Do you legally conceal carry?

Yes, every day and every place that the law will let me.
Total votes: 215 (42%)
Yes, only when I know I am going to someplace with increased risk
Total votes: 71 (14%)
Yes, sometimes, if I think about it.
Total votes: 41 (8%)
Not really, but I have a permit regardless.
Total votes: 64 (13%)
No, and I don't have a permit.
Total votes: 119 (23%)
Total votes: 510

Re: Do You Carry

351
dandad wrote:
jamesjames wrote:I got my CCW eight years ago. As a teacher, I have been trying to influence policy at our school to see if concealed carry could be allowed for employees. Every time there is a mass shooting at a school or other "gun free zone", I ask about and advocate for deep concealed carry for willing, experienced, and squared-away staff and faculty. I think you should be a gun owner for a couple of years and practiced in safe gun handling and tactical training before taking this on. I've written and revised a draft policy on concealed carry for employees that gives oversight to the administration. No interest yet from the boss. But I keep trying. The continuing terrorist/active shooter threat is slowly changing minds. The recent result of the presidential election may be a catalyst in changing hearts and minds in this sensitive area.
Im mixed on this view on teacher carry at school.. I have see security and police that were stationed at school for protection after school shooting eventually being used as tool to strong arm kids over even small infractions. We all saw the cop who flipped the girl in her desk. The police / security was used because its easier than a teacher dealing with it. I could see some teachers resorting to pull a weapon with unruly kids. After All, its a highly stressful job and some kids can be a hand full, even able to cause physical harm.

I have no doubt some teachers could and would use their guns only in a case of life and death like a school shooter, but I also have no doubt some would use them as a tool of power and force over the kids that might be disruptive.

Im on the fence on teacher carry.

Sent from my LGLS770 using Tapatalk
Not everyone is equipped mentally and emotionally to take on the responsibility of carrying. Add in that some of the kids aren't exactly well raised at home and could attempt to steal the teacher's gun. Teachers have enough on their plate already. I'm conditionally OK with teacher carry but mere possession of a CWP is nowhere near enough. It should be voluntary with a high level of training and demonstrated proficiency required. At the risk of sounding cynical I think teachers should be allowed to carry for protection from their students.
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

Re: Do You Carry

352
Umm.... It seems all too easy to lose perspective and go off the deep end when thinking about concealed carry, or teacher concealed carry, for the first time. The uninitiated will jump to hyperbole and unwarranted emotional conclusions.

We must remember that the gun owner properly exercising their 2A right is a responsible citizen-stakeholder in the community (or society at large). They have a job, a family, a home, membership in religious, volunteer, and/or fraternal organizations, wealth in the form of savings and investments... many things that tie them to the community and bind them to a deep commitment to following the law, including the defensive use of a firearm. In other words, they have a lot to lose if they do it wrong or screw it up. Like Masad Ayoob says in the title of his book, you must only use a firearm In the Gravest Extreme. Read the book, it is the fundamental text on concealed carry and its ramifications.

In addition to the foregoing, teachers are professionals who have skills in classroom management, conflict resolution, and a deep commitment not only to their student's academic success, but also to the safety and security of the students in their charge.

The person carrying concealed has a special responsibility to conduct themselves with professionalism and a seriousness of purpose. The liability that comes with discharging a firearm can end a career, result in loss of liberty, loss of property, and possible dissolution of family and loss of life. With all these pressures and responsibilities, the concealed carry teacher will be prudent, professional, and discreet in the way they conduct themselves when carrying a firearm. If they are not, they will be subject to disciplinary action and loss of their job. People who defensive carry don't think about the offensive use or abuse of the firearm. Its sole function is to save life "in the gravest extreme" circumstance by neutralizing the ultimate threat: an active shooter in the classroom. If you can't carry under these conditions and rules of engagement, you should not be carrying a firearm.

Re: Do You Carry

353
jamesjames wrote:Umm.... It seems all too easy to lose perspective and go off the deep end when thinking about concealed carry, or teacher concealed carry, for the first time. The uninitiated will jump to hyperbole and unwarranted emotional conclusions.

We must remember that the gun owner properly exercising their 2A right is a responsible citizen-stakeholder in the community (or society at large). They have a job, a family, a home, membership in religious, volunteer, and/or fraternal organizations, wealth in the form of savings and investments... many things that tie them to the community and bind them to a deep commitment to following the law, including the defensive use of a firearm. In other words, they have a lot to lose if they do it wrong or screw it up. Like Masad Ayoob says in the title of his book, you must only use a firearm In the Gravest Extreme. Read the book, it is the fundamental text on concealed carry and its ramifications.

In addition to the foregoing, teachers are professionals who have skills in classroom management, conflict resolution, and a deep commitment not only to their student's academic success, but also to the safety and security of the students in their charge.

The person carrying concealed has a special responsibility to conduct themselves with professionalism and a seriousness of purpose. The liability that comes with discharging a firearm can end a career, result in loss of liberty, loss of property, and possible dissolution of family and loss of life. With all these pressures and responsibilities, the concealed carry teacher will be prudent, professional, and discreet in the way they conduct themselves when carrying a firearm. If they are not, they will be subject to disciplinary action and loss of their job. People who defensive carry don't think about the offensive use or abuse of the firearm. Its sole function is to save life "in the gravest extreme" circumstance by neutralizing the ultimate threat: an active shooter in the classroom. If you can't carry under these conditions and rules of engagement, you should not be carrying a firearm.
If the requirements get a CWP were stringent enough to expect the skill and mindset you suggest I'd be with you 100% but the reality, especially in "shall issue" states, doesn't come close. At the risk of being labeled a heretic, there are some folks that have no business being armed. It's one thing to carry for *self* defense but when it's implied that one is carrying to protect others, especially kids, I'd want a higher standard than what my state (WA) requires for a carry permit.
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

Re: Do You Carry

354
We liberals tend to think that laws and regulations will protect us. The more laws and regulations, the better, right? We don't need guns if we have enough laws and regulations, right? And there are never enough laws and regulations.

Perhaps 2A isn't for everybody. Maybe the founders were right. Perhaps only land-owning white men should have all the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship. Perhaps only heads of households with employment and/or business owners who are connected to their community through the many ties that bind them to responsible behavior should be able to own a firearm. They are the Minutemen, those that can be counted on to be the citizen warrior who can be trusted to take up arms to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. This was the basis of the 2A 227 years ago.

So what's it going to be? Do you believe that all people are endowed with inalienable rights? Or do only the elites deserve the responsibility and demonstrate the self-control to exercise sovereign and inalienable rights? What does a person have to do to prove that they are worthy to carry a firearm? How often do they have to prove it to satisfy you? If someone screws up and doesn't do it perfectly, do we liberals pass more laws and regulations to try to make an even more perfect union? Or are there already enough laws and regulations in place to regulate human behavior to the imperfect extent that human behavior can be regulated?

Rights aren't inalienable in a nanny state. Maybe conservatives are right after all. They believe in personal responsibility. An armed society is a polite society.
Last edited by jamesjames on Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Do You Carry

355
jamesjames wrote:We liberals tend to think that laws and regulations will protect us. The more laws and regulations, the better, right? We don't need guns if we have enough laws and regulations, right? And there are never enough laws and regulations.

Perhaps 2A isn't for everybody. Maybe the founders were right. Perhaps only land-owning white men should have all the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship. Perhaps only heads of households with employment and/or business owners who are connected to their community through the many ties that bind them to responsible behavior should be able to own a firearm. They are the Minutemen, those that can be counted on to be the citizen warrior who can be trusted to take up arms to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. This was the basis of the 2A 227 years ago.

So what's it going to be? Do you believe that all people are endowed with inalienable rights? Or do only the elites deserve the responsibility and demonstrated the self-control to exercise sovereign and inalienable rights? What does a person have to do to prove that they are worthy to carry a firearm? How often do they have to prove it to satisfy you? If someone screws up and doesn't do it perfectly, do we liberals pass more laws and regulations to try to make an even more perfect union? Or are there already enough laws and regulations in place to regulate human behavior to the imperfect extent that human behavior can be regulated?

Rights aren't inalienable in a nanny state. Maybe conservatives are right after all. An armed society is a polite society.
You speak of "inalienable rights" and "responsibility" in the same breath but too many don't demonstrate the responsibility part. Since "we" as gun owners don't do a very good job of policing ourselves in that regard it's no surprise that laws are enacted by people with no knowledge of the subject. LEO'S and armed security are subject to a higher standard of conduct and training. Is that an abridgement of their 2A rights? You can't carry in a bar in WA. Armed and drunk? No thanks. Just about all of our constitutional rights are regulated by laws presumably to prevent abuse and to protect the rights of all. Should the 2A be totally unregulated? There's precedent for amendments to be repealed. Do we want to separate right from responsibility far enough to make 2A repeal a possibility? I think we could easily dispense with much of the ill conceived, ineffective gun legislation that we're saddled with but no laws? No way.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

Re: Do You Carry

356
Your search for perfection, while a laudable liberal trait, is also the liberal Achilles' heel and the enemy of the good. Drunk people in bars, or criminals, or the criminally mentally ill, can obtain and carry a firearm whether legally or not, and no law will prevent them from misusing the firearm. That's why we arm ourselves. We liberals need to do some mental house keeping and get rid of the notion that more laws and regulation will make concealed carry completely safe. Our absolute insistence on 100% safety is the barrier we have to overcome to understand and rediscover our 2A right.

Guns are inherently dangerous, but can be carried safely and responsibly. Its a paradox that we liberals have a hard time with. We have to assess the risk and be able to manage the risk and accept the risk in order to obtain the security benefits we are searching for.

Re: Do You Carry

357
jamesjames wrote:Your search for perfection, while a laudable liberal trait, is also the liberal Achilles' heel and the enemy of the good. Drunk people in bars, or criminals, or the criminally mentally ill, can obtain and carry a firearm whether legally or not, and no law will prevent them from misusing the firearm. That's why we arm ourselves. We liberals need to do some mental house keeping and get rid of the notion that more laws and regulation will make concealed carry completely safe. Our absolute insistence on 100% safety is the barrier we have to overcome to understand and rediscover our 2A right.

Guns are inherently dangerous, but can be carried safely and responsibly. Its a paradox that we liberals have a hard time with. We have to assess the risk and be able to manage the risk and accept the risk in order to obtain the security benefits we are searching for.
I don't expect perfection but I *demand* accountability. Overstepping any of our constitutional rights ends at the point where abuse of them encroaches on another's rights. We already deny access to firearms to convicted felons, minors and the mentally defective. Are you suggesting that the 2A should be carte blanche for all citizens? You say that guns can be carried "safely and *responsibly*". You'll get no argument from me but what about those that don't demonstrate the "responsibility" part of the equation? There any number of laws that will result in revocation of one's CWP and/or forfeiture of the firearm that I consider quite reasonable. Are you suggesting those laws are unconstitutional?
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

Re: Do You Carry

358
I find it ironic that I carried a gun in my car and on my body at times for as long as I can remember, long before legal, no matter where I was headed in state or out (except Mexico/Canada) and never thought one thing about it. Then I got a license to carry and that changed, primarily because I'm afraid I may lose my license if I muck up at the wrong place at the wrong time. Now I'm paranoid after not being for years. But I never leave home without my EDC, nor get the mail or paper in front of my house.
"Being Republican is more than a difference of opinion - it's a character flaw." "COVID can fix STUPID!"
The greatest, most aggrieved mistake EVER made in USA was electing DJT as POTUS.

Re: Do You Carry

359
I don't expect perfection but I *demand* accountability. Overstepping any of our constitutional rights ends at the point where abuse of them encroaches on another's rights. We already deny access to firearms to convicted felons, minors and the mentally defective. Are you suggesting that the 2A should be carte blanche for all citizens? You say that guns can be carried "safely and *responsibly*". You'll get no argument from me but what about those that don't demonstrate the "responsibility" part of the equation? There any number of laws that will result in revocation of one's CWP and/or forfeiture of the firearm that I consider quite reasonable. Are you suggesting those laws are unconstitutional?
I am suggesting that there are already enough laws on the books. The notion that just one more law, or the right law, or the common sense law, will get the job done is only really another feel-good law that will have no effect. We liberals seem to seek comfort in a proliferation of laws, as if more laws will miraculously stop the criminal behavior. I submit that murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and even brandishing are all against the law already. How many more "common sense" gun laws will fix the problem? We don't have a gun problem in this country. We have a perception problem. And we may have a crime problem (although violent crime is on a 20 year downward trend; Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore headlines notwithstanding) .

Re: Do You Carry

360
jamesjames wrote:
I am suggesting that there are already enough laws on the books. The notion that just one more law, or the right law, or the common sense law, will get the job done is only really another feel-good law that will have no effect. We liberals seem to seek comfort in a proliferation of laws, as if more laws will miraculously stop the criminal behavior. I submit that murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and even brandishing are all against the law already. How many more "common sense" gun laws will fix the problem? We don't have a gun problem in this country. We have a perception problem. And we may have a crime problem (although violent crime is on a 20 year downward trend; Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore headlines notwithstanding) .
You're preaching to the choir. I don't want more laws, I want the ineffective ones repealed (10 rd mags, "assault" weapon bans, etc). I want effective enforcement of laws that make sense.
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

Re: Do You Carry

361
Dreamsinger wrote:
jamesjames wrote:We liberals tend to think that laws and regulations will protect us. The more laws and regulations, the better, right? We don't need guns if we have enough laws and regulations, right? And there are never enough laws and regulations.

Perhaps 2A isn't for everybody. Maybe the founders were right. Perhaps only land-owning white men should have all the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship. Perhaps only heads of households with employment and/or business owners who are connected to their community through the many ties that bind them to responsible behavior should be able to own a firearm. They are the Minutemen, those that can be counted on to be the citizen warrior who can be trusted to take up arms to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. This was the basis of the 2A 227 years ago.

So what's it going to be? Do you believe that all people are endowed with inalienable rights? Or do only the elites deserve the responsibility and demonstrated the self-control to exercise sovereign and inalienable rights? What does a person have to do to prove that they are worthy to carry a firearm? How often do they have to prove it to satisfy you? If someone screws up and doesn't do it perfectly, do we liberals pass more laws and regulations to try to make an even more perfect union? Or are there already enough laws and regulations in place to regulate human behavior to the imperfect extent that human behavior can be regulated?

Rights aren't inalienable in a nanny state. Maybe conservatives are right after all. An armed society is a polite society.
You speak of "inalienable rights" and "responsibility" in the same breath but too many don't demonstrate the responsibility part. Since "we" as gun owners don't do a very good job of policing ourselves in that regard it's no surprise that laws are enacted by people with no knowledge of the subject. LEO'S and armed security are subject to a higher standard of conduct and training. Is that an abridgement of their 2A rights? You can't carry in a bar in WA. Armed and drunk? No thanks. Just about all of our constitutional rights are regulated by laws presumably to prevent abuse and to protect the rights of all. Should the 2A be totally unregulated? There's precedent for amendments to be repealed. Do we want to separate right from responsibility far enough to make 2A repeal a possibility? I think we could easily dispense with much of the ill conceived, ineffective gun legislation that we're saddled with but no laws? No way.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Just curious. How could gun owners "police ourselves" We can talk safety, common sense, and so on, but we can not really stop other gun owners, and more usually criminals with guns [not legal owners] from actually using a gun in a crime. Not unless we can physically remove the threat they pose.

Sent from my LGLS770 using Tapatalk
This is just my opinion, yours may vary and is no less valid.
- Me -

"I will never claim to be an expert, and it has been my experience that self proclaimed experts are usually self proclaimed."
-Me-

I must proof read more

Re: Do You Carry

362
dandad wrote:
Dreamsinger wrote:
jamesjames wrote:
You speak of "inalienable rights" and "responsibility" in the same breath but too many don't demonstrate the responsibility part. Since "we" as gun owners don't do a very good job of policing ourselves in that regard it's no surprise that laws are enacted by people with no knowledge of the subject. LEO'S and armed security are subject to a higher standard of conduct and training. Is that an abridgement of their 2A rights? You can't carry in a bar in WA. Armed and drunk? No thanks. Just about all of our constitutional rights are regulated by laws presumably to prevent abuse and to protect the rights of all. Should the 2A be totally unregulated? There's precedent for amendments to be repealed. Do we want to separate right from responsibility far enough to make 2A repeal a possibility? I think we could easily dispense with much of the ill conceived, ineffective gun legislation that we're saddled with but no laws? No way.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Just curious. How could gun owners "police ourselves" We can talk safety, common sense, and so on, but we can not really stop other gun owners, and more usually criminals with guns [not legal owners] from actually using a gun in a crime. Not unless we can physically remove the threat they pose.

Sent from my LGLS770 using Tapatalk
Just about all gun legislation is driven by the extremists on both sides of the issue. That's a foolproof recipe for stupid, irrational laws on any issue. Rather than recognizing that there is indeed a problem and trying to engage the issue with rational dialog we sit back and let the wackos at the NRA oppose any gun legislation for any reason. The NRA, with less than 4% of gun owners as members doesn't speak for us. Their money comes from NSSF, an industry group that has nothing on its agenda but keeping sales high. Any time there's a mass shooting the extreme antis go berserk and propose irrational bans while the NRA faction spreads fear of gun grabbing. The NRA/NSSF milks it for all it's worth and the result a sales spike in guns and ammo shortages. The industry is suckering all us. The issue is politically polarized where in the distant past it wasn't. Gun ownership is seen as prima facie evidence of conservatism while an anti-gun position is the Litmus test for liberal cred. This group demonstrates the fallacy of that thinking. The result is that we don't talk about being armed for fear of being identified with either end of the spectrum. We need to work toward depoliticizing the gun issue. The solutions are just as difficult to implement as they are easy to identify.
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

Re: Do You Carry

363
dandad wrote:Just curious. How could gun owners "police ourselves" We can talk safety, common sense, and so on, but we can not really stop other gun owners, and more usually criminals with guns [not legal owners] from actually using a gun in a crime. Not unless we can physically remove the threat they pose.
For that matter…do we _really_ do that poor a job of "policing ourselves"? Sure, you hear about the occasional mistake, but I challenge you to find _any_ group of 15 million people (estimated number of carry permits in the US) that doesn't have some fuckups.

I mean, there's about the same number of people working in healthcare in the US, but medical mistakes hundreds of thousands of people per year, and that's without considering that most gun deaths don't involve people who are legally carrying.

The difference is that when a doctor screws up and someone dies, it's not considered newsworthy. When a concealed carrier screws up, it is. So we get an inflated perception of how often the latter occurs (and how dangerous it is.)

Re: Do You Carry

366
PiratePenguin wrote:
dandad wrote:Just curious. How could gun owners "police ourselves" We can talk safety, common sense, and so on, but we can not really stop other gun owners, and more usually criminals with guns [not legal owners] from actually using a gun in a crime. Not unless we can physically remove the threat they pose.
For that matter…do we _really_ do that poor a job of "policing ourselves"? Sure, you hear about the occasional mistake, but I challenge you to find _any_ group of 15 million people (estimated number of carry permits in the US) that doesn't have some fuckups.

I mean, there's about the same number of people working in healthcare in the US, but medical mistakes hundreds of thousands of people per year, and that's without considering that most gun deaths don't involve people who are legally carrying.

The difference is that when a doctor screws up and someone dies, it's not considered newsworthy. When a concealed carrier screws up, it is. So we get an inflated perception of how often the latter occurs (and how dangerous it is.)
I agree that transgressions by permitted carriers is statistically insignificant but there seems to be a resistance among *all* gun owners to any kind of restriction. I think we all know of at least one person with anger management issues that's armed.What about your neighborhood paranoid/schizophrenic? A GOP congress that never gave a damn about mental health issues decides to make it easier for a mentally unbalanced person to own a firearm. To clarify, I'm totally against anyone's right to bear arms being abridged solely on the say-so of a mental health professional. I believe many are predisposed to having an anti-gun agenda. Deprivation of access to firearms must be an adjudicated decision. As mandated reporters, health professionals are required to report those who may be at risk for harming themselves or others but any action should be referred to the court and acted swiftly on. I'd go as far as to provide public defenders for those referred. Another thing we could do is to be more proactive about crafting sensible gun legislation instead of tacitly accepting the blanket obstructionism that the NRA/NSSF pushes. The majority of gun laws are crafted by hoplophobes that have no knowledge of firearms. That's got to stop. Another thing is to work to depolarize the 2A issue from being a political litmus test. Groups like this help but I'd like to see it expand into the general consciousness. Ironically, the current polical situation has made many of my liberal friends more receptive. They're starting to "get" that people fought, killed and died for their right to be liberal and that they need to be at least supportive if not working on becoming actively armed. A while back I saw a "hippy chick" loading an SKS and a 1000 rounds into her old Volvo wagon with a "Visualize World Peace" sticker on the back window. It kind od warmed my heart. She "gets it".
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

Re: Do You Carry

367
When I moved to the Washington side of the Portland metro area I didn't really consider getting a concealed permit for the first few months. My wife and I are in the downtown area at least three times a week and almost always at night. We go to a lot of concerts that end in the wee hours and late dinners with friends. Aggressive panhandlers and the homeless population don't bother us too much, but the amount of junkies we have encountered was a cause for concern. Addiction is something I am familiar with and I know the lengths people will go to in order to get their fix.

So, I did a bit of reading on Washington and Oregon's carry laws and applied for and received permits in both states. I had the permits for months prior to actually carrying for the first time. Nothing really changed, I can't carry a pistol into most concerts or Trailblazers games so I just never really thought about it. A couple of weeks ago I saw a great deal on a pre-owned but never shot Ruger LCP custom. It came with a desantis pocket holster and I have subsequently carried it around for the last week or so. The gun and holster mostly disappear in my pocket and it is light enough that I do not notice it at all. Unfortunately, it still doesn't help with many of the late-night scenarios where I thought I might want a carry weapon for in the first place. I am guessing in the next week or so the novelty will wear off and the gun will end up in the safe more and more frequently.

Re: Do You Carry

368
hobo wrote:When I moved to the Washington side of the Portland metro area I didn't really consider getting a concealed permit for the first few months. My wife and I are in the downtown area at least three times a week and almost always at night. We go to a lot of concerts that end in the wee hours and late dinners with friends. Aggressive panhandlers and the homeless population don't bother us too much, but the amount of junkies we have encountered was a cause for concern. Addiction is something I am familiar with and I know the lengths people will go to in order to get their fix.

So, I did a bit of reading on Washington and Oregon's carry laws and applied for and received permits in both states. I had the permits for months prior to actually carrying for the first time. Nothing really changed, I can't carry a pistol into most concerts or Trailblazers games so I just never really thought about it. A couple of weeks ago I saw a great deal on a pre-owned but never shot Ruger LCP custom. It came with a desantis pocket holster and I have subsequently carried it around for the last week or so. The gun and holster mostly disappear in my pocket and it is light enough that I do not notice it at all. Unfortunately, it still doesn't help with many of the late-night scenarios where I thought I might want a carry weapon for in the first place. I am guessing in the next week or so the novelty will wear off and the gun will end up in the safe more and more frequently.
This makes me think of the interesting bill(s) being introduced in Florida this session aimed at eliminating most "gun free zones." It will be interesting to see what ends up passing and what form that takes for day-to-day life here in Florida. I've been going to dodgy music venues since I was 13 around Jacksonville and fall into that same category where when I would actually want it during travel to and from a vehicle, I'm not allowed it.

Re: Do You Carry

369
I don't carry at this point. I'm considering it and investigating training options near me.

As it relates to guns in schools, I work with a school district and was surprised to find out they couldn't bar people with concealed carry permits from carrying on district property or school grounds. The reason I found this out is because a new bus driver was asking his supervisor about whether or not he could concealed carry on his bus, and all she could do was finger wave at him and tell him "we'd prefer if you didn't." Now, he's a nice guy and everything, but I wouldn't trust him with a gun on a bus full of kids, and I can't think of anyone that I would. It's not something I'd be comfortable with, even as someone without children.

It's been said in this thread already, a teacher with a gun opens the risk to a student snatching a gun from a teacher, or an idiot pulling out their gun on a kid. I don't think, at this point, the risks are worth the benefits.
jamesjames wrote: They have a job, a family, a home, membership in religious, volunteer, and/or fraternal organizations, wealth in the form of savings and investments... many things that tie them to the community and bind them to a deep commitment to following the law, including the defensive use of a firearm.
Let's be honest now, none of those things are givens, I would never assume any of those things about someone because they're a gun owner or a concealed carry permit holder. A little more or less than half of the people in the US own guns, the only one of those things that you could reasonably assume about half the people you meet is that they have jobs. That's all baseless conjecture.

Re: Do You Carry

370
You can't carry a handgun in New Jersey, open or concealed, unless you're a LEO, without special dispensation from the Governor, the AG, the Mayor, the Chief of Police, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Metropolitan, and the Head Rabbi in Jerusalem. (did I leave anyone out? Sorry--get their permission, too!)

Even then you almost certainly won't be able to get a carry permit. End of story.

The only exception is on your own property.

A friend, a retired cop, has a security biz. So I asked him: Do your guys carry? Of course they do! He replied.
So I asked how they got their carry permits?
His answer: They're all cops!
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Do You Carry

371
Inquisitor wrote:I am not surprised. I would have guessed half and half, or weighted more towards the non-carry given what I know of our group. Its hardly a statistically signifnicant sample yet, however.

A more interesting poll might be "why do you carry" rather than "do you carry" I would wonder how may people who do carry, carry because they are LE, private security, or otherwise "not your average paranoid."

We, as a group, seem to do things for reasons other than "its my God given right" or "coloured skin scares me."

That fits in with "guns are tools" and "guns ownership should be subject to some regulation."

At least in my mind.
Excellent post, Inquisitor. I agree completely. When we go out of town, via car, I have my SIG in the vehicle with me. Other than that, I don't carry.

Re: Do You Carry

373
YankeeTarheel wrote:You can't carry a handgun in New Jersey, open or concealed, unless you're a LEO, without special dispensation from the Governor, the AG, the Mayor, the Chief of Police, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Metropolitan, and the Head Rabbi in Jerusalem. (did I leave anyone out? Sorry--get their permission, too!)

Even then you almost certainly won't be able to get a carry permit. End of story.

The only exception is on your own property.

A friend, a retired cop, has a security biz. So I asked him: Do your guys carry? Of course they do! He replied.
So I asked how they got their carry permits?
His answer: They're all cops!

That's why i moved out of NJ. Spent the first 24 years of my life in Trenton, fn hell. There are parts of Trenton where a gunshot just doesn't get attention.
Lock your car doors, Ive had people just walk up and try to get in at a red light.
Don't lock your house doors, your just going to end up with broken doors.
Just because they're young doesn't mean they're not dangerous, when i was 17 I got robbed by about a dozen children (young children). I still have a scar on my knuckle from punching one of them in the face, but I couldn't tell which one got my wallet. That was a shitty week till I got my next paycheck.

It's not easy being skinny and white in one of those neighborhoods.
Not sure what the place is like these days, but I cant imagine it got much better. Don't miss NJ.

Moved to Virginia, as soon as possible I got a CCW permit like a reflex, funny thing though is I don't feel like I NEED it anymore, but it is comforting.

Re: Do You Carry

374
Leeps wrote:
YankeeTarheel wrote:You can't carry a handgun in New Jersey, open or concealed, unless you're a LEO, without special dispensation from the Governor, the AG, the Mayor, the Chief of Police, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Metropolitan, and the Head Rabbi in Jerusalem. (did I leave anyone out? Sorry--get their permission, too!)

Even then you almost certainly won't be able to get a carry permit. End of story.

The only exception is on your own property.

A friend, a retired cop, has a security biz. So I asked him: Do your guys carry? Of course they do! He replied.
So I asked how they got their carry permits?
His answer: They're all cops!

That's why i moved out of NJ. Spent the first 24 years of my life in Trenton, fn hell. There are parts of Trenton where a gunshot just doesn't get attention.
Lock your car doors, Ive had people just walk up and try to get in at a red light.
Don't lock your house doors, your just going to end up with broken doors.
Just because they're young doesn't mean they're not dangerous, when i was 17 I got robbed by about a dozen children (young children). I still have a scar on my knuckle from punching one of them in the face, but I couldn't tell which one got my wallet. That was a shitty week till I got my next paycheck.

It's not easy being skinny and white in one of those neighborhoods.
Not sure what the place is like these days, but I cant imagine it got much better. Don't miss NJ.

Moved to Virginia, as soon as possible I got a CCW permit like a reflex, funny thing though is I don't feel like I NEED it anymore, but it is comforting.
There are parts of NJ that are very, very bad. While parts of Newark are fine, other parts are dangerous, but, unlike NYC, I don't really know which is which. Cities like Patterson, too, are problematic, but Hoboken and Jersey City have gone through major revivals as both bedroom communities and since Goldman built their new HQ there.

But much of NJ is suburban or, where Trump's favorite golf course is, Bedminster, is in the heart of horse-farm country. Lovely rolling hills, fields, etc. Lots of money, too. I contracted at Hoechst Marrion Roussel for a year, there, 20 years ago. It's now Sanofi Aventis. For its size, NJ is a strikingly diverse state.

Oddly, we moved here FROM Virginia 25 years ago, and I was sorry to leave the Old Dominion--loved living there. When we first got here I nearly went insane, despite growing up across the river in NY state. I hated everything about NJ, about how I couldn't get anything done without yelling at people, how every transaction at the DMV took an hour...3 registrations, two drivers' licenses, motorcycle endorsement? That's 6 hours--literally! (2 cars and the bike, my DL, my wife's DL--and the MC endorsement). And CROOKED! They busted a bunch of workers at the Wayne office for selling bogus licenses and plates to people who couldn't get them legally! When they converted the DMV to the MVC things got much better, and much faster. Checkout lines at every store belied the adage that "things move faster up North".

But like anything I got used to it.

The gun rules didn't bother me as much as you because my decision to acquire firearms happened when I awoke 11 months ago on November 9th and found it was NOT a nightmare but a catastrophe: Trump really HAD been elected President....before that, I had zero interest.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Do You Carry

375
YankeeTarheel wrote:The gun rules didn't bother me as much as you because my decision to acquire firearms happened when I awoke 11 months ago on November 9th and found it was NOT a nightmare but a catastrophe: Trump really HAD been elected President....before that, I had zero interest.
The election was the straw the broke the camels back for me regarding concealed carry. I wonder how common such reactions were.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 3 guests