Concealed Carry: If You're Interested in Preventing Hate Crimes, Let's Stop them Before They Happen
Twenty-five years ago, Tom Palmer and a male companion were threatened by a group of 20 or so young males on an empty street in San Jose, California. The group shouted anti-gay epithets and made death threats.
Palmer and his companion ran, and the attackers gave chase. Moments later, Palmer pulled out a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, one he owned legally, and pointed it at the group. Palmer was positive they intended to seriously harm or even kill him and his companion.
The gun stopped the group in their tracks. Palmer told them that if they got any closer to him, he would use the gun and shoot. The young men didn't take that chance, and Palmer credits that pistol for saving his life.
Tom, who currently works as a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, knows first hand that a gun can save your life.
This summer, the Senate will consider the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, more commonly know as Hate Crimes legislation. Unfortunately, the bill, as currently written, will do little to actually prevent violent hate crimes from occurring. There is, however, a way to stop hate crimes before they happen: help law-abiding Americans at risk of hate crimes defend themselves from predators.
While GOProud, the only national gay conservative group, doesn't take a position on the current hate crimes legislation, we do strongly support empowering individuals to protect themselves - which is why GOProud urges the Senate to amend the current hate crimes legislation to include a provision dealing with concealed carry reciprocity.
A bill in the Senate, S. 845, co-sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA), allows for reciprocity among all the states that currently allow citizens to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.
This common sense legislation would allow an individual who is lawfully licensed to carry a concealed weapon in his home state, to also carry a concealed weapon in another state - as long as that state permits conceal carry and as long as the individual complies with the concealed carry law of that state. An individual's constitutional right to defend himself or herself should not arbitrarily stop at a state line. This is particularly the case when traveling to a state that also permits concealed carry.
GOProud is not alone in their fight to empower law-abiding individuals by protecting their 2nd Amendment rights. Gun Owners of America, an organization representing hundreds of thousands of Americans, strongly supports S. 845, and supports adding concealed carry reciprocity to the hate crimes bill.
Gun Owners of America is the organization that helped lead the successful efforts to amend recent credit card legislation to include a provision allowing for the lawful exercise of 2nd amendment rights in national parks and refuges. Gun Owners of America shares our commitment to empowering individuals to defend themselves lawfully from becoming victims of violent crime.
No matter what the left wants you to believe, the truth is that law-abiding gun use saves lives. Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self defense - that's 6,850 times a day in this country. Furthermore, concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in states that have enacted them.
According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states that passed concealed carry law reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7%, and robbery by 3%.
Some on the left will argue that this amendment would be a poison pill -- an amendment intended simply to kill hate crimes legislation. This amendment isn't a poison pill -- like it or not hate crimes legislation will pass, and by a wide margin, with or without a concealed carry reciprocity amendment.
No one argues that violent crime is not a problem, and no one should doubt that there are groups of individuals who are targeted just because of who they are -- be it because they of their race, religion or sexual orientation. While good and honest people can differ on the best and most constitutional way to deal with this problem, all of us can and should agree that it is a problem.
If Congress is actually interested in preventing violent hate crimes, they should pass legislation that will empower individuals to defend themselves before they become another hate crime victim.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
how big of a gun should i carry? what happens when i pull out my .22 and the criminal pulls out a glock? i'm thinking that the only way to be sure is to wear one of those bullet proof suits that the swat teams wear whenever i'm out and have a visible assault rifle. i' m going to establish a safety perimeter of 5 ft. around me because a criminal could walk up to me and spray pepper spray under my face plate and then, since he (or she) couldn't shoot thru my suit, beat me to death with my rifle, god forbid you should step across that line. i've already armored my prius and the secret cave is almost ready.
lol......
Hyperbole is not productive, but it is funny!!!
I am worried about the MPG if I armor my prius.........
Bullet-proof glass weighs less...
.
Actually when the criminal pulls out a glock after you have pulled out your .22, that perhaps makes you the criminal as you pulled your gun on someone who you didn't say threatened you in any manner.
If you were threatened first then I would tell you to make sure you shoot the other guy in the head.
"how big of a gun should i carry? "
The biggest you can comfortably and accurately carry and shoot while not 'printing' the firearm through your clothes.
"what happens when i pull out my .22 and the criminal pulls out a glock?"
You shoot him before he shoots you. This isn't a sword fight. .22s kill quite well.
BTW, Glock makes firearms in various calibers including .22.
"bullet proof suits "
Bullet resistant vests, AKA body armor. And there is no body armor which cannot be defeated.
"and have a visible assault rifle"
Do you know what an assault rifle is and the hassles you have to go through to get one?
Just another gun lunatic who thinks firearms are the answer to all life's problems.
Vigilantism is always destructive. While Republican/NRA advocates have developed whole cycles of legends and myths to rationalize their destructive cause, reasonable people will not turn the combined roles of police, judge, jury and executioners over to any yahoo who can afford a gun.
You seem to have difficulty seperating vigilantism from legitimate self-defence.
most gun ban supporters have that problem
The idea is not vigilantism, but the idea that an armed society is a polite society.
The idea has merit, but many flaws as well.
Responsible owners are not the main problem, it is the crack pot, the guy on the edge.... The lapse in judgment and sanity that can only be predicted in hindsight.
16th and 17th Century France, Every gentleman carried a weapon, and was versed in it's use. The result? 144,000 Frenchmen died in duels with those weapons in 100 years........
Like I said, the idea has merits and flaws.....
144,000 in 100 years?? I'll take those statistics in order not to be considered one of the statistics of victims of theft or other bodily harm
So if they hadn't been killed in duels then those Frenchmen would still be alive? Come on your trying to fool us with facts. Those guys would of still died a long time ago.
Guns were banned nationally in Germany before the big war by you know who. Wonder how that turned out?
When did all these townhall members get here?
I thought progressives were all about free speech and open debate--or are you merely a hypocrite
GOProud, despite what this author says, is an offshoot of the original national gay conservative group, the Log Cabin Republicans. Being a radical offshoot, they are going to lengths to portray themselves as the only group, despite their smaller roster and focus on tertiary rights that may or may not affect gays, like gun rights, instead of things that would affect all gays, like civil rights. It strikes me as odd that a gay group would think that they could advance their cause by latching onto the gun issue. It's kind of sad.
What about color coordinated guns in pink or baby blue?
They have pink guns- they are kind of cute.
Well, I'm glad 25 years ago that Mr. Palmer was able to fend off the bad guys. But what if one of THOSE guys had a legally licensed firearm, with a concealed carry permit?
Sorry, but your premise stinks. More guns in public will mean more gun deaths, especially if states are nuts enough (like Tennessee) to consider allowing folks to bring their guns into a bar.
Hate crimes should be prosecuted as such. Guns should be licensed like cars.
"THOSE guys had a legally licensed firearm, with a concealed carry permit? "
-Can you point to many cases where this has happened? Do you honestly think possession of a firearm with a CCW makes a person a "Bad Guy" . . .Never mind, I know what you think on that one!
"Guns should be licensed like cars."
Excellent Idea! You don't have to be 21 or even 18 to "Register" a car.
You don't have to be even 18 to "Purchase" a car.
You can buy as many cars a day as you wish with NO BACKGROUND check.
If you leave it on private property, you don't even have to register it at all!
There are no prohabitions on purchasing cars if you are a FELON.
There are no prohabitions on purchasing cars if you are a DOMESTIC ABUSER
You can buy any sort of car you wish and can afford. . Even ones that might not be otherwise legal like formula 1 racecars or monster 4wd trucks. or even pocket rocket go carts
Wow, you managed to write that many words without addressing even a single point.
"But what if one of THOSE guys had a legally licensed firearm, with a concealed carry permit?" He didn't say that carrying a weapon makes you a bad guy, he said that while it's good that Mr. Palmer was able to defend himself, the situation might have turned out dramatically differently if his pursuers had also been carrying legally purchased and carried guns.
And it's fairly obvious that "Guns should be licensed like cars" is referring to Driver's Licenses, not a license to buy a car, since there is no such thing, making the 117 words you typed completely meaningless.
39 states allow guns in bars.
While the concept looks like a recipe for tragedy, apparently no discernible uptick in alcohol related gun deaths have occurred.
A gun license should be like getting a driving license, a proficiency test, with a written test, renewed every 4 years.
I have had a CCW for 25 years now.
I also believe the gun application should include an MMPI evaluation. But, then again I believe an MMPI evaluation should be a prerequisite for a driver's license and a college degree too, so I may not be the best person to ask on that one LOL
I agree that the license should be required to be renewed. There should also be severe penalties for irresponsible gun ownership.
When a 5 year old in Texas can get take his father's loaded pistol into kindergarden for show-and-tell, it needs to be treated than more than a casual misdemeanor. The man should lose his right to have arms or ammunition FOR LIFE.
When a child can be killed at a gun show, in front of his father, because he was too young to try out an automatic weapon than that family, as well as the dealer, should lose their rights to have arms or ammunition FOR LIFE.
When I hear the NRA or any other gun lobby starts talking about repsonsible gun ownership I will agree with them. They forget that the Second Amendment speaks of a well-trained militia, not just the abiltiy to buy a gun.
My father's brother was killed at age 6. He and a friend were in the friend's father's car. The kid pulled the dad's gun out of the glove compartment. My uncle's last words were "don't point it at me, it may be loaded."
criminals don't bother with pesky little things like concealed carry permits--look at all the gun violence in DC and Chicago where handguns are for all intents and purposes illegal
Having a conceal weapon does not alert anybody that you have a gun thus reducing its most powerful effectiveness which is deterrence. I'm not against gun ownership, although someone really needs to explain to me why you need an automatic or semiautomatic weapon to go hunting, I'm just against these lame ass excuses for why people should be able to carry concealed weapons. If you want to argue that people should be able to walk around like the old west, with guns on their person, fine. make that argument. Just please stop telling me that concealed weapons save lives. I think the people in Camden would differ with that opinion
except maybe for the victims that survived?
I made it to age 52 before obtaining a concealed weapon permit. I work for an indigent defense firm as an investigator, & often have to locate, interview, and subpoena meth heads & dealers & other dangerous people. I don't carry the gun as a deterrent, (it's concealed) but to defend myself in the event I see a subject reaching for a weapon, my goal is to thwart them allowing me to cuff them.
Prior to the Bush administration, I was opposed to an individual's right to own weapons except for hunting as you do. With that said, the right to bare harms has nothing to do with hunting, thus there is no reason to explain to you why an automatic or semiautomatic is needed. The right to bare arms was in response to Brittan's habit of confiscating guns of those countries they "colonized" so the government could use military might to suppress the rights of individuals. Take a look at the long history of the Irish struggle against Great Brittan.
It was also for the citizens to be able to continue to struggle against an invasion from a foreign government. Imagine how more effective the French resistance in WWII would have been had the citizens been armed after the government surrendered so quickly. Other examples can be found in countries where military coups are the norm. The citizens are unable to defend their democratic process. Pakistan is an example.
The point of an automatic or semiautomatic weapon is to kill alot of people quickly. Same as a bomb. (My point is neither have an application to game hunting.) My "right" to own a bomb is curtailled. Why can't my "right" to own an automatic or semiautomatic weapon.
I'm not allowed to collect anthrax or smallpox pathogens--also useful to kill large numbers of people. Therefore, I don't have a problem with outlawing the "collection" of certain types of weapons.
I don't have a problem with responsible gun ownership. I have a problem with the perversion of responsible gun ownership by weapons manufacturers and groups like the NRA. I don't see the problem with regulating the types of guns that can be owned by the general public (with modifications made to the types of guns owned by ex-military, law enforcement, etc.)
If, like you, people have legitimate business reasons for carrying a weapon, than they should be required to pass a licenseing process that is commiserate to the danger that the weapon can inflict. You have to prove you can handle the car before you are licensed to drive. You should need to have the same type of real licensing requirements with gun ownership.
Good post!
There is a very good reason to carry concealed. Not everyone will want to or be able to carry a weapon. So, not knowing who has and who does not have a weapon, but knowing some number of citizens will be carrying a sidearm, many criminals would not bother to harass anyone. If those of us who carry did so openly, criminals would know who is not armed and, therefore, who to victimize.
Name any society that allowed, necessitated, their citizens to be heavily armed at home and in public what was "safe' from violent acts using those weapons.
I am reminded of a biographical story from the early East Texas oil fields. Three men were partners in a drilling company. They didn't trust each other or anyone else. Since there was a lot of cash around there was also a constant threat of armed robbery, and most men were armed most of the time.
When the men delivered their oil to the depot they were paid out in cash. They walked to the bank to deposit it. All three were armed and all three carried their weapons in their hand. The one with the cash was a step or two in front, so if he tried to run off with the money the other two could shoot him. And all three guarded the cash with guns at the ready walking down the center of the dirt street, so that no one could get close enough to them to shoot and grab their money.
I personally don't like the sound of that kind of life style.
It's called Switzerland, where men are REQUIRED to have a fully automatic assault rifle in their home at all times.
Switzerland: Every male citizen must serve in their Armed Forces, and a few yeas in the reserves as well. They take home their military issued "assault rifle", with a full comat load of ammunition, and put it in their gun safe, just in case. They are also renowned for holding marksmanship competitions,and they have quite a liberal view of things...
Now, come on, folks... As with every other right, the right to keep and bear arms carries with it an inherent responsibility. I have the right to carry, and am licensed to do so, but I also have a healthy appreciation for not only the safe operation and storage of that firearm, but of the moral and ethical issues as well.. I have been trained by the Armed Forces to employ firearms, and I have a inherent duty to continue to use these skills, if the situation requires, to protect m fellow citizens.
This doesn't mean that I will fall into the argument of "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail"; it is my responsibility to avoid confrontations where a firearm is inappropriate: If I'm going to drink in a bar, the gun stays in the truck. I rely on my maturity and common sense not to get into confrontations... I don't need a gun to make my point.
Refresh my memory: Switzerland has a population of how many people, again? And has historically been on the road for every single invading army travelling through Europe for how long?
They're not doing it out of some comic book/action movie-derived romanticism. They're doing it out of simple practicality.
THANK YOU!
One has to wonder if the Germans would have been successful in rounding up, and killing the Jews, if the Jews were armed?
Poland, who is the butt of many jokes for their collapse against the Germans, had the pride to use what they had to try to stop Panza divisions. However, pitchforks, soldiers on horseback with sabers, men with single shot hunting rifles, died, but went out in a blaze of glory. Futile lives wasted in the face of an overwhelming force. But free people will make a stand to keep their families safe, even when they know they will die.
Would the genocide in Rwanda or Dafur been as swift & successful were the citizens able to have weapons capable of defending themselves? Something other than a single shot hunting rifle? I expect they would.
We law abiding citizens have a hard time understanding that bad people do bad things because they can, not because there are laws to prevent them from doing so. The laws only provide us rational people with a false sense of security.
Children in Ghana have been taken from their families, who, other than the young males, were slaughtered. These children, with very little indoctrination, became killers for the very forces that killed their families. Their main weapon? Machete's. Its not the weapon that's bad, it's the person wielding it and their intent.
I own gun, but I just like to shot empty beer cans with it.
I think gays should not only carry guns, but when their life is threatened, actually shoot the criminals who threaten them. Don't let them get away. They will just attack some other innocent gay person.
AND enact the hate crimes laws. That way, these criminals can be taken off the streets for a long long time.
I would rather see effective enforcement of laws dealing with violence than "hate crime" legislation if for no other reason that such laws only go one way (skinhead killing minority gets longer sentence but Black Panter or Farrahkan follower attacking European American for the same racist reasons doesn't_)
I'd through my weight behind this. Guns may not be the criminal kryptonite people think it is, but they certainly help.
Guns clearly are *not* kryptonite to criminals.
And you say this based on..............? Enlighten us please.
JohnFromCensornati:
You stated that:
"Guns clearly are *not* kryptonite to criminals."
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what DOES stop criminals?
Of course the original and premier gays 'n guns web site is: http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html
Another discussion on the same subject can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/09/senate-gopers-loosen-gun_n_213074.html
How do you tell the good guys from the bad. They all look the same on the street. If some one pulls a gun on the street do you immediately know why? What if one legitimately uses a gun and is witnessed by someone else who pulls a gun to demand that the original cease, or god forbid, they shoot first? Unless everyone is trained as the police are (and even they make mistakes) at some point you will have a O.K. corral episode. Are you willing to accept the collateral damage?
To my knowledge that has never happened when legally armed citizens where involved. With police and military, yes it has on rare occasions. Can you provide any evidence to back up your understandable concern?
Concealed carry permits require a minimum standard of training. One of the first principles taught is that you never, never, use a firearm unless the person has already started firing in an indiscriminate fashion or you personally know either the shooter or the people he is targeting.
This is to avoid interferring with legitimate law enforcement functions, and so deal with the problem of target identification.
Is it gun violence if I shoot your strawman full of holes?
I would recommend that you check out the required training required to carry a concealed firearm, before you start tossing out absurd hypotheticals. You could also compare the number of people killed by police crossfire and mistakes v. concealed carry holders.
There is no such requirement in Indiana to obtain a license.
His argument is speculative, not a strawman. And it is a valid concern.
In many states you need simply fill out an application, and pay your fee. No training or test is administered or required.
It would be best if all states required training and proficiency tests, It would make even responsible CCW holders more so, and would eliminate the dangerous yahoos.
Interesting, since Florida passed the first CCW permits in 85, perhaps you can point to any of the myriad cases where your scenario has played out?
Did it occur to you that most states have very clear provisions WHEN deadly force may be used. Most people who bother to go for the FBI Background check with fingerprints (required in all states that issue CCW permits) are not nearly as inclined as you seem to believe to play Rambo.
Speculative question.
Don't tear the guy apart for asking questions!
Why even HAVE a concealed-carry permit? Why not just carry it in an open holster for ALL to see? I believe that's called deterrence.
Here you go: http://www.opencarry.org/
Not an option in most states, but it may be in yours.
You could become a target of you carry openly. For example, someone may wish to steal your gun. Or, someone might be intoxicated and try something like showing off and go for it. It might well also be an unwanted distraction, say, from business or a date.
.
I try to carry my smallest pistol on a date, I don't want to be seen as "Overcompensating"....;)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
