I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal and I'm fully in support of your right to concealed carry, as long as you're at the shooting range every week to develop and maintain your skill.

Think of this this way: by carrying a gun, you're tacitly acknowledging you may one day have to use it in public. So, best to practice frequently to make sure that if (God forbid) you have to use it, you will be able to draw, aim, and hit the bad guy in three seconds -- without accidentally hitting anyone else.

A few years ago, in another big city, I spoke to the owner of a private shooting range. His most consistent clients? Local police officers. They apparently didn't get as much on-the-job practice as they felt they needed to be confident of their ability to react quickly with their sidearm.

So, to any gun owner who's reading this thread: may I suggest you practice far more than you think you'd need to? If the cops feel the need for extra training every month, then perhaps you should be practicing every week.

If you do practice every week, then honestly, I'll probably feel safer walking at night beside you than without you. But if you don't practice... I really hope I'm nowhere near when you feel the need to draw.

Really? I mean, I don’t really trust them to carry a gun. Period. They don’t really sound trustworthy.

I don’t trust anyone who owns a gun and does NOT support common sense gun laws.

The vast majority of existing gun laws, and an even greater proportion of proposed additional restrictions are anything but “common sense.” What kind of “common sense” would favor endless restrictions on the rights of decent people in a completely failed effort to prevent criminal behavior by violent sociopaths, who typically already prohibited from possessing firearms?

[Anonymous]

Neat. Want a cookie?

Here’s that attention you ordered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal and I'm fully in support of your right to concealed carry, as long as you're at the shooting range every week to develop and maintain your skill.

Think of this this way: by carrying a gun, you're tacitly acknowledging you may one day have to use it in public. So, best to practice frequently to make sure that if (God forbid) you have to use it, you will be able to draw, aim, and hit the bad guy in three seconds -- without accidentally hitting anyone else.

A few years ago, in another big city, I spoke to the owner of a private shooting range. His most consistent clients? Local police officers. They apparently didn't get as much on-the-job practice as they felt they needed to be confident of their ability to react quickly with their sidearm.

So, to any gun owner who's reading this thread: may I suggest you practice far more than you think you'd need to? If the cops feel the need for extra training every month, then perhaps you should be practicing every week.

If you do practice every week, then honestly, I'll probably feel safer walking at night beside you than without you. But if you don't practice... I really hope I'm nowhere near when you feel the need to draw.

Really? I mean, I don’t really trust them to carry a gun. Period. They don’t really sound trustworthy.

I don’t trust anyone who owns a gun and does NOT support common sense gun laws.

The vast majority of existing gun laws, and an even greater proportion of proposed additional restrictions are anything but “common sense.” What kind of “common sense” would favor endless restrictions on the rights of decent people in a completely failed effort to prevent criminal behavior by violent sociopaths, who typically already prohibited from possessing firearms?

Comments like this are exactly why I don’t trust you.

These are not “endless resitrictions”:
https://www.bradyunited.org/the-brady-plan
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation/code-of-conduct-act

[Anonymous]

27 states are Constitutional Carry. So that is 27 states where you don't need a permit to carry a gun. You are covered by the constitution. A beautiful thing. Also, somebody please define "Common Sense" guns laws? That phrase is right up there with "gun buy back" A "buy back" would mean the state or government sold you the gun. They did not. You can't by back something you did not sell. Its gun confiscation, pure and simple, but the word smiths have to try and make it sound nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neat. Want a cookie?

Here’s that attention you ordered.

You just added to it, you dope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you really prepared to end someone's life? That's a bold move to make.

OP here. I really appreciate this question. I have thought about this a lot since deciding to carry. If it is my only option to protect myself or my family, yes. And still, I know my life would be changed forever. It's a terrible but important thought exercise I think anyone making the choice to carry should undertake with seriousness. I have decided I could live with myself and my actions under a narrow set of circumstances.

Is it just for someone stealing your wallet to die?

Yes. If they stick a gun in my face to do so. What a moronic question.

+1

Enough of this “no one deserves to die for sealing a wallet” bs. How ‘bout no one deserves to die for being the victim of a random senseless crime? How ‘bout that?

Unpopular opinion: some people are more trouble than they’re worth and the world IS better off without them.

That is how I feel about people like you. Interesting.

Can you expand on that? Im interested in hearing the why.

I don't want to live in a militarized society where we're all threatening to shoot each other. There are serious issues to address, but the whole "an armed society is a polite society" is a lot of BS that the world would be better off without. We can actually be polite to each other for positive reasons.

Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Some useful links:

https://mpdc.dc.gov/publication/application-concealed-carry-license

https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/page_content/attachments/ConcealedCarryLicenseApplicationInstructions102214_FINAL.pdf

[Anonymous]

The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal and I'm fully in support of your right to concealed carry, as long as you're at the shooting range every week to develop and maintain your skill.

Think of this this way: by carrying a gun, you're tacitly acknowledging you may one day have to use it in public. So, best to practice frequently to make sure that if (God forbid) you have to use it, you will be able to draw, aim, and hit the bad guy in three seconds -- without accidentally hitting anyone else.

A few years ago, in another big city, I spoke to the owner of a private shooting range. His most consistent clients? Local police officers. They apparently didn't get as much on-the-job practice as they felt they needed to be confident of their ability to react quickly with their sidearm.

So, to any gun owner who's reading this thread: may I suggest you practice far more than you think you'd need to? If the cops feel the need for extra training every month, then perhaps you should be practicing every week.

If you do practice every week, then honestly, I'll probably feel safer walking at night beside you than without you. But if you don't practice... I really hope I'm nowhere near when you feel the need to draw.

Really? I mean, I don’t really trust them to carry a gun. Period. They don’t really sound trustworthy.

I don’t trust anyone who owns a gun and does NOT support common sense gun laws.

The vast majority of existing gun laws, and an even greater proportion of proposed additional restrictions are anything but “common sense.” What kind of “common sense” would favor endless restrictions on the rights of decent people in a completely failed effort to prevent criminal behavior by violent sociopaths, who typically already prohibited from possessing firearms?

Comments like this are exactly why I don’t trust you.

These are not “endless resitrictions”:
https://www.bradyunited.org/the-brady-plan
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation/code-of-conduct-act

Yes they are. Because all the laws already on the books were supposed to solve the crime problem. When they didn’t, new laws got passed, over and over. And those have failed too, because the problem is criminal psychopaths, not decent people and inanimate objects. And if Brady & Co. got everything they are wishing for today, that will fail too. And so there will be a demand for still more pointless, ineffective laws that criminals (being criminals) will ignore the way they ignore all the laws already in effect. Read the posts in this thread and similar ones on DCUM: the people who blame firearms for the behavior of criminals will not be satisfied until a “magic magnet” comes and supernaturally lifts away all the guns, not that would make an iota of difference anyway, because the criminal underworld would promptly meet criminal demand for firearms the same way it meets the criminal demand for narcotics and every other form of Vice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in DC. Unlike a lot of the posters on here, the transplants. Glad I never came back to the “pit city” after I graduated, Was unable to own a gun legally. Had my dad mugged in broad day light in the alley taking out the trash, my great aunt mugged on Connecticut Ave walking to church, neighbors boyfriend shot house sitting by thieves and he crawled bleeding to her house a lock down. All this in 1988. DC has some very stupid gun hating activists. Live there long enough, you see how stupid. Carl Rowan for example, a “journalist” who decried anyone in dc having a gun and was pro ban, used an illegal handgun to shoot a BCC student pool hopping in Forrest Hill home in 1988, then got busted lying about what happened. Rules for thee but not for me. Glad you are carrying. I’m glad all my remaining family in DC is now strapped. A polite society is an armed society.

And you are not welcome in my DC home! The stats are clear that accidental gun deaths increase with gun ownership.

[Anonymous]

I recently reported a petty crime and the police officer told me to strongly consider getting a firearm/gun for my home, because things are getting really bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

Cool story, bro.

[Anonymous]

This thread is enlightening.

The pro-CCW posters here tend to be very pragmatic, serious and sober in their posts (with the exception of a few obvious sarcastic jabs), while the anti-gun posters generally tend to be more histrionic, dramatic, and combative. The pro-CCW people sound like my attorney neighbors. The anti-gun people sound like angry yahoos at a protest.

It’s a noticeable thing. It consistently comes through in these 10 pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..