Why I Carry a Firearm

Back when I open carried (OC) everywhere I went, I would occasionally be asked why I carried a firearm.  I would often respond with the well-known, “because I can’t carry a cop.”  One person, a transplant from Minnesota responded with, “I don’t like firearms!”  I replied, “Well, I guess we have something in common — I don’t like bad guys!”  Fortunately, the funny look she got on her face was soon replaced by laughter.
When I carry concealed (CC), however, no one says anything.
Because…  It’s…  Concealed.
After a while, I wanted to find out just how reasonable or rational carrying a firearm really was.  What was the likelihood of me needing it in any given year?  Over my lifetime?  And for what purpose?  What are the national and local crime statistics?
I know some people who carry firearms because of mass shootings.  Given the statistical rarity of mass shootings, does that even compute?
Well, if you’re the only armed law-abiding citizen near a mass shooting, then yes, it computes.  By all means, stop the threat.  Save lives! 
In fact, Kaitlin Bennet is right.  Gun control policies, particularly “No Firearms” aka “Gun-Free Zones” simply do not work.  They’re where most mass shootings occur in the United States.  Furthermore, all it takes is ONE armed law-abiding citizen to stop a mass shooting. In fact, the FBI’s latest report on active shooter incidents in the U.S. clearly shows that armed and alert citizens have been and will continue to be part of the solution.
 
Even so, mass shootings are extremely unlikely. According to the November 8, 2018 Washington Post article entitled, “The terrible numbers that grow with each mass shooting,” 1,135 people have been killed since Charles Whitman gunned down 17 people from the University of Texas.clock tower on August 1, 1966.  That incident more or less began the modern era of mass shootings.  
I was born only a few short years before then, so in all that time, given our mean population between then and now, some 259.8 million, I have had a 1 in 228,899 chance of dying in a mass shooting.  That’s 0.000437%, or 0.44 deaths per 100,000 people.
 
Less than half of one death per 100,000 people seems pretty low, doesn’t it?  That’s because it is.  By comparison, here are a few of the Top 100 causes of death in the U.S.:
 
  • Bottom of the 100: Unspecified Diabetes Mellitus with Peripheral Circulatory Complications: 1.3 per 100k
  • Intentional self-harm by handgun discharge: 1.4 per 100k
  • Chronic viral hepatitis C: 1.5 per 100k
  • Alcoholic cirrhosis of liver: 3.4 per 100k
  • Motor vehicle accident: 3.5 per 100k
  • Murders and non-negligent manslaughters: 5.35 per 100k
  • Pneumonia: 16.2 per 100k
  • Top 1 out of 100: Atherosclerotic Heart Disease: 62.5 per 100k
  • Violent crime: 383 per 100k
Woah!  What?  You mean violent crime occurs six times more often than the Number One Leading Cause of Death?
Yes.  That’s exactly what I mean.  Specifically, violent crime in the U.S. is 6.13 times more prevalent than the leading cause of death.  Moreover, it’s 73 times more likely than murders and non-negligent homicide.
 
Thus, when I say I carry for my own personal protection, it’s not because of the possibility of a mass shooting which clocks in at 0.437 per 100k.  Rather, it’s because of “assault by other and unspecified firearm discharge, which clocks in 8 times higher at 3.4 per 100k.  It’s because murders and non-negligent manslaughters clock in 12 times higher at 5.35 per 100k.  
But mainly, it’s because violent crime clocks in 876 times more likely than mass shootings at a whopping 382.9 violent crimes per 100k.
 
For those who say, “That’ll never happen!” please note the motor vehicle accident rate, which, at 3.5 per 100k, is 109 times less than violent crime.  Yet, not only do we wear seat belts, but the federal government determined both the fatality and injury rate to be serious enough to MANDATE seat belt use.
 

Years ago, our Founding Fathers knew the dangers of an unarmed populace, so they MANDATED that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  They even stated that it was “necessary to the security of a free nation (state).

One gent, an ER doc, once spent the afternoon trying to convince me that firearms were “bad” because of “all the people he had to stitch up, if not zip up, in his emergency room.

Let’s examine that.

In 2013, there were 73,505 injuries and 33,636 deaths related to firearms.  Their total comes to 107,141 firearms-related injuries and deaths.

Also in 2013, there were 1.3 million violent crimes.  Of those, roughly 725,000 violent crimes were stopped by armed citizens.  That’s 6.8 times more good than bad.  Furthermore, experts examining the UK’s firearms ban estimate that violent crime would increase to between 200% and 300% of current levels if firearms were banned in the U.S.  That’s an additional 1.3 to 2.6 million violent crimes, but without the attenuating effect of 750,000 stops.

The net effect would be a 192% increase from our current 1.3 million violent crimes per year to roughly 3.8 million violent crimes per year.  That’s nearly 3 times as much violent crime.  “No way!” you say.  Wrong.  The United Kingdom experience a tripling of its violent crime following its firearms ban, and violent crime remains 2.74 (“nearly 3”) times higher than it was before.

Now you know WHY I carry a firearm.  Now you know WHY I firmly support our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  I support it because it’s safer — many times safer — than getting rid of them.

Yet along come the libtards, who cannot for the life of them figure out that assaults with firearms are just as deadly as automobile accidents, and that violent crime is 100 times more likely.  They’re all for wearing seat belts, not to mention prohibiting supersize soft drinks, but they refuse to even consider the only effective solution to a very real problem that’s 109 times more prevalent than motor vehicle deaths.

Bottom Line:  There were 1.28 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2017. That comes to 382.9 per 100k people, which is 109 times more likely than dying in a motor vehicle accident.

THIS is why I carry a firearm.  Of COURSE I carry a firearm.  You should, too.  You wear seat belts, don’t you?  Then why wouldn’t you protect yourself against a threat that 109 times more prevalent than motor vehicle deaths?

To all the blitheringly idiotic liberals who think they know better:  No, you do not.  You don’t know the facts.  You’re ignorant.  All you know is the predigested liberal anti-gun mantra, factless ideals that have no basis in reality.

The FBI’s own statistics blow all of your anti-gun and gun control arguments totally out of the water.  You’re idiots with irrational fears.  Not only do so-called “gun-free zones” never work, they backfire, actually attracting mass shooters.  When it comes to firearms, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and really need to shut the hell up and stop interfering in other people’s lives.

Appeals court: 2nd Amendment protects open carry of arms

“A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry (aka “open carry”) a gun in public for self-defense.”

Good.  We the People have known open carry was not merely “legal” but “the supreme Law of the Land” for 229 years, since before the ink on our Bill of Rights was dry.  Same goes for concealed carry.  Never forget our Founders and Framers were “We the People” citizens, too.  It’s nice to see that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals knows how to read the Constitution.  Well, two of them, anyway.

How to Read the U.S. Constitution

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“Keep” means to “own” or “posses.” You can keep your firearm at home. You can keep it in your car. You can keep it about your person. You can keep it with you wherever you go.  In the context of the day it was written, it meant the people were not going to be required to turn them in to an armory, or worse, for destruction.  Instead, recognizing the God-given right to procure food, protect one’s self, family, and property, and in accordance with “the pursuit of happiness” and other freedoms, our Founding Fathers rightfully recognized, respected, and codified God’s inalienable right in the form of keeping arms.

“Bear” means to “carry.” You can carry it along with you on a hike, while shopping, getting gas, at the library…  Pretty much anywhere you want. Since the amendment doesn’t restrict mode of carry to either concealed carry or open carry, it’s both.

Moreover, since “shall not be infringed” is an absolute, lacking any restriction on the type of arms, or the location or manner in which people keep and bear arms, both open carry and concealed carry are equally and fully within the right of the people.  All other arguments to the contrary, including those stated in this pathetically biased article, are mute.  There are no “except when…” allowances in the Second Amendment, for very good reason.  Those who wrote it knew if they allowed even an iota of room for exception, that people and powers opposed to our Constitutional covenant between We the People and our Republican Government would indeed infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

Why are these very straightforward concepts so difficult for liberals and Demoncraps to comprehend?

It’s because they don’t WANT to comprehend them, or, if they do, they want to advance their blitheringly idiotic anti-gun agenda.  For example, “Hawaii Attorney General Russell Suzuki said … ‘We are disappointed in the decision that would undermine Hawaii’s strong gun control law and our commitment to protect the public’ and ‘well-reasoned dissent supporting the constitutionality of this law.”

No, Suzuki, the dissent is not “well-reasoned.”  It’s an extreme violation of Constitutional law, quite alarming coming from a judge who swore to uphold it.  Furthermore, disarming honest, law-abiding citizens does not protect them.  England, also an island, tried that and their crime rate more than tripled.  It’s still 274% greater than it was before their ban.  Grow a brain, you blitheringly idiotic, anti-Constitutional fool.

Nope! Our U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Says so itself, right there in Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

IT’S THE LAW, people.

But it’s not just “guns,” there, Associated Press. “The right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed.”

The term “arms” is short for “armaments,” not “firearms.” Obviously, it includes firearms, but it also includes knives, machetes, spears, bow and arrow, rifle, handgun, revolver, pistol, AR-15, lance, sword… ALL ARMS. ALL forms of armament.

Why?  Because some people may not be able to afford  a firearm, that’s why.

“In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.”26 In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so” (Note 1).

As I mentioned before, the article is chock full of liberal bias

Notes

  1.  William Hening, The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature in 1619, at pp. 127, 173-74 (New York, 1823), as referenced in the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Open Carry: Fact vs Fiction

Some numb nut named “Patrick Jonsson” wrote an article entitled, Texas’ big new gun law:  Is the state a model for open carry?  (source)  In this article, Patrick displays the typical depth of ignorance common to most liberal journalists, even ones who are trying to be fair and objective.  Even the title, asking if Texas might become a “model for open carry” underscores his serious lack of knowledge of the fact that Texas is a follower, not a leader, when it comes to open carry.

In fact, 45 states (90%) allow open carry. This is NOT a novelty, nor will Texas ever be a “model” for open carry when it’s one of the last ones to relinquish the flagrantly un-Constitutional violation of the Second Amendment’s clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Fees and permits are un-Constitutional infringements. Magazine limits are un-Constitutional infringements. Restrictions on what we carry and how we carry it (concealed vs open carry) are un-Constitutional infringements.

I applaud those states who have signed Constitutional Carry bills into law. They are on target. All other states are missing the mark.

The author of this article, who uses terms like “irresponsible wielding of weapons in public,” clearly has no clue as to what he’s talking about. The correct term is “brandishing.” A holstered firearm is NEVER brandishing, even when one rests their hand on the holster. A slung rifle is NEVER brandishing, even when one must adjust it to sit down or enter/exit a vehicle.

The author further displays his ignorance when he mentions that due to the new law, “Police are discouraged from even asking about someone’s holstered gun.”

WRONG. Federal courts have ruled this. Specifically, in St. John v Alamogordo (08-994 BB/LAM, U.S. District Court, New Mexico), Judge Black properly ruled, with much citation of both law and precedence, that the mere act of openly carrying a firearm constitutes neither reasonable articulable suspicion nor probably cause that an individual openly carrying a firearm “was involved in, or was about to become involved in, any criminal activity,” and therefore open carry is NOT sufficient grounds for a stop, detention, or arrest.

As one who open carries nearly everywhere I go, I can assure all readers that such action rarely produces any reaction from the public at all. Rarely do people even notice. When they do, it’s usually no more than a curious glance. In six years of open carry, I have been thanked more than a dozen times by both store owners and other customers for exercising our Second Amendment rights. Only once has anyone ever said anything negative about it. She said, “I have to tell you, I don’t like guns.” I thought for a moment and responded with, “I hear you. I, however, don’t like criminals.” She laughed, and we had a good discussion about the pros and cons of open carry.

I seriously dislike idiots who think they know better than the rest of us yet who know next to nothing about firearms, laws, and human nature. The blithering idiot who wrote this article claims, “The real crux of the debate over the Texas law, however, is the extent to which it may inspire irresponsible wielding of weapons in public.”

No, Patrick Jonsson. That isn’t central to the issue at all. Your “irresponsible wielding” scenario is an imagined nightmare of liberal, anti-gun origin. It doesn’t exists in the real world of open carry. Responsible gun owners do not “irresponsibly wield” their firearms. They keep them holstered in public.

Your article is nothing more than irresponsible journalism. You sought quotes from ignorant fear-mongers, posted flagrantly falsified “statistics,” and attempted to paint a very false picture, one far removed from reality.

The real crux of the issue is how people like you continue to hold jobs, much less be allowed to wear the title of “journalist.”

What you SHOULD have done is find some responsible professionals in the local community, people who open carry on a routine and regular basis, and followed them around for a couple of days. This approach is called “investigative reporting.” Had you chosen to conduct your journalism in this responsible manner, you would have discovered that open carry is by and large a non-event. No one freaks out. Mothers do not scoop up their children and run away. There are no gunfights in the street.

Instead, patrons of various establishments sometimes give it a second glance. On occasion, those of us who open carry sometimes receive a compliment or a thank you. And very rarely, we encounter an ignorant individual such as yourself who cannot possibly understand the reality of our Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

Open Carry Rulings – St. John v. Alamogordo

I am sick and tired of seeing cops unlawfully commit un-Constitutional stops of individuals carrying a firearm in the

OC Stops are ILLEGAL
It is ILLEGAL for U.S. cops to stop citizens who open carry.

“open carry” manner.

On September 8, 2009, U.S. District Judge Bruce D. Black — a federal judge — held that the mere act of carrying a firearm in a lawful manner constitutes neither RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) nor PC (probably cause), and that stops based solely on lawful carry are un-Constitutional.

In St. John v. Alamogordo, Judge Black’s 2009 ruling was at the U.S. District Court (New Mexico) level, which is a federal court.

U.S. Federal Court System
U.S. Federal Court System

He’s a federal judge, which means he was appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate pursuant to the Appointments Clause in Article II of the United States Constitution.

His research was very thorough and properly annotated throughout his ruling.  His logic was sound, if not impeccable.  As Bill of Rightsa result, several similar federal court rulings have followed suit.

For the complete text of the case, follow the link below.  It’s such an incredibly well-researched case that if you are ever stopped for no other reason than the fact you’re openly carrying a firearm (See Note 1), just hand it to your attorney and file suit against the offending law-enforcement officers.

Un-Constitutional is un-Constitutional, regardless of your town, city, county, state, or federal district.

St.John v Alamogordo Police Order – Judge Black

Note 1:  This doesn’t apply to the blithering idiots to wander around trolling for responses by cops so they can post them on YouTube.

Freedom vs Tyranny vs Cakes vs Firearms

I had begun my comment by stating, “These decisions by non-elected “councils” are blatantly un-Constitutional. The key precept behind our Founding Father’s concept of freedom is that no man should be forced to do anything that violates his conscience.”
On respondent mentioned hate.  Another mentioned cakes.
Neither one matters.  This isn’t about what’s more or less hateful. It’s about freedom, and forcing others to do that which violates their conscience.
This isn’t about hate or bad parenting. This is about government forcing citizens to do things that violate their good conscience. That’s an OFFENCE against freedom. No matter how many layers you use to wrap that fish, it’s still a fish, and when you peel those layers, it stinks.
 
Let’s bring this home: I routinely open carry. I frequented one store for a good 18 months before the owner unceremoniously placed a “NO FIREARMS” sign on the door. I was halfway through the door before I spotted the sign, so I simply turned around and left.
 
The owner, clearly incensed, stuck his head through the door and said, “Oh, what? I can’t make my own rules in my own store?”
 
I paused for a minute as I responded by saying, “Of course you can,, Sir, and I respect your right to do so. Please respect my right to refuse to do business with those who do not respect our right to keep and bear arms.”  He was dumbfounded.  I left.
 
Did I sue him? No. Did some state agency force him not to “discriminate?” No.
 
He made a decision commensurate with his conscience.
 
I made a decision commensurate with my conscience.
 
THAT’S what this is all about. We were both free to make our own decisions. That’s FREEDOM.
 
The cake scenario has a bunch of government pinheads sticking their noses into everyone’s business, telling then what they can or cannot do, or even what they have to do.
That’s not freedom. That’s TYRANNY.