Stand your Ground/Conceal Carry Laws

[bladerunner]

I realize we have several firearm related threads, so hopefully we do not overlap too much.

I just finished listening to this broadcast:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-03/stand-your-ground-and-concealed-weapons-laws

In general, it is a discussion of conceal carry and stand your ground gun laws.  At one point in the show (around 20 minutes in), one commentator is asked what her general impression is of what law enforcement thinks of these laws.  She basically goes on to say that many police officers she has talked to have a negative view as these laws allow gun owners to take matters into their own hands.

So just to keep things focused here: I believe we have members of law enforcement on the board.  I am just curious if that is the case?  I can certainly see that as being true, but at the same time, I have met police officers who seem to think these laws are good.  I guess it would be helpful to understand the differences in gun laws in each state, and in this program, most of the commentators were taking issue with Florida's gun laws.

After listening to the whole thing, I do get a sense that most anti-gun lobbyists/thinkers always see guns as tools to primarily harm innocent people, while pro-gun lobbyists/thinkers always emphasize the ability of a gun to protect.  I guess I come away thinking there is a bit too much rhetoric on both sides.  I can see the validity of both sides.

[thirsty]

Don't forget that the Diane Rehm Show is an NPR based show. I do listen to that on occasion even if I don't agree with them. I like to know what's going on out there in left field.

My biggest issue with all that is that I in no way want anybody deciding who is privileged enough to carry a concealed weapon when it comes to a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. To me it seems black and white...If you can legally then you should be able to.

When it comes to the issue of actually having to use one in self defense...In today's society unfortunately you better hope there is a credible witness to back you up. The pro gun side will say "good thing he had a gun" and the anti gun side will say "see why guns are so bad now we have vigilantes with guns". Both sides will always think they are right. That will never go away.

I can't see any law enforcement officer ever wanting to stop law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. However they have no control of the actions of the law abiding citizen after they issue a concealed carry permit. That's left to how much comman sense and good judgement the person has. Which should be a whole lot more than a violent criminal has.

[bladerunner]

Don't forget that the Diane Rehm Show is an NPR based show. I do listen to that on occasion even if I don't agree with them. I like to know what's going on out there in left field.

Very aware of that. I believe in having a well balanced media diet. And by that I mean getting both sides, left and right, which means listening to a lot of stuff.  Frankly, there is no show or network that I believe does that effectively.

I guess I come away feeling that if someone wants a concealed weapon, they should meet certain standards.  Don't ask me what those should be, but certainly some states do a better job than others.

[jaredts]

I don't know about other states, but in Kentucky you do have to meet certain standards.  Its not legal to carry a concealed weapon unless you pass the concealed carry class and get your permit.  I assume there is some kind of background check or other criteria as well.  It is unlikely that we can stop the criminals from carrying concealed weapons, I want some of the good guys to have them too.

[bake74]

     I wish that everyone, on both sides would remember, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
     I get a little upset when people tell me I can not do something especially when they don't know me or what I am capable of doing.

[Lt.Del]

i am always of the opinion that no one should restrict law-abiding citizens from carrying, except proving the person knows the laws and can efficiently use the weapon. Criminals should not be the only people carrying--and they do plenty of that, regardless of what the laws say.  Why should criminals have the upper hand in any confrontation?

Now, here in Va, the governor just took a bunch of heat for killing the law that was in place for many years.  For a while people, except for police, could not buy more than one gun a month.   In my mind, that law proved nothing. Glad the governor overturned that law.  Mayor Bloomberg of NY didn't like that VA did this, because he says many of the guns in NY came from VA so he is crying all the time.  Sorry Mikey, if you lock up your criminals for more than 30 days at a time your crime rate will decrease, don't blame crime on inanimate objects like guns that are nothing more than paperweights without someone pulling the trigger.  So, as mentioned before, guns don't kill people---in NY or Va.

Gun control activists would love nothing more than to have only criminals carry weapons, or, at least they think if the good guys won't carry, the bad won't either...yeah right. I don't understand that.

I am in law enforcement and have been for 21 years now.  I wish everyone who is not a mental subject, a subject of a restraining order, or a convicted felon or assaultive misdemeanor, would carry.  Cops can only react.  If you really want to defend yourself, you better consider carrying and train considerably with your chosen tool.   Even up the odds.  If criminals knew more people carried, it would deter their behavior and they wouldn't have free reign of the world. 

[bake74]

    If criminals knew more people carried, it would deter their behavior and they wouldn't have free reign of the world.

     I agree 100% with this statement.  I would say that around 90% of criminals are opportunist, which in short means that if the opportunity wasn't so easy they wouldn't be committing the crime.  If they knew that there was a chance of everyone carrying a gun they would be less likely to steal or commit the crime in the first place.
    Now of course there is the other 10% of people who no matter what are going to commit the crime.  Well, the only way for them to learn is to get shot I guess.

[nucknoel89]

I see no need to carry a gun, at least not in my country.  Our laws are pretty restrictive anyway.  To me it seems like once someone starts carrying a gun then everyone else thinks they need a gun to protect themselves from everyone else with a gun.  I don't want anyone to be offended, that's just my opinion.

[78 Chevyrado]

If every person, without fail had a gun in their house, and everyone knew it, criminals wouldn't be so likely to break in.  The need to carry at all times depends on where you live, though I'd rather have a means of defense and not need it, than to be in a bad spot because i am defenseless. 

I saw a saying once, and its totally awesome and i don't see how this isn't 100%  true.

"Blaming guns for columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat".

If they ban guns, only criminals and cops will have them, and criminals FAR outnumber cops.  So by default i think whoever wants to ban guns is mentally inferior and has led a padded life.  Guns are the difference between us being citizens or being subjects. 

I don't carry usually but I do have a 10ga shotgun loaded at all times in my house.  It hangs in its place, loaded and ready to go.  i feel safe that if a break in happens, they're the victim, NOT ME.  I can wake up and get to that weapon in 4 seconds.  And If they're in my house I can do whatever I feel the need to do.

If every criminal that broke in a house got his leg blown off, they'd quick that crap real dang quick.

I was tickled that GA finally enacted the stand your ground law a year or two ago.  That means someone has some sense.

Besides, have you ever been ANYWHERE where things got a little out of hand, and somebody just cocked a shotgun (to calm everybody down)  didn't even point it at anybody, just had to make the sound.  that sound will calm down a lot of problems with the quickness.  situation diffused and nobody got shot.

Hand guns are the equalizer...  a 300lb man vs a 120lb woman; 120 lb woman loses, no question, unless SHE has a gun.  a 300lb man with a gun vs 120lb woman with a gun, is an even match.  Guns don't come into play if your carrying and someone want to talk about a problem with you, however a gun  can mean life or death if they have a problem with you and want to use force.  why do you think 120lb women get targeted?  how often do criminals target 300lb UFC fighters?  they don't, for good reason.  criminals want the weakest/easiest target, period. 

Would I want my 120lb wife to carry.  No question, yes, IF she's trained properly and won't use it for stupid crap.

I do think you must train if you are going to carry.  don't want the wife fumbling to pull her gun and shooting a hole through the bottom of her purse into her own foot, now do we? 

Unless I have a cop following me all the time as my personal bodyguard, I'd rather have my own means to defend myself than have to wait 5 to 30 minutes for the police to arrive to help me.  Once the cops arrive all is usually ok, but will they get there IN TIME?  not likely.

Gun Control at its finest:
http://www.wnd.com/2000/03/1933/




This one is just a funny, but I'd do this in real life.  Why don't all non gun owners put a sign in their yard proclaiming they have no guns and don't believe in them?  Instant target, that's why.

[velojym]

nuck, I respect your desire not to possess and bear certain tools with which you may be able to defend yourself and others, just so long as you respect my right to do so.
The idea that an armed populace is a violent and touchy populace has been disproven time and time again, but since most folks get their worldview from the mainstream press, you'll rarely see much coverage of the over 2 million successful "saves" with firearms every year. If it doesn't bleed... they don't bother, and usually brandishing your gun at a potential assailant will end the confrontation. Criminals with yellow stripes down their back will wander off to look for easier prey. If the odds aren't in their favor, due to a large percentage of armed folks, they'll have to either leave town, or find honest work.

I've listened to people who will energetically argue against my right to bear arms, and their strongest point is that they "don't understand" why anyone would feel the need.... yada yada... if your best argument is an admission that you don't understand the issue... here's your sign.

As for the Michael Moore-ons, who seem to think that we carry our arms based on some uncontrollable sense of fear, screaming like a girl and peppering the area with gunfire every time we're startled... well, it takes a real mush-for-brains to believe what he scoops out by the ton. I think the stereotype belongs more to the limousine-liberals with their armed security guards (so they don't have to touch the dirty evil guns themselves) and politicians who are afraid of the *real* reason we have a 2nd amendment... backed up by a growing number of hoplophobes who don't really understand their feelings in the first place.

[Irish_Alley]

as long as you know when and how to use one, go for it. if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns

[Grim 82]

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

[thirsty]

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

That would make a great bumper sticker!

[78 Chevyrado]

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

That IS an awesome bumper sticker!  I might have to have that made up for myself.

That says it all.  I can't think of anyhting to add to that...

[Irish_Alley]

trying to say cops are fat? lol