Why are some gun owners afraid of permitless concealed carry?

[mrjarrell]

That's the question David Codrea is asking in one of his latest. A Kentucky legislator is set to introduce a bill that would make carrying without a permit the law of the land. Just like Vermont, Arizona and Alaska have. Of course the usual suspects are out and about and against it, but the perplexing opponents are the gunowners who are against it. What have they got to lose but their shackles? Maybe one of these days some Indiana legislator will have the courage to introduce such a bill. Not going to hold my breath, tho.

Why are some gun owners afraid of permitless concealed carry? - National gun rights | Examiner.com

 

[Expat]

I think it is hard for some people to get away from the fallacy that criminals obey gun laws. So as long was we have to have a permit, criminals can't get a permit, so they won't carry a gun. Of course all of us are aware how sill this is.

I think some of us are also a bit conceited and do think, I should be able to carry, but I am not so sure about the rest of you.

 

[Mrkeller]

I think it's pretty stupid that we have to pay for the right to bear arms. Can you really consider it a right if you have to pay for it?

 

[indyjoe]

It is very similar to the idea that 90% of the drivers on the road think they are in the top 30% as far as skill goes.

 

[Lex Concord]

Wow....I might need to move to the Commonwealth of Kentucky...I'll be watching this closely...

 

[Disposable Heart]

It is very similar to the idea that 90% of the drivers on the road think they are in the top 30% as far as skill goes.

This.

Unfortunately, I am one of those folks that believes in a permit. Scream and yell all you want, but it's me. Realistically, given alot of the gun owners (not shooters) that I have met or seen, I would also be more comfortable with them going to a class as well.

Its like anything else technological or potentially dangerous: I am shocked as to folks and their "knowledge" of firearms. Would I want a 6 year old driving a car? No. But without training and "direction" (such as classes or permits), an adult will have the same mindset and lack of knowledge of the firearm's capability or safety instruction. Having folks ask the ROs I work with stuff like "this thing takes batteries?" when the slide is ajar (out of battery). Also, folks posting videos on youTube of their wife setting off a gun and either having it slam into their head or having it aimed in a poor direction.

Darwinism IS NOT a good idea sometimes, particularly if lets say your children are playing in the yard when some hilljack accidentally shoots off a round b/c he didn't bother to read the manual. The good ol days of folks learning to shoot properly from parents are gone, replaced with "I gotta have a gun befo' Obummer gets rid of 'em". Simple situation laced with someone who never knows what a gun is capable. For the one person that comes to a range and actually gets help in learning to shoot and maintain and safety from me, there are a thousand who wont, cannot or are egotistically opposed to getting help.

Folks can scream at me about regulation of common sense and human behavior. I understand. But the days of common sense are over. Some regulation in regards to carry and purchase (such as background checks) are necessary in my mind.

Now, that is my opinion. Realistically, I would love nothing more than all gun laws gone, period, no more laws on weapons. But, with the average intellect level and general common sense going into the gutter, then some things have to be done.

I bet I will get innundated with neg rep or things like "libtard" or "I bet you are for gun control aren't you" and other knee jerk reactions. The above is my opinion, based on a very narrow view and a very narrow worldview. Take it with a mountain of compressed salt and treat it as such.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

I gave you some positive rep to help offset the negative that might come your way. I may not agreee 100%, but I appreciate you taking a stand and sharing it.

 

[Prometheus]

This.

Unfortunately, I am one of those folks that believes in a permit. Scream and yell all you want, but it's me. Realistically, given alot of the gun owners (not shooters) that I have met or seen, I would also be more comfortable with them going to a class as well.

I bet I will get innundated with neg rep or things like "libtard" or "I bet you are for gun control aren't you" and other knee jerk reactions. The above is my opinion, based on a very narrow view and a very narrow worldview. Take it with a mountain of compressed salt and treat it as such.

Comments like Libtard, ignorant or clueless would be well deserved.

Look at your argument. Here in Indiana the only requirement for getting a LTCH is money... and yet you still like and want the permit scheme?

Why should my Rights be contingent upon what makes you "feel good" any more so than what makes a total anti-gunner "feel good".

I'm doing my best to temper my response. Lets start charging a tax to vote, to go to church, to be safe from illegals searches or seizures!

Don't you realize how INSANE those ideas are!?!?!

Your feelings are incompatible with those of a Constitutional Republic.

My unalienable Rights are NOT predicated upon your feelings!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This.

Unfortunately, I am one of those folks that believes in a permit. Scream and yell all you want, but it's me. Realistically, given alot of the gun owners (not shooters) that I have met or seen, I would also be more comfortable with them going to a class as well.

Its like anything else technological or potentially dangerous: I am shocked as to folks and their "knowledge" of firearms. Would I want a 6 year old driving a car? No. But without training and "direction" (such as classes or permits), an adult will have the same mindset and lack of knowledge of the firearm's capability or safety instruction. Having folks ask the ROs I work with stuff like "this thing takes batteries?" when the slide is ajar (out of battery). Also, folks posting videos on youTube of their wife setting off a gun and either having it slam into their head or having it aimed in a poor direction.

Darwinism IS NOT a good idea sometimes, particularly if lets say your children are playing in the yard when some hilljack accidentally shoots off a round b/c he didn't bother to read the manual. The good ol days of folks learning to shoot properly from parents are gone, replaced with "I gotta have a gun befo' Obummer gets rid of 'em". Simple situation laced with someone who never knows what a gun is capable. For the one person that comes to a range and actually gets help in learning to shoot and maintain and safety from me, there are a thousand who wont, cannot or are egotistically opposed to getting help.

Folks can scream at me about regulation of common sense and human behavior. I understand. But the days of common sense are over. Some regulation in regards to carry and purchase (such as background checks) are necessary in my mind.

Now, that is my opinion. Realistically, I would love nothing more than all gun laws gone, period, no more laws on weapons. But, with the average intellect level and general common sense going into the gutter, then some things have to be done.

I bet I will get innundated with neg rep or things like "libtard" or "I bet you are for gun control aren't you" and other knee jerk reactions. The above is my opinion, based on a very narrow view and a very narrow worldview. Take it with a mountain of compressed salt and treat it as such.

Not going to call you names, but what part of "right to keep and bear arms" don't you understand?

 

[Disposable Heart]

Comments like Libtard, ignorant or clueless would be well deserved.

Look at your argument. Here in Indiana the only requirement for getting a LTCH is money... and yet you still like and want the permit scheme?

Why should my Rights be contingent upon what makes you "feel good" any more so than what makes a total anti-gunner "feel good".

I'm doing my best to temper my response. Lets start charging a tax to vote, to go to church, to be safe from illegals searches or seizures!

Don't you realize how INSANE those ideas are!?!?!

Your feelings are incompatible with those of a Constitutional Republic.

My unalienable Rights are NOT predicated upon your feelings!

Feelings? Maybe. Hard facts? Yes.

they are not based on my "feelings" like the first few pages of posts after someone puts something in the Politics section. The fact is this: Firearms are dangerous in unknowledgeable hands. Period. No getting around that fact. Would you want folks that are unwilling to learn about guns buying them and shooting them all over the place because they "dont know nun-better?"

How about accidents? Accidents happen, yes. But most are due to lack of responsiblity or training on part of the owner. How many folks here actually think that the millions of guns sold every year are going to someone who knows the same about guns as one of us on a forum?

I actually expected a better rebuttal, and have yet to get one. Using "Insane" and similar to counter an arguement, other than knee jerk reaction, will not win over fence sitter, nor the anti-s. While some of my views are anti, they are based in my experience of the world. I gave my opinion on the matter. While not a "good" one, I respect your rights and opinions. Am I out beating the streets for the cause for permits? No. But if asked, I will state what I believe.

Also: Voting taxes aren't based in the same concept as above. Firearm carry permits are based upon folk's lack of knowledge of firearms. Voting taxes are based upon racism.

 

[cosermann]

... The fact is this: Firearms are dangerous in unknowledgeable hands. ...

So are unknowledgeable votes; arguably more dangerous than firearms.

Hitler was voted into office by unknowledgeable voters and over 60 million people died as a result. Yet, where are the required classes and education on critical thinking before you can vote?

Obama was also voted into office largely by ignorant voters. The full extent of the damage he may cause remains to be seen.

"The pen is mightier than the sword." True enough. Immeasurable dammage has been done by the writings of many. Yet, where are the classes on responsible expression before you can exercise your free speech rights?

Furthermore, training and education are no cure for stupid as I'm reminded by other driver's (who've gone through the licensing process) every day.

Risk is part of the cost of liberty and I'm fine with that. It's better than the alternative.

I'd be fine with Vermont-style carry, as long as a piece of paper could be issued upon request, for reciprocity purposes.

 

[cowboywitek]

it would be so much better to carry without a permit.... its not like criminals dont already, why not law abiding citizens?

 

[jbombelli]

Some people just can't be comfortable without their shackles and chains. They trade liberty for the illusion of safety, and deserve neither liberty NOR safety.

In my opinion, those people are but feeble, lackluster, namby pamby imitations of Americans.

 

[DarkRose]

This.

Unfortunately, I am one of those folks that believes in a permit. Scream and yell all you want, but it's me. Realistically, given alot of the gun owners (not shooters) that I have met or seen, I would also be more comfortable with them going to a class as well.

Its like anything else technological or potentially dangerous: I am shocked as to folks and their "knowledge" of firearms. Would I want a 6 year old driving a car? No. But without training and "direction" (such as classes or permits), an adult will have the same mindset and lack of knowledge of the firearm's capability or safety instruction. Having folks ask the ROs I work with stuff like "this thing takes batteries?" when the slide is ajar (out of battery). Also, folks posting videos on youTube of their wife setting off a gun and either having it slam into their head or having it aimed in a poor direction.

Darwinism IS NOT a good idea sometimes, particularly if lets say your children are playing in the yard when some hilljack accidentally shoots off a round b/c he didn't bother to read the manual. The good ol days of folks learning to shoot properly from parents are gone, replaced with "I gotta have a gun befo' Obummer gets rid of 'em". Simple situation laced with someone who never knows what a gun is capable. For the one person that comes to a range and actually gets help in learning to shoot and maintain and safety from me, there are a thousand who wont, cannot or are egotistically opposed to getting help.

Folks can scream at me about regulation of common sense and human behavior. I understand. But the days of common sense are over. Some regulation in regards to carry and purchase (such as background checks) are necessary in my mind.

Now, that is my opinion. Realistically, I would love nothing more than all gun laws gone, period, no more laws on weapons. But, with the average intellect level and general common sense going into the gutter, then some things have to be done.

I bet I will get innundated with neg rep or things like "libtard" or "I bet you are for gun control aren't you" and other knee jerk reactions. The above is my opinion, based on a very narrow view and a very narrow worldview. Take it with a mountain of compressed salt and treat it as such.

I tend to agree mostly with this. I agree it's a right, but...

Why do you have to have a license (permit) to drive a car? Because by doing so, you've proved that you're competant and capable to operate one (I could argue this myself seeing a lot of the other drivers on the road, but still...)

Why is owning/carrying a gun a right, and driving a car is not? If "horseless carriages" were around when the Constitution was written, might there have been mention of them also?

But nowadays with the instant phone-in NICS check (sp?), I don't think permits are as neccessary as they once were. You can find out the difference between criminal and non-criminal with a phone call.

I guess I might be on the fence about it, now that I type my thoughts out... Everything has pros and cons.

 

[Lucas156]

The permit is crap I hope they get rid of it. And Disposable Heart-you are wrong on many levels and its very disappointing to see a fellow gun owner have that viewpoint.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This.

Unfortunately, I am one of those folks that believes in a permit. Scream and yell all you want, but it's me. Realistically, given alot of the gun owners (not shooters) that I have met or seen, I would also be more comfortable with them going to a class as well.

Its like anything else technological or potentially dangerous: I am shocked as to folks and their "knowledge" of firearms. Would I want a 6 year old driving a car? No. But without training and "direction" (such as classes or permits), an adult will have the same mindset and lack of knowledge of the firearm's capability or safety instruction. Having folks ask the ROs I work with stuff like "this thing takes batteries?" when the slide is ajar (out of battery). Also, folks posting videos on youTube of their wife setting off a gun and either having it slam into their head or having it aimed in a poor direction.

Darwinism IS NOT a good idea sometimes, particularly if lets say your children are playing in the yard when some hilljack accidentally shoots off a round b/c he didn't bother to read the manual. The good ol days of folks learning to shoot properly from parents are gone, replaced with "I gotta have a gun befo' Obummer gets rid of 'em". Simple situation laced with someone who never knows what a gun is capable. For the one person that comes to a range and actually gets help in learning to shoot and maintain and safety from me, there are a thousand who wont, cannot or are egotistically opposed to getting help.

Folks can scream at me about regulation of common sense and human behavior. I understand. But the days of common sense are over. Some regulation in regards to carry and purchase (such as background checks) are necessary in my mind.

Now, that is my opinion. Realistically, I would love nothing more than all gun laws gone, period, no more laws on weapons. But, with the average intellect level and general common sense going into the gutter, then some things have to be done.

I bet I will get innundated with neg rep or things like "libtard" or "I bet you are for gun control aren't you" and other knee jerk reactions. The above is my opinion, based on a very narrow view and a very narrow worldview. Take it with a mountain of compressed salt and treat it as such.

DH:
Brave guy to post this, especially here. I agree that training should be promoted but never required. I would agree with (if indeed we must have the LTCH) either paying for it or showing that some level of training from a competent source has been received. I don't agree with the LTCH requirement, but I have to acknowledge that it is precisely because we have it that we are able to point to statistics that show LTCH/CCW/CFP/whatever holders are among the most law-abiding people in the nation. Edit: This is not a justification for the LTCH, it simply shows that it has had an unintended and beneficial (for us) consequence. I think it's now served its purpose and needs to be gone.

I'd be comfortable with contacting the various firearms manufacturers and requesting that they make the case that their guns are carried in with the Four Rules molded into the plastic or cut into the wood of the case, the idea being that if we can at least get the Four Rules out there for people who aren't on online forums or otherwise exposed, we might prevent some of the negligent discharges.

Part of where we disagree however, is in the point you made about common sense being gone. While this may be and in some cases is clearly true, the answer is not to regulate people into mental numbness but to guide them so that they DO learn not what to think but how to do so. Hold people responsible for their actions, not in the "court of public opinion", but in a court of law; if your example-hilljack shoots and kills a kid, nothing in the world will bring that kid back, but no amount of excuse or "accident" or "I didun git no trainin'!" should be acceptable either.

When I bought my first handgun for carry, I would only carry it around my house, and unloaded. As my confidence in myself grew, I put a loaded mag in it. Eventually, I was willing to carry outside. We all know the "EVERYONE CAN TELL!!!!!" feeling that goes with that, but once I was comfortable doing so, I began carrying with a chambered round. It was a process. In the meantime, I've also done my dry fire practice, a world of reading and self-education, not to mention actual range time.

I don't expect everyone to do that and I certainly don't expect someone to do it after their first purchase, but if I got a manual with a gun, I've read it cover to cover and most of them more than once. (I didn't get a manual with my Mosins. )

Now...I've had some professional training with my guns, but you're telling me that I have to go get more or that even if I'm moderately adequate, I now have to return to "This is a revolver and this is a semi-automatic, which means...."? In addition, you address a good point that people should be trained in the use of a deadly weapon, but I don't see any method you offer for how to prevent the incrementalism government is so well known for implementing. In addition, I don't see where you've addressed the fact that Indiana, with no training requirement, has more incidents per capita occur that could be mitigated by more training, than, say, Los Angeles, CA, or Hoboken, NJ with their strict training requirements.

Address those issues and prevent government from further overstepping their bounds and we might have something to discuss. Until that happens, I'll stay closer to the "repeal all gun laws" camp.

BTW, I'm adding rep to you for calmly and rationally (not to mention bravely!) stating your opinion and even stating it as such. It's not fact, it's opinion. I respect that.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I tend to agree mostly with this. I agree it's a right, but...

Why do you have to have a license (permit) to drive a car? Because by doing so, you've proved that you're competant and capable to operate one (I could argue this myself seeing a lot of the other drivers on the road, but still...)

Why is owning/carrying a gun a right, and driving a car is not? If "horseless carriages" were around when the Constitution was written, might there have been mention of them also?

But nowadays with the instant phone-in NICS check (sp?), I don't think permits are as neccessary as they once were. You can find out the difference between criminal and non-criminal with a phone call.

I guess I might be on the fence about it, now that I type my thoughts out... Everything has pros and cons.

Your "but" is showing. "I agree it's a right, but...." means you're invalidating everything before the "but".

Was there a permit required back then to own a horse and/or a buggy, or to use them on the public roads?

There was not. Those clearly existed. The Founders understood that a conveyance for travel was not a right. Travel itself is. One need not own a conveyance to travel, however to mount effective self-defense or to combat a tyrannical government, weapons are necessary. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Eddie]

I tend to agree mostly with this. I agree it's a right, but...

Why do you have to have a license (permit) to drive a car? Because by doing so, you've proved that you're competant and capable to operate one (I could argue this myself seeing a lot of the other drivers on the road, but still...)

Why is owning/carrying a gun a right, and driving a car is not? If "horseless carriages" were around when the Constitution was written, might there have been mention of them also?

But nowadays with the instant phone-in NICS check (sp?), I don't think permits are as neccessary as they once were. You can find out the difference between criminal and non-criminal with a phone call.

I guess I might be on the fence about it, now that I type my thoughts out... Everything has pros and cons.

I think that you are both way off base. We should never have to buy a permit from the government to exercise our rights. Our rights aren't based on proving competency or capability; they are about being human beings and having a right to defend ourselves from harm.

Your philosophy is often used by anti-gunners; let's have a permit, let's charge for a permit, let's have a test for a permit, let's make the test really hard, let's only give the test once a year, let's charge money to take the test...

We have to guard all of our rights by pushing back hard at anyone trying to take them away, that might mean filing a lawsuit, writing a letter to an elected official or sounding off on the internet whenever someone advocates taking away freedom.

 

[88GT]

This.

Unfortunately, I am one of those folks that believes in a permit. Scream and yell all you want, but it's me. Realistically, given alot of the gun owners (not shooters) that I have met or seen, I would also be more comfortable with them going to a class as well.

Doesn't mean a damn thing. You do not have the power or authority (in other words, the right) to limit the exercise of someone else's rights. Regardless of your mere opinion about how they do it.

Its like anything else technological or potentially dangerous: I am shocked as to folks and their "knowledge" of firearms. Would I want a 6 year old driving a car? No. But without training and "direction" (such as classes or permits), an adult will have the same mindset and lack of knowledge of the firearm's capability or safety instruction. Having folks ask the ROs I work with stuff like "this thing takes batteries?" when the slide is ajar (out of battery). Also, folks posting videos on youTube of their wife setting off a gun and either having it slam into their head or having it aimed in a poor direction.

You can't make stupid illegal. Which is essentially what you're trying to do. Do you also support classes and mandatory permitting for becoming a parent? Far more is at stake and the risks are exponentially greater than mere firearm ownership. Tell me, what makes it okay to tell someone she has to get permission from the State to own/purchase/carry a firearm, but she can spread her legs as often as she wants to make her welfare check greater (exaggerating for effect) without so much as a head turn from the powers that be. *MY* experience with the general population is that women on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale tend to make less desirable parents while simultaneously accounting for a disproportionate number of child abuse and neglect charges. So let's require ALL women to participate and pay for training and permits. We'll even have quotas associated with the permits so that the smarter and more well-off women can birth more babies. Actually, this might be the way to outbreed the libs. We'll require a basic civics test too with a minimum score to pass. Actually, I'm liking this idea.

Darwinism IS NOT a good idea sometimes, particularly if lets say your children are playing in the yard when some hilljack accidentally shoots off a round b/c he didn't bother to read the manual. The good ol days of folks learning to shoot properly from parents are gone, replaced with "I gotta have a gun befo' Obummer gets rid of 'em". Simple situation laced with someone who never knows what a gun is capable. For the one person that comes to a range and actually gets help in learning to shoot and maintain and safety from me, there are a thousand who wont, cannot or are egotistically opposed to getting help.

As if firearms ownership is a mental disorder that needs treating.

Folks can scream at me about regulation of common sense and human behavior. I understand. But the days of common sense are over. Some regulation in regards to carry and purchase (such as background checks) are necessary in my mind.

And how many crimes have those regulations actually prevented? Is not the man intent on committing a crime with a gun likely to disregard the fact that he may not be legally allowed to own/purchase one? I'm pretty sure I've never heard of a situation where the fellow in question had this internal dialogue: "Damn that b****. I could kill her. That's it. I'm gonna go over there and shoot her and that lazy, good-for-nothing assclown she's banging now. Oh, wait. I don't have a gun and my felony conviction precludes me from getting one. Even if I borrowed one, I'd be committing a crime simply for possessing it. Well, hell's bells. Guess I'll go have a cold one and calm down and hope a tornado takes out her trailer."

Now, that is my opinion. Realistically, I would love nothing more than all gun laws gone, period, no more laws on weapons. But, with the average intellect level and general common sense going into the gutter, then some things have to be done.

With all due respect, who are you to determine whom is smart enough to own and carry? And do you not see the door that opens to keeping other out for other reasons. Say, they attend a synagogue instead of a church. Or they vote for certain candidates and not others.

The problem isn't that you're wrong in your assumptions about the need for a collectively smarter society. The problem is that dumbing down the laws for the lowest common denominator puts an unfair burden on those of us who don't need it.

Besides, errors in judgment of the kind you mistakenly think can be legislated away by permit and training requirements usually come in the form of some other violation of law. Dude, did you not read the other threads about crimes needing victims and whether or not laws actually deter crime? Cuz you know that law prohibiting murder is so effective.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

(Snipped)

Also: Voting taxes aren't based in the same concept as above. Firearm carry permits are based upon folk's lack of knowledge of firearms. Voting taxes are based upon racism.

Absolutely wrong! Poll taxes, at heart, are an attempt to deny some segment of the polity their right to have a say in the government. Carry permits are the same thing; they deny a segment of the population their right to bear arms. I don't even agree that criminals should be stripped of their right to bear arms or any other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights ; there should be other remedies (anyone killed while in commission of a felony is bought and paid for, for instance).