Bob S., over at 3BoxesofBS, offers a good illustration of the “one percent doctrine” applied to the carrying by private citizens of personal firearms in public places.  In his book, Suskind argued that the Bush Administration treated threats with even a one percent likelihood as certainties.  Similarly, Bob argues here that his anecdote about a robber beating a woman and stealing her ring shows that he must carry everywhere he goes–because it happened in a nice neighborhood.

This destroys control advocates’ memes, he says, because it shows that one might need a firearm even if they avoid “bad” places.  No one is ever a hundred percent safe–anywhere–so people should arm themselves.

Technically, I suppose, Bob is right: no one is every one hundred percent completely safe, wherever they go and whatever they do (just ask these guys up in Lorton).  But the “gun control memes” “If you live in a good neighborhood, you aren’t likely to need a firearm” and “If you don’t go to bad places, you won’t likely need a firearm” are demonstrably true. Saying they’re not is a bit like saying that everyone must always be prepared to win the lottery–since someone won it just last week.

I’ve spent time in very dangerous places, where we had to keep pretty much constant vigilance when out and about.  I wonder about the mind set of someone who does this all the time, even in his own neighborhood.

Tags: Guns and Ammunition, Second Amendment

…then why not make concealed carry permit applications public?

Delegate Lee Ware, a Republican from Virginia’s 65th District (Powhatan and Chesterfield Counties), has proposed legislation that would amend Paragraph 18.2-308 of the Virginia Code to require that clerks taking concealed carry permit applications withhold information about applicants from public disclosure.

One of the interesting things about gun owners and Second Amendment supporters is their apparent reluctance to let their fellow citizens know that they own weapons and carry them on their person in public.  Given that a key argument supporting widespread gun ownership and public carrying of concealed firearms relies on the assertion that this would have some measurable deterrent effect on criminals, it would seem that owners would want others to know that they at least might be carrying.

I haven’t heard Delegate Ware’s argument in support of the bill–it presumably provides some protection against government confiscation, for example–but I can think of at least one argument against it: that fellow citizens, especially neighbors, should have access to some knowledge about which people around them own and carry firearms.

I would like to know, for example, which of my neighbors own weapons, and which of my coworkers have a pistol in a shoulder holster.  Whether or not the gentleman next to me in the pew, working in my kid’s school, or the guy eating wings next to me at the sports bar is armed would be nice to know in the event something takes place that makes the carrier want to use it.  I especially want to know if wings guy is packing when he orders a beer.  This is true whether or not I am armed.

An example which hits close to home, the Virginia Tech shootings back in April 2007, illustrates this well: those who argue that armed students could have limited the tragedy of that day should understand fellow students’ desire to know who else besides the shooter might be armed.  The justice claim of people who wish to arm themselves as they interact with others in public places conflicts with the that of fellow citizens to know which of the people around them might be armed.

Which should precede is another matter.  I am sympathetic with the argument that owners need some protection from government confiscation (though I think that shared understandings about the right, not secrecy, provide protection from this).  But given the relatively low chance of a general federal effort to seize privately owned firearms, I wonder if the people around armed citizens should get more sympathy for their claim: that people who walk around with firearms should have to warn others that a weapon is near.

Tags: Guns and Ammunition, Second Amendment