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.

And yet, ordinary people with concealed weapon permits have stopped active shooters so often that you’ve given up trying to deny it happens.

How many people with CCWs have had accidental shootings? Or suicides?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ok, serious question: do you really think that these people with permits only go to a range once in their lives, to qualify for their permit?

If you really DO believe that, then say so. But if you suspect otherwise, and are just implying that for purposes of snark, then that’s a pretty bad-faith way to argue.

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.

And yet, ordinary people with concealed weapon permits have stopped active shooters so often that you’ve given up trying to deny it happens.

How many people with CCWs have had accidental shootings? Or suicides?

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.

So there were peaceful BLM protestors. AND there were people who were causing trouble. Got it.

Yes, and the people causing trouble caused a lot of trouble. I was very glad we had a permitted gun in our home those weeks. The trashing and looting by SOME was unconscionable, and you never know when that can turn into mob violence. So I felt a LOT better, and yes, my husband sat up those nights.

Anonymous wrote:Where did we land on Swiss gun laws? We like them because they are "less draconian” than ours?

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.

And yet, ordinary people with concealed weapon permits have stopped active shooters so often that you’ve given up trying to deny it happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You see, snark like this is a sure indicia of a weak argument and a weaker mind. No one claimed anyone is an expert, although a good number of persons with concealed pistol permits doubtless could qualify as “expert” on a range test. And you’re the one who seems to have te sexual obsession. Decent people with concealed pistol permits want to be able to protect themselves and they have a right to do that. People with an irrational fear of firearms (and of what they themselves might do if they had one) have screamed for years about blood in the streets, negligent bullets flying everywhere, and every other imaginable scenario their fantasy could develop. Shall issue laws have been around since 1987. Vermont has never required a carry permit. Many other States like Virginia have long allowed open carry without a permit. The predicted disaster has never occurred.

Anonymous wrote: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 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.

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.

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.

You were doing great and then crashed and burned. LE officers barely have sufficient training needed to carry and use a firearm. Your average person with a CCW just absolutely sucks in terms of proficiency, accuracy, and more importantly, decision making skills.

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.

So there were peaceful BLM protestors. AND there were people who were causing trouble. Got it.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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.