Guns, The Citizen, and the Citizen-Soldier

need to get your input Sir. Shot an Israeli Jericho back when I was in the Holy Land and fell in love.

Ever had the pleasure? Thinking of buying one.

After my romantic outing with my spousal unit, please allow me to vent on some frustrations with civilian carry....

As I write, I have my Glock23C on my hip. We went to the local multi-plex to see a movie tonight, and here in Arizona, it is legal for me to carry in a movie theater.

However, if we had seen our movie in the theater in the mall near us, it would have been illegal for me to carry there, as the mall owner forbids such carry.

Similarly, if we had gone out to dinner in a restaurant that serves liquor (which, as a practical matter, means anything fancier than Denny's), it would have been illegal for me to carry in the restaurant.

These laws do not protect the community, as the Salt Lake City shooting illustrates. The fact that an off-duty police officer was there with his gun is a coincidence. The community should not believe that a similar shooting (which will happen) will be resolved by another off-duty police officer who just happens to be in the right place at the right time.

The armed citizen has a much better chance of ending this sort of event than any off-duty police officer does. The laws that prevent legal carry in these locations make them more vulnerable, not more safe.

/vent

I feel we should follow the Israeli model; their citizens go armed to protect against terrorist attacks and suicide bombers and so should we. There should be a national right to carry.

P.S. Join the NRA and vote Freedom First

David, I'll have to ask our friend Robert Averch of Seraphic Secret to resend his account of an Israeli citizen killing a terrorist.

The money quote was "he sizzled."

azlibertarian - we have had some of the same issues here in Michigan. In our case, however, we have an advocacy group, the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gunowners (visit www.mcrgo.org) who was responsible for getting us the "shall issue" laws enacted 4 years ago. They address issues such as this. I don't know if Arizona has such a group, but perhaps they can give you some advice.

I may have left the wrong impression. Arizona has been freer than many other states with its firearms laws for quite some time now. We have had a "Shall Issue" law here for well more than a decade (I was one of the first holders--I recently renewed the five-year permit for the fourth time.).

I do support the right of private property owners to decide whether they want weapons carried on their property. However, as shown in SLC, they had better know that limiting lawful carry on their property makes them vulnerable (and I don't know if this is the case in Utah.). These CCW-banning property owners also ought to know that their bans drive consumers to competitors who don't ban weapons (as we did in our choice of movie theater yesterday).

Last year, our Democrat governor (with the help of a demagoguing Restaurant Association) vetoed a change to our CCW laws that would have allowed concealed carry in restaurants that serve liquor. They too should know the repercussions of limiting freedom.

I am not so sure that I support a National Right to Carry. As I understand it, there are some states that mechanisms which allow felons to have their gun rights restored. Your Mileage May Vary, but I think that someone contemplating a felony ought to know that their right to carry a weapon in the future will forever be a price for that felony.

Sorry. The second sentence in the last paragraph should have read...

...some states that have mechanisms....

azlibertarian - on this page at the MCRGO website http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_no_gun_signs.asp
is described the businesses here that have those signs. There is a card you can download to pass along to the business, if so desired.
As far as National RTC, I have been in favor of it, but I had not researched the issues with felons that you bring up. Something I need to look into. As an fyi, the state of Michigan has signed reciprocity agreements with 33 other states for concealed carry (including Arizona). Makes driving safer...

In an odd Steyr - 2nd Amendment connection, when State complained about the sale of the HS50 to Iran, Steyr offered to cancel the sale.

All State and the Executive branch had to do was get rid of the '89 import ban and it's addendums. That's the executive order that stopped Steyr from selling semi-auto AUGs and the like to US civilians (which is why a $1500 AUG now sells for near $6000). Basically, Steyr was low on cash (they got sold last week in fact). They said to State "we won't sell guns here if you reopen this market to us". State said "no way."

Apparently State felt that semi-auto AUGs in civilian hands in the US was a bigger threat than .50s in Iran (and now Iraq).

I dislike the State Department.

Don't know if I quite support the idea of everyone wearing a "shootin' iron" on their hip. While those who peruse this board are qualified and possess the judgement necessary to carry a firearm on a regular basis, I don't know if I would trust most of the American population to do so. Hell, there are cops and soldiers that I know that I don't think should be carrying a gun... but that's another topic entirely.

I see too many cases of simple traffic accidents coming to blows or a perceived slight to someone's "respect" resulting in a fight to realize that a gun thrown into the fray is only asking for trouble.

Editing my earlier comment, "while those who peruse this board are qualified" should read "while those who peruse this board may be qualified".

Joel:

Not sure our experience here in VA bears that out. NoVA counties, where concealed carry is legal, have remarkably low violent crime rates, while across the river the opposite is true. Note also the several cases in the last year or so (I-Hop in Alexandria, poker game raid in Fairfax, and the egregious one in PG County with the furniture deliverymen) where the "qualified" ones have been incompetent, negligent, and possibly criminal. I much prefer (and trust) an armed and vigilant citizentry as a check both on crime and on the armed power of the state, which as we see is not blessed with infallibility.

jpp

Gotta agree with my BR (LTCOL P) that I prefer an armed and vigilant citizenry. That being said, I also agree that folks must be sufficiently trained, have a reliable weapon, practice frequently, and be of the correct mindset. The people I know in Michigan who have CPL's take their training very seriously, myself included. We don't want the wild west, but the police can't be everywhere. Not to mention, what does the word "police" mean anyway?

Joel...
"...While those who peruse this board are qualified and possess the judgement necessary to carry a firearm on a regular basis, I don't know if I would trust most of the American population to do so...."

So where and how do you draw a line between those you trust and those you don't? It seems to me that the Founders trusted all of us.

bullnav...
"...practice regularly...."

As to regular practice, I agree that most don't do enough. I am what I call an "active shooter"--meaning that in most years I shoot a bit north of a couple three thousand rounds--not as much as many shoot, but well more than most do. I try to get out once a month to an IDPA match, with occasional practice otherwise. With that, I've always thought that my shooting sucks.

According to the AZ Dept. of Public Safety (http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/stats2005.asp), there are 44173 CCW permit holders in Maricopa County (which is basically the Phoenix metro area). There are 3.6 million people in this county. I've visited three of the four IDPA venues in the area, and rarely see more than 30 guys (and it's usually the same faces, venue-to-venue). There are lots of ways to practice, and IDPA isn't for everyone, but I'm left with the question: Where are the other 43000 permit holders getting their practice? The sad conclusion I've come to is that most don't practice at all.

Shooting is a perishable skill. It's why the military and police require those who carry a weapon to regularly requalify on those weapons. If you carry, you ought to practice. The episode in Salt Lake City shows why this is important.

[I'll try to avoid being so long-winded next time.]

The skills needed to carry a firearm go far beyond just qualifying with it. In an environment such as the one we're in, a person who is carrying a firearm must possess good judgement and discretion. For example, say there's a group fight in a mall where no weapons are involved. How do you assure that you don't have some cowboy approach the fight, gun drawn (now introducing a weapon into the fight, I might add) and telling everyone to cut it out. And, if they gaff him off, how do you know he won't start firing a "warning shot" into the air? And, that being done and someone is stupid enough to confront him, how do you know he doesn't get scared and start shooting what he perceives as a "threat" to himself? And how does he justify himself to having shot an unarmed man who was just yelling at him? I get yelled at all the time on my job... I have yet to shoot someone who is doing so. I also have a wide variety of non-lethal options with which to protect myself and others. Private citizens likely would not carry these (or does everyone want to have a "bat belt" like me?). So, in any situation in which a private citizen tries to intervene, there is only one option... lethal force.

As a police officer, I not only have to qualify twice a year. I also have to take two classes a year on use-of-force and have to go through the FATS simulator in which I'm confronted with a wide variety of shoot/no-shoot scenarios. I pull my weapon on a almost a daily basis... I have only come close to engaging a target one time.

I don't have a problem with citizens having the right to carry or even carry concealed. However, I think most of you live in an America that's vastly different from the one I work in. Where I work, guns are enough of a problem without giving free license (and open encouragement) to everyone carrying one.

Joel,
Your view that a "person who is carrying a firearm must possess good judgement and discretion" simply does not square with the Constitution. Further, your scenario of a mall-fight gone bad does not square with the reality seen in states that allow Concealed Carry. The mall-fight, or Road-Rage, is just not happening.

What is happening, demonstrated by Salt Lake City episode, but previously in Seattle, Oklahoma and Los Angeles (just off the top of my head) are lone, Muslim males who take it on themselves to commit murder among us.

Au contraire... I've worked shootings in which someone "dissed" someone else on the road and words led to shots being fired. And Virginia IS a concealed carry state.

I don't disagree that there are incidents of people who go nuts in a public place with a gun. And I don't disagree that an armed citizenry can be one solution to that. What I AM saying is that the solution is not for everyone to strap on a shootin' iron and play cowboy.

And, regardless of what the Constitution says, I would hope that you would want anyone who has a firearm on them (especially in a public place) to possess good judgement and discretion.

Was that Salt Lake City thing committed by a Muslim? I was under the impression it was just some troubled teen who lost it. Do you have a reference for that?

Joel,
How many of those road-rage, or "dissed" shooters also had Concealed Carry permits? Or were they criminals and thugs who have always carried their weapons illegally?

"...What I AM saying is that the solution is not for everyone to strap on a shootin' iron and play cowboy."

No one is suggesting this sort of cavalier attitude. Carrying a weapon, either as a LEO or a citizen is serious business. But CCW holders are, by and large, law-abiding. They'll do the right thing, IMO. They don't practice enough, but there are enough bad LEO shootings out there to make me think that far too many LEOs don't practice enough either.

The SLC shooter was a Muslim. It's buried in this story.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=892975

IMO, this part of the story is being underplayed by the MSM to keep us from recognizing the danger we're facing. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but most terrorists today are Muslim. We'll see more loner-Muslim mall-shootings, and a couple of Muslim homicide-bombings before the PC-blinded American public recognizes that we've been fooling ourselves about how deeply our enemy is into our camp.