“Gun control is too simple a phrase to define all the complications and nuances of it, frankly. In Arizona they have a wide open system. I would be nervous about going into a bar or restaurant in Arizona on a Saturday night where people can carry concealed without permits.”
Well, if he is really concerned about guns in bars, poor Mr. Brokaw is not going to be able to frequent bars in very many states. Arizona does allow guns in bars, though, despite his claims to the contrary, actually require a concealed handgun permit to go into an establishment that serves alcohol. The following figure is from Opencarry.org (more details are available at their website).
On a more serious note, despite the fact that permit holders are allowed to go into bars in Arizona and other states, there is no evidence that they pose a risk to anyone. As of December 1, 2007 in Arizona, there were 99,370 active permits. During 2007, 33 permits were revoked for any reason — a 0.03% rate — cases that did not involve using the gun to harm others.
And this is true in state after state. Between October 1, 1987 and December 31, 2010, Florida issued permits to 1.9 million people. 168 permit holders had their permits revoked for any firearms related violation, a rate of 0.009%.
via biggovernment.com
I don't know what to think about Tom Browkaw. I know he is liberal, a Canadian, and has lived in NYC for quite a long time. But it is hard to imagine that with his assumed journalistic propensity for reseaching the facts before making statements--brash or otherwise--that it is highly unlikely that he made his public pronouncements without knowing the truth. Maybe he is not as smart or as professional as I always thought him to be.
Concealed carry is often spoken about, by those who don't know better, as it is a bad form of carry, by far the most states allow open OR concealed carry. xcept in Mountana, where open carry is required--most of those who carry guns legally prefer to carry them concealed, as this is the safest and least distracting way to carry.
Carrying open which means in plain sight, usually strapped upon a belt on the carrier's side for all to see is legal in all of the Green States show on the map in the above article. In Montana, this is the ONLY way that you can legally carry a gun in public.
But most people choose to keep their handguns concealed where it is legally allowed because it is the most prudent and practical method to carry. Carying concealed keeps other people, who may not be aware of the current gun carry laws, from being feaked out, or calling the police (because they don't understand that it is legal to do so), creating a public scene, which may be misconstrued and get someone hurt, or otherwise making disturbances for differing political reasons.
Concealed carry just makes more sense. In Montana, sense everyone is required to carry open, and the majority of the population is from a pro-gun culture, open does not reflect the same problems as thos just out lined. In Alaska and Arizona, the choice is ONLY to conceal your weapon.
A few years ago, I attended a handgun shooting competition organized primarily for Law Enforecemnt, but to which I had recieved an invitation. It was just over a hundred miles from my home--but still in my home state. On the way back, beat red from most of the day out in the sun seentally in a large light-colored gravel pit, which caused my then blonde face stubble to contrast against my skin, dressed in recreational shorts and Tee-Shirt, I was lloking pretty haggard and unkempt.
I went into a fast food franchise where I could sit down and eat a burger and cool soft-drink. After I got my order, I went to wash up a bit in the restroom. I was retucking my shirt in, over which I wore a non-conspicuous-looking vest (not one like photographers wear, as this is a dead give away that you are packing), One of the workers from the eatery came into the resturaunt, and I made eye contact and nodded.
I thougth nothing more about the incident until two policment arrived from the little town's department. As they approached me from either side I was eating my burger. They questioned me nicely and learned that I had been to the cLaw enforement competition shich was only about thirty miles from the litlle town where I had stopped to eat. They quickly established that I wason the up and up--but they did lecture me about letting my gun be shown.
These policement were not even aware of the details of the law that meant that I was allowed to carry right out in the open had I so chosen. I did not argue with them, but just politely soaked it in and I humbly apologized for any scare or upset that I may have caused. They wished me well and went on their way. I finished my food and went on my way.
It is not uncommon for both uninformed civilians OR Law Enforcement personnel to be unfamiliar with the laws. In anoterh instance of which I am aware, a legally-permitted handgun carrier (a novice, I suspect) went into an East Tennessee Wal-Mart with a big ole cowboy styled high-caliber revolver strapped into a holster at his right side, slung low and tied below the knee.
His outfit also had a complete belt with exposed bullet bandelero--possibly looking very much like Billy the Kid. He shopped around WalMart apparently impervious to a all of those who were watching him in astonishment, fearing that a armed nutcase was on the loose. The local police were called.
When policemen have their guns drawn, aimed at your vitals, and orderin gto to put your hands behind your hand and knew to the ground, is not the best time to start asking dumb questions, gesturing wildly with your hands, trying to explain yourself and teach them a lesson in State Gun Carry Law. It could easily get you killed.
The gun was taken to the ground, forcibly disarmed, and got roughed up a bit. He was arrested, amidst his own loud protests, and taken to jail. He had to call his attorney and as I recall, spend a nigth in jail before his attorney was able to get in touch with theDA and explain the situation so he could get out.
This guy did not get an apology from the police, but he was charged with Disturbing the Peace, and only got off that charge after his attorney filed suit against the city and the individual police. Yes, Wal-Mart was in the wrong for calling the police, the police were wrong for drawing their guns, roughing the guy up, and arresting him. Do you think it made hte guy feel any better? It happens. If you do stupid things, then stupid things will happen back.
Just to clarify, in my state, had Wal-Mart made a corporate decision or the private owner of any establishment, bar, hardware store, or otherwise made the decision that they did not want guns on their property--the law allows for them to place a sign at least ten inches by ten inches with reasonably readable text that says that guns are prohibited on their premisis and wala,it is illegal for you to carry there.
City municipalities can make rules making it illegal to carry in parks or schools or toher public places. It is up to the carrier to know and observe these laws. It is illegal to carry in Federal Buildings, or other secured local government buildings. These laws are being loosened up contantly as the trend toward carry grows.
There is a real problem with banning guns in an otherwise legal-to-carry jusrisdiction. It means that to be legal a person must leave his gun in his car, where it is infinitely more likely to be ripped off and to fall into the hands of criminals. Those who believe in carrying for protection are generally quite strongly inclined toward carrying AT ALL TIME ALLOWED. The reason is simple: You never know when someone is going to try to attack, kill, rape, or rob you. You must be alert and ready to defend yourself at the most unlikely times. That is the way it is.
Without exception, all other factors remaining constant, there is not a published statistical account that shows anything other than violent crime DECREASING in jurisdictions that adopt personal defensive handgun carry laws. Conversely, the opposite is true. For exaple violent crime in Australia, Britain, and Canada has steadily increased since the banning of generally unrestricted private ownership of guns. Not just carrying them, but even owning them.
In such cases, the law-abiding citizens turn their guns in, while the criminals find an abundanceof ways to get guns and other methods of terrorizing the law-abiders. This has always been the case, and always will be the case. It is intuitive for those who have not been intentionally endoctrinated to believe otherwise by anti-gunners who otherwise usually have a hidden agenda, or have ehemselves been endoctrinated by those who have a hidden agenda.
By now, their are many genrations of people who have come to accept as a matter of course that carrying guns is dangerous, irresponsible, and bad for society. Nothing could be farther from the truth statistically, and anecdotally. Thosw who say or imply or abstract some type of unexplained and skewed statistics, including some statistics put forth by some agencies of government. When they do so, you can bet it is either out of ignorance, or because of a hidden agenda.
For example, there are stats that have been cited recently showing Arizona as having the most gun-related deaths per capita. This is used to boister the argument that loose gun-carry laws are therefore a danger to society. What they don't tell you is that by far the majority of these so-calledm "gun-related deaths" are commited by gang-members against other gang-members, involved within the drug-running circles, are committed by illegal aliens against other illegal aliens or legal citizens in the commitment of criminal activities, and very, very rarely does it invlove legally armed civilians who are authorized to carry their guns.
The latter is virtually non-existent. I know of only one instance even witnh all the liberal press seaching far and wide, where a questionable event occurred. This was a killing by mistake, sort of. A man came got out of his car to secure a seat in a restruant while his wife found a parking place. After gettinghis name on the waiting lsit in the restruant, the man came out of the restruant to meet his wife who had just parked.
The man was legally carrying a handgun, when he saw another man yelling at his wife and then pusing her to the goround. Obviously alarmed the first man says he assumed that his wife was being attacked, which I suppose is true. but the fact was that a squable had occured over a parking space between his wife and the man who had screamed at her and oushed her.
As I understand it, the second guy was also legally carrying a handgun. The guy to the rescue of his wife drew his gun from a properly concealed holster and confronted the other man whom he thought was acosting his wife. The other man, already wound up and angry over the parking incident (mad enough to have pushed a grown woman to the ground) then drew his own pistol. The first man then shot the second guy dead.
This event was indeed tragic. It could have beeneasily prevented had either or both of these two legally armed individuals followed a bsic rule that I teach in all of my gun-carry preparatory cloasses. "Be courteous!". Another rule that I teach is to make sure you understand the circumstances while intervening in the "intended protection of a third party."
The first guy is very remorseful, but that doesn't help. He was arrested for manslaughter and released on bail to await a hearing and trial. The last I heard, the man was still awaiting trial. It remains to be seen if he is punished or gets off. Personally, I feel, without being there and with what I know of the circumstances, that no one should have drawn their guns and no one should have died that evening. No, the man should not have pushed the woman down, but he probably did not deserve to die for it.
Generally speaking, lethal force is allowed only under fairly defined circumstances. If any reasonable person who if placed in the shooter's shoes, would have fieared for his own life, and in some cases the life of a third-party, which is almost always considered automatically justified if the third-party is a member of your family. Then lethal force is allowed.
There have probably been a few other questionable cases nation wide that i don't know about, but I can assure you that there are hundreds upon hundreds, perhaps by now even thousands of incidents where lives were SAVED because of those legally carrying handguns.
Although I have never even had to draw my gun,Three times I have allowed my jacket to fall open enough to expoise it to the bad guys--accompanied by firmly confident language, and in one case threatening gestures from my cane (I had a bad foot, fortunately, at the time)--that caused my would be attackers to back off and flee forthwith. These were not guesses or possible bad guys, these were those who had openly expressed their intentions to dous harm, not limited to taking our money.
In another case a bery large and fit much younger guy had a fit of roadrage toward me for his perception that i had cut him off. I humbly apologized to three times, and he was still intnet on takin ghis rage out on me.
When I was younger, I probably could have handled this giant, having studied six martial arts to considerable expertise. But I was then older, n poor health, lame from a surgery to my back, and I was not going to take a beating for fear that it would have caused serious bodily injury to me. I told him to back off ... in believeable tones, which shocked him into stuttering by itself.
I then allowed my gun to show, and said no one need die here today. or something like that. I did this just as his body language told me that he was makin ghis decision whether to pounce upon me or not. Retaining as much bravado and threat as he could muster, long story made short, he diksengaged and no one was hurt or died that day-last not tha i was aware of.
Downtown Memphis Tennessee is one of the most dangerous violent crime areas per capita of any United States Cities. I don't like to go their, but on occasions I have had to. I actually carry my gun on the seat next to me for rapid access, while I am driving. But the truth is just as it is in Arizona. Most of the violence is gang-on-gang violence, often drug related. But some is done during the commision of crimes against regular people and even home-invasions that may extend into the safer suburbs.
Although, statistically my chances are slim in being criminally attacked--ther are a whole heirachyof actions that I can and that everyone should take, to prevent being caught off-guard--without having to resort to gun violence. I teach these common-sense methods in my carry classes. But if ever any of my students or I run out of options, then we do knowhow to use lethal gun force to protect ourselves and our families.
I don't frequent bars, as must Tom Brokaw, and would certainly not do so in strange or questionable places, but many people do. My fear would never be of getting shot by a legal-carry gun owner in a bar or anywhere else. It is against the law, under severe penalty, which if found guilty would result in you never being able to even own a gun legally again, as it could make you a felon--to possess a gun while drinking. In a bar or anywher else.
My fear would be of being harmed by some idiot who never bothered to get the training or permit to carry legally--or who didn't qualify due to a criminal past, adjudicated lunacy, dishonorable discharge, or being an ex-con, who obtains and carries a gun illegally through the gang-driven black market--from South or Central America as part of the dark business of gangs up through in Mexico--whom I would fear being harmed by. And against those, I would want to be armed and ready to protect myself.
If Tom Brokaw is honestly that stupid, which I can't hardly fathom, then he SHOULD STAY OUT OF BARS EVERYWHERE! He must not understand the reality of the dangers posed by todays everyday world.
But it is my guess that Tom Brokaw, liberal that he is, made false and misleading comments that he knew would carry weight and be beleived by those who know no better--tinking that the end justifies the means. He probably is misinformed about guns, having been steeped in liberal journalistic circles for a lifetime, that guns are inherently bad. So why not lie? If it results in making people safer?
Personally, I don't beleive in lying, dispensing inaccurae information, or being caught without the means of defending myself and my family against those who would harm us. And so do most of those people who live in gun-culture states.The number is growing daily, and people are ever more savvy to the lying tactics of anti-gunners.
Still, the gun-control conflict will go on as long as there are those who beleive government should control people and take precedence over individual rights and those who believe in personal freedoms and a government accountable to the people. This is the root of the gun control argument, plain and simple.
A government cannot easily control an armed population--and that was one of three main no-nonsense reasons behind our Founding Fathers adding the Second Ammendment to the United States Constitution. Canada doesn't provide for Free Speech either. Maybe Tom does belong in Canada. Thye've resorted to shooting people with crossbows and cuttin goff their heads with knives on busses there.
