Just another muse on freedom of carry

[P95Carry]

Is a legal CCW a risk? That is the first question to ask.

The answer is no, he/she is not. To gain the status of CCW the individual must have shown a clean record and altho we know now that mental instability can occur and yet still allow for legal procurement of a gun, this is rare, very rare. Just as likely is illegal procurement.

So let us look at the odds. We may safey assume that of all CCW's, the ''risk factor'' is perhaps 0.01% ..... which is one in ten thousand - a pure ballpark figure of course but maybe not too far off base. If then the other 9,999 CCW's could legally carry, anywhere, where is the risk when compared with those same CCW's being disarmed when on campus, in their place of work or even in a National Park?

The fullfillment of total carry freedom would mean quite simply that the 9,999 would be on hand to deal with that 0.01% should the excrement hit the whirly thing. This surely is a safer and a more logical stacking of the odds than the current crazy situation where that 0.01% can enter an establishment with impunity - armed and dangerous - and face little or no deterance.

Freedom of carry is logical .... and addresses the issue of the random event when some headcase goes postal - when with permit holders around, even diluted to as little as one CCW in every 100 ..... there is a chance at least of the threat being neutralized. Certainly faster than when no realistic defence options exist.

Why is it that ''they'' have this impession that anyone and everyone who carries a firearm is going to spill blood? It is fallacious in the extreme. Instead if logic is applied it is obvious or should be, that the well being and protection of the upstanding citizen, is down to a suitable proportion of people who carry - and who could in extremis stand at least a chance of controlling and limiting an otherwise potential massacre.

Observation #1 ...... a determined individual with murder on his /her mind and even with recourse to ''legal'' aquisition of a weapon ....... has currently little or nothing to stop them when in enforced ''gun-free'' zones. There are no good guys with a means to do very much.

Observation #2 ......... A thin layer of CCW folks in such situations has, at least - a chance to influence the outcome if only by limiting the mayhem. Is that so hard to grasp? To some it seems it is ....... the people who have the niève notion that banning guns will solve the problem. It does not, cannot and never will.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Redneck Repairs]

Chris ,

Respectfully you missed Observation #3

The possibility of CCW presence has a deterrent effect all out of proportion to the chance of an actual presence . If you note the " Mass shootings " of late they have all been in " gun free zones " . Or at the least structured so as to minimize the chance of encountering any effective resistance at all . Cowardly bullys who plan and execute shootings do so to feel empowered, not to have all thier grand schemes ruined by one moral person with the means and ability to kill them prematurely .

[limatunes]

Chris, I really like your observations.. A well thought out, clear post. Thank you.

[rstickle]

If you note the " Mass shootings " of late they have all been in " gun free zones " . Or at the least structured so as to minimize the chance of encountering any effective resistance at all .

Sometimes you also have to ask yourself if most of these people have really thought things out that far? Cho (sp?) might have, but I don't think the bulk of these people do, any more than they give thought to walking past a "no guns" sign to begin with.

Besides, it appears signs don't mean SQUAT! I had 3 idiots walk right past a radiation warning sign and into an x-ray area at work last night!

[pgrass101]

Good Post Chris,

I don't know why some people continue to believe that the Police have a magic teleporting device that is activated when 911 is called. You call 911 and poof The Police instantly appear.

I am sure the Police do want to arrive as fast as they can, but until they do, we the citizens are on our own. We have been given the right for law-abibing citizens to protect ourselves and others, but we are denied that right by those in our goverment who are frightened by citizens who are willing to be independent and responsible for themselves and thier actions.

Why is that? What is so scary about people not being dependent upon the goverment for their every need?

[Tangle]

Nicely done Chris. Unfortunately anti-gunners are driven by unrealistic idealism, and can't see the truth.

[sailormnop]

Chris ,

Respectfully you missed Observation #3

The possibility of CCW presence has a deterrent effect all out of proportion to the chance of an actual presence . If you note the " Mass shootings " of late they have all been in " gun free zones " . Or at the least structured so as to minimize the chance of encountering any effective resistance at all . Cowardly bullys who plan and execute shootings do so to feel empowered, not to have all thier grand schemes ruined by one moral person with the means and ability to kill them prematurely .

That is precisely correct. I think that is the main advantage of CCW with respect to mass murder situations.

[Andy W.]

Why is it that ''they'' have this impession that anyone and everyone who carries a firearm is going to spill blood?

Because they only see firearms as a tool of destruction. Using their "logic", we should ban all vehicles, ball bats, hammers etc.

[Kompact9]

Chris,

You asked the question as to why anti-gunners can't seem to logically understand our position of having legally armed citizens. The answer in my mind is simple; people of power and/or influence don't want you to have any of what they have. They don't really care about how many folks are hurt in the process of gaining/retaining that power and/or influence and are willing to do or say most anything to accomplish that end. Or as the old saying goes, "Politicians prefer unarmed peasants"...

[Rock and Glock]

#1, #2, #3 "on all fours". The use of stereotypes and emotion have no place in a serious discussion as is often the result in anti-gun discussions. Nice posts.

[P95Carry]

Bob - observation #3 yes - that is valid too but as rstickle said - there will be cases where it probably makes little or no difference.

If as we have seen - there can be a lunatic with evil in mind and, a probably pre-emptive decision to commit suicide then I somehow doubt too much will influence them, other than perhaps the presence of a battalion of marines!

[PapaScout]

Chris for President! You get my vote!