Good lord, the thing with carrying guns in Starbucks has become a theme in Doonesbury this week. A certain kind of lightweight yuppie seems to morbidly fear those who are comfortable with a power they can’t imagine themselves wielding.
Some fellas just need to unbunch their panties and take a look at real world responsibilities. In a nation of some 320 million people, well under a million police officers simply aren’t enough to proactively protect everyone. Do the math. Self-defense is a natural personal responsibility, right up there with first responder emergency medical abilities. Those whose stomachs are too weak to accept their own capability in this regard seek to denigrate those who do live up to their responsibilities. Sad, really.
Such people have for decades opposed the carrying of handguns for personal protection by ordinary citizens, wailing that “blood will run in the streets” and there will be “shootouts over parking spaces.” Of course, that hasn’t happened…but reality doesn’t seem to get in the way of their stridently-voiced panic.
THIS LINK confirms that despite the fact that guns have proliferated greatly in the last few years – and so has the ability to legally carry them loaded and concealed in public – the rate of violent crime has gone DOWN during the same timeframe.
I don’t do concealed carry. However, I have no problem with those who do. I figure if someone is determined enough to fight through all the shtuff to get their license, then they are more than qualified to pack a pistol. However, this same mind set does not extend to the obtuse thinking of the gun haters.
For many years now, I have tried to understand exactly why the gun haters are trying to demonize civilian firearms, while at the same time approve of all types of weapon systems for military and police use. The apparent mystery deepens when one includes private security firms, many of which offer armed protection, and many of which are employed by the very people who want to take away every private firearm in the world.
I have known people who had a pathological fear of firearms. I’ve known others who just don’t like them. In every case there is an attitude that since they don’t personally use firearms, no one else needs firearms.
I certainly believe people should and must have a healthy respect for guns, however, it seems to me that gun avoidance, and demanding others to disarm exactly as they do is not a position of respect, its a position of derision.
Massad makes good common sense. No, I don’t ever want to kill anyone but I don’t want to ever have to simply lie there and watch someone shoot me like a helpless wimp. Whether all carry or not, we need to have the right that the Second Amendment assures and this fact must be published in all outlets to let the thugs know we won’t take it anymore.
Anyway, a while back I learned another aspect of the saying “an armed society is a polite society”. It is that when one is armed, one tends to be more polite. Not just out of concern that someone else might be. The event where I learned this was a minor traffic disagreement. I managed to get another driver very angry (without good reason in my opinion), who then followed me into a parking lot where he and another guy got all pushy. I never felt very threatened and it actually seemed a bit absurd as one was obviously out of shape and the other was pretty clearly wet behind the ears. Now I’m not going to get into a fight over driving unless pushed into a corner. So this was unlikely to get very far. But, one of the things that ran through my little head was the fact that I had a handgun in my pocket. I quickly pictured the police arriving, having to declare I was carrying (a legal condition in Ohio), the possible reaction of the officers and the possible reaction of any bystanders. I also thought about the possibility of losing control of the gun in a scuffle. That should not have happened, as it was snug in a holster in my pocket, but the thought ran through my mind. And later it struck me: as angry as I was, and with adrenaline starting to flow, I was loathe to get into fisticuffs. I was more polite, even though I felt offended and was angry because I was armed! It seemed an interesting twist.
Painting the opposition on this one in such black-and-white terms hurts the chances of winning the argument, though. The folks screaming back at us are the minority; the vast majority are in the middle, and they’re swayed by calm reason, not by a name-calling shouting match.
The folks carrying weapons to political rallies aren’t exactly helping the cause; using the right to carry in an inflammatory way isn’t so hot a use of the right.
Arguing it as a Constitutional right doesn’t much work; people have already made up their mind one way or another on what they feel the 2nd Amendment says.
But the “right to self defense” is pretty logical; if I prevent you from defending yourself if you’re attacked, I’m wronging you. Arguing firearms ownership from that level generally resonates with people pretty well; largely, they don’t ever expect the police to be there in time.
The phrase that works for me, talking to folks in the middle? Guns aren’t uncontrolled force; they’re a force equalizer. Simply, there’s nothing else a hundred-and-ten pound sixty year old can do to make themselves equivalent to a two hundred and twenty pound twenty year old in a conflict.
Just an observation, but it’s interesting how the “Doonesbury” cartoon seems to imply that drinking coffee turns one into a homicidal maniac.
Disclaimer: I am an example of a 180 turnover from pro-gun-control (saying “Who needs a gun? Call a cop and buy your meat at the grocery store.”) to where I now have a concealed carry weapons permit with large state reciprocity and exert that right pretty much every waking moment of the day, including right now as I write this.
As usual, Mas hit it right on the head– there is a theme of people not wanting to protect themselves and not wanting to be their own first responders to emergency situations (e.g. choking, drowning, etc.). Part of it may be a theme of political correctness instilling this notion that citizens should depend upon the government for that, I’m not sure. But it’s a crazy world we must live in if we teach children at school that they should call 911 and sit and wait … and wait.
A real wake-up call for me was when driving a 4/5 lane highway in a major metropolitan area at night. Up against the inside (left) concrete median of the road, there was a man laying down in front of a car with headlights on. It was dark, but I couldn’t tell if that was oil and fluid stains from him working on the car or if that was blood and he was hit by a car or something else. Two other men were standing near the car as well, but no emergency responders were in sight. Not believing what I just saw, I took note of the highway mile marker and called 911 from my cell phone and that’s when the real wake-up happened: they put me on hold, had me explain the situation, then said “not our jurisdiction” and handed me off from the county to the city 911 service, where I was put on hold for another minute, then asked to re-explain, and then told “oh, that’s a highway patrol issue”, and then was put on hold again, then transferred again, then had to explain a third time before somebody on the other end said they were sending first responders. At least 10 minutes overall. That wasn’t out in the sticks– that was in the middle of the affluent suburbs of a large midwestern city. If that was a life or death situation, that man may have been dead by the time emergency responders arrived.
Think for yourself. Take care of yourself. Prepare yourself. Protect yourself. Defend yourself. Arm yourself.
Also of note: I’m a fan of the bill that just passed 1/3 of the way through Arizona’s state legislature yesterday– “Constitutional Carry”, meaning Arizona is hopefully taking their open carry laws (any law abiding adult can carry openly WITHOUT a permit) and adding concealed carry without a permit (there will be some benefits for still having a permit such as state reciprocity and being able to go into restaurants or bars while armed). That will put Arizona up there with liberal haven Vermont and the last frontier Alaska which also have concealed carry sans permit laws. Critics will point out Alaska’s crime rates aren’t ideal (it may have a great deal more to do with weather/sun patterns on the psyche) but liberal haven Vermont is one of the safest and most pleasant places you can go, despite its liberal politics. Arizona has had open carry for a long time and decent crime rates to accompany it. It makes sense. Why require a permit if you want to untuck your shirt or put on a jacket?
If there’s one thing I learned about our Constitution and its genius framers, it’s that they KNEW the best way to guarantee life, liberty, and property was through decentralizing as much as possible, granting small powers to the Federal government, more powers to the state, and encouraging counties to be the single most powerful entity for enforcing laws. But it doesn’t stop there. They knew that life, liberty, and property could not be maintained without extending it all the way down to the citizens themselves by taking responsibility for their own protection. That’s why the right to keep and bear arms is second only to the right to think for yourself and share your thoughts. It can’t get any more clear than that (but I didn’t see it initially).
Keep up the good work, Mas!
I have found that people who are misinformed or misguided in their opinions, never let the facts get in their way. In the article that the link above leads you to, Kristen Rand loses all credibility (re: a National Carry reciprocity) when she states that ““I think a lot of senators did not understand that if Florida gives someone a concealed-carry permit and they have a criminal record a mile long, you’ve got to let them carry in your state”. She completely misses the point that if someone has a criminal record, they are not getting a CCW.
‘lightweight yuppie?” “fellas need to unbunch their panties?”
I agree with your basic argument, but resorting to sterotypes and sexism puts your statements at the same emotional level as the folks you ridicule.
Having lived in a major city, where there are no positive models for the responsible use of firearms, I do understand why people feel opposed to more guns on the street. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t assume that they’re all weak or stupid.
CCW holder, EMT/firefighter
I like some of Trudeau’s stuff. He’s quite frequently dialed into things we might otherwise not pick up on from the DC swamp. And he’s not afraid to offend those who deserve it.
Here, however, he has quite blatantly revealed his total misunderstanding of the issue involved, along with his leftie, totally unreasonable fear of firearms and the people who use them. He’s a classic liberal hoplophobe (thank you, Colonel Cooper). His characters here display actual disgust and anger at the thought of folks exercising a constitutionally-guaranteed right. Quite revealing, actually.
Hey! Making it to Doonesbury is a good thing.
Now Concealed Carry is on EVERYONE’S radar screen.
Bear in mind that it is always worthwhile to be civil and logical in your arguments. Also try to avoid the gross generalities about the pro and anti folk. For decades I was very ANTI-gun. Period. Over perhaps five years of careful ongoing argument with several friends, however, I was simply convinced by the logic, experiences, and good sense presented to me. (The book – In the Greatest Extreme – played a major part in this I should say. Thanks.)
I am now pro concealed carry – and regularly argue for such with my lawmakers. Also note that those who argued with me so consistently FOR concealed carry were very LEFT-leaning in their politics – As am I.
I enjoy your blog here at Backwoods Home Mr. Ayoob. On the topic of concealed guns I found myself in complete agreement with your statement that self protection is a natural responsibility of the individual.
In a situation where it was needed, I would defend myself with whatever tools I had available. A concealed gun would greatly improve my chances of being successful if this should ever happen.
A concealed gun would not turn me into a homicidal maniac!
Too bad I live in one of the few states where concealed carry is a perk for knowing politically connected people rather than a basic right for all.
The MSNBC was a more than a fair story for that network. However, we should ALL realize that the ultimate goal of the anti-gun people is to control the masses by disarming the nation. They go about their task by trying to connect gun availability to high crime and it obviously is not working. You can look for them to put forth more creative ways to promote their ideology.
Hi Mas.
Having grown up in AZ, and carrying a gun there well before concealed carry was passed I am used to seeing guns carried by non-LEO’s. Granted, the right to own, or bear arms, is protected by the Constitution, but I may have to disagree with you a bit here on this issue.
If you are going to carry a gun in public I think having to prove that you know the laws of your state, and ability to discharge your weapon into your intended target is paramount. If you decide to pull a gun on Mongo the Convienience Store Robber I’d like to know that you are capable of putting bullets into Mongo and not into my loved ones standing behind Mongo while waiting to pay for their coffee and lollies.
Also, before one pulls a gun to stop Susie Homemaker from disciplining their own child, thinking they are preventing a case of child abduction or abuse, I’d like to know that said gun puller knows when they are justified in using their firearm and the legal ramifications for doing so.
If that infringes on the Second Amendment, then so be it. Call me an anti-Second Amendment supporter if you want to, but that’s how I see it. BTW: I’ve been carrying a gun for over twenty years and as you know, I’m an LFI 1 grad. I do not think the right should come without the responsibility, nor do I think that the qualification should be so difficult that almost nobody passes the test.
I’d like to see things a little more difficult, test wise, than they are now, but it’s not too bad the way it is. As you know, I don’t carry using a CCW Permit, as I have LEOSA. I also have no interest in making the training more difficult, as I’m not a Trainer. I only want to ensure the safety of those around me, and my loved ones.
I do believe that everyone should be, that is capable and willing, be armed. With that willingness should also be responsibility.
Take care and stay safe,
Biker
Concealed carry, owning and possessing a weapon, what is happening here? The Right to Bear Arms is an inalienable Right. Shall not Infringe means what is says and says what it mean, the state citizens do NOT need any kind of permit, permission or grant to possess a weapon in defense of themselves, their family or their property. When are the so-called americans going to wake up and realize that government is their servant; not the inverse!!!!!
Some of the God given rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Included in “life”, is the right for self-defense from a tyrannical government (and others as/if necessary). The second amendment does not give the right, but confirms and agrees with the God of Nature that such a right as self-defense exists with or without the consent of the governed or those who govern. Therefore, whatever one can “bare” in the realm of arms is lawful, whether it is concealed or carried in the open. Realize of course, that this truth will step of the toes of the local and federal ordinances, but that does not make carrying a handgun, shotgun or machine gun down the street unlawful. On the other hand, in this day and age, it will probably cause one more problems than which they may care to deal.
Well said, Mas.
Open carry at Starbucks, with the publicity surrounding it, has the positive effect of getting the concept of citizen self-protection out into the public arena. The media will soon tire of demonizing these folks. Hopefully, as time goes by, the public will come to realize that these “gun nuts” at Starbucks are good, law-abiding citizens.
Full disclosure: I’m a LFI-1 grad.
Stay safe.
Mike Sweeney
Last I heard, the FBI has determined that lawful CCW holders have a lower per-capita rate of unlawful uses of firemarms (robbery, assault, murder, etc.) than the law-enforcement community. The one thing the anti-gunners’ firearm prohibitions and “gun-free” zones have given us has been higher than normal body counts.
A weapon for self-protection is like a fire extinguisher. You hope you’ll never need it – but you’d sure regret it (or your survivors would) if you needed it but didn’t have it.
I clicked the link and it went to the MSNBC front page. I searched and couldn’t find the article. I read it previously. Maybe they took it down because it was promoting vigilanteeism and wild west shootouts.
I tried to find it on the 25th and couldn’t.
I clicked on the link this morning and it worked fine, maybe try it again.
I do carry daily, because I take responsibility for my own safety and for the ones I do love and care about. The same reason I have Life, Auto and Health Insurance… to take care of myslef and othe3rs if something catastrophic happens.
Always enjoy your writings
The people of the United States are the Kings and Queens of the realm (i.e. sovereigns), they do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them, and they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves (see preamble of CftUSA).
The people (i.e. sovereigns) ordained and established the Constitution not for themselves, but for their servants and trustees, that is to say United States of America (again see preamble). One may conclude, by reading the preamble, the people are not subject to the laws of government, independent of the Constitution, and owe no allegiance to any entity.
With that said, the people may keep and bear arms, openly or concealed, at liberty and their servants and trustees shall not infringe otherwise. They (the people) are sovereign, unaccountable to any higher authority.
On the other hand, if one is a citizen, then he/she is subject and owes allegiance to his/her master, that is government. Therefore, a citizen must obey the laws regarding firearms registration, license to conceal, etc. A people is not subject to this tyrannical and collectivistic nonsense.
So the question is… Are you a people as reflected in the preamble, or a citizen as defined in Amendment XIV? Be careful, picking one affects the rights you possess.
I am an AZ ccw holder.I am also a retired Miltary policeman and combat helicopter pilot. I Spent most of my early enlisted time in
military police.
My question is, doesMy military police service qualify me for LEOSA?