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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've lived in cities all across the country. I've never before experienced so much random, reckless, and violent crime. I'm now carrying a concealed firearm.

You can have my car, my cell phone, my credit cards, and any other thing you want. But I am getting home to my family at the end of the day.

This city seems more worried about the wellbeing of criminals than law-abiding citizens. The most important job of government is protecting the safety of residents. The city doesn't have the stomach for it, so I have to do it myself.

I'm a lifelong democrat. I believe in sensible gun control. I'm not a "gun nut." What we have here are not Democratic policies. Democrats don't believe in lawlessness. Parents don't believe in lawlessness.

I pray I never have to use it. I can't imagine having to take a life.

You'll shoot yer eye out, kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've lived in cities all across the country. I've never before experienced so much random, reckless, and violent crime. I'm now carrying a concealed firearm.

You can have my car, my cell phone, my credit cards, and any other thing you want. But I am getting home to my family at the end of the day.

This city seems more worried about the wellbeing of criminals than law-abiding citizens. The most important job of government is protecting the safety of residents. The city doesn't have the stomach for it, so I have to do it myself.

I'm a lifelong democrat. I believe in sensible gun control. I'm not a "gun nut." What we have here are not Democratic policies. Democrats don't believe in lawlessness. Parents don't believe in lawlessness.

I pray I never have to use it. I can't imagine having to take a life.

You'll shoot yer eye out, kid.

I believe the logic goes something like: government exists to protect vulnerable in society. The most vulnerable deserve the most protection. The perty criminals are defined to be the most vulnerable because they lack consist income or marketable skills. Therefore government must protect the criminals.

If you are middle class, the government has no time for your problems. Please pay your taxes in a timely fashion though. Or else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, these are not “endless”. These are targeted actions that address real issues today.

You prefer to make up wild scenarios (magic magnet?) over these actions that would reduce gun deaths.

You can’t support any of these proposed actions/laws? Did you even read them?

Gun owners should be responsible and rational. That’s why I don’t trust you.

It is not “gun owners” who are misusing firearms. It is violent criminal psychopaths already prohibited from firearms possession.

And the “magic magnet” isn’t my idea. Read the posts on DCUM. There are plenty of posters living in a fantasyland who want all guns to disappear and actually think this is possible. Some Eden advocate for such a solution to be imposed by authoritarian violence worthy of a totalitarian dictatorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yeah, because some people think the answer to petty crime is shooting someone.

No, people think that the response to the threat or use of life-threatening criminal violence is the lawful and moral use of deadly force. Crime is never “petty” when it involves the use of threatened use of force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've lived in cities all across the country. I've never before experienced so much random, reckless, and violent crime. I'm now carrying a concealed firearm.

You can have my car, my cell phone, my credit cards, and any other thing you want. But I am getting home to my family at the end of the day.

This city seems more worried about the wellbeing of criminals than law-abiding citizens. The most important job of government is protecting the safety of residents. The city doesn't have the stomach for it, so I have to do it myself.

I'm a lifelong democrat. I believe in sensible gun control. I'm not a "gun nut." What we have here are not Democratic policies. Democrats don't believe in lawlessness. Parents don't believe in lawlessness.

I pray I never have to use it. I can't imagine having to take a life.

You'll shoot yer eye out, kid.

I believe the logic goes something like: government exists to protect vulnerable in society. The most vulnerable deserve the most protection. The perty criminals are defined to be the most vulnerable because they lack consist income or marketable skills. Therefore government must protect the criminals.

If you are middle class, the government has no time for your problems. Please pay your taxes in a timely fashion though. Or else

My point was rather that normal people waiving guns around could result in horrible accidents. They're not benign objects and a lotta things could go wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yeah, because some people think the answer to petty crime is shooting someone.

No, people think that the response to the threat or use of life-threatening criminal violence is the lawful and moral use of deadly force. Crime is never “petty” when it involves the use of threatened use of force.

This is the main message right here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep!

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Here are some pragmatic and sober questions, which I hope you can answer: How frequently do bullets miss their intended targets and hit innocent bystanders? Would you be able to live with yourself if you killed a child accidentally ?

That sounds like an excellent thing for you to research and get back to us with your findings.

Scour the internet for news articles and post as many examples as you can of children who were mistakenly shot by people with training and CCW permits who were in a gun battle with a criminal and accidentally shot a nearby child.

Search it out and let us know about all the times it’s happened. Based on the repetitiveness of which you kept posting this scenario, it would suggest that you seem to think it happens thousands of times a year - so it shouldn’t be too much trouble to cite a few dozen recent local examples.

So….get started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

DP good for you. Good luck to your family though. The vast majority of guns that get fired in the households they belong to end up hurting someone in the family. That's a fact that you cannot disprove.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

You’re a broken record. You cannot fathom that people can be responsible gun owners and that the gun could actually save their lives. You are insufferable. And consider yourself the reason for one more CCW permit which I had not considered until reading this thread.

Show me the statistics to convince me that guns save more lives than they take. Please - I'll be convinced if you have the facts to back that up.

Better yet, post links to 5 instances where someone like you stopped a criminal in his tracks with your sidearm.

Meanwhile, I'll find 5,000 links to instances where someone like you accidentally shot and killed someone they knew and another 500,000 where someone in the house got hold of their gun and shot themselves or their kid brother.

Please cite the 500,000 instances where a child found a gun and killed their sibling. Please cite ALL 500,000.

In the absence of being able to cite all 500,000, show the statistical process and data that allowed to arrive at the 500,000 figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you confident you will actually shoot a criminal, or shoot a criminal first before he shoots you, and not miss your target and maim or kill an innocent bystander? How could you live with yourself if your bullet missed its intended target, or went through your intended target and then also hit and killed a 3 year old who was innocently nearby? Do you think that child (or other innocent victim) would simply be collateral damage? Surely you have done your homework and seen what damage guns can do to little bodies, or how one bullet can go through one person and continue on to hit another. Have you done your homework in this regard?

How could you live with yourself owning a car that could possibly strike a 3 year old in a cross walk while you are driving and checking your HuffPo app? Far greater chance of this happening than you shooting a 3 year old.

Congrats on inadvertently making a good point? We should actually talk about reducing unnecessary driving. Ambulances and truck deliveries are pretty important, but we don't really need to drive a half mile to pick up a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. We really have taken on a lot of unnecessary carnage because driving is comfortable and convenient. Kind of gross.

Yet you own a car. Hypocrite.

OMG you're an environmentalist but you breath out carbon dioxide. Hypocrite.

You realize how dumb you sound? Like kindergarten level stupid. Do better.

About like comparing hydrogen bombs, tanks and fighter jets to….. ordinary rifles.

Sound familiar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you confident you will actually shoot a criminal, or shoot a criminal first before he shoots you, and not miss your target and maim or kill an innocent bystander? How could you live with yourself if your bullet missed its intended target, or went through your intended target and then also hit and killed a 3 year old who was innocently nearby? Do you think that child (or other innocent victim) would simply be collateral damage? Surely you have done your homework and seen what damage guns can do to little bodies, or how one bullet can go through one person and continue on to hit another. Have you done your homework in this regard?

How could you live with yourself owning a car that could possibly strike a 3 year old in a cross walk while you are driving and checking your HuffPo app? Far greater chance of this happening than you shooting a 3 year old.

Congrats on inadvertently making a good point? We should actually talk about reducing unnecessary driving. Ambulances and truck deliveries are pretty important, but we don't really need to drive a half mile to pick up a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. We really have taken on a lot of unnecessary carnage because driving is comfortable and convenient. Kind of gross.

Yet you own a car. Hypocrite.

OMG you're an environmentalist but you breath out carbon dioxide. Hypocrite.

You realize how dumb you sound? Like kindergarten level stupid. Do better.

About like comparing hydrogen bombs, tanks and fighter jets to….. ordinary rifles.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, that's a dumb logical argument, but not sure why I can't buy a tank based on the same reading of the 2nd amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you confident you will actually shoot a criminal, or shoot a criminal first before he shoots you, and not miss your target and maim or kill an innocent bystander? How could you live with yourself if your bullet missed its intended target, or went through your intended target and then also hit and killed a 3 year old who was innocently nearby? Do you think that child (or other innocent victim) would simply be collateral damage? Surely you have done your homework and seen what damage guns can do to little bodies, or how one bullet can go through one person and continue on to hit another. Have you done your homework in this regard?

How could you live with yourself owning a car that could possibly strike a 3 year old in a cross walk while you are driving and checking your HuffPo app? Far greater chance of this happening than you shooting a 3 year old.

Congrats on inadvertently making a good point? We should actually talk about reducing unnecessary driving. Ambulances and truck deliveries are pretty important, but we don't really need to drive a half mile to pick up a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. We really have taken on a lot of unnecessary carnage because driving is comfortable and convenient. Kind of gross.

Yet you own a car. Hypocrite.

OMG you're an environmentalist but you breath out carbon dioxide. Hypocrite.

You realize how dumb you sound? Like kindergarten level stupid. Do better.

About like comparing hydrogen bombs, tanks and fighter jets to….. ordinary rifles.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, that's a dumb logical argument, but not sure why I can't buy a tank based on the same reading of the 2nd amendment.

Can you carry a tank?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, these are not “endless”. These are targeted actions that address real issues today.

You prefer to make up wild scenarios (magic magnet?) over these actions that would reduce gun deaths.

You can’t support any of these proposed actions/laws? Did you even read them?

Gun owners should be responsible and rational. That’s why I don’t trust you.

It is not “gun owners” who are misusing firearms. It is violent criminal psychopaths already prohibited from firearms possession.

And the “magic magnet” isn’t my idea. Read the posts on DCUM. There are plenty of posters living in a fantasyland who want all guns to disappear and actually think this is possible. Some Eden advocate for such a solution to be imposed by authoritarian violence worthy of a totalitarian dictatorship.

You are fixated on one piece of the puzzle. How did he get the gun? Can the LEOs track to the source if it was sourced in a different state?

Read the proposed actions from Brady. You can support any of them? None of these proposed actions should affect responsible gun owners.

People who are driven by irrational fears and refuse to inform themselves have no place owning a weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

DP good for you. Good luck to your family though. The vast majority of guns that get fired in the households they belong to end up hurting someone in the family. That's a fact that you cannot disprove.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

You’re a broken record. You cannot fathom that people can be responsible gun owners and that the gun could actually save their lives. You are insufferable. And consider yourself the reason for one more CCW permit which I had not considered until reading this thread.

Show me the statistics to convince me that guns save more lives than they take. Please - I'll be convinced if you have the facts to back that up.

Better yet, post links to 5 instances where someone like you stopped a criminal in his tracks with your sidearm.

Meanwhile, I'll find 5,000 links to instances where someone like you accidentally shot and killed someone they knew and another 500,000 where someone in the house got hold of their gun and shot themselves or their kid brother.

Please cite the 500,000 instances where a child found a gun and killed their sibling. Please cite ALL 500,000.

In the absence of being able to cite all 500,000, show the statistical process and data that allowed to arrive at the 500,000 figure.

Well she’s going to have a hard time because I just found this:
“Of the 48,830 total gun deaths in 2021, one percent were unintentional shootings.”

From https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/accidental-shootings-cdc-data-children/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you confident you will actually shoot a criminal, or shoot a criminal first before he shoots you, and not miss your target and maim or kill an innocent bystander? How could you live with yourself if your bullet missed its intended target, or went through your intended target and then also hit and killed a 3 year old who was innocently nearby? Do you think that child (or other innocent victim) would simply be collateral damage? Surely you have done your homework and seen what damage guns can do to little bodies, or how one bullet can go through one person and continue on to hit another. Have you done your homework in this regard?

How could you live with yourself owning a car that could possibly strike a 3 year old in a cross walk while you are driving and checking your HuffPo app? Far greater chance of this happening than you shooting a 3 year old.

Congrats on inadvertently making a good point? We should actually talk about reducing unnecessary driving. Ambulances and truck deliveries are pretty important, but we don't really need to drive a half mile to pick up a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. We really have taken on a lot of unnecessary carnage because driving is comfortable and convenient. Kind of gross.

Yet you own a car. Hypocrite.

OMG you're an environmentalist but you breath out carbon dioxide. Hypocrite.

You realize how dumb you sound? Like kindergarten level stupid. Do better.

About like comparing hydrogen bombs, tanks and fighter jets to….. ordinary rifles.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, that's a dumb logical argument, but not sure why I can't buy a tank based on the same reading of the 2nd amendment.

Can you carry a tank?

DP. People can carry surface-to-air shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.