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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

There are plenty of examples of CCW holders choosing to engage when not needed. Like shooting at fleeing shoplifters.

Training at a firing range on static known targets when no one is shooting at you is very different than trying to discern friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets, that are potentially shooting back at you.

A few feet away isn't the ideal range for a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

I’m fine letting LEO defend the VP and legislators with deadly force.

What about the thousands of BLM protesters that surrounded the White House for 3 days in June of 2020, set fire to several buildings nearby, seriously injured dozens of police officers and caused the secret service to evacuate the first family to the bunker out of fear that the White House was about to be overrun ?

Do you support force deadly force being used there, too?

The vast majority of BLM protestors were peaceful. Certainly the ones were the day when Trump ousted them violently. And they didn’t breach any federal buildings. And they aren’t traitors trying to overthrow the government. So…not comparable.

Downtown and major shopping cooridors were TRASHED during these protests. Cars were rocked and harrassed. They were not fully peaceful by any means. Some folks may have peacefully protested by day; at night much turned violent and the rampant looting had nothing to do with peaceful protest/equal rights.

I live in DC and saw it firsthand, unlike you FOX viewers out there in the hinterlands. There were weeks and weeks of BLM protests that were in fact completely peaceful. The only times things got violent were a.) when there were outside provocateurs causing trouble, like Proud Boys and b.) the day that the Trump
administration decided to violently clear the area for Trump's idiotic photo op with a Bible.

Absolutely bs. There were several riots and violence caused by the left-wing nuts in several cities.
Seriously, whom do you think you are fooling?

It was all over Breitbart and The Daily Stormer. How could it not be true?

I was present at the riot in Virginia Beach so your gaslighting/ trolling does not work.
Arson, vandalism, gun fire, etc.
BLM riots happened in many other cities such as Portland which is well documented by multiple news sources regardless of political slant.

PoRtLAnD?!?!?!?

Antiifa A-hole?

"Antifa"?

You are too dumb to carry a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

There are plenty of examples of CCW holders choosing to engage when not needed. Like shooting at fleeing shoplifters.

Training at a firing range on static known targets when no one is shooting at you is very different than trying to discern friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets, that are potentially shooting back at you.

A few feet away isn't the ideal range for a gun.

Of course the vast majority, if not the entirety in many jurisdictions, of police firearm training is at a firing range on static known [distance] targets, and never touched on “discerning friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets [????], that are potentially shooting back.” Force on force training is physically challenging, has a high risk of things like sprained ankles, and requires expensive simulated ammunition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

There are plenty of examples of CCW holders choosing to engage when not needed. Like shooting at fleeing shoplifters.

Training at a firing range on static known targets when no one is shooting at you is very different than trying to discern friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets, that are potentially shooting back at you.

A few feet away isn't the ideal range for a gun.

Do you actually do any shooting? Closer is easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

There are plenty of examples of CCW holders choosing to engage when not needed. Like shooting at fleeing shoplifters.

Training at a firing range on static known targets when no one is shooting at you is very different than trying to discern friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets, that are potentially shooting back at you.

A few feet away isn't the ideal range for a gun.

Do you actually do any shooting? Closer is easier.

At a static target that isn't trying to attack you, yes. I'd rather be over 10 feet away if I had to. A few feet is striking distance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

There are plenty of examples of CCW holders choosing to engage when not needed. Like shooting at fleeing shoplifters.

Training at a firing range on static known targets when no one is shooting at you is very different than trying to discern friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets, that are potentially shooting back at you.

A few feet away isn't the ideal range for a gun.

Of course the vast majority, if not the entirety in many jurisdictions, of police firearm training is at a firing range on static known [distance] targets, and never touched on “discerning friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets [????], that are potentially shooting back.” Force on force training is physically challenging, has a high risk of things like sprained ankles, and requires expensive simulated ammunition.

So therefore we should have more people with even less training and experience? Please complete the logic.

[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.

I hope you stay safe and aren't charged with a crime for protecting yourself. That's the way of DC right now. The prisons are inside out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

There are plenty of examples of CCW holders choosing to engage when not needed. Like shooting at fleeing shoplifters.

Training at a firing range on static known targets when no one is shooting at you is very different than trying to discern friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets, that are potentially shooting back at you.

A few feet away isn't the ideal range for a gun.

Do you actually do any shooting? Closer is easier.

At a static target that isn't trying to attack you, yes. I'd rather be over 10 feet away if I had to. A few feet is striking distance.

Do much force on force, do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

There are plenty of examples of CCW holders choosing to engage when not needed. Like shooting at fleeing shoplifters.

Training at a firing range on static known targets when no one is shooting at you is very different than trying to discern friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets, that are potentially shooting back at you.

A few feet away isn't the ideal range for a gun.

Do you actually do any shooting? Closer is easier.

At a static target that isn't trying to attack you, yes. I'd rather be over 10 feet away if I had to. A few feet is striking distance.

Do much force on force, do you?

DP: I don't ... but the 10 feet vs 2 feet point sounds logical to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

There are plenty of examples of CCW holders choosing to engage when not needed. Like shooting at fleeing shoplifters.

Training at a firing range on static known targets when no one is shooting at you is very different than trying to discern friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets, that are potentially shooting back at you.

A few feet away isn't the ideal range for a gun.

Of course the vast majority, if not the entirety in many jurisdictions, of police firearm training is at a firing range on static known [distance] targets, and never touched on “discerning friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets [????], that are potentially shooting back.” Force on force training is physically challenging, has a high risk of things like sprained ankles, and requires expensive simulated ammunition.

So therefore we should have more people with even less training and experience? Please complete the logic.

It is not a question of having more or fewer people who can be armed. The point is that holding the police up as a group uniquely suited to possess and use firearms because of their intensive training, deep experience and supernatural physical gifts is an entirely specious argument. The Japanese used that logic to justify creating the samurai class and disarming the rest of the population so they could be oppressed. Police are not “special.”

People have a right to the efficacious means of self defense. No one gets a concealed pistol permit in DC without at least two full days of training that covers an entire range of topics, plus a range session where they are required to demonstrate safe firearm handling and the ability to reliably hit a target at realistic self defense range. Are they match-winning experts at that point? Probably not. But neither are the vast majority of police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

There are plenty of examples of CCW holders choosing to engage when not needed. Like shooting at fleeing shoplifters.

Training at a firing range on static known targets when no one is shooting at you is very different than trying to discern friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets, that are potentially shooting back at you.

A few feet away isn't the ideal range for a gun.

Of course the vast majority, if not the entirety in many jurisdictions, of police firearm training is at a firing range on static known [distance] targets, and never touched on “discerning friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets [????], that are potentially shooting back.” Force on force training is physically challenging, has a high risk of things like sprained ankles, and requires expensive simulated ammunition.

So therefore we should have more people with even less training and experience? Please complete the logic.

It is not a question of having more or fewer people who can be armed. The point is that holding the police up as a group uniquely suited to possess and use firearms because of their intensive training, deep experience and supernatural physical gifts is an entirely specious argument. The Japanese used that logic to justify creating the samurai class and disarming the rest of the population so they could be oppressed. Police are not “special.”

People have a right to the efficacious means of self defense. No one gets a concealed pistol permit in DC without at least two full days of training that covers an entire range of topics, plus a range session where they are required to demonstrate safe firearm handling and the ability to reliably hit a target at realistic self defense range. Are they match-winning experts at that point? Probably not. But neither are the vast majority of police.

I'm perfectly ok with severely restricting guns for both police and civilians like the UK.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and I have to lol at "2 days of training" plus a range session. So the 2.5 day "gun experts" are being set loose with their vigilante wet dreams.

[Anonymous]

My first thought is it might be a good idea because when the civil war starts as of now most of the conservatives will be armed and most of the liberals will not. That doesn't sound like a fair fight.

My second thought is that I would never live in a place that felt as unsafe as DC apparently does. I am nearing 70 and I have never lived anywhere that unsafe and I currently live in Florida. In my community I feel perfectly safe and no I don't have a bunch of money and don't live in a gated community. I also felt safe in every neighborhood I lived in in NoVa which was most of my life.

I have no gun, don't want a gun, and I guess if I come face to face with a gun I'm just going to die, but in the meantime I'm making decisions about my life that pretty much eliminate the need for a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

There are plenty of examples of CCW holders choosing to engage when not needed. Like shooting at fleeing shoplifters.

Training at a firing range on static known targets when no one is shooting at you is very different than trying to discern friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets, that are potentially shooting back at you.

A few feet away isn't the ideal range for a gun.

Of course the vast majority, if not the entirety in many jurisdictions, of police firearm training is at a firing range on static known [distance] targets, and never touched on “discerning friendly from hostile, moving, covering targets [????], that are potentially shooting back.” Force on force training is physically challenging, has a high risk of things like sprained ankles, and requires expensive simulated ammunition.

So therefore we should have more people with even less training and experience? Please complete the logic.

It is not a question of having more or fewer people who can be armed. The point is that holding the police up as a group uniquely suited to possess and use firearms because of their intensive training, deep experience and supernatural physical gifts is an entirely specious argument. The Japanese used that logic to justify creating the samurai class and disarming the rest of the population so they could be oppressed. Police are not “special.”

People have a right to the efficacious means of self defense. No one gets a concealed pistol permit in DC without at least two full days of training that covers an entire range of topics, plus a range session where they are required to demonstrate safe firearm handling and the ability to reliably hit a target at realistic self defense range. Are they match-winning experts at that point? Probably not. But neither are the vast majority of police.

I'm perfectly ok with severely restricting guns for both police and civilians like the UK.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on one’s point of view, you’re not in charge of the matter. The UK experiment has been a dismal failure, with ordinary kitchen knives and sewing scissors now considered heinous weapons worthy of draconian prohibition. There’s a reason the US is a separate country.