skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Court Tosses San Diego County’s Concealed Weapons Rules

Evening Edition

Aired 2/17/14 on KPBS Midday Edition.

GUESTS:

Dan Eaton, legal analyst.

Paul Neuharth, attorney.

Transcript

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that California is wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens are entitled to carry concealed weapons outside the home for self-defense purposes.

In San Diego County, the sheriff's office holds the power to issue concealed weapons permits, and it requires "all applicants to 'provide supporting documentation' in order 'to demonstrate and elaborate good cause,'" according to court documents.

It is the phrase "good cause" that led to the case.

The case was brought by Edward Peruta after the San Diego County Sheriff's Office denied him a concealed weapons permit in 2009 due to the "good cause" requirement.

The court's opinion states:

Peruta’s lead argument was that, by denying him the ability to carry a loaded handgun for self-defense, the County infringed his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The divided three-judge panel that sided with Peruta Thursday disagreed with two other federal appeals courts that have upheld permit rules similar to California's.

The U.S. Supreme Court often takes cases when federal appeals courts issue conflicting rulings.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that law-abiding citizens can keep handguns in the home for self-defense purposes, but didn't address whether that right extends outside the home.

Comments

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 13, 2014 at 1:09 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Wow! Finally!! Is it true? Is it real? It's about time!!! This makes me so happy!!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 13, 2014 at 2:11 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Where are my fellow constitutionalists? benz? This must be good news for you. Finally, the police are not here to make laws they are here to enforce them. Hooray!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 13, 2014 at 2:17 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

It may seem to many,scary that some, JM that posts bigoted,angry,hyperbolic comments, might own guns, let alone concealed weapons. It is a coalition of similar thinking, religious zealot conservatives and mega ultra-rich grifters that helped elect Kevin Falconer.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 13, 2014 at 3:07 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Boots - Yes, I do own several guns. Is that a problem? Do you thinks guns are bad and scary? Don't worry, I have never broken the law, I never will break the law. I am a responsible person. I do not drink, I do not use drugs, there is no reason in the world why I should be denied my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I have the right to be able to defend myself against criminals who try to harm me.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 13, 2014 at 5:02 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

I am indeed very happy with that decision and the analysis that undergirds it.

KPBS, Do you have any information regarding when the local sheriff’s office policy will be modified to delete the offending interpretation of "good cause"? I suspect it is still early for them to have issued a new policy, but the content and timeliness are certainly of interest.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 13, 2014 at 5:02 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

"Breaking the law" means nothing today in the era of stand your ground laws where murder is legal in some states.

Shoot first, ask questions later.

As far as this particular ruling, it's a perfect example of how conservatives cherry pick and distort the constitution.

Just ignore words like "well regulated" and "militia" and erroneously claim the constitution explicitly states all citizens must be able to walk around with concealed weapons.

Also, I thought conservatives valued states rights?

If California favors more gun regulations and Texas favors less, shouldn't the representative governments of each state be able to decide this without a federal court telling them otherwise? That's not my argument by the way, that's the argument conservatives use for things they don't like, such as a woman's right to choose when it comes to abortion. But when it comes to things y'all like, like yer guns, then all y'all conservatives suddenly LOVE big daddy fed courts coming in making sweeping decisions.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 13, 2014 at 5:08 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Benz, I was listening to in-depth coverage of this earlier today on KPBS's sister station in LA, and they had someone on saying it could be a year before the changes are actually implemented. First there is a 30 day stay then there is some other stuff that I didn't quite get that needs to take place. It was on a program called air talk if you want to try looking it up.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 13, 2014 at 5:48 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

@SOOT, "religious zealots" helped elect Faulconer???

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 13, 2014 at 5:50 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

@QUACKSTER, when politically convenient, Conservatives value state's right. When not, they go with the Feds. It's their MO.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'AbigailHolt29'

AbigailHolt29 | February 13, 2014 at 5:52 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

( )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 13, 2014 at 6:20 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

I believe several studies show a link between gun ownership and Erectile Dysfunction
A great new club for the gun obsessed http://www.smallpenisgunclub.com/
some more interesting dialog on guns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvP-FwoOVcY

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 14, 2014 at 8:23 a.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Boots, if you choose not to own a gun then by all means don't. Please refrain from denigrating those of us who make a different choice.
I'm happy to discuss our choices in a polite manner with a reasonable tone but your comments are not appreciated.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'mmxnick'

mmxnick | February 14, 2014 at 9:03 a.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

I agreed with you in the past Peking_Duck_SD about the transit problem but I don't agree on this. I'm not a republican nor Democrat. I' glad something is being done about the ridiculous CCW rules they have in place.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 14, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

PDSD, Thank you for the information, I'm trying to look it up now.

Please read the USSC decision on District of Columbia v. Heller referenced in above court decision for an explanation of reasons why this is an individual right rather than a collective one. It does a much more thorough job than I ever could, even were I not restricted by this medium of communication.

Also, if rampant inconsistency like that displayed by most republicans disturbs you I'd invite you to dissociate yourself from the similar behavior of most democrats and support a third party. I did and have found my conscience to be much clearer.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 14, 2014 at 9:31 a.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

The Framers had no concept of the future, so I wouldn't declare this a victory for the Constitution. Gun violence will increase as a result of this ruling because people with no training whatsoever and 100-lbs chips on their shoulders will have permits for concealed weapons. This makes society more dangerous, not safer. Living in fear blows. I don't know how y'all do it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'twells'

twells | February 14, 2014 at 9:53 a.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

@Peking_Duck_SD: Progressives cherry pick and distort the Constitution as well with respect to the First (Hate Speech) and the Fourth (government seizure of property use). Notice I did not use "liberal", as a true liberal would support expansion of freedoms vs. the government.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 14, 2014 at 10:22 a.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

DLR, the decision does not negate the requirement for training. It only challenged (and caused the overturn of) the interpretation for "good cause" that the local sheriff has been using thus far.

The framers did indeed have a concept of the future. They were in fact so foresighted as to include not one, but two methods of amending the constitution. If it becomes an actual problem requiring federal intervention then there is process for modifying or repealing that amendment. On the whole though, it does far more good than harm.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 14, 2014 at 10:35 a.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

DeLaRick why don't you look at the evidence instead of allowing yourself to be captured in an emotional frenzy of fear and hysteria?

Look at places where CCWs are issued, like Texas, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Florida... none of these places are like the wild west with shootouts all over town. In fact, violent crime is always lower in areas where guns are allowed than in areas where they are not.

The world is full of bad people who do not follow the law. These people will have guns no matter what. Why can't I, a law abiding citizen, defend myself against these people? If someone breaks into my home at night to rape my wife, am I supposed to curl up in the bath tub and call the police hoping they arrive before my wife is killed?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'mmxnick'

mmxnick | February 14, 2014 at 12:37 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

That's exactly how I think about it. Thanks for putting it into words for me.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 14, 2014 at 1:08 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Benz,

Even people with good reasons ("cause") to carry weapons outside their homes will make fatal mistakes in judgement. As far as the Framers go, let's look at it from an angle I'm sure you've never considered: If the Constitution had to be ratified today, do you really think it would receive the 69.2% support required for ratification? That's the true measure of how the Framers' concept of the future squares with the present.

JM,

Of course there are bad people out there. However, there are more good people with bad judgement than there are bad people. Believe me, if life were as scary as you say, I wouldn't depend on the government to protect me outside of my home.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 14, 2014 at 1:34 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Well, three thoughts....
1) There are already laws covering the misuse of firearms. Which of those do you believe to be insufficient and why?
2) Re: your assertion regarding current ratification would not be passed, while it is possible, it is not entirely probable that it would fail to pass as written. Even if it were though, that is decidedly NOT the standard by which we judge reduction in enumerated freedoms.
3) We do not prohibit use based on the presumption of individual errors. Imagine if one had to prove need to be granted a driver’s license based on the theory that since some people drink and drive private individuals cannot be trusted with cars. Rather we allow interested individuals to undergo training, take the test and follow the law. When they break the law then we move to another mode of restriction.

As I advised boots, if you do not want to own or carry one then please refrain from doing so. Please do restrain yourself when it comes to removing other people’s freedoms and extend them the courtesy of assuming they are able to think and decide for themselves until they have demonstrated that is not the case.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 14, 2014 at 2:42 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Benz,

"As I advised boots, if you do not want to own or carry one then please refrain from doing so. Please do restrain yourself when it comes to removing other people’s freedoms and extend them the courtesy of assuming they are able to think and decide for themselves until they have demonstrated that is not the case."

I would agree with your 3rd point entirely if it weren't for the pesky little fact that stray bullets sometimes find unintended targets. Let me be clear: I do not want to get hit by a stray bullet in a firefight caused by some trigger-happy bigot. The right to live in peace without that threat is just as important to some as the right to carry a concealed weapon is to you. I own some very fine guns for sport and protection. They are in my home where they belong except when I'm safely transporting them to the range. I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-stupidity. Allowing too many people to carry concealed weapons is a stupid idea.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 14, 2014 at 3:04 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

DeLaRick how about the pesky little fact that irresponsible people speed, drag race, drive drunk, participate in road rage, or other dangerous behavior that puts others in danger? No one should be allowed to drive. It is too dangerous.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 14, 2014 at 5:40 p.m. ― 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Benz,I'm sorry you're offended by biting satire,this is part of what makes satire
work.I'm not against responsible gun ownership,with sensible controls.You seem
thoughtful and reasonable.It is the total wackjobs that spew bigotry,hate and
ignorance with calling people Communist/Marxist,execute anyone who violates a
municipal code etc.a Vigilante mentality, assuming they're not just a teenager in
moms basement looking for attention.One has to wonder about the sanity of these
people.Concealed weapons make Law Enforcement much more dangerous.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 16, 2014 at 8 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Boots why does me carrying a concealed weapon make law enforcement more dangerous? I will never raise a weapon unless my life is in danger.

Or perhaps you are talking about criminals who illegally carry concealed weapons regardless of the laws in place? I do agree, those kinds of people do make law enforcement dangerous.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'VAZ92110'

VAZ92110 | February 17, 2014 at 8:05 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

This is perfect timing. I've just recently moved here from Florida in which I have a valid concealed weapons license and I've heard that Califonia had strict gun laws but man! I was reading on the requirements and ran into the same snag; I pass the background check, I've had the training, and I'm in the military but still didn't meet the third element of having a reason or threat other than I'm a productive member of society who wants to have the opportunity to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to have a concealed weapon on me for self defense..

I'm finishing my Bachelors in law and I'm about to apply for Law School and I'm still having issues getting straight foward answers about the legalty of driving around San Diego with a gun because the States Legislature in California's penal code is so vague. For an example I have to have the weapon unloaded in a locked box with ammo in a seperate enclosed area. the center coucil and glove box are not authorized, but an enclosed trunk is; However I own an SUV and that trunk is not enclosed and the law doesn't specify it's requirement of an enclosed area. I've asked police and they can't give me an answer that can guarentee that a cop won't mess with me; Obvioisly because they want to only be the one allowed to have guns so they can continue to sexually assault innocent woman on the streets!

I've even contacted attorney's and haven't had any of my calls responded back. Does anyone know where I can retrieve the correct info from? If not I'll have to continue searching. It kills me that ironically once the state sees that there's the possibilty of losing a case that can cause a significant impact on existing gun laws that diminishes there grasp on our 2nd Amendment, they conveniently introduce a law that authorizes background check on purchases of ammunition. Thank god for John Marshall's estsblishment of Judicial review in 1803 that stemmed from Marbury v. Madison, because without it we'd all be screwed!

It kills me that the government doesn't want me owning a gun, but Billonaires like Bloomberg of New York want to try and push laws that relinquish the rights for average citizens to own weapons; But feels that he's better than us and above the law and wants to pass laws that allows Politicians and the right for his 6 man security team the authorization to have guns. WAKE UP PEOPLE! THERE'S SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS GOING ON!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 18, 2014 at 6:59 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

San Diego consistently places in the upper echelons of safest cities in the U.S. San Diego is not a dangerous place. If you think it is, you are not qualified to make decisions about lethal force. If you think San Diego is a dangerous place, you're soft.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 18, 2014 at 9:32 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

DeLaRick this is not about whether or not San Diego is safe. I am not going to break the law with my gun, ever. So why can't I carry it?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 18, 2014 at 9:43 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

JM,

Do you think Michael Dunn thought he was going to use his gun "ever"? I'm going to take a page from the Book of JM: Why do you hate law enforcement? Why do you want to make their job harder? The police have enough problems without having to worry about vigilantes with concealed weapons. They're not trained for that.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 18, 2014 at 10:28 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

I am not a vigilante. I am just a normal person. The police and the public need to worry about armed criminals. I cannot fight a criminal with a gun unless I also have a gun. I have a right to defend myself against criminals who break the law. Why do you want to make it so I am unable to defend myself?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 18, 2014 at 11:16 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

I understand your fear. It's irrational, but I understand it. Maybe it's my build or the way I live my life, but I don't have those problems. Living in fear must suck.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 18, 2014 at 11:41 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

"I am not a vigilante. I am just a normal person." says John Markkk.

Normal people don't glee over the shooting death of another, criminal or otherwise. (See story on border shooting. Yes, I did suggest removal. It was me.)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 18, 2014 at 11:46 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

DLR "San Diego consistently places in the upper echelons of safest cities in the U.S. San Diego is not a dangerous place."
That is fantastic, but it safest =/= no risk.

According to the US fire administration website located here (http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/estimates/states.shtm)
"people living in Oregon, Massachusetts and Arizona were 50 percent less likely to die in a fire than the population as a whole." yet they still maintain professional fire companies and active hydrants in Portland, Boston and Phoenix. Those municipalities also recommend having a fire extinguisher in the home and many safety organizations suggest you carry one in your vehicle.

Some unlikely but important possibilities warrant precautions being taken even though one does not live in an area of high prevalence. Attempts to murder and rape may reasonably require lethal force to frustrate. Per the San Diego police crime statistics recorded here (http://www.sandiego.gov/police/pdf/2013/201312cumneighbor.pdf) there were 39 murders and 316 rapes here last year. It is not surprising to me that someone would want to be able to fend off an aggressor seeking to harm them, even though they live in San Diego.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 18, 2014 at 11:47 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

For those that feel they can successfully engage in gun battles with criminals I would urge to seek psychiatric help,as your chances at best are 50/50 and you may be suffering from delusions of grandeur,or believe you've been transported into a western movie.Those who feel they need a firearm for protection might be hanging out in the wrong places or with the wrong people,excluding,of course people carrying large amounts of gold or diamonds.Also there is this to consider,American scientist Tim Johnson said the research proved what has long been suspected - that owning guns for hunting and self-protection is generally a lie and that most men buy guns because they feel it will be an extension of their manhood.
http://open.salon.com/blog/william_k_wolfrum/2011/01/15/scientists_more_guns_dont_enhance_penis_size_or_usefulness

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 18, 2014 at 11:57 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Boots, if a criminal has a gun and they are trying to kill you, would you rather have a gun? Or no gun? No one wants to engage in a gun battle, but if someone with a gun is threatening my life, the only defense is a gun. Not a knife, not the police, a gun.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 18, 2014 at 12:06 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.

The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.4

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/brady-center-statement-on-ninth-circuit-decision-on-ca-gun-law

Now defend point by point trolls

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 18, 2014 at 12:07 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Why are you ignoring my question?

If a criminal has a gun, why can't I have a gun to defend myself?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 18, 2014 at 12:08 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

How many logical fallacies can you spot

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 18, 2014 at 12:11 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Keep tap dancing buddy. That is what all the disarmament advocates do when pinned down. Slip away, ask a strawman question, but never answer. Because you know in the end, logic is not on your side.

I am not a criminal, the constitution of this country says I may carry a gun to defend myself. If a criminal has a gun, a gun is the only way to stop them. These are facts. Stop being scared.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 18, 2014 at 12:12 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Benz,

That's a reach, but I'll play along. Why not just put all San Diego oceanfront property on stilts? You never know when the next tidal wave is coming.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 18, 2014 at 12:29 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Because stilts generally do not withstand tsunami?

More to the point, If someone said "I am concerned about tsunami and I want to put my house on reinforced stilts" would you tell him he couldn't? If so, why?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 18, 2014 at 12:38 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Once in while ya gotta have some fun, JM "I am not going to break the law with my gun, ever. So why can't I carry it?" uh, I Dunno, why do you think it is can't you carry a flame thrower or rocket launcher? How often do you have these feelings of being in imminent danger?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 18, 2014 at 12:41 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Here's1 answer for the paranoid, wear a bullet-proof vest when going shopping

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 18, 2014 at 1:01 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

"..... the constitution of this country says I may carry a gun to defend myself."

--------------------------
The constitution says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, that has been interpreted by some courts to mean the right to carry around a loaded gun, but it's impossible to know exactly what the writers meant here.

The way I read this, my interpretation is that the writers were focused on an armed populace defending themselves against a corrupt government, not individual citizens protecting themselves from each other.

The idea of a citizens militia is of course moot today because of how large and powerful the U.S. military is. If we ever did have a government so corrupt it needed to be overthrown, the only way to accomplish this would be via a Coup d'état, not via an armed citizen's uprising.

But what's most striking to me about the scant and ambiguous constitutional wording is the use of "well regulated".

Even in the days of armed militias and far less destructive arms, the writers saw the need for regulation. Wouldn't it make sense that today, with more advanced and deadly weapons, higher population densities, and huge numbers of firearms on our streets that the forefathers would be very much in favor of tight regulations on guns today?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 18, 2014 at 1:14 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

JM "Why are you ignoring my question? Keep tap dancing buddy. Slip away, ask a strawman question, but never answer. Because you know in the end, logic is not on your side." Trolololol !!
Looking at both men and women, over the past 20 years, on average only two percent of the homicides committed with handguns in the United States were deemed justifiable or self-defense homicides by civilians. To put it in perspective, more people are struck by lightning each year than use handguns to kill in self-defense.

Despite the promises of gun-industry advertising, a woman is far more likely to be the victim of a handgun homicide than to use a handgun in a justifiable homicide. In 1998, handguns were used to murder 1,209 women. That same year, 12 women used handguns to kill in self-defense
http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 18, 2014 at 1:14 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

JeanMarc
DeLaRick this is not about whether or not San Diego is safe. I am not going to break the law with my gun, ever. So why can't I carry it?
-----------------------------------------------

I believe you won't intentionally break the law, but what about unintentionally?

The thing that worries me about gun proliferation is not just the criminals out there who premeditate to do bad, but also about the law abiding people walking around with loaded weapons who could make a mistake.

Guns are different from other things because they are designed to kill.

Other things have a certain amount of leeway in society because they aren't designed to kill (for example a car which someone used in previous examples. Yes it can kill, but that's not it's primary purpose).

Whose to say you might misconstrue an incident and end up killing someone who doesn't a deserve to die?

Whose to say that if you are in a situation, let's take for example the aurora movie theater massacre, that a bunch of "good guys with guns" could actually raise the innocent death toll as they all scramble in the chaos and begin shooting based on their perceptions of what's happening in a very fluid moment that may or may not be accurate?

If you are walking about with a loaded weapon and you come upon a situation where you need to defend yourself or your family from someone with a gun, your having a loaded weapon MAY save you and your families life, but it also MAY actually make things worse and cause more up intended death.

That's my problem with a lot of the NRA argument - they assume these "perfect world" scenarios with "good guys with guns", but there is absolutely no certainty behind this.

Good guys are human too and make mistakes, and when your talking about a bunch of good guys with a bunch of guns, it raises the likelihood of said mistakes and that's what scares me about walking around public areas where everyone is armed.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 18, 2014 at 2:50 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Boots how many of those handgun deaths were caused by people who purchased their gun from a FFL dealer and passed the FBI background check, and was legally able to own and carry a firearm at the time the shooting occurred?

I am sure the answer to this question will further prove my point about criminals arming themselves illegally and the need to be able to protect myself against such people.

Peking duck I understand your point, for instance if a man is in a theater shooting at everyone, having 100 people start firing at him would probably not be good. But the alternative is to have a completely disarmed group of people who could do nothing but cower and hope the shooter didn't hit them.

Between these two bad choices, I would rather have a gun than be completely helpless. I know this is a personal choice.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 18, 2014 at 2:53 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

PDSD "That's my problem with a lot of the NRA argument - they assume these "perfect world" scenarios with "good guys with guns", but there is absolutely no certainty behind this.

Good guys are human too and make mistakes, and when your talking about a bunch of good guys with a bunch of guns, it raises the likelihood of said mistakes and that's what scares me about walking around public areas where everyone is armed."

These things concern me as well. Part of my reasoning for my stance is that, given the imperfect world, I'd rather have more guns in 'good guy' hands than in 'bad guy' hands. I want there to be enough 'good guys' out there that there is a dampening of 'bad guy' violence (If I do this some CCW holder could shoot me).
Is it possible someone will miss their target and hit a bystander when responding to the next attack? yes it is. It is also possible that they will hit and prevent further crime. It is further probable that even if the holder misses everyone (perpetrator and bystanders) that the perpetrator will react to being fired upon, which will slow him down and give the police more time to intervene.
In a situation that bad to begin with, the odds of improving it are better than the odds of worsening it IMO. In the end though, if the CCW holder thinks he will worsen the situation he always has the option of not drawing the weapon... the reverse is decidedly untrue.
Out of curiosity, have you ever carried a weapon?

Also, I think you may want to reconsider your assumption about numbers in your last sentence. Those who seek a CCW are going to be a significant minority, far short of "everyone is armed".

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 18, 2014 at 3:34 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

"It is further probable that even if the holder misses everyone (perpetrator and bystanders) that the perpetrator will react to being fired upon, which will slow him down and give the police more time to intervene."

Arguments like this demonstrate how dangerously subjective some people are. If the cops arrive at the scene of a gunfight, do you think they're going to differentiate between the "bad guy holding the gun" and the "good guy holding the gun"? They only do that in the movies. In real life, they would shoot the "bad" and "good" guy then sort things out when the smoke cleared. Do you think every "bad guy" will be wearing a Raiders jacket or gang colors? What a hoot.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 18, 2014 at 4:10 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Not at all, I expect police arriving at the scene to order armed persons to disarm themselves and submit to questioning. I very much do think that police will attempt to understand who is doing what before shooting at them.

Do you really expect police arriving on the scene of a shooting to kill 'the guys holding guns'? That seems so extremely over aggressive to me that I find it difficult to believe one would think that.

I'm not a cop. Are there any reading this thread who can speak about this knowledgably?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 18, 2014 at 4:33 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

I think one thing to remember, all theoretical scenarios aside, is that when a criminal has a gun and is shooting at people, an armed citizen will fare better than an unarmed citizen.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 18, 2014 at 5:49 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

" when a criminal has a gun and is shooting at people, an armed citizen will fare better than an unarmed citizen."JM.
Sure, if one can safely load within milliseconds,without shooting oneself in the foot,one doesn't shoot innocent people resulting in a long prison sentence and financial ruin.One is wearing a white cowboy hat and outfit to designate himself a good guy thus not getting shot by other armed civs or police.Sounds completely rational.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 18, 2014 at 5:58 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Benz on a live shooting situation " I very much do think that police will attempt to understand who is doing what before shooting at them." OMG! "I'm not a cop" lol

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sdreefer21'

sdreefer21 | February 18, 2014 at 8:23 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

I am all for the sheriff getting a huge pee-pee slapping for really being unfair with his practices while issuing ccw permits. I am an avid shooter, with well over 15000 rounds through my weapon of choice. During my many visits to various ranges throughout the city and county I have seen a common conversation and theme. People who think it would be just bad ass to shoot someone justifiably. Until you are found innocent, you stand accused of homicide which requires big lawyers and representation. I don't know how many people are really suited for ccw carry based on the marksmanship I have seen displayed over the years. I am all for people having ccws but i stringly urge a yearly qualification with intense standards paid for by the recipient. I hope common sense prevails and the ccw law is changed for us gun owners favor but i really hope we raise the bar and do not accept anything less than the standard set for law enforcement and or our military.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 18, 2014 at 9:07 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Boots, perhaps you could provide a link to a relevant law, policy or expert statement to back up your assumptions... for that matter, why don’t you actually state what it is you think police do when they approach gunfire rather than mocking my expectations on the matter. It will better serve the conversation and make you appear less trollish.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 19, 2014 at 7:30 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

John Stewart did a great bit about the Michael Dunn nonsense. It's probably not the type of thing most of you would like, but it adds a comical slant to the question of whether or not most of you can be trusted with concealed weapons in public. You can't. You're the lunatic fringe.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 19, 2014 at 8 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

DLR, would you prefer people carry unconcealed weapons in public?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 19, 2014 at 8:47 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

DeLaRick - and how about the criminals who carry concealed weapons regardless of the law? If one of them was trying to rape you, wouldn't you want a gun?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 19, 2014 at 9:55 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Benz and JM,

I'm not challenging your ability to a reasonable expectation of safety in public. To quote The Clash, "You have the right not to be killed." I just think that issuing permits is a slippery slope. Once again, I'll cite the very real and current example of Michael Dunn. If both of you could get permits for concealed weapons, he could get a permit for a concealed weapon. On the surface, he looks and sounds reasonable. Beneath it all, he's a trigger-happy vigilante who let his bigotry get the best of him. Are you saying you're better than him? Are you saying you're immune to your own prejudices? I seem to remember a comment JM made about the art installation at Euclid and Imperial where he took exception to someone "freestyling." What happens if JM is packing and wants to suppress the rapper's right to free speech? I'm sure JM is a helluva guy, but his criteria might not be ample enough to avoid conflict in those situations.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 19, 2014 at 10:10 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

OK, please propose alternate criteria that meet all the requirements then. What would you like to see happen? Is open carry preferable from your point of view?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 19, 2014 at 10:18 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

DeLaRick if I was the kind of psychopath that would shoot someone for rapping on the corner, I would carry a gun or knife and not be too worried about gun laws. I would also be in prison or dead right now. Just because I don't want to be left utterly helpless in an encounter with an armed man doesn't mean I am planning to run around like Hitler killing everyone I disagree with...

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 19, 2014 at 10:52 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

I'm sorry. I must've been thinking about another JM. Silly me. Benz, I prefer more well-trained cops on the streets and improved policing methods. Criminals can be outsmarted by competent police departments.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 19, 2014 at 10:54 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Benzzz says: "The framers did indeed have a concept of the future. They were in fact so foresighted as to include not one, but two methods of amending the constitution."

If they were sooo foresighted, they would have tackled the moral socio-economic issue of slavery in the first place and prevented a future southern succession and all that came with it. As it was, they left it for future generations. Bad move.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 19, 2014 at 10:56 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

I could just add to the silliness by noting that JM seems overly concerned with being raped by dirty,filthy,druggies. Out of all the hyperbolic whinery I notice a glaring lack of facts by the gun obsessed. There are numerous studies showing a link between guns and increased aggression.The so called "weapons effect" http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 19, 2014 at 11:09 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

As someone who has experience with guns I'm not against responsible gun ownership
I can understand it as a fun/dangerous hobby But statistics and life experience bears out a increased risk when imagining guns as the best there is for self-protection

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 19, 2014 at 11:16 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

DeLaRick if you want to wait for the police to rescue you when someone is firing at you, go ahead and wait for them. Good luck to you. I will take my self defense into my own hands. When seconds count, the police are there in minutes.

Boots - for self protection, what is better than a gun? The only thing I can think of is an impenetrable bubble shield like we see in science fiction, but those don't exist yet. So let me defend myself with a gun: the best tool there is.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 19, 2014 at 12:01 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

As JM seems to be someone truly in need of some help,there have already been much info given on these pgs. My professional advice is to 1st stop hanging out in the places and or around people that are causing the irrational fear,2nd lift some weights,it's good for the mind and body,3rd, don't walk down dark alley's flashing wads of cash and jewelry.4th get a job/hobby to keep yourself busy/happy.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Observer2014'

Observer2014 | February 19, 2014 at 12:05 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

With all this talk of self-defense against the "bad guys", I really feel sorry for the people in the rest of the world who do not have a constitution to let them carry guns.

They must have daily massacres going on, blood on the street, innocents slaughtered.... OH THE HUMANITY!

Just where do you guys hang out that you feel the need to carry a killing instrument concealed or not. I have lived in City Heights for over 20 years and even here I do not see the need to walk around armed.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 19, 2014 at 1:33 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

MA "If they were sooo foresighted, they would have tackled the moral socio-economic issue of slavery in the first place and prevented a future southern succession and all that came with it. As it was, they left it for future generations. Bad move."

The recognition that needs will change with time and the consequent preparation for that by including a pre-defined change method does not imply that the framers would be able to adopt the moral standards of all future generations and preempt the need for changes.
Yes (many of) the framers had slaves. Yes that was bad and the practice needed to be stopped. That does not diminish their other accomplishments.
Perhaps another way to look at it would be 'best move available given the circumstances'.

Also, your 'z' and 'o' keys may be stuck.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 19, 2014 at 1:36 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

O2014 " I have lived in City Heights for over 20 years and even here I do not see the need to walk around armed."

Good. Fortunately no one is asking you to walk around armed. Please recall that your experiences and assessments of risk are not universal truth. Other people can judge their security for themselves.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 19, 2014 at 2:19 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Observer2014: "I really feel sorry for the people in the rest of the world who do not have a constitution to let them carry guns."

----------

I know your using sarcasm, but our constitution does not say "people are allowed to carry guns".

It says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This has been interpreted by courts to mean people have the right to carry guns.

We are in the company of 3 other great nations when it comes to our "Godly constitutional right" to bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala and Haiti.

The United States is the most armed country in the world with 90 guns per 100 people.

The second most armed nation in the world is Yemen, with 61guns per 100 people.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sdreefer21'

sdreefer21 | February 19, 2014 at 2:44 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Observer N. korea is a great place to see the effect you are talking about. But i also do not feel the need to walk around armed 99 percent of the time. But when I am going got buy a car and pay cash or buy something off craigslist or deposit a large sum of cash from a business it would be a nicety.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 19, 2014 at 3:31 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

I've yet to see a cogent,rational reason for concealed guns backed by facts and stats
by the gun fanatics,excepting maybe sdreefer.All I hear is a bunch of paranoid,emotive fear mongering that sounds very much like a child demanding a toy.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 19, 2014 at 3:45 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Boots"I've yet to see a cogent,rational reason for concealed guns backed by facts and stats"

While this is not specific to concealed weapons, my post above does address the need for a weapon in general. I will repeat the reference below.

Per the San Diego police crime statistics recorded here ( http://www.sandiego.gov/police/pdf/2013/201312cumneighbor.pdf ) there were 39 murders and 316 rapes here last year.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 19, 2014 at 3:52 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Boots,

I have a friend in L.A. who is a working model. She requested and received a CWP after a 2nd incidence of stalking. It's my understanding that celebrities and athletes are the main recipients. I believe public figures and high-profile targets of obsession should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Those people have legitimate concerns, not delusional spells of self-importance.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 19, 2014 at 3:58 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Boots I don't think lifting weights would be much help against an assailant with a gun pointed at me, even if I were as big as Ronnie Coleman.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 19, 2014 at 4:03 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

benz, as you admit, not relevant, try again. DeLa,of course,but now your making too much sense, still one may put oneself in even more danger carrying a deadly weapon

James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, which were then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South.http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/20/the_secret_history_of_the_bill_of_rights/

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/hidden-history-2nd-amendment

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 19, 2014 at 4:12 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

(Disclaimer); I'm not a licensed therapist. JM how often would you say you see these "assailants" in a month?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 19, 2014 at 4:17 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

It is funny that people like you still cannot answer this simple question: If someone with a gun was trying to kill you, would you rather have a gun, or be unarmed and helpless?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 19, 2014 at 4:33 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

JM you're not in control of the topic, but all things being equal I'd rather try to enjoy life than live in a paranoid world of delusion. In addition to previous, the honest advice would be, based on real-world threat scenarios, would be to definitely not carry a gun but leave that to at least 1 trained bodyguard

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 19, 2014 at 5:28 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

How do you see reports of violent crime in this city as not being relevant to the issue of self protection?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sdreefer21'

sdreefer21 | February 19, 2014 at 10:57 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Violent crime is only partially relevant. California does not have a stand your ground law and is not a very pro shooter state. The burden of innocence in murder lies within the defendants case. A tall order for the vast majority of violent crimes which do not involve weapons.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 20, 2014 at 7:16 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Reefer makes a sound point. Another way of looking at this is we're not going to further destabilize our society for hundreds of millions just so that a lunatic fringe of the population "feels safer." Even if there's a million of you out there, it's not worth it. No one person is that important.

I propose that the person who cures cancer gets to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Everyone else needs a permit and a good reason for wanting one.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sdreefer21'

sdreefer21 | February 20, 2014 at 11:02 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

I really think the reason for wanting one is really unimportant. It shouldnt be deinied based on proving a percieved need. I would like to see it more like a professional licensure. It has to be earned, maintained with continuing education, and has extremely stringent ongoing testing standards. I love our right to bear arms. I love firearms. But i feel a huge burden to be the best I can for the sake of my brothers and sisters.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 20, 2014 at 11:20 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Boots I am not in control of the topic? Are you insane? I simply asked a question. Why are you acting like that?

So you still didn't answer the question, I guess because doing so would expose the failure of your logic. Your refusal to answer has served the same purpose, so thank you.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 20, 2014 at 1:12 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

John Markkk, that's a dumb aka loaded question.

I am totally opposed to the death penalty. The pro-death advocates would argue, if the killer murdered a family member or a close friend of mine . . . if . . . if . . . if . . . well, yes, mmmaybe in the heat and emotion of the moment, I would say fry him, but in the end, on a moral and social level, I would be wrong.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 20, 2014 at 3:17 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

But if someone was firing a gun at you and trying to kill you, would you be opposed to shooting him to save your life? This is what I am talking about. If someone is trying to kill you, isn't a gun the best tool to defend yourself in that instant? No time to wait for cops.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 21, 2014 at 7:17 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

JM,

I've been been robbed at knifepoint and have run for my life on two occasions, but have never been shot at. Have you? It sounds as if you have. If your circumstances merit a permit, then there should be a process whereby you demonstrate a justifiable need for one. If you meet the requirements, you'd get one. Is that an unreasonable process?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 21, 2014 at 11:37 a.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

All I hear from the gun fanatics are anonymous (male) wannabe vigilantes that were too cowardly to serve their country in the military or law enforcement and don't know what our Constitution says or means

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 21, 2014 at 2:42 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

DeLaRick too bad you didn't have a gun in those situations. If they knew that people were allowed to carry, they might think twice before trying to rob a stranger.

Boots why don't you say that to benz72.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 21, 2014 at 9:13 p.m. ― 6 months, 1 week ago

Rick that sounds very reasonable to bad JM ignores these questions JM, why do you want me to say that to benz72?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'gary84'

gary84 | February 22, 2014 at 9:59 p.m. ― 6 months ago

Pay up. It's pricey. I estimate $1300 per decade. When I add up the total cost (app fee, 2 year permit fee, every-2-year renewal fee, initial 8 hour training fee, every-2-year 4-hour renewal training fee, ammo shot during training). I'm probably lowballing it because I didn't include other possible fees.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Karenleo'

Karenleo | February 23, 2014 at 11:06 a.m. ― 6 months ago

All the people that automatically assume handguns are the province of overweight middle-aged men with short johnsons and macho attitudes amuse and worry me. You are discounting and dismissing the growing number of women who want to exercise their right to protect themselves. Face the facts: getting a rapist into court is nigh into impossible as long as a majority of the justice system still believes the girl or woman is to blame because of something she wore or something she did. You need only look at the recent case in Oregon for an example.

I have a concealed carry permit in my state and I often do carry. I am a woman about 5'6" with a slender build. How am I supposed to defend myself against a man at least 4" taller and a 100+ pounds heavier than me. Most rapists do not stop at rape or sexual assault, they beat the h*** out of their victims. Even the best plastic surgery can't repair all the scars, and seldom can you get a HMO to pay for it anyway. Broken faces, broken limbs, broken ribs, these are just a few of the risks women face just existing in this country of hours. We're not even safe at home, women are beaten and sometimes raped by intruders to often for women to totally relax even there.

I suppose I sound quite paranoid to you by now. But I've seen all this up close and personal. You see, I'm a retired police officer (medical retirement - heart condition) and I have seen all of this. Just two years ago near here a girl was raped, then had her throat slit, was dismembered, with the parts stuffed in a duffle bag and thrown into a gulley. Oh yes, she was pregnant at the time. It isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you and you have no way to determine who "they" are.

So if all you "boys" are through with your silly alpha male macho posturing then remember, half the population of this country has good and sufficient reason to choose to carry a concealed hand gun, IF they so desire and can pass the legal requirements. Nowhere will you find a guarantee that law enforcement HAS to protect you, just that they enforce the laws. Taking a report after the fact is no protection and it is physically impossible for an officer to be right by your side to protect you, she's got a lot of square miles to patrol. I'll do my best to protect myself so I can be alive to file that report.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Karenleo'

Karenleo | February 23, 2014 at 11:09 a.m. ― 6 months ago

Sorry for the spelling errors, I try my best but they slip past anyway. :-(

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 23, 2014 at 6:33 p.m. ― 6 months ago

Karenleo, You seem to make a very convincing argument except ignoring all substantive arguments posted,how much exactly is a "growing number of women?You say you're in another state why do you care about CA?
Do you work for the NRA?
or a Gun Manufacturer ?
This is a topic about San Diego in particular,and on an SD newscast.Do you have any supporting stats at all?
once again-
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a
domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would
not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present (Wiebe, p. 780).

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Boots'

Boots | February 23, 2014 at 7:40 p.m. ― 6 months ago

Karenleo -" a majority of the justice system still believes the girl or woman is to blame because of something she wore or something she did. You need only look at the recent case in Oregon for an example."
Is this true? are there stats to back this up?Which case in Oregon?
" We're not even safe at home, women are beaten and sometimes raped by intruders to often for women to totally relax even there."
This makes it sound terrifying even being at home and a tiny bit like fear-mongering
" Just two years ago near here a girl was raped, then had her throat slit, was dismembered, with the parts stuffed in a duffle bag and thrown into a gulley. Oh yes, she was pregnant at the time." how awful, where was this?would carrying around a loaded gun be a safe choice for a pregnant woman? anything other than anecdotal stories?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | February 24, 2014 at 11:48 a.m. ― 6 months ago

We must have solid "stand your ground" legal protection in California!

I would like to carry a concealed weapon, but feel I can't use it if needed.

If the legal system won't back up a law-abiding citizen who shoots and injures/kills an attacker, then it is pointless to carry.

Am I right or wrong?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sdreefer21'

sdreefer21 | February 24, 2014 at 9:15 p.m. ― 6 months ago

Its cali, you would probably need to sell your house to pay off the civil suit of a home invasion robbers 2nd removed baby cousin. If such a kinship exists.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 25, 2014 at 1 p.m. ― 6 months ago

If someone breaks into my home, I will shoot them. What alternative do I have? Cower and hope they don't kill me? This country has gone so far in the wrong direction. Who would have that I would need to fear prison for defending my life against someone who breaks into my home?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sdreefer21'

sdreefer21 | February 25, 2014 at 3:53 p.m. ― 6 months ago

If only the castle law was interpreted to its full extent. JM I do not think you are being unreasonable in wanting to eradicate a burglar. You are doing he world a favor in my eyes. Unfortunately that is not reality in our great state.

( | suggest removal )