Yesterday the Nebraska legislature defeated a filibuster, and passed a Shall Issue law for licensing the carrying of concealed handguns by adults who pass a background check and a safety class. Nebraska's governor has said he will sign the bill into law.
The law does not preempt Omaha's ban on concealed carry; in this regard, the Nebraska law is like Pennsylvania's 1989 Shall Issue law, which allowed Philadelphia to refuse to issue permits to qualified citizens. Later, the statewide success of the Pennsylvania law convinced the legislature to eliminate the Philadelphia loophole. Omaha's loophole will probably be eliminated sometime within a decade.
Here is the nationwide status of the law regarding carrying of concealed handguns for lawful defense:
40 states generally allow such carrying:
No permit needed. 2 states do not require a permit for any adult who is legally allowed to possess a firearm. These are Alaska and Vermont. These states will issue a permit, however, upon application. (See discussion of “reciprocity,” below, for why a person would want a permit.)
"Do Issue." 3 states have statutes which reserve some discretion to the issuing law enforcement agency. These are Alabama, Connecticut, and Iowa. In these states, local law enforcement will generally issue a permit to the same kinds of persons who would qualify for a permit in a Shall Issue state.
"Shall Issue." 35 states, including all states not listed elsewhere. Nebraska (this week) and Kansas (last week) are the most recent states to join this list.
10 states generally do not allow such carrying.
"No Issue." Illinois and Wisconsin have no process for issuing concealed carry permits. Illinois allows certain persons (e.g., law enforcement, security guards) to carry without a permit. By a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, no permit is needed for concealed carry in one's home or place of business. (See my Albany Law Review article for discussion of the Wisconsin and Rhode Island cases.)
"Capricious Issue." 8 coastal states give local law enforcement almost unlimited discretion to issue permits, and permits are rarely issued in most jurisdictions, except to celebrities or other influentials. These states are Hawaii, California, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
The future:
The Wisconsin legislature has twice come within one or two votes of over-riding the Governor's veto of a Shall Issue law. In every state where Shall Issue laws have been blocked by a veto, a Shall Issue law has eventually been enacted. It seems reasonable to predict that Wisconsin will one day become a Shall Issue state.
Rhode Island actually has a Shall Issue law (for issuance by local law enforcement) and a Capricious Issue law (for issue by the Attorney General). The Attorney General has succeeded, at least temporarily, in stifling the local Shall Issue system, but a decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court suggests that this state of affairs is untenable. All that is necessary to implement Shall Issue in Rhode Island is a new Attorney General with a different attitude, or the proper legal challenge. Rhode Island too seems a likely candidate to become a Shall Issue state.
The Delaware legislature is currently considering a Shall Issue law, and proponents seem optimistic. I suggest that Delaware's politics are, on the whole, more similar to the normal pattern of the 40 issuing states than to the 9 other hold-outs. I expect Delaware to enact a Shall Issue law, perhaps this year, or within the next several years. (UPDATE: The bill has passed one committee, and has enough co-sponsors to pass both houses; the Governor has not yet taken a position. As with Wisconsin, the existence of majority support in both houses makes Shall Issue a near-certainty to become law sooner or later.)
Of the remaining seven hold-outs, three states (New York, Illinois, and California) have previously passed a Shall Issue bill through a single house of the legislature. The passage suggests that Shall Issue, although hardly easy to enact into law, might be accomplished. In all seven of the final hold-out states, it would appear almost impossible to pass a Shall Issue law by a wide enough margin to over-ride a veto.
The pattern in almost all the states with Shall Issue laws has gone something like this: Initial discussions follow a predictable pattern, with proponents promising reductions in the crime rate, and opponents warning of Wild West shootouts. John Lott is discussed, pro and con, in infinite detail.
Over time, the personal testimony of female Shall Issue advocates sways some legislators. Other legislators, looking at the experience of other states, conclude that Shall Issue is, at the least, harmless; the lurid and sweeping predictions of opponents have not come true anywhere. The more states that enact Shall Issue laws, the more that legislators in a hold-out states become open to the idea that Shall Issue is not dangerous. Ohio, Minnesota, and Michigan are examples of states which are not considered strongly pro-gun, and whose enactment of Shall Issue legislation was possible only because so many other states had acted previously. As the number of Shall Issue states rises, so does the possibility of enacting Shall Issue in the dwindling number of hold-outs.
As momentum builds in a given state, the bill eventually attracts the support of all or almost all Republican legislators, and of almost all Democrats with a C rating or higher from the National Rifle Association. Many of the swing votes (the C-rated legislators, who say that they are pro-Second Amendment, but who often vote for gun control laws) are attracted by the objective standards of the Shall Issue system--which, unlike the Capricious Issue system--forbids gun carrying in certain places (e.g., hospitals), sets objective standards about who may not receive a permit (persons with various disqualifying conditions), and (in most states) requires a specific amount of firearms safety training.
Interestingly, Congress passed the Brady Bill 5-government-working-day waiting period for handgun purchases when there were only 22 states that had any kind of waiting period (and in many of those states, the wait was shorter than the Brady wait). As the number of states which regularly issue carry permits climbs into the 40s, the correlation of forces in Congress in favor of a national carry law also increases.
Brady passed in part because it was a "free" vote for some legislators. A legislator from, say, California, who usually but not always supported gun-owners could vote for Brady (earning praise from most of the media) while at the same time doing nothing that interfered directly with the gun purchase rights of his own constituents (since California already had a 15 day waiting period).
Conversely, a legislator from, say, Ohio, who usually but not always supports gun control, can now cast a "free" vote for a national carry law; he can curry some favor with pro-gun interests, while doing nothing to weaken the gun controls in effect in Ohio (which already has a Shall Issue law).
I am not arguing for or against the merits of a national Shall Issue law—merely commenting on the political realities.
For many decades, every state has recognized driver’s licenses issued by any other states. For concealed handgun licenses, the trend is clearly in that direction. As detailed by packing.org, today a permit issued by one state can be used in 28 states, through the principle of “reciprocity.” The new Kansas law will have reciprocity, while the Nebraska law does not. (Often, states with no reciprocity or weak reciprocity add a broader reciprocity provision several years after the enactment of the Shall Issue law.) A number of other states (e.g., Maine, N.H., Conn., Washington, Nevada), although having no reciprocity or limited reciprocity, issue their own permits to non-residents. (Nevada, however, requires that the training be conducted in Nevada.)
The continuing expansion of reciprocity also adds strength to the movement towards a federal Shall Issue law.
Significantly, Congress has also created the precedent, by enacting legislation which allows police officers and retired police from any state, after following certain procedures, to carry firearms in all fifty states.
In addition, I suggest that one day within the next 20 years, Congress and the President will decide that it is anomolous that residents of the District of Columbia are denied the defensive handgun carry rights which are enjoyed by the residents of all (or nearly all) 50 states; Congress will use its authority to legislate for the District of Columbia and will enact a Shall Issue system for residents of the District.
The modern trends towards Shall Issue was started when Florida became a Shall Issue state in 1988; previous Shall Issue bills had been vetoed by Governor Graham, but Governor Martinez signed the bill. The bill was the project of Marion Hammer, the head of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, who later served as President of the National Rifle Association. A few states (such as Washington and the Dakotas) already had Shall Issue laws, but the Florida law was the one that began a national movement.
Hammer was also the prime mover of the NRA’s Eddie Eagle gun safety program, in which a costumed character (similar to Smokey the Bear) teaches young children that they should only be around guns if there is a responsible adult present; if a children find an unattended gun, they should “Stop! Don’t touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!” The Eddie Eagle program has now been taught to millions of children nationwide.
Hammer’s latest Florida success is Stand Your Ground legislation, affirming that victims of a violent felony do not need to retreat (even in a public area) before using forceful self-defense. As with Shall Issue, there are already some states, such as Utah, with strong protections of self-defense rights, but the 2005 Florida law may begin a national trend in which, every year, a few more states enact Stand Your Ground laws. Indiana and South Dakota enacted Stand Your Ground laws this year, and Georgia and Alabama may also do so soon.
UPDATE: Mississippi enacted Stand Your Ground (a/k/a "Castle Doctrine") this week; the bill applies to homes, cars, and one's place of business (and thus is weaker than the Florida model, just as some states have Shall Issue laws which are more restrictive than the Florida model).
Nebraska is 40th state to enact Shall Issue licenses for defensive handgun carrying:
Unfortunately, this is only likely to happen once some gun nut from a shall issue state rips up a shopping mall or a school and is found to have been legally issued a permit. Then the bubble states will switch back to no issue or what Kopel calls "capricious issue" (or what calmer minds might call careful issue).
I particularly like the reference to "defensive handgun carry rights." God, Orwell was a genius. Of course, such rights are "defensive" and not "offensive" only when the barrel is not pointed at you.
So, you can't be trusted with a pistol?
Oh, did you think the gun-controllers were talking about somebody else?
I suppose you had better hope you draw faster than me. ;-)
First of all let me say that anytime you'd wish to get together to discuss the following over a drink ro twelve or a day at the range just let me know.
The problem I have with this trend is that "shall Issue" CCw is still a procedure where in order to excercise a Right one must pay a bribe, jump through certain hoops &beg for permission. In addition it's a very practical form of gun owner registration.
There were some plausible arguments that Nebraska's constitution included carrying concealed in its Right to arms provision, &I'd argue with anyone who cares to that a "national CCW law" is unnecessary because the 2nd amendment is inclusive of concealed or open carry. Pragmatically Colorado's "May Issue" law was more lenient on gun owners than the current "Shall Issue" law &I expect this could be the case in a few other places. So I think the NRA &various others who push &promote "Shall Issue" laws are doing gunowners a disservice. They're introducing a program of gun owner registration &conditional excercise of a Right when they should be pushing for the free excercise of said Right without any prerequisites, bribes or groveling. But then again I've never been one to claim the NRA was actually pro-gun (I find they support way too much gun control for my tastes).
So with the above in mind, why didn't you include any predictions or analysis on what is or could be done to have permitless concealed carry recognized in one or all of the states? Do you think that politically it's out of reach entirely within the next decade or two, or do you feel comfortable with such gun control measures such as "shall issue" ccw?
jgshapiro,
You've hit it exactly - offensive &defensive are terms that can describe the same action but under different circumstances &/or with different intent. But what I'm not sure you grasp is that because one person uses something one way that everyone else, or a significant portion of everyone else, is bound to use it in the exact same manner. Hence we must not judge the tool, or even that a person carries a tool, but how it is used.
What I believe you advocate is prior restraint based upon your understanding of the uses, or possible uses of a certain tool. I'm sure folks here could point out that the number of positive uses of that tool far outweigh the number of negative uses, but I don't think that would be swaying to you.
I simply ask you this; because you do not trust yourself to possess or carry a certain tool then why do you project that mistrust onto me? &(assuming you were king for a day or so) what levels of violence do you think are acceptable to prevent me from merely carrying said tool?
[DK: I hope to take you up on the drinks offer sometime this summer. I'm not unsympathetic to your broad reading of the 2d Amendment and its state analogues, but it's not realistic to expect contemporary judges to read it the same way. Shall Issue results in more practical ability to exercise the right than does theoretical wishing for maximal judicial enforcement of RKBA provisions. I think Colorado's Shall Issue is a vast improvement over the May Issue situation of the previous decade; the application forms in many jurisdictions were much more intrusive than the current state form, and I think it's very important Denver residents have the ability to carry -- not only for their personal protection, but also for the long-term influence on Colorado's cultural attitudes about guns. I don't have a strong sense about states being able to shift from Shall Issue to no-license carry. Alaska is an unusual state politically; about 90% of the population has a favorable attitude towards the NRA (and I bet that a bunch of the remaining 10% are folks like you who think the NRA is too soft). I think the most realistic prospects for expanding no-license carry are to push for various zones (e.g., one's own business premises, automobiles, rural areas) where a license would not be needed; there's a lot of state precedent for such zones already. In the Southeast, for example, there is a very strong tradition of no-license automobile carry, but I think that enacting no-license carry even in the Deep South would be almost impossible.]
Well, in that case you probably can't be trusted with a vote, either. Votes are really dangerous weapons.
If 0.1% of the general population ends up commiting a violent crime using a gun, and 0.001% of people with a concealed carry permit commit the crime with their gun, what lesson would you draw?
The truth is that people who have permits are far, far less likely to use guns criminally than people who don't. What you're asking for is to take the guns away from a population that is more law-abiding than everyone else.
Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.
Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.
If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?
Someone who is bent on shooting up a mall, etc. is going to do so regardless of laws. What state do you live in? Does it allow concealed carry? When was the last time a licensed carrier went on a shooting rampage?
If you don't want to carry a gun, fine. The people that do legally aren't a threat to you. But if you think they are, maybe you should move to Washington D.C. There, you can rest assured the only people with guns are the police and criminals. Kinda makes you feel all safe and secure doesn't it?
C.A.G.
Good question, anyone have an answer beyond "guns are icky"?
Other than an irrational fear of crime, what possible reason is there for issuing concealed carry permit to ordinary citizens. Despite the the predominance of handguns in this society and lax gun laws, there is absolutely no correlation between an armed citizenry and lower crime rates or lower victimization rates.
Like you gun nuts say, Guns don't kill people, people do. And if you are so paranoid people around you and society that you are afraid to leave the house without a firearm, then I am afraid of you, because you are not a rational person. You are likely to inflate a non-threatening situation into a threat to your life or property and increase the likelyhood that a simple misunderstanding will turn into a "justifiable" homicide. If you are so afraid of your shadow, my advice is stay home and hide under your kitchen table.
Well, I was being facetious.
But to take the larger point, you have to look not just at the percentage of gun-related violence, but also the magnitude of the harm. Almost all murders are gun-related. If they were axe-related, I would say regulate and/or register axes, even though most people could probably be trusted to use their axe just to chop wood.
I don't support banning gun ownership outright, though it does not surprise me that advocates of gun rights quickly jump from the proposition that you favor any gun regulation to the assumption that you must favor all gun regulation or prohibition. (For the record, I don't support prohibition of axes, either.) Nor are my views about guns based on a feeling that "guns are icky." As someone said above in a related Kopel thread, "Only on the subject of gun control have I ever seen the brain switch off so quickly."
The argument that if guns were banned people would just switch to axes (or another weapon - choose your poison) and commit the same crime ignores reality - the reality of how easy it is to engage in violence with a gun (because of how easy it is to shoot a gun and because the recipient cannot really defend themselves against a speeding bullet), the reality that almost all crimes involving guns are going to result in serious injury or death, and the reality that other weapons have been around forever and the amount of non-gun-related violence is negligible.
The argument that if guns were regulated, criminals would still use them ignores the fact that they would be much harder to get, as would ammunition. Not every criminal is a repeat offender who would be stopped from purchasing at the background check; some are first time offenders. Some would-be criminals are just hotheads who would never commit the crime if forced to sit through a waiting period and chill out. And not every criminal has access to an underground arsenal of weapons. (Moreover, it is virtually impossible to go after underground weapons when there is no registration and you have such things as the gun-show exemption.)
There is also the observation that we are really the only nation with virtually unrestricted citizen gun ownership among Western nations, and also the nation with by far the highest homocide rate. Yes correlation does not prove causation, but what other factor(s) could account for this?
We all essentially watch the same television and movies, because these days, everyone watches American popular culture, so that can't be it. We go to church more than almost any other country, so it can't be the absence of religion or moral values. Are we just genetically more predisposed to violence than other people? Or could there be a connection between the ease of obtaining lethal weapons here and the degree of violence in America?
What is your opinion about cases where people use guns to defend themselves against the police, such as the Cory Maye case?
[DK: I think the Cory Maye case is outrageous. I was the first journalist to write about it in a major American newspaper (my media column in the Rocky Mountain News). The Maye case is another example of the police criminal violence and dishonesty that has been spawned by the Drug War. I discuss the problem in my book "No More Wacos," and in various articles and monographs here: http://www.davekopel.com/CJ.htm#Police. ]
I get it. April Fools quote. Right?
I live in California. No. We have lots of nuts here, both left and right wing, but somehow we have kept the gun nuts at bay. Maybe because the Republicans governors that get elected here - at least in the last 30 years - tend to be pretty mainstream (e.g., Deukmejian, Wilson, Ahhnold) and the Democratic governors tend to be pretty law and order too, despite their other failings (e.g., Davis). You have to go all the way back to Jerry Brown or Ronald Reagan to get to a governor that could not be described as fundamentally moderate (and Reagan was pretty moderate as governor; witness the abortion rights bill he signed into law).
You cannot have democracy without voting. Voting is an essential precondition to a functioning democracy, which is why measures that would seem objectively reasonable (such as a literacy test) as a precondition to voting have nevertheless been banned, both because of the disparate impact they have and the message they send.
You can have democracy without private gun ownership. Most democracies do. Gun ownership is not a right that is essential to the concept of ordered liberty - which is why the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated to apply to the states under the logic behind the 14th amendment incorporation decisions. So establishing preconditions to owning weapons (waiting periods, registration, one gun per month), the types of weapons that can be owned (a Glock vs. an Uzi, smart triggers) or to continued possession of them (safe storage, training) do not raise the same kinds of issues.
I'm curious as to the number of conservatives that (1) oppose a waiting period on purchasing guns, and (2) support a waiting period on obtaining an abortion. Seems like these are related issues: both are designed as cool-down periods, and both relate to rights that are deemed to be constitutional or fundamental.
There is no such thing as "gun show loophole" or "gun show exemption."
Laws and regulations regarding firearms sales are exactly the same in gun shows as they are anywhere else.
Or, at least they were until the rash of gun-show related laws in the late 1990s. Now, in many states, gun laws went from being exactly the same to more regulated at gun shows than anywhere else.
With all due respect, anyone who uses the "gun show loophole" argument has demonstrated a profound ignorance of the subject; not just a disagreeable opinion.
you have to look not just at the percentage of gun-related violence, but also the magnitude of the harm. Almost all murders are gun-related.
Given that most murders are committed by people whose skin happens to be darker than average, do you support racial profiling (as some people do "gun owner profiling")?
the reality that almost all crimes involving guns are going to result in serious injury or death
If I recall correctly , crimes involving guns are less likely to result in injury than use of another weapon. But when an injury does result, it's more likely to be extremely serious or fatal than with other weapons. (I don't have time to look up the details, although I will try to later. I think Gary Kleck also dealt with this in a few of his books. The basic premise is that victims are more likely to submit to robbers with guns, whereas robbers with knives are more likely to cause injury to get what they want.)
No, I'm dead serious. Anyone who carries a handgun just out of a generalized fear of crime must have some deep-seated insecurity and paranoia.
So those 500+ women who use a firearm every day in America to discourage a rape or sexual assault are really imagining it? Well that's comforting.
The argument that if guns were banned people would just switch to axes (or another weapon - choose your poison) and commit the same crime ignores reality - the reality of how easy it is to engage in violence with a gun...
I don't think anyone on the pro-2nd Amendment side argues that if guns were banned people would switch to other weapons. Rather, the argument, which has a fair amount of statistical evidence supporting it, is that if guns were banned, criminals with an inclination to wield guns would simply go right ahead doing so anyway. Or do you think that the average gang-banger would suddenly become highly solicitious of the law in the wake of a gun ban?
The argument that if guns were regulated, criminals would still use them ignores the fact that they would be much harder to get, as would ammunition.
Really? Marijuana is regulated. Ask your average 10th grader how much difficulty he has obtaining a dime bag. What makes you those who already traffick in guns illegally would have a harder time than they do now?
Like you gun control nuts say, people don't kill people, guns do. And if you are so paranoid people around you and society that you are afraid to leave the house without banning firearms, then I am afraid of you, because you are not a rational person. You are likely to inflate a non-threatening law abiding gun owner into a threat to your life or property and believe that they are just waiting for the opportunity to increase the likelyhood that a simple misunderstanding will turn into a "justifiable" homicide.. If you are so afraid of your shadow, my advice is stay home and hide under your kitchen table.
[Bizarro number .45: This am post deserving to have same color as harmless green kryptonite!!]
No. As with voting, I think the societal costs of racial profiling outweigh the benefits, though I concede there are benefits. But I don't think the same is true of gun control laws. The benefits there outweigh the costs.
BTW, most murder victims are also people whose skin happens to be darker than average and people who happen to be poor. So to the extent that gun control laws decrease gun violence - and I submit that this 'extent' is a significant amount - they will disproportionately benefit the poor and racial minorities.
Assuming you are correct, your data supports my point. Wouldn't you rather be injured than seriously injured or killed? And isn't the reason that injury is more likely to flow from non-gun-related crimes that people tend not to resist gun-related crimes because they recognize that they are likely to be seriously injured or killed if they do?
Think about it. A guy points a gun at you and demands your money. Unless you are an idiot, you give it to him. You aren't going to be able to take the gun away before he shoots you and you can't outrun a bullet. But the same guy waves a knife at you and you may not react the same way. You might disarm him before he cuts or stabs you. You might run faster than him. Even if you don't subdue him or get away before he injures you, how many times is he going to be able to come at you before you can get close enough to him to subdue him, or before you can get away?
Logic also tells you that you are less likely to see a crime committed by someone with a knife/axe/baseball bat than someone with a gun, because the latter is almost certainly going to succeed in his crime and not get hurt in the process, while the former may not succeed and may get hurt very badly or arrested. Therefore, to the extent that you can keep a gun out of the robber's hands at the societal level, you will also deter violent crime at that level.
Did you really just intimate that maybe we'll get lucky and someone will go on a shooting rampage? I'm glad you're on the other side, you're just their type.
Well, most of them yes, as are most of the supposed "defensive" uses of firearms and those wonderful and exaggerated, and rarely verifiable, "armed citizen" stories found in NRA publications.
Marijuana is regulated, but these laws are not that strictly enforced, in favor of laws targeting more serious drugs. Even so, I submit it would be a hell of a lot easier for the same 10th grader to get pot if it was entirely unregulated. For example, it is easier and cheaper for him to get alcohol than pot, if only because he can get his friend to walk into the local store and buy it for him legally.
If guns were registered, it would be easier to track guns in crime and solve gun-related crimes than it is today. If the cool-down period were reinstated, you would prevent many (not all) heat-of-the-moment gun crimes. With safe storage and smart trigger laws, you would see many fewer injuries and deaths to kids who find guns around the house. With the one-gun-a month law, you would put a serious dent in the ability of people to quickly build an arsenal or to illegally traffic in guns.
All of these restrictions would allow law-abiding gun owners to own guns, but take common sense approaches to reducing gun-related crime and accidents. Why the hangup over reasonable restrictions? No one here is arguing for prohibition of ownership or confiscation.
Or, you know, in the press. And, of course, that such uses go unreported unless someone gets shot.
If you want to engage in intelligent debate, you should learn some basic reading comprehension skills first.
The post said that maybe we would get lucky and the trend [Kopel talks about toward more 'shall issue' states] would reverse. Unfortunately, that would probably happen only after another gun-related tragedy.
There are preconditions to voting: age, residency, non-felon status, "one vote per election," not being dead (except in Illinois and Missouri), etc.
It is in the interest of legitimate voters, and democracy (or republicanism, if you prefer) in general, to minimize voter fraud. Having somebody's vote nullified due to fraud is as great an injustice as somebody being denied their right to vote.
In what way would a "voter instant-check" deny somebody the right to vote? It is not a poll tax. It is not a literacy test. It is simply a measure to verify the identity and eligibility of a voter before proceeding with the transaction. It is the same "common sense" and "reasonable" system that gun-control proponents claim prevents prohibited person from buying guns without denying the rights of the law abiding.
First of all, this argument ignores the fact that it would be more difficult for that criminal to get a gun. Not every criminal has unlimited access to an underground arsenal of weapons.
Second, if guns were registered, it would be easier to track them after the commission of a crime. So, you would have an easier time solving the crime, even if you could not prevent it. You might therefore prevent the next crime by the same criminal, by apprehending him after the first one.
Third, not all gun-related violence comes from criminals or gang-bangers with easy access to underground weapons. Some of it comes from what you might call 'amateur' criminals, who don't have access to underground arsenals. Some of it comes from people who just get pissed off at someone and decide to settle the score with a gun instead of their fists. Or maybe they just brandish a weapon to threaten someone, and the situation gets out of hand.
I don't pretend that reasonable gun control restrictions will end all gun-related violence or all violent crime, only that they will make a significant dent. That is enough for me.
"Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
I don't want to get off on a voting rights tangent here. I'm simply saying that the comparison between restrictions on voting and restrictions on gun ownership does not wash. Nevertheless, I don't have a problem with a voter instant-check, nor do I have a problem with a 30-day voter registration requirement to allow time necessary to check out a voter's qualifications and to prevent voter fraud.
BTW, in response to the poster who originally made the comparison, you can do a lot more harm with a single gun than a single vote. How many elections have been decided by one vote? How many people have been killed by one gun?
?!? You have to be kidding.
Meth is a bit of a trend at the moment, but the war on pot in this country has been a constant because (a) marijuana is a cultural icon in this country, (b) mostly harmless, (c) and exremely popular, thus providing a lot of low-hanging fruit to drug warriors who need to make thier numbers.
You know, it really doesn't help your point when you send me to a web site that, when read with my skeptical eye, lends credence to my argument. I especially liked the first one--it tellingly neglected to mention who started the altercation by ramming his car into the other, the guy with the gun or the guy with the bat. And also the tale of the guy who recklessly fired his gun blindly into the night in a resedential neighborhood after someone shot out his windows with a bb gun. He's a real responsible gun owner.
This applies with equal validity to people who purchase fire insurance and auto beyond the minimum required by law. I must be a complete basket case, since I've also got a couple of fire extinguishers around my house, a first aid kit in my car and take the trouble to be certified in first aid and CPR.
By the way, what psychological label do you apply to someone whose response to a generalized fear or threat is to sit back and do nothing? Do you have some reason for believing that firearm ownership and concealed carry represents a specific threat to you, as opposed to other people (e.g., you've so antagonized your co-workers and neighbors with absurd comments about their alleged psychological problems that, if allowed to carry guns they'd probably kill you), or is your opposition simply motiviated by some deep-seated insecurity and paranoia?
Uhh, no. All those things are reasonable precautions that are much more likely to be beneficial to you than carrying a handgun will ever be. I don't know what the profile is of the person who gets a concealed carry permit or regularly feels the need to carry a firearm, but I'm willing to bet that his or her chance of being the victim of a violent crime, where the possession of that firearm will actually do him the least bit of good, is infintesimal compared to the very real risk of a house fire or car accident.
Furthermore, that if we spent a tenth of the time, money and effort in this country spreading the proven crime reduction programs that the NRA does on fighting every conceivable gun control law, we would see real reductions in crime, not some false sense of security you get from keeping a gun on your person or in your home.
New York ostensibly did away with machine politics in the 1960s. But in reality, the two majority leaders and the governor still decide ahead of time which laws will be enacted. Everything else is just for show. New Yorkers refer to it as "government by three men in a room".
The proper response to an irrational fear is to ignore it. If you are afraid of flying, it is hardly a rational response to drive everywhere, as that is more dangerous than flying. Likewise, it is completely irrational and irresponsible to carry a gun into a suburban shopping mall where your chances of being the victim of violent crime are about the same as being hit by lightning. You have unnecessarily introduced a deadly weapon into a situation where it is of no use and almost inconceivable that it will protect you from anything. Why not wear body armor, a kevlar helmet, and a big metal cup in case someone tries to kick you in the balls? Do you test your food at the food court for poison before you eat it? Someone might be trying to poison you. Heck, why conceal your gun, nobody will mess with you if you have a big .44 Magnum strapped to your leg. You probably don't do all those things because you're afraid you'll look foolish.
After reading your posts (particularly the first) i didn't figure you were capable of intelligent debate. Seems I was right.
Irrelvant. You said such instances were generally only covered in NRA mags. The are not. Regarding the first incident, the press account mentioned who was arrested and it wasn't the guy with the gun.
Why should New York have shall-issue. Contrary to all you "more guns, less crime advocates" who love to rave about DC, New York City (and Chicago for that matter) have managed to lower their violent and gun crime rates to historical lows with some of the most draconian gun control laws in the country. New York has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and Chicago lowered its murder rate 25% in one year. That kind of shoots holes in all your theories, doesn't it (pun intended). In fact, the cities with the worst violent crime rates tend to be those in the states with the most lax gun laws (or like DC, surrounded by states with lax gun laws).
Seems like you need to bone up on your reading comprehension as I never said any such thing.
A mirror is not a window to the mind.
To the person who stated that the US is the most violent nation in the world, I’m sure that you believe that and have not been given any contrary information by the “drive by media” but like all well known “facts,” this one is just not so.
In terms of gross numbers of murders, The United States ranks sixth, below India, Russia, Columbia, South Africa and Mexico (Mexico?). In terms of murders per capita, the United States ranks 24th below such paragons of virtue as South Africa, Venezuela, Mexico (again), Russia and Costa Rica. To those who argue that the murder rate is influenced by gun laws, it should be noted that in most of these murderous countries, guns are forbidden to ordinary citizens, demonstrating the effectiveness of laws outlawing guns.
Why is it that a perfectly logical theory – say, outlawing guns will reduce murders – has, when subject to the real world, turn out not to be true? Could it be that something as complex as human nature is not subject to simple syllogisms?
That doesn't follow. I don't have documentation, but I have heard other posters at this site state that illegal handguns purchased in the UK are close to the price of legally purchased guns here, indicating that they are not signficantly more difficult to obtain, even under total prohibition.
Illegal firearms trafficing is already a revenue stream for organized crime in this country. If prohibition were to occur this would only expand the market and increase its profitability. Therefore under prohibition it could be forseeably easier for criminals to obtain an illegally trafficed weapon.
Second, if guns were registered, it would be easier to track them after the commission of a crime. So, you would have an easier time solving the crime, even if you could not prevent it. You might therefore prevent the next crime by the same criminal, by apprehending him after the first one.
This doesn't necessarily follow either. If most crimes are committed with an illegally obtained firearm, registration does little to improve investigational efforts. The exception would be "straw" purchases.
Third, not all gun-related violence comes from criminals or gang-bangers with easy access to underground weapons. Some of it comes from what you might call 'amateur' criminals, who don't have access to underground arsenals. Some of it comes from people who just get pissed off at someone and decide to settle the score with a gun instead of their fists. Or maybe they just brandish a weapon to threaten someone, and the situation gets out of hand.
But the majority of gun crime still originates from illegally obtained guns, which would be unaffected or lightly effected by registration and unaffected or possibly expanded by prohibition.
Also, I believe you made the statement that because minority groups are most likely to be the victims of gun violence that prohibition would benefit them the most. That also doesn't necessarily follow. If they are the groups most likely to be victimized by illegally-obtained firearms, prohibition would have little effect, and in fact might increase their rate of victimization. This is in addition to putting them more directly exposed to illegally trafficked weapons, because they are more frequently exposed to organized crime in the form of street gangs.
I don't think anyone argued that. What they argued was that the U.S. was the most violent Western nation. If you compare this country to others with similar standards of living and per capita incomes that is certainly true, and by a wide margin.
This particular argument always makes me laugh. Where exactly do you think "illegally obtained guns" come from? They just don't appear out of thin air. They are obtained through straw purchases (the reason for implementing restrictions on the number of guns you can purchase) or stolen from law abiding citizens like you (even the NRA admits 90% of home invasions occur when the hous is unoccupied, so if you keep a gun in the house for self-defense, guess what, the burglar is going to steal it).
Rather, the operative question is: What possible reason is there to prohibit people from carrying concealed weapons?
I don't expect people to have a good reason before exercising their fundamental civil rights, and I'm sorry you're so desperately afraid of a society of free individuals.
Do you have a source for that, or does it just "feel" right?
I have pointed out that is not true, even if you include the qualifier “Western.”
You and others who equate our gun laws to our homicide rate are perpetrating another logical fallacy: “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” One of the other primary determinants of the rate of violent crime is the makeup of a society. The fact is that if you are a white suburbanite in virtually any American community, you are as safe or safer than a resident of Finland. And you are undoubtedly safer than the residents of Paris right about now.
If you wish to attribute our crime problems to guns, feel free to continue in your opinion. If you believe that having the ability to defend myself – an increasingly lethargic late middle aged male - and my home and family against intruders is a mental illness, take your attitude somewhere else. Snotty does not belong here.
jg: Guns are not the means in "most" murders. Historically, the gun homicide fraction has been about half. The other half were mainly the ever-popular stranglings, beatings and knifings. The explosion of street gang activity starting in the early 80's tipped things in a more "gun-ward" direction for awhile. Things have been returning toward a more typical half-and-half split in recent years as demographics and more competent policing have suppressed gang activity. See for yourself.
Questions: Other than a ritual scratch of the apparently genetic liberal itch to make lists and require that all human interactions be mediated by bureaucracy, why the hard-on about registration? How, exactly, is gun registration supposed to assist crime suppression, or even crime solving after the fact? Vehicle registration has been a modest help in the latter even when the involved vehicle has been stolen because autos are a lot harder to conceal than guns and because the registration number is required by law to be publicly displayed. Even so, knowing the registered owner of a vehicle often proves of no investigative value, especially when the vehicle is stolen prior to whatever other crime it is involved in. Gun serial numbers are not observable to either victims or witnesses. Career criminals both commit more crimes and are more likely to use stolen/smuggled weapons than impulsive or opportunistic criminals. Gun registration is, therefore, of least help in catching exactly those criminals who are most prolific and dangerous. Given that registration, where mandated, requires non-trivial government resources that cannot, therefore, be otherwise deployed in fighting crime, I think the burden of proof for gun registraion-based net improvements to public safety are considerable for your side and, thus far, to put it mildly, not made.
Frederson: Moynihan be upon you too. The American Heritage Dictionary defines paranoia, thusly:
1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.
As a previous commenter noted, the crime rate of concealed carry permit holders is miniscule and their gun crime rate is close to zero. Thus, your evident fear of ordinary, law-abiding Americans with guns is the actual paranoia on display here, not the often well-founded fear of violent criminals that motivates at least some of us to promote liberalized CCW laws.
Note: Given that Mr. F introduced the subject of psychological health into the discussion here - with the obvious, if risible, intent, in so doing, of defining his policy opponents as dysfunctional in some way - "that door has been opened" as the lawyer shows on TV like to put it.
Allow me to step through said door and make an observation of my own. I have come to the conclusion, over many years of encountering what has come to be commonly referred to as the "liberal" or "left-wing" mindset, that it can be fairly characterized, in many ways, as a type of aperceptual or dysmorphic mental disorder. Briefly, liberals are, by their own testimony, often deeply fearful of things which, by any objective analysis, are not danagerous while simultaneously expressing no particular concern about things which objectively are dangerous, even to the point of indicting others who disagree.
Mr. F's stated attitudes about ordinary American citizens viv-a-vis street criminals is just the example that happens to inhabit this comment thread, but the general pattern is pervasive in liberal speaking, writing - even art. Allow me to provide a couple of randomly selected additional data points:
1. Sen. Feingold - among many others - alleges to be more frightened of Pres. Bush's NSA intercepting possible terrorist messages to and from persons inside U.S. borders than by the possible consequences of providing absolute guarantees of communications privacy to America's declared enemies in time of war.
2. In Warren Beatty's wonderfully wacky liberal Rorschach blot of a movie "Bullworth," L.A. street gangs are portrayed as cute and cuddly moppets. Fat white insurance executives in fancy suits, though - they're stone killers.
The debate over various aspects of gun policy is, by its nature, more likely to elicit these sorts of essentially non- or even anti-rational expressions than many other areas of public policy. Despite a massive lack of evidence, for instance, we members of the actual "reality-based community" are still deluged by fusty, dusty nonsense like the "Dodge City-style shootouts" meme and the other pitiful excuses for argumentation that keep being trotted out decades after evidence and statistics have properly consigned them to the policy analysis landfill.
But, as the late Robert A. Heinlein noted, there is a certain kind of liberal mentality that is impervious to experience.
Of course it is. As to your comment about Paris. Remember the horrible race riots in Paris last year? Do you recall how many people were killed in those terrible riots? Exactly one. So far nobody has died in the current round of riots.
I don't expect people to have a good reason before exercising their fundamental civil rights, and I'm sorry you're so desperately afraid of a society of free individuals.
Sorry, the only fundamental civil right I see is for the state to maintain a well-regulated militia. Having a bunch of people carrying concealed weapons while they shop at the grocery store is hardly a well-regulated militia in my book. Its not like the Sioux are on the warpath up there in Nebraska.
First of all, this argument ignores the fact that it would be more difficult for that criminal to get a gun. Not every criminal has unlimited access to an underground arsenal of weapons.
All it takes to make a gun is a halfway decent machine shop someone could easily set up in his garage. It's not difficult to make a gun, and the ATF has been known to arrest people with milling machines for "manufacturing without a license". These are individuals who had them for making parts, not black market operations. If that's the level of threat you're dealing with, how can you reasonably believe that making guns illegal would have any effect at all on the supply of guns to criminals?
Excellent points. There is something extraordinarily bizarre about some paranoid worried about Mrs. Middle America carrying a gun in her purse at the Kroger. Interesting, isn’t it that the largest mass murder in recent American history was carried out with box cutters, airplanes and flying lessons?
Currently, it is illegal for someone who drives a taxi or a tow truck, at night, to carry a weapon in any part of Los Angeles. The city of Los Angeles almost never grants carry permits, at one point having issued none in 10 years. State law only allows a unloaded gun in the trunk, where it's not very useful.
You seem to think that most people who want to carry do so for capricious reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't beleive this, I have a few places in Los Angeles I invite you to stand unarmed for 5 minutes at night.
1. The US is such a violent country so we need more gun control!
2. You're completely irrational and paranoid if you carry a gun for self-defense because you'll never need it.
Well, which is it?
You know it's just amazing when you make a point and then link to a web site that contradict it. Anyone who can read a graph can see that firearms account for over 2/3 of the homicides in this country.
But, since the issue has been raised by FF, I fear for the sanity of people who are paranoid about what the other shoppers at Kroger are carrying.
You can read for yourself the murder stats available at teh FBI as their Uniform Crime Reports. Moneyrunner is right. Firearms account for half of murdrs. Knives account for more than shotguns and rifles combined. You can access the pertinent data here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
They change the formatting year-to-year (2004 is in pdf, 2003 uses Excel spreadsheets), but if you go to murder by weapon tables, you can see the empirical support for what I just wrote.
Incidentally, if you include other homicides (non-murder, like manslaughter, including negligent manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, and such), the percentage of firarms used in non-suicide deaths decreases even further.
Which means that virtually every person whose rights you'd restrict is, and would remain, innocent.
I've heard it said that it's better that ten guilty men go free, than that an innocent man be convicted, but evidently you think it's better that 10,000 innocent men be stripped of their rights, than that a guilty man not be inconvenienced. Can't say I think your formulation makes more sense....
And here I thought the very definition of 'conservative' and 'right-wing' was irrational and paranoid. Conservatvies seem to me the epitome of fear, look how scared to death they are of immigrants, minorities, non-Christians, muslims. Look how much effort they spend in imprisoning us to 'protect' us. Look how much effort they spend to ensure that everyone can shoot first and ask questions later.
More fun:
What about Australia?
People are allowed to carry concealed weapons and … no shootouts at the OK Corral. Handguns are banned in England and violent crime goes up. For the left, no lessons learned. For the chattering classes, reality never intrudes on theory.
That is why “socialism” and “communism” are still goals toward which the Left strives despite the experiences of Russia and China. The answer is always that “real” gun control or “real” communism has never been tried.
It is said that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. Not enough liberals are being mugged. In fact, some are enjoying it (see Robert Fisk).
You mean that the Frasier Institute shows that violent crime rates are higher in the Commonwealth countries than in the US? How can that be since the Commonwealth countries have the sort of gun laws advocated by FF and shapiro?
Paranoia runs deep. What's in your pocket at the Kroger?
Well, that may be true, but I don't see what your point is, unless your view is that you don't care about other places because you don't live in them. We can't have one rule for places where gun violence is a problem and another for white people living in the burbs, if the rule is going to be effective. So the issue is whether the danger of gun violence in in some areas justifies a restriction that may be unfair to white suburban dwellers but makes sense looking at the whole picture.
And in making this argument, I am discounting the white suburbanites who buy guns for self defense and end up shooting their wives when they find them in bed with another man, or shooting their neighbor when an argument gets out of hand. I wouldn't call them criminals (at least until after the shooting), but the violence is still real and would almost certainly have been less serious if there was no gun involved.
Sure and all it takes to buy an Uzi after the assault weapons ban is to fly to Israel, buy one off a soldier and smuggle it back to the U.S., perhaps bringing it in by chartered sailboat following a trip through the Med, past Gibraltar and across the Atlantic. How many sailboats are searched upon entry to United States waters?
Any law can be evaded by someone determined enough. That is not a good argument for no laws. The law will still deter enough people to be worthwhile, and you will have to use other means to deal with the would-be machine shop owners and world-traveling Uzi-smugglers.
I don't have a clue how to build a gun. If I tried to buy a gun to shoot my old boss and was stopped for whatever reason, I might use another (less dangerous) weapon or I might give up the plan. Building a gun from scratch seems unlikely.
"Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Maybe 150 million Europeans died violently in the last century, compared to one or two million Americans. This would seem to call the above assertion into question.
Roll those all together, and you start to see that the supposed nice normal middle class adult who has never committed a crime until he one day pulls out a gun and kills someone--is actually pretty scarce.
I think you are conflating non-homocide violent crime rates with homocide rates. The data shows these countries have higher rates of robbery, rape and assault, but - tellingly - lower rates of homocide.
What explains that except restrictions on the ownership of guns? A majority of homocides happen with guns. If you have fewer guns, you will get fewer homocides. You might still have other violent crime, but it is less likely to result in death.
The data also excludes rates of accidental death caused by guns, which would raise the killing rate even higher. The kid who finds his father's gun and accidentally shoots his sister is (probably) not going to be charged with homocide. But his sister is still dead.
Yes, because when a 6'0", 200-lb man attacks a 5'2",110-lb woman, he needs a gun to kill her. His baseball bat, kitchen knives, High School Sports trophies, and random paperweights are certainly not capable of dealing deadly wounds. -End Sarcasm-
On the other hand, when a 5'2", 110-lb woman finally leaves her abusive 6'0", 200-lb husband, that handgun might just allow her to survive an attack if he tries to beat her.
What does the presence or absence of the assault weapons ban have to do with this chain of smuggling events?
Hint: Nothing
I suspect that you don't have a clue about much else about guns.
Your numbers may overlap - someone with a previous felony conviction may be a minor and may be mentally ill to boot - so assuming these numbers are accurate today, or ever were, that still leaves at least 50% of homocides. If you could make a dent in half of all homocides through reasonable gun restrictions (note, not confiscation), wouldn't that be worth it?
What about the guy who committed a felony, but never was convicted, for whatever reason? (Maybe he shot the only witnesses.) Nothing stopping him from buying a gun and carrying it as a concealed weapon until he shoots someone and is subsequently convicted of it.
Here in California, that guy wouldn't have a prayer of getting a concealed permit. The police would look at his arrest record and just say no. But once you establish objective standards, which you have to do for a "shall issue" law to have any meaning, you have a problem, because you are going to have a hard time establishing a standard of having not been arrested or charged with a crime, as opposed to having been convicted of it.
OTOH, if the standard is subjective, as with the "may issue" states, the police don't have to say why. If you are a dirtbag who managed to avoid conviction but should not be trusted with a gun (e.g., Robert Blake), you will never get a permit. Sure, Blake can always build a machine shop in his garage, but what are the odds of that? At the very least, you have made it signifcantly harder for him to get his hands on a gun, which is unquestionably a good thing.
As you are no doubt aware, this "collective right" model of the Second Amendment has been utterly discredited by the weight of modern scholarship. I suppose next you'll be floating the old howler that the National Guard is the "well-regulated militia" envisioned by the Framers.
Though I do admire your ability to withstand the cognitive dissonance necessary to believe that a governmental power can somehow be a civil right. Good luck with that.
Thanks for your contribution to this debate. Maybe syou should take the same remedial reading comprehension class that Say Uncle so desparately needs.
I'll try and make it easy for you to understand: it's an analogy. The idea that reasonable gun restrictions are useless because you can build a gun in your garage is ludicrous. It is like saying (note: here is the analogy) that the assault weapons ban is pointless as to Uzis because you can jump through a thousand hoops and smuggle them in from Israel.
In both cases, very few people will resort to these measures to get around the restrictions, so the restrictions will be largely effective.
So, you do not believe in "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" either? Could you explain any other rights you feel should be eliminated?
According to the Fraser Institute Study posted earlier,
Their homicide rates are indeed lower, but homicide rates for Canada, Australia, and Britain have all increased since the passage of more restrictive gun laws. In both Britain and Australia, the homicide rate was decreasing until the gun restrictions were passed.
Meanwhile, murder rates here have been decreasing steadily for the past 10 years, despite (read: because of) the passage of less restrictive gun laws.
And how about some gun bans closer to home?
As AppSocRes points out, Massachusetts, while definitely NOT a shall-issue state, is not one (like New York City) where only the rich, celebrities and the politically connected can get a CCW permit. His example of Brookline is one of the extremes. In addition, Boston and a few other large cities and (mainly Boston) suburbs won't issue a License To Carry Firearms (LTC, known colloquially as a "pistol permit") for anything other than Target and Hunting and may require you to prove that you are a member of a gun club where you can shoot the gun. That's how Boston was back in 1966 when I got my first permit there; I believe that that has not changed.
Out in rural central MA where I now live, the police chief has told me that he doesn't like guns, but that he will obey the law, and he has - I am not aware of any resident having been denied a permit for capricious reasons, and he is willing to issue permits for "all lawful purposes," which covers defense of person and property. Since the new (1998) gun law made the reason for issuance a restriction on the use of the license, applicants have been advised by Gun Owners Action League to get an "all lawful purposes" LTC as protection against capricious or accidental "overenforcement," particularly if one is stopped outside of one's own town (like when visiting friends in Brookline, for example...).
I happen to be currently President of the MIT Pistol and Rifle Club in Cambridge - sometimes referred to as the "People's Republic of Cambridge" - and we run into some of the Boston/Brookline/Belmont problems; one of the services we offer our members is writing letters to their police chiefs vouching for their membership. Cambridge, surprisingly, is not too bad by comparison to some of the other Boston-area cities and towns.
I might also add, that contrary to AppSocRes' comments, I have never been aware of (with the possible exception of the Boston/Brookline axis) the need to be politically connected. I was definitely apolitical for the first 20 years of holding an LTC in a number of different MA cities and towns and never had a problem. The big thing, is to have a clean record on such things as violent crime, mental health and addictions (including alcoholism). Economic status is also not an issue, assuming that you have a place to live and wear clean clothes when you visit the police station to apply for the LTC.
Massachusetts is a long ways from perfect, but it's not New York City, and it might also be mentioned that Upstate New York is far more reasonable than NYC.
It is always good practice to spell check the paragraph where you accuse your opponent of trouble with reading and writing. :-)
Also, it is homicide, not homocide. We have no idea what the latter means.
I suggest that jpgshapiro be required to obtain a license to write about guns. This could require firearms training, education and the discretion of law enforcement. I am sure that he will be fine with this since it is a very reasonable regulation of the right of free speech.
So I guess all those heroin users are growing their own poppies eh? It would only take a few shops to be able to reasonably supply all the criminal demand for guns in any given area. The people you think will be deterred by a law on banning guns are exactly the people who you don't have to worry about. Why do you attribute the worst qualities to law-abiding gun owners?
Is there anyone who will argue with the fact that a gun can cause more damage more rapidly than any other object avaiable to most civillains? (I'm going to assume there is a reason the military keeps using them) [bonus points: who wants to justify why citizens need rpgs for protection? (the black choppers from the UN are coming!)]
Is there anyone who is going to argue that requiring safety class as a pre-requsite for owning a gun is a bad idea? (not aimed a crime, aimed at safe handeling and such.)
Have all o