Why I carry a gun

[armueller2001]

borrowed from Glocktalk.com
By Will Dougan

The question "why do you choose to carry a firearm?" has haunted me. I am a fairly normal guy. I love to eat barbecue, I pay taxes, I vote. I'd like to take my wife out more often (to eat barbecue), I attend church and I'm a baseball fan -just like many other men in Memphis.

One thing that makes me different from some of those men is that I carry a gun. I do so because I truly believe that preserving the safety and well-being of my wife, my children and myself is my duty. Do I think there are villains around every corner waiting to pounce? Certainly not. To quote the Boy Scout motto, my intent is only to "be prepared." I carry a spare tire in my car, have emergency supplies at home, and always wear my seatbelt, all so that I will be prepared. I have used my spare tire twice, never used the emergency supplies and found my seatbelt's restraints necessary only once. So why do I still maintain all those safeguards? Because I know that when I do need them, I'll need them desperately.

For me, a handgun is much the same -a safeguard. I carry it and train with it just in case I ever need it. I hope never to need my gun. I avoid places I think might not be safe. I pay close attention to what is going on around me, so that I can stay one step ahead of potential dangers. I do not look for trouble nor go around with a chip on my shoulder. I love my family more than anything on Earth. I want my children to grow up, go to school, move out and give me grandchildren. I want my wife and me to live and love each other until death do us part -when we are very, very old. The thought of losing them or having them lose me makes my eyes well up and lodges a lump in my throat.

I grew up in rural Madison County, where guns were a part of life, not something to be feared or mistrusted. We all had them, we all used them, and we all respected them. A gun was and is a tool -nothing more, nothing less. You would never know my gun is there; it is safely tucked away in a manner that renders it harmless unless it is called upon. When you are at my home, there is no sign of a firearm; they are all stored in locked safes. I take my duty as husband and father seriously. Part of that duty is being willing and able to protect my loved ones -from drugs, economic dangers and physical threats.

The words of my father ring in my ears: "With great privilege comes great responsibility." I carry a gun because it is my responsibility alone -not that of the police, nor the government, nor the community -to defend the precious lives that God has entrusted to me. Although I have great distaste for the possibility of taking a life, I recall the words attributed to St. Augustine: "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." Fathers are like sheepdogs. We must be persistent, gentle, playful and, at times, ferocious. On occasion, we must become like the wolf that threatens our flock. For me, that means owning, carrying and undergoing extensive training with a firearm, so that when the wolf appears out of the shadows, I will be prepared to defend what the Master has given me.

[Tunkamerica]

1. nobody cares

i swear half the people carry guns to feel special. write an article about why you wear pants or why you floss. makes just as much a difference to me. and then to repost it... pointless.

[rl6214]

4. Then why did you even bother posting

?

[Tunkamerica]

60. i could ask you the same question

pointless exercise in the glorification of dumbasses

[burrfoot]

2. Thanks for that...

it's good put reminders out there that gun owners aren't all macho tough guys with a penis size compensation complex who are also paranoid about everything all day long every day; as it sometimes appears that some anti-gun proponents believe us to be.

[safeinOhio]

3. You are correct

"gun owners aren't all macho tough guys with a penis size compensation complex who are also paranoid about everything all day long every day; "

I'd say only about 25% are. I know both types very well.

[jeepnstein]

15. Yeah, but that 25% does that...

in everything they do. They can't help it. Ever see two guys get into an argument over whose cordless drill was better? I kid you not. Humans can be the most unbelievable morons at times. The same types also can kick off huge pissing matches in the fields of scientific research, philosophy, poker, motorcycling, and geology. It just all depends on what their particular favorite sandbox happens to be.

[sharesunited]

5. You're making a classic mistake in your outlook. If you can get a gun, so can others.

Now, you may be okay with that, but I'm not.

And I will face you down in any forum where I don't get shot by your side for opposing you.

If you take comfort from the fact that others agree with you, don't.

They are armed and dangerous.

[NewMoonTherian]

6. Here's my problem.

Anyone who wants a gun can get one anyway. Anyone who wants to carry one can do so, regardless of the law, if they do so discreetly. Honest people will choose not to do so if it is illegal. Dishonest people, intent on exerting deadly force to get what they want, will choose to do so. This leaves honest people at a distinct disadvantage.

[sharesunited]

7. If I may. You're trying to make a distinction between

a possessor of child porn and a producer of it.

The thing itself is what is deemed dangerous. Public policy is consistently and unyieldingly opposed to ANY of it.

How can guns and ammo be any less offensive to society, or be considered any less of a threat?

[spin]

21. Because many people use firearms in a responsible manner...

and never threaten anyone. Many people use firearms for legitimate sport including target shooting. Hunting is popular where I live because people stock their freezers with deer and hog meat to feed their families. Firearms and ammo are not offensive to society, but the misuse of firearms and ammo is.

Your fear and hatred of firearms has overwhelmed your logic.

[NewMoonTherian]

58. I'm not sure I grasp your analogy.

The reason being that firearms have legitimate uses, and are used legitimately every day. In my particular lifestyle(and this will not apply to everyone, to be sure) they fill a daily role that cannot be filled by any other tool I'm aware of. The danger arises from their irresponsible use.

A closer analogy(but still by no means a sufficient one) would be fire starting devices and fuel. They serve a legitimate role, and one that cannot be filled by any other item, but they have a great potential for being misused, and misuse or careless use causes death and destruction.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. You are making the classic mistake of taking away self defense options from those who need it most

and refuse to see the consequences. You would disarm the weak and powerless and leave them helpless against predators.

[guitar man]

12. So

Would you have the government take away guns from everybody in the country? If so how do you propose that be accomplished ?

[Atypical Liberal]

16. That is the crux of your argument.

If you can get a gun, so can others. Now, you may be okay with that, but I'm not.

And this is the crux of your argument right there, sharesunited.

Your entire philosophy is that because bad people can have guns, no one should have guns.

First of all, you have absolutely no way to get the guns out of the hands of bad people, only good people. None. Firearm technology is over 1000 years old. Modern firearm technology is over 100 years old. I presently manufacture ammunition in my garage. I could manufacture firearms there easily, too, if I was willing to jump through or ignore the paperwork involved. in 2011 you could no more hinder bad people from having firearms than you could stop them from having fire.

Second of all, I am not going to compromise my rights on behalf of bad people. I don't care how many lunatics commit crimes with guns, my rights will not be bound by the actions of others. You are going to have to fight people like me to advance your agenda and you are losing and you will continue to lose that fight.

[RSillsbee]

9. The words of my father ring in my ears: "With great privilege comes great responsibility."

Was your father Peter Parker's uncle?

[Hoyt]

10. Too bad you don't think of society and your children's future with too many guns in public.

I understand your love for your family. But a society with more and more guns in public ain't where I want my family to live. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks carrying that aren't nearly as mature as you. And, there are lot more who carry who aren't prepared for the unlikely event a situation will arise where a gun is necessary. Further, there are those who think they are society's protector -- the cowboy mentality.

Finally, do you carry when your family is not around?

In any event, I hope your family remains safe.

[armueller2001]

11. Of course I carry when my family is not present.

I wouldn't be able to do a whole lot for them if I'm under 6ft of dirt...

[Hoyt]

13. Luckily, the odds of a gun helping you ain't high. You are a lot more likely to die of illness.

[armueller2001]

14. And that's fine with me.

Like I said, I genuinely hope I never need to use my firearm in self defense.

[slackmaster]

17. WON'T SOMEOBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!111!!!11!!!

:rofl:

[Hoyt]

18. OK, think of the 303,820,536 Americans who don't see the need to tote.

[Atypical Liberal]

20. No one is holding that against them or trying to change their minds.

I have no problem with people who choose not to carry a firearm, and they are free to make that choice, as they should be.

[Hoyt]

24. Take your mind off your guns and look around.

I guess NRA and similar lobbying efforts and manufacturers producing "sexy" killing machines that pander to gunners' baser instincts ain't trying to change folks mines.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Cannot parse.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

The NRA lobbies to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Period. I don't know what you mean by a "sexy" killing machine, unless you are talking about the aesthetics of firearm design, which the NRA cares nothing about. Likewise I don't know what "baser instincts" you are talking about.

In the last election, all of my Democratic candidates except one had high marks from the NRA. I voted against him because of it. Three of my Democratic candidates were the endorsed candidate by the NRA.

You can see my ballot in my sig.

[slackmaster]

23. You mean like me?

:hi:

I support allowing people the CHOICE to carry a weapon for self-defense.

Most people choose not to.

[Common Sense Party]

39. I'm pro-choice, too!!! It's MY body, I'll defend it how I see fit.

I always thought being pro-choice was a PROGRESSIVE value.

[Atypical Liberal]

22. I think you have an mistaken fear of CCW holders.

But a society with more and more guns in public ain't where I want my family to live. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks carrying that aren't nearly as mature as you. And, there are lot more who carry who aren't prepared for the unlikely event a situation will arise where a gun is necessary. Further, there are those who think they are society's protector -- the cowboy mentality.

I think you have a mistaken view of people who carry firearms.

In most places, in order to carry a concealed firearm in public you have to have a permit. You have to be 21 years old. You have to undergo a background check more extensive than the simple NICS check. You have to travel down to the sheriff's office and fill out paperwork.

In short, exercising the right to carry a concealed firearm requires hyper-attention to the details of the law. You might suspect that people who are willing to pay such attention to the details of the law, especially concerning something as optional and burdensome as carrying a firearm, might turn out to be law-abiding people in general. They are.

The numbers have been posted here many times before. For the states that keep data on their CCW permit holders, like Florida, or Texas, you will note that CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in criminal activity. They are about 28 times less likely to be involved in crime than non-CCW permit holders. The rate of revocation of CCW permit holders is less than 2%.

See this thread:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x374332

In Texas, for the last 10 years, CCW permit holders account for less than one quarter of one percent of all convictions.

Further, as has been demonstrated before, CCW permit holders are less likely to cause collateral damage in a shoot-out than even the police are.

In short, your idea that CCW permit holders are immature cowboys is completely false. The reality is that CCW permit holders are among the most responsible citizens we have. You should feel as safe standing next to a CCW permit holder as you are standing next to a police officer.

[Hoyt]

25. Any fool who is not a felon can get a permit too easily in most states.

They watch a few videos, shoot some paper targets and go out and save the world. Most think they are better equipped and prepared than they are.

Having known a number of permit holders, I can tell you I don't feel safer with them (that is why I avoid them). Most were T-bagger types and/or cowboys.

Permit holders cause less collateral damage because they don't need their gun nearly as often as the police and most never need them. Yet, they can't walk out the door without one and spend way too much time obsessing over their prized killing apparatuses, loads, magazine size, bore size, stopping power, etc.

[slackmaster]

26. Fools and cowboys have Constitutional rights

So do people with mental health problems.

...Permit holders cause less collateral damage because they don't need their gun nearly as often as the police and most never need them....

Thank you for admitting that people with CCW permits aren't causing any real problems.

...Yet, they can't walk out the door without one and spend way too much time obsessing over their prized killing apparatuses, loads, magazine size, bore size, stopping power, etc.

It's very kind of you to be so concerned about what's going on inside of other peoples' heads.

[PavePusher]

27. So, you admit that they are not a problem...

and that the topic is simply disagreeable to you.

Why don't you just save yourself a lot of angst and find another forum to bother?

[Atypical Liberal]

29. Look at the DATA

They watch a few videos, shoot some paper targets and go out and save the world. Most think they are better equipped and prepared than they are.

Having known a number of permit holders, I can tell you I don't feel safer with them (that is why I avoid them). Most were T-bagger types and/or cowboys.

Permit holders cause less collateral damage because they don't need their gun nearly as often as the police and most never need them. Yet, they can't walk out the door without one and spend way too much time obsessing over their prized killing apparatuses, loads, magazine size, bore size, stopping power, etc.

The simple fact is the DATA does not back up your ANECDOTES.

CCW permit holders are far less likely to be involved in any kind of crime than a non-CCW permit holder. And regardless of the reason, they don't cause much collateral damage during a shooting.

Like I said. CCW permit holders generally have to be 21 years old. They have to undergo an extensive background check, more than the simple NICS check required for buying firearms. You have to travel down to the Sheriff's office and fill out the paperwork and pay the fees.

People who elect to jump through all the necessary hoops and navigate all the bureaucratic red tape just to engage in a purely optional undertaking are doing so because obeying every detail of the law is important to them.

Believe me, the thug selling drugs on the street corner does not bother with any of the above.

You have nothing to fear from CCW permit holders.

[Lurks Often]

31. Typical of you

Since you (as usual) are unable to come up with any facts that contradict the OP, you've decided to make rude remarks instead. Typical of those who are in favor of gun control, unable to argue logically or come up with facts to disprove a statement, they fall back on insulting the people they disagree with.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Right here is the fundamental difference.

"I carry a gun because it is my responsibility alone -not that of the police, nor the government, nor the community -to defend the precious lives that God has entrusted to me."

Right here is the fundamental difference of opinion, and why right-leaning folks tend to be more pro-firearm than left-leaning folks.

It is about collectivism vs. individualism.

People on the left tend to think in terms of collective efforts. The mind-set is that we are collectively all responsible for each other. People on the right tend to think in terms of individual efforts. In fact they distrust the collective to look after their needs as effectively as they can do so for themselves. The left sees personal safety and protection from harm ultimately as a responsibility of the collective, while the right sees personal safety and protection from harm ultimately as a responsibility of the individual.

Having been raised in a conservative family, and having been conservative for much of my youth, it was hard to see past the fallacies of the "bootstrap" mentality, and see that we are, in fact, very much dependent on each other no matter how self-sufficient we may think we are. And we all have need of collective services particularly when they involve services that none of us could afford individually, such as schools, roads, libraries, police services, fire services, and military forces, and a host of other things.

But you will never convince me that I can trust to put responsibility for my personal safety and that of my family into the hands of someone else.

I am the ultimate barrier at the door against the wolf. In the end, it is I, and no one else, who must stand to protect myself and my loved ones. I will not trust to hope that in my time of need, someone else will be there to save me. I accept and embrace this responsibility.

And this is the fundamental difference between pro and anti-firearm people.

[PavePusher]

28. Actually, I would go even furthar...

and say that many/most people on the "left" think that not only is security a "collective" responsibility, it is someone elses responsibility altogether. And then they become indignant when they become victims of crime and want to hold someone responsible...

[Hoyt]

32. I don't want to put safety of my family in the holster of those who think they are police/judge/jury

Pro-gunners -- especially public toters -- often sound quite T-bagish.

[X_Digger]

33. Perhaps you missed it when your knee jerked?

"I am the ultimate barrier at the door against the wolf. In the end, it is I, and no one else, who must stand to protect myself and my loved ones."

Notice the poster made no mention of you or your family. Only his own.

[Hoyt]

34. And I said I prefer for my family not to be exposed to gun toters in public places.

[X_Digger]

35. Then tell your family to not go around assaulting people who might be armed. Pretty simple, really.

There are at least 6,500,000 people in the US with a concealed carry license.

What evidence do you have to show that they are a danger to your family?

[Hoyt]

38. My family doesn't assault people, period. They are hyper-law abiding and don't pack in public.

We don't have family fun shooting off our latest and greatest assault weapon like a bunch of yahoos either.

[X_Digger]

40. Then why the irrational fear? n/t

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

48. Aha, it's ideology, not risk.. *copy* *paste* *save*

Expect to see that one again :)

[Atypical Liberal]

44. Please read my post carefully.

We don't have family fun shooting off our latest and greatest assault weapon like a bunch of yahoos either.

I hope you can read this calmly and rationally.

My family has shot firearms for at least four generations. It is a tradition handed down from parents to children, father (and even mother) to son.

My grandfather and grandmother used to go fowl hunting together to put meat on the table. My great-grandfather bought a pistol at a local hardware store during the construction of his home in St. Paul in 1904. I now own that pistol. My grandfather used to hunt with my father. I own the shotgun that he's holding in a picture with my father taken just before he died. My father taught me how to shoot at about 8 years old. It was done with great respect and awe and understanding of the seriousness of the undertaking, with paramount emphasis on safety. He gave me my first .22 rifle when I was 10 years old. I still have that rifle. I will pass these traditions on to my children when they are old enough. Hunting and shooting has been family fun for my family for over 100 years.

None of my family are "yahoos". My father is an engineer, I am a computer scientist. We are responsible, law-abiding people who have never had any trouble with the law more serious than a traffic ticket. I'm an Eagle Scout, as was my father before me, and, I'm pretty sure, his father before that.

We hunt, we target shoot, and we are prepared to defend ourselves if needs be, though it never has been.

We are not yahoos.

Please rethink your stereotype.

[Hoyt]

50. You might not be a yahoo, but there are plenty who are -- like most T-baggers..

I've had plenty of experience with guns, from blunderbusses to Hi-Standard target pistols. Could still breakdown a 1911 while blindfolded and 20 feet underwater. But I grew out of it -- especially when it comes to carrying in public.

[Atypical Liberal]

51. That may be so.

You might not be a yahoo, but there are plenty who are -- like most T-baggers..

That may be so, but this has nothing to do with the FACT that MOST CCW Permit holders are hyper-law abiding. Their rate of conviction for crimes is less than one quarter of one percent. They are many times less likely than the public at large to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

That is the issue.

Not their politics. Not whether you think they are weird, or obsessed, or anything else.

The obey the law. They are not a danger to you or anyone else. Your fear of them is completely irrational and is based on a STEREOTYPE. I hope you can recognize that.

[Hoyt]

53. It's based upon personal experience. Where I live, gun carriers are mostly T-baggers.

They might pass the CCW criteria, but still fail as a decent person. Most pack because they are afraid of and/or hate minorities, "firneers," and liberals.

What is the rate of conviction for the average person who could easily pass the criteria for a permit (ie, they are not a criminal/felon), but prefers not to be associated with carrying guns. I suspect it is no worse than your typical CCW, maybe better. Certainly better for society. I wish you could recognize that.

[Katya Mullethov]

57. At HoytCo...we specialize in underestimating the competition .

And people always ask ..... " How do you do it ? "

And the answer's simple .

Volume .

[Atypical Liberal]

59. If they don't break the law, who cares?

It's based upon personal experience. Where I live, gun carriers are mostly T-baggers. They might pass the CCW criteria, but still fail as a decent person. Most pack because they are afraid of and/or hate minorities, "firneers," and liberals.

As long as they are obeying the law, their personal politics don't matter. That is the point here. You are afraid of CCW-permit holders because you feel that they make society less safe. But as I've demonstrated, the fact of the matter is they are at least 30 times less likely to be involved in any kind of crime than a non-CCW permit holder.

I don't care what they believe in, as long as they obey the law. You can't say these people make society less safe when they are more law-abiding than your average citizen.

What is the rate of conviction for the average person who could easily pass the criteria for a permit (ie, they are not a criminal/felon), but prefers not to be associated with carrying guns. I suspect it is no worse than your typical CCW, maybe better. Certainly better for society. I wish you could recognize that.

No. Look at the Texas data I provided for you. It looks at the rate of conviction of CCW permit holders vs. everyone else convicted of crimes. Over the last 10 years, CCW permit holders routinely account for less than one-quarter of one percent of people convicted of crimes. This has been shown to be at least 30 times less likely than non-CCW permit holders.

That is all that matters. If someone has a CCW permit, that person is far less likely to be involved in a crime - any kind of crime - than someone without the permit, whether they are illegible for such a permit or not.

The data is extremely clear on this, and you can easily research it yourself. You are suffering under a stereotype of firearm owners and inferring that they are dangerous people. But the data shows that that is absolutely not the case.

[Atypical Liberal]

36. Again, you have a MISPLACED FEAR.

And I said I prefer for my family not to be exposed to gun toters in public places.

And again, you have a misplaced fear of people who carry concealed firearms.

It is a FACT that such people are hyper-law abiding citizens.

You have a stereotype that people who carry concealed firearms are dangerous vigilantes, eagerly anticipating being able to act out John Wayne in public.

DATA shows that this is NOT THE CASE.

Your fears are unfounded.

Further, unless you happen to live in one of the two remaining states that don't allow concealed carry, you probably are already surrounded by people who carry concealed firearms.

[Hoyt]

37. No, they are not all hyper-lawabiding. Some think they are in militias, are often racist, etc.

They go to protests with their guns tucked under their fat stomachs. Some wear shoulder holsters. Some carry tricked out guns that are not meant for defense. Maybe you've been smelling gun smoke too long and have no idea how one is supposed to behave in a civilized society.

[X_Digger]

41. How is it that you've missed the word 'concealed' repeatedly?

Is the sturm und drang so loud inside your head that it keeps you from reading things people post?

[Atypical Liberal]

43. He has a steretotype and can't let go.

He obviously has a stereotype in his mind. To his mind, all CCW permit holders are fat, racist, belong in a "militia", wear shoulder holsters, and attend political rallies while armed, and routinely break the law.

It is nothing short of being bigoted.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigoted

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance "

[Atypical Liberal]

42. Not all, just the VAST MAJORITY OF THEM.

Yes, there are some people who do all of those things, most of which, by the way, don't harm anyone.

But the vast majority of CCW permit holders are not involved with crime!

Look at the data for yourself!

Really!

Click on the damn link and go look!

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf

These are the conviction rates for just about every kind of infraction you can name. CCW permit holders account for less than one-quarter of one percent of those convictions!

And this is typical for data going all the way back to 2000!

Maybe you've been smelling gun smoke too long and have no idea how one is supposed to behave in a civilized society.

No, I know exactly how people are supposed to behave in civilized society. THEY OBEY THE LAW. And CCW permit holders do this BETTER THAN YOUR AVERAGE NON-CCW CITIZEN.

Look, I don't know how else to explain this to you. You obviously have allowed a STEREOTYPE to influence your opinion of AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PEOPLE. Your STEREOTYPE does not match with REALITY.

[Hoyt]

49. I doubt that CCW holders are any "better" than the average person who could get a CCW.

I'd say the latter group is what we ought to be aiming at -- Not a bunch of supposedly law-abiding citizens that think guns are necessary to protect themselves in public.

I could get a CCW pretty easily, but I would never carry a gun in public and expose other people -- many of whom are concerned/afraid of guns -- to them. And, I know plenty of folks like that. I also know C and OCers who shouldn't be allowed to carry a pen knife, much less a gun.

[Atypical Liberal]

52. Your doubts are not born out by the FACTS.

I doubt that CCW holders are any "better" than the average person who could get a CCW.

I'd say the latter group is what we ought to be aiming at -- Not a bunch of supposedly law-abiding citizens that think guns are necessary to protect themselves in public.

I could get a CCW pretty easily, but I would never carry a gun in public and expose other people -- many of whom are concerned/afraid of guns -- to them. And, I know plenty of folks like that. I also know C and OCers who shouldn't be allowed to carry a pen knife, much less a gun.

Your doubts are not born out by the facts. The fact is, the rate of conviction for CCW permit holders in Texas is 28 times less than your average citizen. Yes, lots of average citizens could also obtain CCW permits. But they are not as hyper-vigilant about the laws so as to bother jumping through bureaucratic red tape and expense and invasion of privacy to do it. CCW permit holders are. As a result, this self-selected group is many times, sometimes hundreds of times less-likely to be involved in crime than non-CCW permit holders. It's simply because of the kind of people they are.

The facts, for states that track the data, like Texas and Florida, is quite clear. The conviction rate for CCW permit holders is much less than that for non-CCW permit holders. They are not likely to be involved in any crime at all, and most certainly unlikely to be involved in crime involving firearms.

Again, you have expressed a definite stereotype about CCW permit holders that simply isn't born out by the facts.

[PavePusher]

64. "expose other people... to them"

Like it's a disease. Or something.

I suggest you get immunized.

[Glassunion]

65. There is an ointment...

[Glassunion]

55. Just for more clarification... Conviction rates of CCW in one easy post....

2000 = 0.2718%
2001 = 0.2437%
2002 = 0.1597%
2003 = 0.1422%
2004 = 0.1648%
2005 = 0.2530%
2006 = 0.2340%
2007 = 0.2612%
2008 = 0.1321%
2009 = 0.1541%

Another way to look at it, for 2009.
Percentage of non CCW holders that commit crime = .262% (based on 2010 projected population minus active CCW permits = pop. 24,971,033)
Percentage of CCW holders that commit crime = .025% (402,914 active permits)

[rrneck]

45. But you assign those unsavory attributes to all gun owners

whether you realize it or not.

Bigotry.

[PavePusher]

63. A light fisking...

1. "No, they are not all hyper-lawabiding. Some think they are in militias, are often racist, etc."
It is not against the law to belong to a militia or to be racist. Please note that I do not defend either one, although I will add that forming a milita is not neccesarily an anti-social act.


2. "They go to protests with their guns tucked under their fat stomachs."
I'm not fat. I go armed everywhere it is legal to do so. So, by definition, law-abiding.

3. "Some wear shoulder holsters."
Again, not illegal. Solely a matter of comfort and access.

4. "Some carry tricked out guns that are not meant for defense."
What do you mean by "tricked out" and "not for defense"? And to be redundant, not illegal.

5. "Maybe you've been smelling gun smoke too long and have no idea how one is supposed to behave in a civilized society."
And your credentials to be the Miss Manners of Firearms...? Somehow, I doubt I will be overwhelmed...

[rrneck]

47. When you find a way to make your personal preferences

insure the safety of everyone you meet you'll have a point.

[oneshooter]

56. So you are saying that Democrats who have a CHL....

Are Teabaggers?

YUP!


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[guitar man]

54. Why I carry

It's real simple, I carry when I believe I need the protection. I don't carry all the time anymore. After I was shot I kept a sidearm handy almost all the time for a few years, but now it's just when I think I might need it. Mostly when I'm out gigging on the weekend.

I'm often driving a van with $30-50k worth of musical instruments and equipment by myself most times. It's not unheard of for thugs to tail the band vehicle until they reach a remote intersection and hit it when it's stopped.I knew some guys down south years ago that got hit when they stopped at a stop sign in the middle of nowhere, the perps hit them with a 12 gauge, driver killed, passenger badly injured.

So, if carrying helps to get me home safe to my wife and daughter, that's what I'm going to do. I'm not running around itching for a fight, I just don't want to be helpless.

[Bonhomme Richard]

61. I'm coming around. This is a little long winded

I edged into this in a roundabout way. A little background. I'm a history buff and I always had a fascination with weapons. About 30 years ago I bought a black powder 1851 navy 44 and enjoyed shooting it when I could which wasn't often. I took fencing in College and continued on with classes I attended with my son. Then I got into bow hunting, spent a lot of time in the woods and got very proficient in its use. I replaced hunting with a camera because I realized that I just liked being in the woods and didn't need to shoot anything. I still target shoot. As it turned out my mother in law gave me her FN model 1900 semi-automatic pistol that her father gave her. I wanted to target shoot with it but in CT you basically can't take a pistol out of the house without a permit so I took the course. They only offer one permit and that is to carry so that is what I got. As is typical things progress. I target shot the FN but decided that I wanted a more modern pistol, did a lot of research and settled on a Bersa Thunder Pro HC 9mm. Love the pistol (put about a thousand rounds through it without a single problem). I began to think that as I work for myself, by myself, and in a sensitive field it would be dumb to have a pistol and not have it with me in case of need. Just precaution. For 35 years I have never gone anywhere, other than flying, without a knife on me and thought that the logic was the same so I have just begun to conceal carry. Knowing it carries a heavy responsibility I am determined to be as proficient as I am with any other weapon I own.
So yes, I am coming around but still not comfortable yet. I second guess myself regarding whether or not this is a form of paranoia, how uncomfortable some of my friends are (some I shoot with and others get unnerved), and the possibility of dealing with police (I find I now obey all the speed limits just so I don't get stopped and hassled). This is all very new to me but I think to myself that I have carried a knife all those years, and I did it for a reason. It has always been my nature to go through life in what some of you call code yellow, and I haven't a clue why though I have learned to trust my instincts. The same logic seems to apply but I am not completely convinced yet.

[X_Digger]

62. I'd recommend any of the books on the subject by Massad Ayoob.

Great resource, laid out in a no-nonsense fashion.

[Bonhomme Richard]

66. I read some online. Good reads. n/t

[DWC]

67. A gun is like a parachute

If you need one and don't have one, you will probably never need one again.


Excellent post armueller2001 and reflects the attitude of responsible gun owners every where.

Semper Fi,

[AzNick]

68. I carry because I have been threatened

I believe this is an easy enough explanation.

Ex-wife is from Chicago and is connected. Some douche bags from her family swore I would be "dealt with".

Cops can't do anything without any proof.

I bought a gun. Went to the shooting range to learn to shoot it and one thing led to another.

I don't feel more powerful, I feel less threatened.

And believe me, I will walk away if I can rather than shoot if I can.