Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Concealed Carry in Colorado

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence published a detailed critique of the recent Harper's article entitled “Happiness is a Worn Gun: My Concealed Weapon and Me. The article was written by author Dan Baum.

So many good points were raised, here's just one.

In Colorado, just as in 37 other “Shall-Issue” states, the state must issue a permit to carry a concealed handgun to any citizen that passes an instant computer background check and meets a basic set of requirements. One of those requirements is to complete just three hours of training through an approved handgun safety course. This course need be taken only once—no additional training is required when a permit holder renews his/her permit every five years.

That sounds incredible, but when you consider the influence of the NRA and the gun lobby, it's just what you'd expect. I would think gun owners themselves would call for a reformation of this, but I'm afraid it's moving in the other direction.

About the oft-heard assertion that most gun violence is ghetto or gang related, there's this.

Baum also erroneously states, “Young black urban men killing each other—that is the gun problem [in the U.S.] right now.” In reality, the claim that gun violence is a “black problem" hardly makes sense when one considers that out of the 31,446 gun deaths that occurred in America in 2005, 21,958 of the victims were whites, and from 1976 to 2005, 86% of white murder victims were killed by whites. Additionally, in 2008 the FBI reported 14,180 gun deaths, only 844 of which were gang related. The ten states with the highest rates of gun death per capita in the U.S. in 2007 were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, Nevada, Arkansas, Tennessee, New Mexico, Arizona and West Virginia—predominantly rural states.

It's a wonderful article, please help yourself to the rest of it and let us know what you think.

Please leave a comment.

15 comments:

  1. "That sounds incredible, but when you consider the influence of the NRA and the gun lobby, it's just what you'd expect."

    If the NRA really had that much influence, wouldn't they want to require an NRA training course that lasts 8 or more hours instead of a 3 hour course that is not at all NRA rated?

    Oh, and which is it this week? Is the NRA all evil and all powerful and control everything gun related, or is this their week to be insignificant and not representing what real gun owners want? I can't remember if this is a Jade flip or flop week.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sounds like a bunch of codswallop.

    They say that the " the FBI reported 14,180 gun deaths, only 844 of which were gang related.", yet fail to mention that the 14,180 includes all methods of murder, not just guns. They also fail to mention that "Institutional killings" and "Argument over money or property" can also fall into the category of gang violence.

    And what's with conflating gun deaths with homicides?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's address FWM's concerns in order.

    First, why not an 8 hour course? Easy, the NRA seeks to boost gun sales. They understand the vast majority of would-be gunloons don't want to invest a lot of time or money in their gunloonery. Imposing an 8 hr course (or longer) might deter folks from gunloonery.

    Similarly, that's why it's so easy to become an NRA instructor or RSO. To be able have a list of "certs" after your name really doesn't require much of a time investment. Remember, the purpose is recruitment not education or training.

    Second, as we've repeatedly seen, the NRA isn't all that powerful. They like to pretend that they can muster 4 gazillion votes with a mailing but the truth is they're a very small fringe minority.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So the NRA is insignificant in their massive influence this week. Thanks for clearing that up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of course the NRA wants to boost gun sales.... since they are a gun owner lobby rather than the gun manufacturer lobby (the NSSF).

    That makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The article is incorrect. Permit holders must retake the class if more than 10 years have passed since they last took the class. Example, take the class in January of 2001. Apply for permit. In December of 2005 (just before permit expires), renew. In November of 2010, renew. In October of 2015, take new class (because original class was 10 yrs old in 2011), renew.

    If he can't get basic, easy-to-look-up facts right, why should we think that he got anything else right?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Easy-to-look-up facts are one thing, but how about a little common sense? Shall Issue is a big mistake. Of course the pro-gun crowd will resist and deny the common sense reasons until everybody is exhausted.

    I'm going to lie down for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Shall Issue is a big mistake.

    Got any facts to back that up? *I'm laughing here....

    ReplyDelete
  9. "...but how about a little common sense?"

    Yeah, how about it? Maybe you could clearly show us how shall issue is a big mistake, since everyone who applies has to pass a background check that is more stringent than the background check to simply purchase the gun in the first place?

    You are so consumed with hate for the object that you just don't see straight, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "You are so consumed with hate for the object that you just don't see straight, do you?"

    Do I sound like I'm "consumed with hate?" I call that a typical pro-gun exaggeration? Why are you guys so unreasonable?

    The problem with "shall issue" is that it deprives the local law enforcement people, whose job it is to keep EVERYONE safe, from doing their job. Many people who can still pass the background check are not qualified to own guns let alone carry concealed in society. The local police chief is often in a perfect place to identify those individuals.

    It's your fear of the police misusing this power, which is a reasonable concern, I admit, which makes you resist the whole thing. This is called "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." You'd rather let dangerous people who are known to the cops get gun licenses than take the chance that you'll be wrongly persecuted. That's called being a self-serving egotist.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...whose job it is to keep EVERYONE safe..."

    That is not their job. It is your own responsibility to keep yourself safe. It is the duty of law enforcement to--get this-- enforce the laws.

    That's what they do. That's all they are required to do. And if they screw that up, they can be held accountable in some cases. But they cannot ever be held accountable for failing to keep you safe.

    Since it is my responsibility to keep me safe, and not some cop somewhere within a fifty mile radius of me, I should get to decide how and what works best for me. In a truly free America, I could decide to carry brass knuckles, or a switchblade knife, if I felt it suitable to the purpose. In our current state of affairs, either of those weapons would land me in jail, and render my concealed carry permit void. Funny that.

    As to the concept that shall issue prevents the police from keeping an individual unarmed, it does no such thing.

    The individual must still pass background checks that are more stringent than purchasing requirements. In some states, merely being arrested is enough to be a disqualification. In some states, the discretion is STILL left to the sheriff if he believes the individual to be a danger or malcontent. Of course, he must provide something other than, "I just think so."

    "It's your fear of the police misusing this power, which is a reasonable concern, I admit, which makes you resist the whole thing."

    If you admit it is a reasonable concern, why do you argue it?

    "This is called "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." "

    No, it's called liberty. No one ever said liberty was perfectly safe. In fact, it's often messy. But I'd much rather be free than "safe." A bird in a cage is safe, but he gets fed only when his owner decides, and gets only waht his owner wants him to have, when his owner wants him to have it. This bird would rather be free.

    "You'd rather let dangerous people who are known to the cops get gun licenses than take the chance that you'll be wrongly persecuted."

    I'd rather take that chance, yes. I also would rather let one hundred guilty men go free than jail one innocent man. I also believe people are innocent until proven guilty.

    But I also know that under our current system, people who are inclined to break the law do not normally apply for concealed carry permits. They simply go ahead and break the law by carrying concealed without the permit.

    "That's called being a self-serving egotist."

    I'm in good company.

    ReplyDelete
  12. sorry about the double-tap.

    IE sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Do I sound like I'm "consumed with hate?" I call that a typical pro-gun exaggeration? Why are you guys so unreasonable?

    A typical exaggeration?!? Would that be most or many of us? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous, You've got a good point about the police not being responsible for keeping us safe. I worded that badly. But, that has nothing to do with what I think is wrong with shall issue.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Then why did you bring it up?

    What exactly is the problem with shall issue, and where is your proof that shall issue is "a big mistake" (worse than the alternatives of no issue or may issue)?

    ReplyDelete