10 things non-gun people should know about chl permitholders

[ejector]

This is a few months old, I seached but didn't see it posted.

http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176240

1. We don’t carry firearms so that we can ignore other basics of personal safety. Every permit holder that I know realizes that almost all dangerous situations can be avoided by vigilance, alertness and by simply making wise choices about where one goes and what one does. We don’t walk down dark alleys. We lock our cars. We don’t get intoxicated in public or hang out around people who do. We park our cars in well lighted spots and don’t hang out in bad parts of town where we have no business. A gun is our last resort, not our first.

2. We don’t think we are cops, spies, or superheros. We aren’t hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don’t take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness. We don’t believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren't here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We'll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety. Except for extrordinary circumstances your business is your business, don't expect us to help you out of situations you could have avoided.

3. We are LESS likely, not more likely, to be involved in fights or “rage� incidents than the general public. We recognize, better than many unarmed citizens, that we are responsible for our actions. We take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously. We know that loss of temper, getting into fights or angrily confronting someone after a traffic incident could easily escalate into a dangerous situation. We are more likely to go out of our way to avoid these situations. We don’t pull our guns to settle arguments or to attempt to threaten people into doing what we want.

4. We are responsible gun owners. We secure our firearms so that children and other unauthorized people cannot access them. Most of us have invested in safes, cases and lock boxes as well as other secuity measures to keep our firearms secure. Many of us belong to various organizations that promote firearms safety and ownership.

5. Guns are not unsafe or unpredictable. Modern firearms are well made precision instruments. Pieces do not simply break off causing them to fire. A hot day will not set them off. Most modern firearms will not discharge even if dropped. There is no reason to be afraid of a gun simply laying on a table or in a holster. It is not going to discharge on its own.

6. We do not believe in the concept of “accidental discharges�. There are no accidental discharges only negligent discharges or intentional discharges. We take responsibility for our actions and have learned how to safely handle firearms. Any case you have ever heard of about a gun “going off� was the result of negligence on somebody’s part. Our recognition of our responsibility and familiarity with firearms makes us among the safest firearms owners in America.

7. Permit holders do their best to keep our concealed weapons exactly that: concealed. However, there are times with an observant fellow citizen may spot our firearm or the print of our firearm under our clothes. We are very cognizant that concerns about terrorism and crime are in the forefront of the minds of most citizens. We also realize that our society does much to condition our fellow citizens to have sometimes irrational fears about firearms. We would encourage citizens who do happen to spot someone carrying a firearm to use good judgment and clear thinking if they feel to need to take action. Please recognize that it’s very uncommon for a criminal to use a holster. However, if you feel the need to report having spotted a firearm we would ask that you please be specific and detailed in your call to the police or in your report to a store manager or private security. Please don’t generalize or sensationalize what you observed. Comments like “there’s a guy running around in the store with a gun� or even simply “I saw a man with a gun in the store� could possibly cause a misunderstanding as to the true nature of the incident.

8. The fact that we carry a firearm to any given place does not mean that we believe that place to be inherently unsafe. If we believe a place to be unsafe, most of us would avoid that place all together if possible. However, we recognize that trouble could occur at any place and at any time. Criminals do not observe “gun free zones�. If trouble does come, we do not want the only armed persons to be perpetrators. Therefore, we don't usually make a determination about whether or not to carry at any given time based on "how safe" we think a location is.

9. Concealed weapon permit holders are an asset to the public in times of trouble. The fact that most permit holders have the good judgment to stay out of situations better handled by a 911 call or by simply being a careful and vigilant witness does not mean that we would fail to act in situations where the use of deadly force is appropriate to save lives. Review of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases.

10. The fact that criminals know that some of the population may be armed at any given time helps to deter violence against all citizens. Permit holders don’t believe that every person should necessarily be armed. We recognize that some people may not be temperamentally suited to carry a firearm or simply may wish not to for personal reasons. However we do encourage you to respect our right to arm ourselves. Even if you choose not to carry a firearm yourself please oppose measures to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to be armed. As mentioned before: criminals do not observe “gun free zones�. Help by not supporting laws that require citizens to be unarmed victims

[308nato]

Good post thanks pretty much sums it up for me.

[TX Rancher]

I don't agree with 6...

I know it's been discussed before, but I don't buy into all unintentional discharges are negligent.

I was at a range once and the guy next to me had a part break on his AR, and it doubled. He didn't know the part had just broken, but it certainly was an unintentional discharge, but I don't think he had anything to do with negligence on his part.

Sometimes things happen by accident, not negligence.

[anygunanywhere]

Sometimes things happen by accident, not negligence.

TX, the decision to accept the premise that "accidents will happen" is to continue with the status quo that we are not responsible for our actions. This is shown in industry as a prime contributor to the fatal accident rate that is seemingly impossible to eliminate.

In order to reach a zero injury and fatality rate then we must accept the fact that all accidents are preventable. In the same manner, all "accidental discharges" are preventable, even the one you describe.

Applying the same committment to firearms as industrial safety is not as far fetched as you think. Yes, the individual you mentioned had an AR double. I had a Springfield Armory 45 go full auto when fired first time out of the box. I do not consider it an AD or ND. It was pointed downrange, I controlled the pistol, all was safe. The only difference between a personal firearm incident and an industrial incident is that in industry we would investigate the root cause and work with suppliers to eliminate failures.

Adopting the ultimate goal of safe handling of firearms even if a failure occurrs must be the goal. If we follow the 4 rules even if a failure occurs we will be doing the utmost to prevent injury. We read about the AD/NDs all the time, and some are even ethical and honest enough to share their moments with us so we may learn from their mistakes.

Anygun

[frankie_the_yankee]

Here's a great big can of worms.

First off, I like the 10 points and agree with all of them.

Secondly, it's evident on this forum that there are a number of people who believe the CHL requirement to be an "infringement" of their 2nd amendment rights. They may have CHL's themselves, but would prefer the Vermont or Alaska models (i.e. no CHL needed). IOW, "Why do I need a license to exercise a right?"

So how many believe that items 1 - 4 would still be true, or would be AS TRUE as they are today, if people did not need to go through the CHL process before legally carrying a concealed firearm in public?

[seamusTX]

So how many believe that items 1 - 4 would still be true, or would be AS TRUE as they are today, if people did not need to go through the CHL process before legally carrying a concealed firearm in public?

I do.

States that do not require a CHL do not have a significant problem with irresponsible exercise of the right to bear arms.

Few people just go to the store, buy a pistol, and start carrying. They put some thought into the decision.

The morons who would get in trouble often carry now, contrary to the law. They get arrested. They get sentenced. Often they become legally prohibited from possessing weapons. Then some of them continue to carry and re-offend.

- Jim

[Mark G26]

So how many believe that items 1 - 4 would still be true, or would be AS TRUE as they are today, if people did not need to go through the CHL process before legally carrying a concealed firearm in public?

I do.

States that do not require a CHL do not have a significant problem with irresponsible exercise of the right to bear arms.

Few people just go to the store, buy a pistol, and start carrying. They put some thought into the decision.

The morons who would get in trouble often carry now, contrary to the law. They get arrested. They get sentenced. Often they become legally prohibited from possessing weapons. Then some of them continue to carry and re-offend.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

States that do not require a CHL do not have a significant problem with irresponsible exercise of the right to bear arms.

There are a lot of reasons for this. Demographics for one. What works in Alaska will not necessarily work as well in a major metro area. People grow up with different life experiences and different amounts of "gun knowledge".

The morons who would get in trouble often carry now, contrary to the law. They get arrested. They get sentenced. Often they become legally prohibited from possessing weapons. Then some of them continue to carry and re-offend.

- Jim

Yes. But the 10 points concerned reference "permit holders", and what the "non-gun" public should know about them.

If no permits were required, the current group of permit holders would join whatever non permit holders decided to start carrying, forming a larger group. So my question is whether items 1-4 would be as true for this larger group than it currently is for permit holders?

The "morons who get in trouble" are mostly criminals who (presumably) could legally carry even if no permits were required, so I am not including them. (Though some advocate that everyone, including criminals, be allowed to carry on the theory that criminals do it anyway. Of course, these people ignore the fact that making it illegal gives LE additional charges to convict these people of.)

[seamusTX]

There are a lot of reasons for this. Demographics for one. What works in Alaska will not necessarily work as well in a major metro area. People grow up with different life experiences and different amounts of "gun knowledge".

That's true to an extent. More rural states probably have a higher percentage of people who grew up with weapons in the home. But people who have no experience with firearms rarely go out and buy one as an adult. They usually do so after some kind of introduction by a friend.

Maybe I'm giving to much weight to my own experience, because that's exactly what happened to me.

When people go out and buy weapons after some shocking incident like Katrina, those weapons end up slowly rusting in a drawer or closet.

If no permits were required, the current group of permit holders would join whatever non permit holders decided to start carrying, forming a larger group. So my question is whether items 1-4 would be as true for this larger group than it currently is for permit holders?

I dunno. Maybe it would go from 90% to 80%.

Again, in my own case, I practiced vigilance, avoidance, and de-escalation long before I owned a firearm. I had to do so, since I lived in Chicago. I have acted for decades on the assumption that every other driver is an armed lunatic.

The "morons who get in trouble" are mostly criminals

What I meant is that they are simply morons until they commit a crime, like pulling a weapon over a parking space or scuffed shoe.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

The "morons who get in trouble" are mostly criminals

What I meant is that they are simply morons until they commit a crime, like pulling a weapon over a parking space or scuffed shoe.

- Jim[/quote]

OK. Then they would add to the current group of permit holders, making 1-4 less true for the new (larger) group than for the current group.

That's kind of in line with what I originally thought and one of the reasons I favor the CHL system, believing that as long as it is truly "shall issue", it is not an infringement of 2A rights.

[seamusTX]

OK. Then they would add to the current group of permit holders, making 1-4 less true for the new (larger) group than for the current group.

Well, if you didn't need a license to carry a weapon, there would be no group called licensees to compare the morons to.

The question is, if a license were not required, how many more irresponsible people would carry? I think the answer is not many.

Here's an analogy: The majority of people over the age of 16 have access to a lethal weapon, a motor vehicle. A car or truck can be used for targeted assassination (as in the case of Clara Harris) or massive, random destruction.

The vast majority of drivers act responsibly most of the time.

However, despite legal requirements for driver licenses, vehicle registration, inspection, and insurance, some people drive irresponsibly. The only ways to stop them are imprisonment, execution, or amputation. People are rarely imprisoned for traffic offenses, and they are not executed or mutilated in this country. Thus we have repeat offenders. (I wonder how much of a problem Saudi Arabia has with drunk driving.)

- Jim

[Liberty]

That's kind of in line with what I originally thought and one of the reasons I favor the CHL system, believing that as long as it is truly "shall issue", it is not an infringement of 2A rights.

It is a shall issue as long as one belongs to one of the priveged classes that can afford the cost of the licensing. process.
or issue as long as one has never had to go through a nasty divorce. (abuse is almost always alleged in these cases.)
if one hasn't under gone hard times in their past and defaulting on a student loan.

or if one has previously thought that what one does to ones body is their own business. (drug users)

or if one makes some admistrative errors and commits felony that not long ago weren't even concidered crimes.

My main issue with CHL is that when one really needs a gun 60 days is an awful long time to wait. The CHL process can get people killed.

Texas has made one step closer this year by allowing good folks to carry in their cars with out permission from DPS. so far the streets aren't running in blood. but maybe some folks have a little more opportunity to protect themselves.

Personally I've lived in the boonies and in the big city, I don't think where one comes from makes much difference in how responsible one is with firearms.

[Liberty]

(I wonder how much of a problem Saudi Arabia has with drunk driving.)

- Jim

They don't need alcohol to drive like they are drunk there.

[seamusTX]

It is a shall issue as long as one belongs to one of the priveged classes that can afford the cost of the licensing. process.

If the state made the requirements for a driver license as difficult and expensive as the CHL, the government would be voted out of office at the next election.

Meanwhile, there would be massive civil disobedience as people continued to drive without licenses.

Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

That's kind of in line with what I originally thought and one of the reasons I favor the CHL system, believing that as long as it is truly "shall issue", it is not an infringement of 2A rights.

It is a shall issue as long as one belongs to one of the priveged classes that can afford the cost of the licensing. process.
or issue as long as one has never had to go through a nasty divorce. (abuse is almost always alleged in these cases.)
if one hasn't under gone hard times in their past and defaulting on a student loan.

or if one has previously thought that what one does to ones body is their own business. (drug users)

or if one makes some admistrative errors and commits felony that not long ago weren't even concidered crimes.

We can quibble over the requirements and qualifiers. In general, I think CHL's are a good thing.

My main issue with CHL is that when one really needs a gun 60 days is an awful long time to wait. The CHL process can get people killed.

Plan ahead.

Texas has made one step closer this year by allowing good folks to carry in their cars with out permission from DPS. so far the streets aren't running in blood. but maybe some folks have a little more opportunity to protect themselves.

So far so good.

Personally I've lived in the boonies and in the big city, I don't think where one comes from makes much difference in how responsible one is with firearms.

So have I. I think growing up with guns makes a huge difference. Most people who grow up in the city do not have this kind of experience.