward bullet from your untrained hand, can not harm you in any way. But, certainly enjoy them - they have been hard fought for - but don't forget, others enjoy them too and do not wish for you to impose your rights above theirs.

Plug,

I wish I had more time to respond to your excellent posts. I can't thank you enough for the time you've spent here.

I don't think firearms are a panacea. I don't carry one, myself. It isn't legal here. If it was, I probably would get a license as a matter of principle. I also want this to be a free country two-hundred years from now. If we are not allowed to defend ourselves any rise in crime will tend to be followed by politicians taking away our privacy rights, among others, in an effort to fight crime. Over time our rights will be stripped away in the name of safety until the government rules the people rather than vice versa.

God gave us the right to self-defense with teeth, fists and feet. When people started committing crimes using rocks, God gave us the right to defend ourselves using rocks. Thus for spears and bows and swords and finally firearms. I do draw the line short of hand grenades, mortars and howitzers. :) Criminals don't use those and they are lousy weapons for self-defense.

All freedom is dangerous. You know as well as I that our freedom to drive is more dangerous than our Second Amendment freedom.

Yours,
Wince

Yes, this has been a great discussion, I'm glad you all took the time to get involved. It doesn't surprise me that we've been unable to reach a concensus on the issue, considering the rest of America hasn't yet, either.

Once again Plug, you bring up some good points.

And I must confess that I have not thought through every aspect of carrying a gun in Arizona. Such as what I will do with my gun when I go into a mall. Leave it in the car? How about returning to Canada and crossing all the different States on the way back up every year. Someone suggested I leave the gun with a shooting range or something. I don't really know how I will handle all this.

But I am sure that I will figure out something.

Regarding Canada and it's relative safety I suppose my experience has not been that of others. Certainly not that of yourself. I live in a small town that has maybe 17,000 person in it. And I live outside a large city that is nothing like Toronto or Vancouver - both of which are much more like large American cities with the resultant higher crime rates.

To be sure I suppose there are just as many small towns in the U.S. next to larger metropolitan areas where I might feel just as safe as I do where I am at in Canada. So perhaps my statements of the relative safety I feel compared to being in the U.S. is quite subjective.

It is a shame that most Canadians (that I have talked to personally that is) see the U.S. as being so crime ridden that it's almost like they have to start being extra cautious the moment they cross the border. Especially so in the larger cities.

With regard to freedom of choice I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that government should be involved in penalizing people who have done nothing wrong on the possibility that they -might- do something wrong.

I view government restrictions on carrying a gun as being in that line of reasoning. Where the restrictions are in place based on what might happen which more often than not is based on conjecture or unfounded fears. Certainly not facts.

Government should punish evildoers. To be sure. Without penalizing or taking away freedoms that might be perceived as reducing the chance of evil doing.

Why should my freedom to carry a gun be limited by the possibility that my next door neighbor might not do likewise in a responsible way? Should we not rather uphold the freedom to choose whether to carry while upholding stiff penalties for those who misuse their guns?

And why should the perception that a greater number of law-abiding people carrying guns would increase the danger to society take away my freedom to carry a gun if I can do so responsibly?

It isn't evil to carry a gun. There is nothing immoral or wrong about it. So why should my freedom to do so be curtailed?

Because someone is afraid that I might misuse it?

If we applied that same reasoning to other areas of life we would live under a great loss of freedom.

Can you imagine? People are afraid that a drunk driver might run them over so ... let's prevent people from drinking at all. Let's start prohibition all over again. People are also afraid that teenagers might act out and cause vandalism if they have nothing to do and are unemployed ... so let's force all teenagers to work or force them to volunteer somewhere if they are not. People are afraid that some of us might try to cure ourselves incorrectly with herbs and natural products so ... let's outlaw herbs and other such things unless gotten from a medical doctor.

I could go on and on and on. Being able to choose whether to carry a gun truly is a reflection of how a society views freedom. I prefer a freedom where people are free to choose what they want to do while being held accountable for the consequences of bad choices on their fellow citizens.

We should be free to drive and to drink and to choose either while punishing severely those who combine the two and cause an accident.

Teenagers should be free to do what they want as long as they don't cause vandalism which should be severaly punished when done.

We should be free to try any herbs or other self-medication we want to try as long as we don't promote quackery to our fellow citizens.

And we should all be free to choose to carry a gun or not as long as those who don't do so responsibly are held to account and suffer the consequences (legally speaking) of any irresponsiblity.

I guess we might just have to disagree on our views of freedom Plug :). Thankfully I can go to Arizona and you can continue to live in California.

Arizona is no panacea of freedom mind you but it certainly seems more free than California or even Canada where I presently live.

That's one of the great things about the States. Each person can find a State that feels right for themselves.

Carlos

Thankyou all...We remain divided yet convivial. With differing points of view, we are able to discuss them rationally and openly, without fear from any quarter. NOW THAT'S FREEDOM!

Mr. Carlos: I don't think Utopia is the 51st State......yet! Perhaps it's a previously unknown Canadian Province.

Mr. Williams: I wish you well with your 'permit' endeavors...please keep us posted.

Mr. Wince: I thank you also for your discussion and point of view, despite your 'unarmed'status.

Happy New Year to all...

Plug

I also appreciate the maturity of the discussion in this section, Michael, Plug, Wince, et al - I really don't have much more to add myself, but enjoy reading others' comments.

I never thought I would ignite such a firestorm! Good thing I didn't talk about heavy controversial topics like, say, abortion rights or who's the better Captain: Kirk or Picard?

Plug,

I used to carry pepper spray, which is legal in Kansas, but someone pointed out that my employer had a rule against all weapons, so I stopped. They do own the building.

Barry,

What, no Janeway? Good to hear from you.

Yours,
Wince

Plug,

You've got to get the TSA shut down. They are giving Law Enforcement a bad name. (From Kevin Baker.) Based on your statements I know you wouldn't do something like this. Nor would my friend the deputy, or my old pastor the ex-cop, or my cousin the ex-cop, or my Dad who used to be on the Police Commission (but not a cop).

Barry,

Having read the above links are you sure you don't trust me more than at least some policemen? I may not be trainined, but I'm not Barney Fife, either.

Yours,
Wince

This is certainly an interesting debate, and I have enjoyed following everyone's thoughts. I would like to consider the issue from a different angle: whether we have the right to demand that others protect us.

I doubt anyone would argue that we have no right to protection from violence and bodily harm. The debate, rather, revolves around whether the burden of such protection falls on each individual, or whether the creation, by society, of a "law enforcement class" wholly transfers this burden to that class.

I would argue that it is immoral to think that we as a society can create a class of (largely underpaid) individuals whose obligation it is to risk their lives in order to protect our own, and then demand that the rest of society do nothing to assist them in that task. To phrase it more personally, how can I, as an individual, ask another to place his or her life at risk protecting mine, when I am fully capable of doing so myself? And how can I then place a value of only, say, $21,000 per year on such a service? Is that all another man's life is worth to me? Certainly not.

We do ask the military to risk their lives protecting us, but they are doing something we are unable to do as individuals (and I salute and thank them for it). I would never expect the military to protect me from an armed burglar in my living room, and I don't expect the police to either. Likewise, I don't expect a shopkeeper to stand around looking down the barrel of a gun waiting for a policeman to place his body in the way.

Life is a series of risk/reward decisions. Every morning, many choose to risk death traveling to work, but the reward exceeds the risk. 95% of the time I choose to go unarmed and risk confronting an armed assailant, as I judge the risk to be minimal. I also recognize, however, that it is no one else's obligation to protect me from personal danger. That is a burden that must remain with the individual, as it cannot be morally transferred to another. And that is why it is immoral for one individual to demand, without due process, that another individual remain unarmed.

The argument revolving around concealed carry seems to me to be merely one of aesthetics. In my view, everyone that feels their personal risk justifies it has the right to be armed, and whether the rest of society can see the weapon or not matters little to me.

I would venture to say, however, that Kirk "carried" much more often than Picard, who relied more on that Shakespearean manner to wriggle out of bad spots.

Kurt: Interseting economic perspective, but I don't think it's right. What "right" to we have to hire police officers and pay them what we do? Well, they have the right to accept or reject work at whatever rate is offered. No one forces anyone to become a police officer (or, in America, a soldier). The matter of pay is entirely economic, and if we weren't paying "enough" that would be manifested by a shortage of qualified people willing to accept the job. Which may be the case; that may be a reasonable argument for increasing pay, but "what a life is worth" is not. By the very fact that a police officer will work for $X, that's the valuation they put on their own life.

Michael: Good point. Perhaps I should re-phrase my thought. My intent in bringing the money issue into the debate was to use low pay as proof that we as a society do not intend to include "body guard" in a police officer's job description. Therefore, that responsibility remains with each individual. For gun control enthusiasts to advocate taking away an individual's most effective means of defense is indefensible (sorry, I couldn't resist).

Kurt: I guess I see your point, but we don't really need to take pay into consideration. Police officers are explicitly not required to intervene to stop crimes. They're civilians. If you're standing on the corner talking to a cop and a guy comes by and stabs you, the cop doesn't have to do a darn thing, just as you yourself wouldn't have to if you witnessed a similar attack.

Mr. Williams:

You are partly correct...There is no statute, that I'm aware of which mandates protection by a police officer of any citizen. They do, however, have a 'duty to perform'. Any such refusal or decline to act, would bring about serious 'Rules and Regulations' charges (Neglect of Duty etc.)- which could (probably) result in dismissal and probable civil action, based on that negative conduct.(I was suspended once for a day - [equivalent of a $200 fine] for inadvertently forgetting to write a report number on a business card - Neglect of Duty.)

Police Officers are, by the nature of the job, held to high standards of accountability. Any criminal violation usually results in a 'Policy and Procedures' violation also and possible civil complaint, both State and Federal. P and P violations can be as 'low' as a verbal reprimand up to days/weeks suspension without pay, demotion in rank or assignment and/or dismissal.

Mr. Kurt...There is a balance between taking away a means of defense and allowing an unqualified person to be in control of a concealed firearm. To this end...should John Hinkley - while on leave from prison - be allowed to carry a firearm if there were death threats made against him?
One could argue that any and all persons have the right to self defense - even criminals (2nd Ammendment doesn't differentiate or disqualify), but of course that's preposterous, for the good of society at large. Subsequent State and Federal legislation was inacted to prevent most criminals from possessing firearms. Never-the-less, are they not entitled to preserve their own safety? Should any person, involved in and convicted of a fist-fight assault, be denied future access to a firearm for the purpose of protection. Or perhaps many individuals who, for the expediency of the criminal justice system, plead guilty to a crime they may not have committed, but which precludes them from possessing a handgun.

Gun enthusiasts, (I consider myself to be a minor one) by the nature of their passion, have an inherent biased opinion about firearms being the most effective means of defense. They (firearms) may be, under some circumstances, but also a downright liability in most.

I would venture to say that most 'gun enthusiasts' who carry firearms now, would probably still carry if all crime was completely illiminated.

...sorry that should be 'eliminated'.

Plug,

I believe we have excellent mechanisms to make sure our police officers follow the laws and regulations that govern their work. But there are no mandates that require our various governments to staff, fund and equip our police forces so that we may be confident that a police officer will be there to save our lives when they are threatened.

The reason is that such a mandate would be ridiculously expensive.

In my business companies sign 'Service Level Agreements' mandating response times when there are problems, with cash penalties when the response times aren't met. If all the officers on duty have been called to a bank robbery in progress and you are unable to respond to a domestic disturbance within twelve minutes and a spouse is killed, is the department liable? Based on the court cases I have read about the answer is no. You are better informed, I suspect. Are you aware of laws or regulations to the contrary?

Yours,
Wince

Plug: I understand what you're saying; my point is more along W&N's line, but maybe I didn't state it clearly.

Plus, even aside from crimes, I've been chased by dogs before in residential neighborhoods where I've lived, and run for my life. If I had a gun, I wouldn't be nearly as afraid of the pit bulls all the people around here seem to own. &c. Even with no other crime, I'd want to carry a gun.

Plug,

James Rummel recommends a spray with CN or CS gas. What do you think, and how can one get trained to use such a spray?

Yours,
Wince

Wince:

I'm sorry about the delay in this post, in answer to previous questions.

In California, information on training in the use of pepper spray and stun-guns is available at those stores where they are sold. Often gun stores, uniform stores (which carry police equipment) and ranges.
I don't believe CN or CS gas is available for public use.CN and CS are of little use against animals (dogs).

Regarding your 'liability' issue, on late response to domestic or other violence calls. No, police depts can not be held liable under state mandates and law (California and Federal) My own depts. call assignment and response times are computerized, as many (most) departments are. Each call is given a 'priority' code by the dispatcher and the computer assigns the call automatically, dependant upon priority, nature, officer availability, location and other factors. The times of arrival, disposition and call 'clearance' are also entered (down to fractions of a second). This information is retrievable, and should the response time appear excessive, that may lead to a personnel complaint and/or civil penalty. Of course the computer assignment can, and often is, over-ridden on high priority calls. It's the Dispatcher's job to correctly identify the problem, assess the need and assign the priority. Higher priority calls are also broadcast over radio, for all units to hear and respond to, if necessary.

All this data is then calculated to provide the best level of service, most expedient use of manpower, track crime trends and identify a variety of other issues.

Interesting. As I write this about 37 states have "shall-issue" CCW laws as opposed to CA's "discretionary issue" CCW (9 states) and 4 states allow no CCW at all. Actually, two states, Vermont and Alaska, now allow CCW w no permit at all. Must be why they are so much more dangerous than Washington DC? Why are the safest counties in CA the counties w the most CCW licenses issued? The most dangerous the least?

We are all surrounded by bad guys w guns all the time at the mall, theater, restaurant and don't know it. A few more good guys and gals does not hurt. A few million good guys and gals nationwide has not hurt.

The statistics are strange indeed. CCW holders nationwide outnumber the police by about 4 to 1, yet they are less likely to shoot the wrong person than the police are. An apples to oranges comparison, I know, but the risk, potential or real, from CCW holders feared by many just isn't there. The city I live in has 1000 officers, and they have had more unjustified shootings in one year than all 200,000 CCW license holders in the state of TX have had since 1996! CCW holders nationwide simply have proven to be far less of a problem than the general population in every way. The real and potential benefit clearly exceeds any demonstrated risk.

Crime rates? They go up and down for a variety of reasons, and they have been going down while we were adding millions of CCW holders nationwide. CCW holders probably had little to do w that, but they sure didn't hurt anything. Crime will go up again too, and I doubt crime by CCW holders will have anything to do with it when it does.

Mike...I have no idea where you get your stats from regarding 'safest counties in Ca. Vs issuance of CCW permits' In any event, with a fairly good knowledge of California in general, if you post the top and bottom five I may be able to provide some rationalization for the disparity.
I'm guessing that those counties which are 'the safest' are the most rural and least populated.

The CCW's may have been issued as protection because of their isolation and excessive response times. I'm sure there are a variety of other reasons. Issuing a permit to a citizen in say, Humbolt County (rural north) could simply not be compared to the rationality of issuing a similar permit to a resident of Los Angeles County, as unfair as that may seem.

The fact that officers in your area (and is probably true in every city or town) are involved in more 'unjustified shootings' is because by sheer numbers. Their response to hazardous situations far exceeds those by privately armed citizens. I hope you don't think that police officers are simply riding around in patrol cars 'hoping' to come across situations where they are needed. In my experience, self initiated response to incidents (pro-active) represent less than five percent of an officer's daily work load - thoug often the most dangerous. Unless the officer is assigned to target specific areas of public concern, i.e drunk driving, traffic violations etc. Furthermore, due to the nature of their working environment, Police Officers don't have the luxury of 'not getting involved' - as armed citizens do. Many decisions on the use of a firearm are made in a nano-second and based on available information, training, liability and prevailing circumstances. Comparing police officers (use of firearms) to armed Citizen's is , as you say 'apples to oranges'.

I can not say if an armed general population reduces crime or not - You are correct, crime is cyclical in nature and arming the public may or may not have a positive effect. There are just too many conflicting statistics to prove or disprove. However, the more 'armed' public there are with inadequate training then it seems rational to expect higher incidence of 'accidents'.

The benefit of CCW is solely for the perceived safety of the carrier. It will not prevent you from being a victim, though I accept that it may - under rare circumstances - minimize the extent to which you are victimized. Conversely it may also exacerbate it.

Newspapers are filled everyday across the country with stories of kids shooting themselves (or their friends) in the head because they thought the gun was unloaded. A society which believes that CCW is a panacea for personal safety is going down a dark and dangerous path. But to staunch gun owners/carriers...worth the risk.

Mr. Williams...please post on your CCW application status.

Hey Plug. No status for a while, but I have an appointment to meet the city attorney on Wednesday. If you heaven't read it, see my most recent post about my public records act request.

Short version: three city officials were granted CCWs, all other applicants have been denied. At least one of the officials even had a restraining order against him. (I say "at least" because I still haven't gotten a copy of the mayor's application, despite repeated attempts.)