UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

1
Permitless-carry gun laws are misguided and should be scrapped
Every american state requires you to have a licence to drive a car, hunt or become a barber. Yet by the end of this year at least 20 states will allow you to carry a handgun in public without a permit. So far in 2021 five have already passed “permitless carry” laws, and five more, including Texas and Louisiana, are considering them. If these became law, around a third of Americans would live in states where it was legal to carry guns around without any need for a licence or training.

Anyone who considers the 181 mass shootings that have taken place in America since January, or the recent spike in violent crime, would be forgiven for wondering why some states want fewer restrictions on guns, rather than more. The pro-gun lobby, including the National Rifle Association (nra), argues that having more armed civilians will help boost public safety, making it more likely that “good guys” with guns can intercept “bad guys” with guns. With the help of Republican state legislators, they are advancing an interpretation of the Second Amendment which imagines that America’s founders intended no restrictions on guns or gun ownership whatsoever. Backers of permitless carry call it “constitutional carry” to make it seem legitimate and to appear to give it a pedigree.
Doing away with these conditions is not in the public interest. Just as communities are made safer by drivers being required to pass tests before they can legally operate a car, so it makes sense for people to learn how to use a lethal weapon and impose restrictions on when, where and how they can carry guns around. In most places where permitless carry is being considered, police forces have spoken out against it, because it would make their jobs harder and more dangerous.

Re: UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

3
Charles C. W. Cooke, in reply:
The Economist’s Paper-Thin Case against Permitless Concealed Carry
The implication here is ridiculous. Even if one were genuinely to wonder why “some states want fewer restrictions on guns” when we have so many mass shootings in the United States — though we haven’t actually had 181 “since January” — one wouldn’t need to wonder why some states want to adopt permitless carry, because legal concealed carry has absolutely no causal relationship with mass shootings. I follow this stuff closely, and yet I cannot think of a single mass shooting that has ever even intersected with legal concealed carry. How would it? Concealed carry allows people to carry weapons on their person while out and about; it does not allow people to shoot up a school. There is no connection between these two questions, except, occasionally, in the other direction, when concealed carriers stop mass shootings.
It is certainly true that the states are allowed to require permits — provided, that is, that they are issued relatively liberally. But this does not mean that states are required to, and it does not mean, either, that at most points in American history they have. As for the idea that abolishing permits is a bad idea because “the gains to gun owners are trivial,” well . . . that cuts both ways. Yes, it is not especially “burdensome” to obtain a carry permit. But, given that the statistics show that nothing bad happens when states abandon their permitting systems, the limited burdens that are imposed are meritless. If the gains to gun owners are “trivial” and the cost to the state is non-existent, then the right answer is surely to give the gains to gun owners?
First off, “would also probably” isn’t an argument. The statistics we have show that, despite now being the law in 20 states, permitless concealed carry makes no difference to crime in either direction, so even if it were true that concealed carry per se “resulted in a 13-15% increase in violent crime in the decade after they came into force,” that fact would not affect the case for permitless concealed carry in either direction. And that’s just if it were true, which it’s not — at least, not in any meaningful causal way. In a review of all of the relevant data, including the Stanford study, the RAND Corporation found that the link between “shall-issue laws” and “total homicides, firearm homicides, robberies, assaults, and rapes is inconclusive.” Which, of course, it would be, given that, as data from Texas and Florida show, concealed carriers are so law-abiding that they commit crime at one-sixth the rate of the police.

Re: UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

4
sikacz wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:37 pm Not another british opinion. The people who ban butter knives.
Maybe but..
If these became law, around a third of Americans would live in states where it was legal to carry guns around without any need for a licence or training.
Don't ya think this would be a good idea? I mean, works for a driver's license...Particularly when the 'training' offered now is often a waste of time, like my CCWP 'class' was...Some sort of a modicum of 'training'...

Re: UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

5
...as data from Texas and Florida show, concealed carriers are so law-abiding that they commit crime at one-sixth the rate of the police.
American streets are not running with blood as predicted by anti-gunners when FL became the first state to liberalize concealed carry. Brits and other Europeans vacation in FL and other US states and I don't remember reading about them boycotting a state because of its gun laws. Some people in the UK don't understand US constitutional rights since they don't have a written constitution.

I'm not an advocate for permitless carry, I think training is important. I am an advocate for shall issue carry.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

6
F4FEver wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:14 am
sikacz wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:37 pm Not another british opinion. The people who ban butter knives.
Maybe but..
If these became law, around a third of Americans would live in states where it was legal to carry guns around without any need for a licence or training.
Don't ya think this would be a good idea? I mean, works for a driver's license...Particularly when the 'training' offered now is often a waste of time, like my CCWP 'class' was...Some sort of a modicum of 'training'...
Texas has not had a training requirement even with the current carry license. It has a proficiency test. That is a bit different than the words you use. No I don't think mandated training is a good idea. Cars are not tools used for self defense and are not constitutionally noted in the bill of rights. I don't care a flying flip about british or european opinions on our gun laws. That all said, I believe in encouraging all gun owners to seek education and practice gun safety. How they get that I leave up to the individual. Anyone I've shown how to shoot is perfectly safe as long as they keep in mind what I've shown them. I'm not a certified anything, but I practice the four rules and have passed the same proficiency shooting test as Texas law enforcement officers.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

8
The assertions made in Cook's article are simply easily rebutted.
The fact that people with concealed carry permits have NOT been, AFAIK, involved in mass shootings, other than as "The Good Guy" isn't an argument AGAINST CCPs, but, in fact, for them. How many mass shooters have concealed their weapons, before murdering? None of THEM had CCPs, of course.

When one looks at states with restrictive vs unrestrictive laws, it is hard to see a trend toward less gun violence UNLESS one factors in population and population density. Wyoming, with less than 600,000 people, has a 2021 gun death rate per 100,000 of 17.5 deaths, and, in 2018, had 101 gun deaths.
New Jersey, my state, with 8.9 million people has a 2021 gun death per 100K of 5.5--less than 1/3 of Wyoming's, and 485 gun deaths in 2018.
Even in my county, Essex, with 800,000 people, which includes Newark, the violent crime capital of the county and state, the gun death rate per 100,000 is 13.1-- lower than Wyoming's!

So the argument that restrictive gun laws have no effect on gun crime is hard to support in the face of such evidence...and while there are a few exceptions, you will find that in state after state these trends will hold. Yet this unproven, undocumented, un-statistically-supported assertion keeps being used again and again. It's simply an "Alternative Fact".

We can play "echo chamber" all we like but it gets us nowhere. I'm all in favor of strong, training-required, SHALL issue permitting. It doesn't have to be easy (shouldn't be), but it cannot be arbitrary as "May Issue" is, especially in my state. Hell, even the Firearm Purchase ID is far more arbitrary than it should be.
"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."--George Carlin

Re: UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

10
sikacz wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:21 am
F4FEver wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:14 am
sikacz wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:37 pm Not another british opinion. The people who ban butter knives.
Maybe but..
If these became law, around a third of Americans would live in states where it was legal to carry guns around without any need for a licence or training.
Don't ya think this would be a good idea? I mean, works for a driver's license...Particularly when the 'training' offered now is often a waste of time, like my CCWP 'class' was...Some sort of a modicum of 'training'...
Texas has not had a training requirement even with the current carry license. It has a proficiency test. That is a bit different than the words you use. No I don't think mandated training is a good idea. Cars are not tools used for self defense and are not constitutionally noted in the bill of rights. I don't care a flying flip about british or european opinions on our gun laws. That all said, I believe in encouraging all gun owners to seek education and practice gun safety. How they get that I leave up to the individual. Anyone I've shown how to shoot is perfectly safe as long as they keep in mind what I've shown them. I'm not a certified anything, but I practice the four rules and have passed the same proficiency shooting test as Texas law enforcement officers.
When I got my CHL many ,years ago I had to show proficiency. The only way I could have shown the proficiency was by having had training somewhere in the past. Just like when I got my driver license back in the dark ages I had to show proficiency in driving to a DPS officer sitting in the seat beside me. In both cases they didn't care where I got my training. But the fact I showed proficiency in the operation and safe techniques in the handling of the firearm/car demonstrated I had some training in their operation.

The Texas CHL certification class I took you had to have already shown proficiency before sitting for the class. They briefly went over the four rules. They went more in depth about the legal and some what moral obligations of carrying a firearm. They gave scenarios of real life situations of when to and not to draw and shoot. Also covered the legal ramifications of shooting someone. They covered the safe storage of firearms bth at home and in a vehicle. Also the laws of where you can and can't carry a gun.

What worries me about the permitless carry is the people that just think they need a gun because of those other people (Liberals, POC and anybody they don't like) threatening them. They go out and buy a gun and carry it thinking they know what to do because they watched Clint Eastwood and Mel Gibson movies along with a few youtube videos. Then wind up shooting an innocent person or they shoot themselves because they don't have the training or shown proficiency in handling and safety of firearms.

The argument about guns and the second amendment. The Constitution was put into effect 232 years ago. Back then most men had an idea how to handle and shoot a firearm. We had just been through a war of independence where many men fought in the war. We didn't want a standing Army for various reasons including the cost. There was also many who remembered what happened after the Battle of Culloden in 1745 and the occupation of Scotland by Lord Cumberland and the British Army, where the land was pillaged and all weapons of war were forbidden including firearms. So our funding fathers added the Second Amendment. Later laws in 1903 has the National Guard becoming the regulated militia. Also even when the Second Amendment was added there was a large group of people denied that right, but they only counted a 3/5 of a person so it wasn't a universal right. Even today there are the States, Counties, and cities where you have to go on bended knee and beg then pay the lord high Sheriff or Chief to get a card that allows you too purchase a gun. As long as you can fill out the Form 4473 and pass the background check you should be able to buy all the guns you want. As for carrying a handgun concealed or open carry you should need to have a CHL. At least to show that you have shown proficiency in handling and safety, have been exposed to the laws on where not to carry and the leagal ramifications of the use of the firearm.
Last edited by TrueTexan on Sun May 16, 2021 1:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Re: UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

11
highdesert wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:59 am I agree the streets aren't flowing with blood in permitless states, but we don't have stats on who carries without a permit, there are stats on people with permits. I suspect a lot of the gun deaths in Wyoming are suicides, the state is in the suicide belt.
Since nationally, 60% of all gun deaths are suicides, which make up 51% of all suicides, it is a safe assumption about Wyoming or New Jersey.
"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."--George Carlin

Re: UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

12
'Why are we not subsidizing guns?' OAN guest says white people deserve free guns to protect them from BLM

Conservative activist Rogan O'Handley argued over the weekend that the government should provide firearm subsidies so that people can protect themselves from "looting, violence and murder" that he blamed on Black Lives Matter.

O'Handley made the remarks while appearing on OAN, a conservative news channel.

"America owns more guns than 50% of the planet," O'Handley said. "There are more guns than people in this country. God bless the Second Amendment and our Founding Fathers. I am absolutely loving seeing these huge, huge gun numbers."

The conservative activist went on to praise first-time gun buyers who fear Black Lives Matter protests..

"People that have never owned a gun in their life are looking around and seeing BLM and antifa burning down courthouses, police stations... looting, violence, murder," he said. "And they're saying, you know what? Maybe I have to look at protecting myself and my family. Maybe I should start exercising my constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

O'Handley added: "And I will say I'm in the camp where I think we should actually have subsidies for gun ownership in this country. You know, we subsidize schools, housing, everything. Why are we not subsidizing guns? That's a constitutional right and one of the most important. Very happy to see these huge numbers."
https://www.rawstory.com/gun-subsidies-for-individuals/

Crackpots like this are one big reason others call for Gun Control. Subsidizing gun sales would not only be for Rightwing Assholes but also for POC. Now we know that he wants the subsidizing for TFG supporting rightwing white people only.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Re: UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

13
sikacz wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:21 am
F4FEver wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:14 am
sikacz wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:37 pm Not another british opinion. The people who ban butter knives.
Maybe but..
If these became law, around a third of Americans would live in states where it was legal to carry guns around without any need for a licence or training.
Don't ya think this would be a good idea? I mean, works for a driver's license...Particularly when the 'training' offered now is often a waste of time, like my CCWP 'class' was...Some sort of a modicum of 'training'...
Texas has not had a training requirement even with the current carry license. It has a proficiency test. That is a bit different than the words you use. No I don't think mandated training is a good idea. Cars are not tools used for self defense and are not constitutionally noted in the bill of rights. I don't care a flying flip about british or european opinions on our gun laws. That all said, I believe in encouraging all gun owners to seek education and practice gun safety. How they get that I leave up to the individual. Anyone I've shown how to shoot is perfectly safe as long as they keep in mind what I've shown them. I'm not a certified anything, but I practice the four rules and have passed the same proficiency shooting test as Texas law enforcement officers.
I LIKE that idea..a test..which 'should' be preceded by training. Whether or not something is in the constitution shouldn't preclude training to own. The constitution mandates freedom of assembly, but permits are often required. The constitution mandates freedom to travel..but again, if that travel is in a vehicle, training and a license is required.

Glad you train well but last WE, up in the National Forest..a group of HEAVILY armed people demonstrated anything but proper use of a firearm. "Leaving it up to the individual' often means..ZERO...the 'word' is 7 or so million this lest year(altho not sure how anybody knows that), who, 'armed' with a clean record and a credit card, have bought a gun.

Re: UK's The Economist on US states' permitless carry laws

14
TrueTexan wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:12 pm
'Why are we not subsidizing guns?' OAN guest says white people deserve free guns to protect them from BLM

Conservative activist Rogan O'Handley argued over the weekend that the government should provide firearm subsidies so that people can protect themselves from "looting, violence and murder" that he blamed on Black Lives Matter.

O'Handley made the remarks while appearing on OAN, a conservative news channel.

"America owns more guns than 50% of the planet," O'Handley said. "There are more guns than people in this country. God bless the Second Amendment and our Founding Fathers. I am absolutely loving seeing these huge, huge gun numbers."

The conservative activist went on to praise first-time gun buyers who fear Black Lives Matter protests..

"People that have never owned a gun in their life are looking around and seeing BLM and antifa burning down courthouses, police stations... looting, violence, murder," he said. "And they're saying, you know what? Maybe I have to look at protecting myself and my family. Maybe I should start exercising my constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

O'Handley added: "And I will say I'm in the camp where I think we should actually have subsidies for gun ownership in this country. You know, we subsidize schools, housing, everything. Why are we not subsidizing guns? That's a constitutional right and one of the most important. Very happy to see these huge numbers."
https://www.rawstory.com/gun-subsidies-for-individuals/

Crackpots like this are one big reason others call for Gun Control. Subsidizing gun sales would not only be for Rightwing Assholes but also for POC. Now we know that he wants the subsidizing for TFG supporting rightwing white people only.
I'm armed to protect myself from the various MAGAts and white supremacists, and trumpistas..ya know, the seditionists....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron