How many CCW licenses do you have?

[FatSlob]

Easy question. How many carry licenses do you have? What states are they from?

I have 3.

1. Pennsylvania
2. Ohio
3. New Hampshire.

[FeebMaster]

1. None. (nt)

[OpSomBlood]

2. Florida.

But last time I checked it is valid in 20 other states.

[enfield collector]

3. none.

I'm very pro-2A but don't feel the need to carry. I'm fine with anyone carrying that feels they need to and might get a CCW to avoid all the NICS hassle.

[FatSlob]

5. That's the beauty...

It is a choice. I have both the desire to carry and the need to carry, so I can and do. You don't feel that you have to. Isn't it great when law abiding citizens can make a choice?

[CO Liberal]

6. Nope

Not when one group of citizens can choose to something that puts other citizens in peril.

[jtb33]

7. Like driving a car?

As for me, I don't want my co-worker, Ted, driving near me because he's a HORRIBLE driver and puts my life in danger each time he gets behind the wheen of his car (not to mention everyone else). HE needs to be the one to stop driving - period.

[OpSomBlood]

8. 6 million accidents, 2 million injuries, 38,000 fatalities per year.

Where are the calls to ban cars? Gun injuries seem rather insignificant in comparison.

[CO Liberal]

11. Most of the Time, Cars Are Used Without Resulting in Death or Injury

When compared on an injury-per-usage basis, I'm sure guns would be shown as far more dangerous than cars.

[FeebMaster]

15. Most of the time, guns are used without resulting in death or injury.

Funny how that works.


"When compared on an injury-per-usage basis, I'm sure guns would be shown as far more dangerous than cars."

I don't know about that. How many billions of rounds of ammunition are fired per year in this country? How many hit people?

[CO Liberal]

19. How Many Cars Are Driven That Don't Hit People?

:shrug:

[FeebMaster]

20. How many bullets are fired that don't hit people?

:shrug:

We can do this all day.

[CO Liberal]

22. Then Stop The Inane "Apples & Oranges" Comparisons

There's just about as senseless as the NRA leadership.

[FeebMaster]

23. I was just replying to you.

Most of the Time, Cars Are Used Without Resulting in Death or Injury

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x54539#54556

[CO Liberal]

24. And I Was Responding to Post #7

All too often, pro-gunners try to cloud the issue by bringing items like cars, swimming pools, and baseball bats into the conversation.

[FeebMaster]

26. Actually, you responded to post #8.

Clouding the issue with cars, swimming pools, and baseball bats is no worse than clouding it with AK-47s, Uzis, and bazookas.

[CO Liberal]

28. Those All Fire Objects at Other Objects

Cars, swimming pools and baseball bats have other purposes.

[FeebMaster]

29. Right.

Can't argue with that.

[Township75]

33. but they kill people too..

much like guns do.

I think it shows what a complete smoke screen the "saving lives" line is by anti gunners. If you want to save lives, you shouldn't start with guns.

[Township75]

32. No Way!!

Go to a gun range, and count how many rounds get reloads people go through. Everytime they reload very likely no one gets hurt.

[CO Liberal]

34. Gun Ranges Are to Guns Like Parking Lots Are to Cars

What are the stats when guns are carried and used in the real world??

[Township75]

36. No they are not...

guns are used at gun ranges, cars are often parking lots because they are not being used. How is that the same.

And guns are carried and used at ranges.

So it is better to say gun ranges are to guns like roads are to cars.

I am willing to bet there is a higher % of people injured/killed using cars on roads, than the % of people killed/injured with guns at gun ranges.

[CO Liberal]

37. But Gun Ranges Are Unreal, Controlled Conditions....

...that have no bearing on the real world.

[Township75]

38. If they have no bearing then you shouldn't have brough them up...

in your analogy.

[CO Liberal]

39. YOU Brought Them Up - In Post 32

[Township75]

40. YOU used them in YOUR analogy, and then when it was refuted...

stated that they were unreal or something.

[CO Liberal]

55. My Analogy Was A Response to Your Post

Please stop confusing the issue.

[DoNotRefill]

49. given that there are fewer than 1000 accidental firearms death annually...

in the US, and something like 38,000 accidental automobile deaths annually, I'd have to say that in the "real world", cars cause far more accidental carnage in the US than guns. Wouldn't you?

[CO Liberal]

56. And How Many INTENTIONAL Firearm Deaths???

As a percentage of firearm uses? I believe that honest statistical analisis (as opposed to the "analysis" generally provided by John Lott/Mary Rosh) will conform that guns are one of the deadliest objects of all, when in the wrong hands.

[FeebMaster]

64. Well how do you want to do things CO?

Number of Deaths / number of rounds fired?
number of deaths / number of guns in the country?
number of deaths / number of gun owners?

Since you said intentional firearms deaths as a percentage of firearms uses, I'd go with the first one, since each round fired is a use.

Were we just talking deaths or all firearms injuries? We'll go all out and say all firearms injuries, which was, what, around 100,000.

100,000 casualties / 10,000,000,000 rounds fired = 0.001% or 1 injury for every 100,000 rounds fired.

Now if we go back to just deaths we've got around 30,000 a year (we'll round up and include suicides since the gun grabbers love that sort of thing).

30,000 deaths / 10,000,000,000 rounds fired = 0.0003% or 1 death for every 333,333 thousand rounds fired.

I know. I know. My whole system was flawed. There's no way 10,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition are fired in this country every year. It's definitely much higher than that, probably easily double.

Was that honest or would you prefer a different system?

[CO Liberal]

68. I'd Prefer Real Data

If anyone has it.

[FeebMaster]

74. As far as I know, they don't keep track

of that sort of thing anymore. According to the VPC the value of ammunition manufactured in 1992 was $449 million (calculated from the federal excise tax on ammunition). Here's some information from the Department of the Treasury too.

Now according to the VPC, those numbers are based on the wholesale value of ammunition. At retail, the price of ammunition can vary from a couple cents a round to a couple of dollars a round depending on the caliber and quality.

.50 BMG match ammo can be a few dollars a round here: http://www.impactguns.com/store/tti_amax.html

.22 ammo is around 5 cents a round here: http://www.outdoorguides.com/outdoor/ccir.htm

.223 ammo (the round that goes forever) is around 11 cents a round here: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/product.asp?dept%5Fid=20224&sku=62704&imgid=&mscssid=CGHVR056UFS99NTRTTRDDHRFTK1RBBPE

Here's some 12 gauge buckshot for about a quarter a round: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/product.asp?dept%5Fid=204016&sku=62739&imgid=&mscssid=CGHVR056UFS99NTRTTRDDHRFTK1RBBPE

Here's some bird shot for half that:
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/product.asp?dept%5Fid=204016&sku=62717&imgid=&mscssid=CGHVR056UFS99NTRTTRDDHRFTK1RBBPE


I think it's fair to say that far more .22 ammo, .223 ammo, and 12 gauge ammo is fired than .50 bmg match ammo. I don't know what the average retail price per round of ammunition is, but I don't think it could be more than 20 cents a round. It's probably lower.

Using VPC's 1992 wholesale numbers and 20 cents a round at retail (in 2004 prices), that gives us a bare minimum of 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition sold in 1992. The actual number would be higher since the wholesale price would be lower.

I don't know where VPC got the breakdown of ammo tax collected vs firearm tax collected, but if the ratio of guns/ammo sold in 1992 (about 34.6% of the total tax went toward ammo, if you include the extra $15 million or so that comes in from archery and fishing equipment ) holds for the 2002 Treasury Department numbers (and still assuming a 20 cents per round average) that would give us 3.2 billion rounds in 2002.

So there you have it. I know all of that is full of holes but pretty much every step along the way favored a lower total. The 20 cent a round average, retail pricing vs wholesale pricing, etc. Not to mention it's all based on what the VPC says. Despite all of that we get 3.2 billion rounds in one year. Keep in mind, that's only manufactured ammunition, it doesn't include people who load their own.

Maybe the actual data is available somewhere, but I'm not willing to spend more than the few minutes I've already spent on it. If you still think my 10 billion rounds a year estimate is low, by all means, double or triple or quadruple my final percentages for people wounded vs rounds fired. It still comes out to next to nothing.

[DoNotRefill]

84. Dude....if you're paying .05 a round for .22, you're being ripped off....

it runs less than .02 around here.

[FeebMaster]

86. I didn't want to post a price without proof

and I just grabbed the first link I saw. :)

[DoNotRefill]

83. Well, it depends on if you call suicides intentional....

Even if you do, they still are considerably less than unintentional automobile deaths. As we all know now, suicides are by far the largest percentage of firearms deaths in the US. IIRC, there were fewer than 8,000 murders in the entire US last year, out of a population of 300 million. Do the math.

[DoNotRefill]

48. Well...

considering that there are something like 300 million guns in the US, literally billions of rounds fired annually, and less than a thousand people are killed with guns accidentally annually, I'd say that the statistical likelihood of accidental gun deaths being more numerous than accidental car deaths in some bizarre statistical analysis to be pretty low...Unless, of course, you have some figures to back your statement up....

[DoNotRefill]

47. Please document that.

I'd love to see the numbers you used to come up with that statement.

Or is this another one of those "murders with guns outnumber suicides with guns" statistics?

[CO Liberal]

9. There You People Go With the Apples-and-Oranges Arguments

But answer me this: how many times each year (as a percentage of total car usages) do people use cars WITHOUT killing or injuring anyone?? Compared with gun injuries/deaths per gun usage??

[OpSomBlood]

18. Well, using some rough math...

2 million injuries works out to a hair under 1% of the population. I'd venture to say that significantly less than 1 in 100 Americans gets shot every year.

[RoeBear]

21. It is rather difficult to compare...

...car injuries to gun injuries. Car injuries would best be calculated on a 'per mile' basis. How would you state gun injuries?
Injuries per bullet fired? Injuries per gun? Injuries per gun owner?
Any that you choose would show an incredibly low incidence of injury.

[MrSandman]

30. Well if each gun owner uses a gun only once...

60,000,000 gun owners(I have heard 60 to 80million)/150,000 injuries(an accepted # in other threads * 100 come to:

one-quarter of one percent. That should be a high estimate.

Any statisticians feel free to correct my work.

[CO Liberal]

31. But Many of those Guns Aren't Used Every Day

Millions of cars in in use every hour of every day. How many guns are in use during any given hour?

[Township75]

35. But many cars aren't used every day...

I don't use mine too often. I ride my bike or take the bus.

Face it CO-L, you dug yourself a hole with the cars thing.

[iverglas]

41. what abject crap

Virtually every time a motor vehicle is used, there is the potential for it to kill or injure thousands of people.

I drove a half-dozen blocks to an appointment today, and back again. Along the way, my car could have struck dozens of pedestrians on the sidewalk and in crosswalks, dozens of people sitting in the windows of the buildings on my route, and dozens and dozens of people in other vehicles that I passed en route. Had I taken the expressway, the number of people who were in contact with my car in such a way that they *could* have been killed or injured by it would have been an order of magnitude greater.

The construction of a DANGEROUSNESS INDEX, which is what this disingenuous little conversation is all about, calls for a damned sight more than statistics about deaths and injuries per year to be factored in.

The most important thing that is being overlooked is the notion of contact with the object by which death or injury is caused.

For ME, firearms are virtually 100% "safe", some people would have it. I virtually NEVER come into contact with a firearm -- come within being-shot range of one. I cannot be endangered by something I am never in contact with. For ME, motor vehicles are much more "dangerous", since I am in contact with hundreds if not thousands of them every time I take to the highway, and each one of them represents potential death or injury to me.

But that is not how one determines the "dangerousness" of something in a society. If it were, we would be saying that rattlesnakes are not dangerous: there are no rattlesnakes within a hundred miles of me, so rattlesnakes are not dangerous. Damn, I wonder whether we might all agree that it would be NONSENSE to say that rattlesnakes are not dangerous.

An index of dangerousness -- how dangerous something is on a scale of 1 to 10 -- HAS TO be based on the rate of death/injury PER CONTACT WITH the thing in a situation in which there is the potential for death/injury. And virtually everyone in North America has multiples -- probably thousands -- more such contacts with motor vehicles than with firearms.

As a matter of fact, it was the utter disingenuousness (or dimness; far be it from me to judge) of this ridiculous line of "argument" that prompted my very first post in this forum.


"Face it CO-L, you dug yourself a hole with the cars thing."

The "cars thing" was, I believe, raised by the usual suspects, in the usual dim/disingenuous manner. CO Liberal asked a question that went directly to the heart of the matter (although the issue is not solely how many times the thing in question is used, it is how many possibilities there are of death/injury as a result of use):

"But answer me this: how many times each year (as a percentage of total car usages) do people use cars WITHOUT killing or injuring anyone?? Compared with gun injuries/deaths per gun usage??"

.

[DoNotRefill]

51. Really? That's no mean feat...

"I virtually NEVER come into contact with a firearm -- come within being-shot range of one. I cannot be endangered by something I am never in contact with."

How many cops did you pass within a mile of today? Your average handgun can shoot a bullet 1.5 miles. True, the ACCURATE range is much smaller, but if you're within 1.5 miles of a gun, you can be shot with it.

Every time you go into a courthouse, how many times are you NOT shot despite being within range of all the guns there? I assume your version of bailiffs are indeed armed...

How many houses did you drive by that contained guns and not get shot by them?

Wasn't M. Moore's point in BFC that Canada has as high of a gun ownership rate per capita as the US has? Accepting that as true, what makes you think you're never in range of guns? Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean that they're not there, even in Canada.

[iverglas]

65. Q&A

How many cops did you pass within a mile of today?

Yup, there's cops. Usually, when addressing the contact-with-object issue, I do mention that.

On my drive to my appointment, I was indeed within a mile of the police station. And police do not infrequently drive down my street. Once in a while I see one in the 7-11 on the corner; but since 7-11 jaunts are the c.v.'s job (I don't have the time or patience for the place), that might happen a couple of times a year these days.

My sister's best friend, north of Toronto, is a cop. She'll probably have her service revolver on the block at some point when I'm visiting this weekend.

A true dangerousness index would of course take into account the nature of the objects in question, i.e. things like in whose hands they were. I've never seen a cop unhoster a firearm in Canada, myself. So those firearms would count more as "decoration" than as danger.

Every time you go into a courthouse, how many times are you NOT shot despite being within range of all the guns there?

Since I left practice over a decade ago, I've been in the courthouse fewer than half a dozen times. That's probably more than most people. The only people armed in the courthouse are cops.

Btw, there are no such thing as armed guards in stores or malls here. I mean, maybe in a really ritzy jewelery store or something. I saw a Brinks truck a few days ago when I was out driving. I'm sure they're armed.

Heh, armed guard robbery, Cdn style. (Some years ago, Montreal was the bank robbery capital of North America; then it was a major biker gang violence centre. Both phenomena have dropped significantly.)

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1998/100198/cover.html

Mario Blanchette of the armoured car company Sécur says no armed guards have been killed in Montreal since 1994. "Our most recent attack was on August 1 at a Super C on Jean-Talon. Robbers threw cayenne pepper in the agents' faces and then grabbed their guns. But the last time an armed guard died in the line of duty was the Monkland Provigo hold-up. Some years we will have three incidents and then sometimes nothing happens for five years. Montreal's a pretty safe city."

How many houses did you drive by that contained guns and not get shot by them?

Quite possibly none, on that trip. You don't seem to get it, do you? Not many people in my part of town (none that I know personally) are hunters, or other "recreational" firearms users. And there's no other reason why anyone would legally have a firearm in any of those houses. (Ya don't very often get a permit to have a handgun for "self-defence" here, e.g.) I may well have driven by a house where someone illegally had a firearm, true, or some business that illegally had one on the premises, although the latter is not too likely.

Wasn't M. Moore's point in BFC that Canada has as high of a gun ownership rate per capita as the US has?

I don't think that's quite accurate.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/wd98-4a-e.html
I don't actually know what that "241 per 100,000 population" is -- 7 million firearms in a population of 30 million (slighly lower population in 1998, when that study was done, say 29 million, so "24,100 per 100,000" would make sense) would be 23,333 per 100,000 population; 1.2 million handguns would be 4,000 per 100,000 population.

In Canada, there are currently at least seven million firearms, including as many as 1.2 million handguns, for an overall rate of about 241 per 100,000 population. The national household ownership rate is assessed to be approximately 26 percent, based on survey research. The precise number of firearms in Canada is difficult to determine and regular data collection is needed to assess patterns in ownership. Over time, the Universal Firearm Registration Regime may provide a better basis for measuring the stock of legally owned firearms.

A recent comparison of western countries found that 48 percent of U.S. households owned at least one firearm. Canada's rate was in the mid-range of countries, at 22 percent.

In Canada, hunting is the main reason for owning a firearm; self-protection is very rarely cited as the main reason. Legal firearm owners tend to be male and to reside in smaller communities. Further research could expand current knowledge on the sources of legally owned firearms and the number, types and origins of firearms available in illegal markets.

Now, had I been driving in one of the two small towns I've lived in, in Northern and Eastern Ontario, it's much more likely that I'd have been "in contact" with a few more firearms. In the small town where I articled, most of the male members of the bar went out drinkin' and huntin' of a weekend. (That's where the 13-yr-old son of my then-love interest, a court official, had killed himself with daddy's hunting weapon before I arrived.)

Accepting that as true, what makes you think you're never in range of guns?

I live in the central core of a second-tier metropolitan area with large immigrant and white-collar populations. Neither of those groups tends to be hunters/sport shooters. The white-collar workers I know speedskate and curl and golf and grow flowers; my immigrant neighbours fish and grow vegetables. We're a peaceable country, eh? Ploughshares are just more our style.

Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean that they're not there, even in Canada.

Yes, and just because you don't know what the deal is where I live, doesn't mean I don't. ;)

.

[DoNotRefill]

82. I think the 48% figure must be high....

most of the figures I can recall seeing show around 25% of the US population owns a gun.

I'd disagree about the white collar people not being shooters. Skeet and trap are almost exclusively white-collar games, at least in the US. At the law school I went to, we didn't have a football or basketball team affiliated with the law school, but we did have a skeet team. Your average blue-collar person isn't going to blow $4,000 US on a decent set of skeet guns. Also, when was the last time you saw "Bubba" out hunting pheasant or quail? It's not a "bubba" kind of hobby, it's sseen as being very aristocratic.

[iverglas]

87. trust me

Please. I actually know what I'm talking about. You don't.

I'd disagree about the white collar people not being shooters. Skeet and trap are almost exclusively white-collar games, at least in the US.

Perhaps skeet and trap shooting are white-collar pursuits (in the US, at least).

That doesn't mean that the white-collar population engages in skeet and trap shooting in Canada.

It doesn't, not to any noticeable degree. I know. I live here.

I know white-collar people who bowl, curl (that one's big among civil servants), cross-country ski, downhill ski, skate, play hockey, play tennis, do aerobics at the Y, swim, golf, fish, and even hunt. I know and have known no one, not a single person, not ever, who shoots or has shot skeet or trap as a customary recreational pursuit.

I knew lawyers & their colleagues and friends in a small town who had long arms and hunted. I have a friend who has (or at least had) 2 firearms for reasons that seemed to be idiosyncratic, sort of like the Russian history degree, funeral director's certification, tattoo, beard and two years in the navy he had. And I just recently recalled the unpleasant alcoholic next-door neighbour we had when I was a child who had a long arm of some sort that he used to brandish around the block when he got riled up. Other than that, I simply do not know people who have or use firearms for any reason.

I know this sounds bizarre to you. I know you find it hard to believe. I find it just as hard to believe that you and such large numbers of people whom you know own firearms. As an atheist, I find it impossible to understand how anyone could believe in a supernatural entity. People who believe in supernatural entities apparently are unable to fathom how I could not. But the facts are still the facts: I, personally, know no one who uses firearms for any purpose, and I am an atheist; you know zillions of people who use firearms for various purposes, and some people believe in supernatural entities.

The province of Ontario has a population pushing 12 million. Take a look here:

http://www.shootingsports.com/OSSA/home.htm

Sixteen skeet/trap clubs in the province. There's one in each of the small towns I have lived in (under 50,000) and one in each of the medium-sized cities I have lived in (250-500,000). The list may not be complete, but I seriously doubt there are many more.

Check out the club in the capital of Canada -- Ottawa -- for example:

http://www.magma.ca/~nat/sktclb.htm

As far as I can tell from Google, it's the only one there.


At the law school I went to, we didn't have a football or basketball team affiliated with the law school, but we did have a skeet team.

Well we sure as hell didn't at my law school! Or at any other university I have attended. Of course, we also didn't have bowling teams (as I understand are common in the US), or a hint of a fraternity or sorority on campus (although I gather they're present now). A different culture. We went to school to get an education, mainly.

Your average blue-collar person isn't going to blow $4,000 US on a decent set of skeet guns.

I see from browsing the Ontario club sites that guns can be borrowed at the clubs.

Quite honestly, if I had the time to do everything that caught my fancy, I'm sure I'd quite enjoy skeet or trap shooting (I haven't a clue what the distinction is). Despite my visual impairment (hard of seeing as a bat, but perfectly safe out with my specs), I have aim, and I enjoyed archery in high school phys ed and did extremely well at "duck shoot" on the original Nintendo the first time I tried it.

And if I were to try it out and like it enough to take it up for the long term (of course after investigating the environmental impact of my activities, as I do for anything else), I might even want my very own shooting thingy. And I would have absolutely no objection to storing it permanently at the club under lock and key -- in fact I would only buy it if I could do that, as I would not under any circumstances have it in my home.

.

[CO Liberal]

58. I Didn't Start the "Cars Thing"

Someone else started that as Post #7.

[MrSandman]

43. Therein lies the rub...

0.25% should account for one use per year. What is a use? I did not fire a weapon today. Did I use it twice: To load and holster, and to unload and lock up?
Does the time it spent in its holster count?
Or since it was unfired was it not in use?

[DoNotRefill]

50. That'd depend on your definition of "usage", wouldn't it?

I carried a handgun for 10 hours today, and drove about two hours total. The entire time I was in my car, I had 2 guns with me, one in my pocket, and one in my trunk. I went to the OB/GYN, I went out to eat, I ran errands, and I worked, all with a gun.

Guess what? I didn't have any kind of accident. I didn't get in a car wreck, and I didn't shoot anybody either.

I spend far more time with a gun on my person than I do in my car. EVERY time I'm in my car, I have a gun. So would it be fair to say I use my car more than I use my gun? Or does "gun use" only count when I'm actually pulling the trigger?

[MrSandman]

70. That was a better statement of my post 43..n/t

[RoeBear]

16. With rare exception...

...the only citizens "in peril" from a CCW permit holder is a criminal.

Can you dispute that?

[TX-RAT]

17. A CCW holder over reacting to a situation could be a big problem

[MrSandman]

27. Could be...

But how often has it occurred?

[TX-RAT]

57. How often does it need to occur

Before you would recognize it as a problem?

[MrSandman]

59. How often?

Much more often than it occurs now. IIRC, it occurs much more frequently with law enforcement, and yes, the nature of interactions cause this, but I don't think it is a problem there.

It is not that police are overly aggressive, but that there is more ambiguity in their interventions.

Despite the oft-repeated and dire warnings of shootouts at the (Choose your location), I haven't heard of this happening in states with fair-issue ccw.

[TX-RAT]

63. How many people need to be killed or injured

before you think it's a problem,50,100,1000?

[MrSandman]

66. In the past month...

There have been, what, three incidents of effective self defense alone. I haven't seen ANY instances of someone overreacted and killed/injured anyone while exercising CCW. The closest was the idot in FL who shot a prankster. CCW didn't really enter into that because he can carry in his home w/o permit.

So, more than are being helped by CCW is my answer. Don't see that happening.

[TX-RAT]

67. So your saying

If 1000 people are helped by a CCW, and 750 are not, then thats OK with you. How do you explain that to the families of the 750?

[MrSandman]

69. Exactly the way you would explain it to the 1000...

[TX-RAT]

72. Nice dodge

[MrSandman]

73. Policy is more than about individual cases...

Yes, individuals are affected. The question is, in my mind, where lies the least harm.

What is the dodge? From the evidence I wouldn't have to. If there were evidence, I doubt we would have this hypothetical debate.

[DoNotRefill]

85. and how many people have to die....

because they're by law forced to be unarmed before you see the value of them being armed?

Remember the Luby's shooting?

[RoeBear]

44. A (fill in the blank)...

...over reacting to a situation could be a big problem.

What's your point?

[MrSandman]

46. Didn't some fellow get shot 41 times in NYC...

Reaching for a wallet?

[DoNotRefill]

52. Yuppers...by cops...

who are not required to have CCW permits. Oops.

[MrSandman]

53. Well traineed overreaction...n/t

[TX-RAT]

61. Why would they be required to have a CCW?

[MrSandman]

71. They wouldn't...

IMHO, many more shootings are the result of LE overreaction than CCW overreaction.(Instances are especially seen at the end of high speed pursuits and the serving of warrants. As I stated, the nature of LE intervention is the largest contributing factor, but it is there.)
The answer for either is not unilaterally disarming.

[TX-RAT]

60. Example

Last weekend we had a 69yr old male chase a group of kids out of the alley with a 38cal revolver, 2 shoots were fired. Luckily no one was hurt. One of those rounds hit a neighbors truck the other hit a tool shed in another neighbors back yard. The man was taken into custody and charged with reckless endangerment with a firearm. His CCW was taken away until the outcome of the trial. His reason for confronting the kids was because they were making his dog bark. Had he notified LE this never would have happen.

[CO Liberal]

62. "... they were making his dog bark"

Yep - we sure don't have to worry about any of them law-abidin' gun owners.

Just remember, it only takes a split second to change a law-abiding person into a killer. And when you allow more and more guns out there, the potential for tragedy gets greater and greater.

[OpSomBlood]

77. So let's punish everyone...

...because then we'd know we got all the criminals.

[Township75]

4. One...

PA, but it is valid in ~16.

Soon VA will offer non resident CCWs, and I will have that one too:)

[JayS]

10. I never bothered to get one. Our State Constitution already...

...covers carrying while travelling and, quite frankly, if you are a mature white male with no record or a white female with no record you sort of automatically have one.

[RoeBear]

14. Care to...

...explain?

[TX-RAT]

12. None

[Something Blue]

13. Funny you should ask.

I just completed the class two weekends ago (EXCELLENT class, btw - they went way above and beyond the legal requirements, very comprehensive, high stress on professionalism, I'm glad I paid the extra money) and I'll probably go file the forms next week. Would have done it this week, but it's been very busy in my shop and I haven't been able to get away.

Truth be told, I'll hardly ever actually carry. My general travel area is small, quiet, and very familiar. The day-to-day need just isn't there. But I want the option, and so I'll make sure I'm all licensed and legal-like.

[MrSandman]

25. Two...

WV and PA.

How many times have I had to produce one...fewer than with DL.

[natasha1]

42. None...

I am against firearm registration, and I view CCW as voluntary firearm registration. Although, since I've made several NICS purchases, I'm probably as good as registered anyway. But I won't voluntarily participate.

Nat

[MrSandman]

45. Only in states that require the weapon to be listed...

NY and MI come to mind.

In WV, and many other states, the CHL is no more registration than a driver's license is auto registration. The 4473 is more registration than eirher NICS or a WV CHL.

[slackmaster]

54. None - I live in one of the last of the discretionary-issue states

California, where it can take up to a year even for someone with an unquestionable need for protection (e.g. private security guard) to get a permit.

However, I do occasionally carry a concealed firearm for self-defense when I am at my home, place of business, or a campground. No permit is required for those places, and open carry is allowed in unincorporated and wilderness areas.

[Wickerman]

75. Why not Kentucky? eom

[FatSlob]

76. My Family is from KY, I'm not currently living there.

[Wickerman]

78. Aren't you putting yourself at great risk if you visit?

[FeebMaster]

79. Kentucky honors

Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Hampshire permits.

[FatSlob]

80. They honor any permit from any state.

They are truly enlightened, but not so enlightened as Vermont and Alaska.

[Wickerman]

81. phew! I was worried for ya there, FS!

:P