Congress now sees the value of concealed carry

[johnelmore]

I am a big advocate of a national concealed carry law, but I am also a realist and believe many people struggle with the concept. I didnt think it would be a reality.

Now Congress sees the value of concealed carry first hand. When fired upon the best defense is to return fire, but if your firearm is locked up in your safe at home the best you can do is make a run for it.

Im surprised at the Congressman from NY who says he will be carrying his pistol now while out in public. Shouldnt an important elected official be carrying? Quite honestly if I was elected to Congress I would carry whenever lawful to do so. Its just common sense that one of these guys is going to come after you.

So now, maybe now, we can discuss target hardening through lawful concealed carry. I hope it will become a reality. How many more active shooter events do we have to go through before we realize the common sense behind concealed carry?

[Aguila Blanca]

It isn't legal to carry in Washington, DC, and members of Congress currently have no special provision to set themselves apart from the rest of us. However, at least one member of Congress is already talking about creating national reciprocity for Washington, DC -- but only for members of Congress, not for the rest of us.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ba...rticle/2625970

The baseball practice was held in Virginia, but I doubt members of Congress would have thought to arm up for a baseball practice when they'd be going from there across the river to work in DC.

"We aren't any more special than anybody else, but we're targets," Loudermilk said. "This is exactly why there's a lot of fear of doing town halls at this point."

Translation: "We aren't any more special than anyone else ... except we're more special than you are."

[gbclarkson]

I, too, am a proponent of concealed carry by mature adults but the arming of America as a response to shooter events has me unnerved and saddened.

The recent shooting at the baseball practice, and the Giffords incident in 2011, were both premeditated ambushes and would not have been prevented by concealed carry. And, Scalise had a security detail. I don't remember if Giffords did also. Concealed carry is a defense measure against crime but will not deter or defeat crazy.

What is the solution?, I don't know. I am an elementary-level special education teacher. I have often advocated for the expansion of mental health services in public schools as a sensible response to irrational mass violence. This is a topic, though, for other forums and letters to my government representatives (which I have done).

Just one man's opinion...

[NoSecondBest]

Now Congress sees the value of concealed carry first hand. When fired upon the best defense is to return fire, but if your firearm is locked up in your safe at home the best you can do is make a run for it.

Are you now speaking for Congress? Where do you get this info? Has Congress discussed this based on recent incidents? You're jumping on a bandwagon that isn't there, and are only expressing your own opinion, not that of Congress. I think they'll make some public statements regarding this if it's something they're considering. You're implying you know something that the rest of the country does not. As another response states, concealed carry won't stop crazy.

[Onward Allusion]

NoSecondBest
Senior Member

Are you now speaking for Congress? Where do you get this info? Has Congress discussed this based on recent incidents? You're jumping on a bandwagon that isn't there, and are only expressing your own opinion, not that of Congress. I think they'll make some public statements regarding this if it's something they're considering. You're implying you know something that the rest of the country does not. As another response states, concealed carry won't stop crazy.

Naw, he doesn't have to speak for Congress. Congress can speak for themselves, especially the ones who were there.

Per Rep Gary Palmer's own words during an interview between Gayle King and the Rep on CBS This Morning - "I wished I had one <gun> yesterday.... "Trent Kelly would have . . . and a number of others"...

You're welcome.

[lockedcj7]

...and I've already heard the call for "rational people" to sit down and discuss this "problem". Of course, they are talking about gun control, not the actual problem.

I still do not understand why some people cannot, or will not, see a problem for what it is. Worse, they know exactly what it is and deliberately use the wrong term to obscure the truth and advance some other agenda.

Gang members killing each other is gang violence. A man killing his wife is domestic violence, terrorists commit acts of terrorism. None of these should be characterized as "gun violence". But calling it gun violence makes the solution seem obvious. Instead, the actual problems are complex and not easily solved.

It also drives me nuts when the talking heads call it a "tragedy". If a bus full of nuns goes off a cliff, that's a tragedy. Attacks, however minor, are violent, vicious attacks. Watering down the language interferes with understanding the true nature of the problem and coming up with the appropriate solution.

[Don P]

Congress now sees the value of concealed carry

Really, yesterday and this morning the Dems were calling for more gun control. No Rep. so far have called for more gun control. Just reporting what was on the news

[johnelmore]

My opinion is the words "arming up for baseball practice" is not accurate. The firearm is a tool much like a first aid kit. You have it on hand for a specific situation just in case. Rarely, if ever, will it be used as is the caae with many emergency tools. So I dont see it as arming up, but preparing for a low probability high risk outcome.

Isnt it common sense to have armed persons standing by during a large gathering of elected officials? I dont understand why the local police in Virginia didnt have a few officers monitoring the gathering.

[johnelmore]

As for the Dems not one day goes by without them calling for "gun control" and "assault" weapon bans. So if yesterday they were talking about such things it went over my head. Im so used to hearing it from them that it goes in one ear and out the other.

[NoSecondBest]

Every time one of these nut jobs shoots a number of people, the investigation into their history always shows a history of mental instability, violence, and a multitude of reasons why they never should have been in possession of a gun. Every time they were either on some kind of watch list, have social media postings stating bigoted or violent tenancy, and yet they still get a gun. I've been a handgun cc permit trainer for quite a few years and I'm very pro Second Amendment, but common sense tells you that there is a problem with who has access to guns in this country. All the gang bangers have guns and Chicago is a prime example of what a lot of the problem is. In spite of all of this, someone thinks the answer is to have everyone carrying a concealed weapon. I'm not against most people have a handgun, but the biggest share of the problem is the people who shouldn't have a gun of any type. It's a Rambo fantasy to think that concealed handguns will prevent all, or even a significant percentage of these attacks. It's pretty rare when someone intervenes because they happen to be carrying a gun. I've turned down a few Rambo Fantasy individuals who wanted a class so they could get a cc permit. Most of them were quite obviously troubled individuals.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by gbclarkson

Concealed carry is a defense measure against crime but will not deter or defeat crazy.

Well, since deterrence usually assumes a rational actor, it is difficult to deter crazy, as crazy is by definition irrational and thus we don't know that a bottle of Windex was crazy guy's kryptonite rather than a gun.

However, as yesterday's incident showed again, having an armed good guy at the scene when it happens can mitigate what would otherwise be a tragedy. There are several incidents now where mass shootings didn't reach the FBI definition of a "mass shooting" because the shooter was shot by a CHL as soon as he began shooting.

Alexandria PD responsed in 3 minutes. I can tell you as a 3-gun shooter, 3 minutes is a long time to be unarmed while someone shoots at you with any weapon.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by NoSecondBest

Every time they were either on some kind of watch list, have social media postings stating bigoted or violent tenancy, and yet they still get a gun.

You think that saying something bigoted or violent on social media should cause someone to lose their Second Amendment rights? Exactly who will decide what is bigoted or violent?

I am more concerned about violent felons who are breaking the law by even owning a firearm who go unpunished. There are tens of thousands of NICS denials every year but less than a hundred prosecutions for lying on the 4473.

[Evan Thomas]

Stay focused on the thread topic, gang. If people go off into general rants or start bickering, we'll be done with this one.

[Skans]

If this baseball practice was in Texas, the wack-job wouldn't even think about trying something like that!

[gbclarkson]

If this baseball practice was in Texas, the wack-job wouldn't even think about trying something like that!

The Dallas police ambush?

Ft. Hood?

I haven't even used Google yet.

Are you serious?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

Isnt it common sense to have armed persons standing by during a large gathering of elected officials? I dont understand why the local police in Virginia didnt have a few officers monitoring the gathering.

Because that is NOT the standard practice.

It may become so after yesterday's incident, but if it does then there will have to be a debate over who pays for it. The Capitol Police don't have the manpower to provide 24/7 security for all members of Congress. Those two officers were there only because Scalise is a ranking member. Local and state police departments don't have the manpower or the budget to suddenly be expected to deploy armed officers as a security detail any time an elected official decides to drive through or deliver a speech in their jurisdiction.

One of those present certainly sounded pretty close to advocating expanded carry (at least for them). Was it Rand Paul or Mo Brooks who said (not an exact quote), "He had a rifle and all we had was baseball bats"?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by NoSecondBest

All the gang bangers have guns and Chicago is a prime example of what a lot of the problem is. In spite of all of this, someone thinks the answer is to have everyone carrying a concealed weapon. I'm not against most people have a handgun, but the biggest share of the problem is the people who shouldn't have a gun of any type. It's a Rambo fantasy to think that concealed handguns will prevent all, or even a significant percentage of these attacks. It's pretty rare when someone intervenes because they happen to be carrying a gun.

The problem of bad people having guns will not and cannot be "solved" by limiting (or even eliminating entirely) access to firearms by the law-abiding.

Nobody is suggesting that expanded concealed carry will prevent attacks (although it might prevent some), but it would allow victims of an attack to fight back. Suppose Representative Scalise hadn't been on the team. If he had not been there, his armed security team would not have been there. That would have meant that the shooter would have had a clear, unopposed killing field until the local gendarmerie showed up. If several people had had carry guns, on the other hand, the shooter would have been faced with return fire coming from multiple directions.

As to preventing attacks ... IMHO that's a broad statement that may not be universally applicable. Certainly, if an assailant initiates an attack with the mindset that he's going to go out in a blaze of glory, he won't be stopped by the possibility that some of the victims may be armed and may shoot back. He expects to die anyway. But we don't know (at least, not yet) if this particular attacker intended to die. He was apparently on the hunt for Republicans. It's equally possible that he didn't expect any armed resistance, and that he thought he could "shoot and scoot," to ride off into the sun[rise] and go hunting more Republicans another day. Or he might have thought he'd shoot as many as he could, and then surrender when the cavalry arrived. What is NOT likely is that he could have anticipated that (1) Representative Scalise would be on the Republican team; and (2) that Scalise's presence meant an armed security team.

So ... will expanded concealed carry "prevent" all such attacks in the future? No. Might it prevent some? IMHO, yes.

Speaking of people who should not have guns ... this shooter seems to be someone who shouldn't have had guns, yet the FBI has announced that both the rifle and his pistol were apparently purchased legally. Articles I've read indicate that the guy had multiple arrests, including for domestic violence -- but I guess there were no convictions. Thus, it appears that our criminal justice system may have failed once again.

[PoiDog]

A news reader on a Chicago TV station called the shooter's pistol an "assault pistol".

I gotta get me one of those things.

Sheesh.

[Aguila Blanca]

The 1994 thru 2004 federal AWB included a definition for certain pistols to be classified as "assault weapons." One of the criteria was a magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds ...

[Evan Thomas]

This thread has pretty much lost whatever focus it had on concealed carry, so I'm going to close it. There's another thread going on this topic -- feel free to discuss it there.