Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Conceal Carry Laws

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • nalpak retrac
    Champion of the Balance
    • Dec 2003
    • 1073

    Conceal Carry Laws

    I was wondering what people think of the handgun conceal carry laws that are have been passed in nerly every state in the US?

    According to the laws, citizens who take a handgun course (usually about 10-12 hours of classroom and firing range instruction) and pass a background check can obtain a certificate to carry a concealed handgun. Particulars vary from state to state, especially concerning conceal carry while driving an automobile.

    One professor of criminal justice studies (and former police officer) told me that studies indicate that conceal carry has reduced violent crime, and has even saved the lives of policemen, who were aided by carrying citizens. According to yesterday's Lincoln, Nebraska newspaper, the chief of police wants Lincoln to be exempt from Nebraska's CC law. He argues that CC leads to an increase in violent crime. I think the Atlanta police chief has said the same thing. Assuming my professor friend was corret, these police chiefs may be articulating a postion that is political rather than based on empirical studies, but I don't know.
  • Miqque
    Champion of the Balance
    • Apr 2004
    • 1002

    The laws are all whacky. Not only do they vary from State to State, but county to county and town to town. Now, apparently, in Colorado you can carry a handgun if it's in plain sight, you have a permit, and it's an integral part of your job. But not in Denver. In Boulder, you cannot wear a sidearm. In Longmont, you can't own a sidearm (unless you register it in another city, and just "keep it here"!) Concealed permits are rare. Few people carry arms. Yet everybody seems to go hunting, and numerous rifles appear out of nowhere and get loaded into the huntmobile. Shotguns are around as well. In a town where one theoretically cannot own a handgun, they are sold by pawn shops. I guess selling is okay, but buying is a no-no. It makes absolutely no sense.

    Los Angeles and nearby Valleys (San Fernando and San Gabriel) forbid concealed weapons. Everybody carrys a weapon, and usually a holdout and a backup. I mean little old ladies with wee tiny handbags that seem to conceal a Glock. Let's not even get into gangs, who are armed to the teeth with fully-automatic weapons at the least.

    I've never felt the need to carry a gun, figuring if I can't take one away from someone or preferably avoid the situation, hopefully they are a poor shot. Last thing I'd want to do is play cowboy with the LAPD, who take a dim view indeed of armed citizens. Here in Colorado, there is much less the gun crime, many more fistfights. I avoid those too, as I do not like the local hospital and do not want to provide them with any additional business.

    The thing is that I do believe in an armed citizenry. I like the idea of keeping our own politicians on their toes and prevent oppression by making things too easy on them. Internationally, I do think it's a deterrant to invasion and other such nonsense (a la Red Dawn). The main drawback is the success of the Dumbing-Down of America, where people do not read, pay attention, drive well, and are becoming increasingly self-involved. There would have to be a test of some sort, I'm thinking a psychological battery. Many people should not have sharp pencils, let alone guns. Others would be safe with rocket launchers or RPGs. It's sorting out one set of people from the other that is the problem.
    ... just another sailor on the seas of Fate, dogpaddling desperately ...


    • Mario
      Denizen of Moo Uria
      • Sep 2004
      • 193

      I'd rather carry a 5-foot long black broadsword that quietly moans to itself. I think it would be more of a deterrent. :)


      • Michael Moorcock
        Site Host
        • Dec 2003
        • 14278

        Hmm. Armed citizenry. Same provision in British Bill of Rights. Only we didn't have a frontier to open and a small arms trade to cater to it.
        I see it not as a 'right' (since the French are rather better at demanding and getting democratic rights, as are the English) but as another example of commercial lobbyists getting their way. I understand where the idea comes from and applaud it, of course, so am not as 'anti-gun' as most Europeans or Canadians, but I think it's a romantic nonsense otherwise since that 'armed citizenry' can be taken out probably more readily than the armed citizenry (sorry terrorist insurgents) of Iraq... NRA doesn't represent us, it represents the arms makers and dealers.

        Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in Europe:
        The Whispering Swarm: Book One of the Sanctuary of the White Friars - The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction
        Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles - Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - Modem Times 2.0 - The Sunday Books - The Sundered Worlds

        Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in the USA:
        The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction - The Sunday Books - Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles
        Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - The Sundered Worlds - The Winds of Limbo - Modem Times 2.0 - Elric: Swords and Roses


        • L'Etranger
          Veteran Moorcockista
          • Dec 2003
          • 4772

          Urgh, I think there's something to Michael Moore's notion in "Bowling for Colombine" that Americans are largely controlled by their FEARS. And you keep getting the politicians who know how to play on that fiddle. I doubt it is really necessary having guns in 95% or more instances.
          I must admit it would give me the creeps knowing that any minute some idiot can go berserk and settle something with his gun.
          Google ergo sum


          • voilodian ghagnasdiak
            Warrior On The Edge
            • Jun 2006
            • 2591

            L'E Wrote
            I must admit it would give me the creeps knowing that any minute some idiot can go berserk and settle something with his gun.
            So True,we grew up with the threat of the bomb during the Cold War.Now we have to fear hot lead injections during the Heat Wave.


            • L'Etranger
              Veteran Moorcockista
              • Dec 2003
              • 4772

              No that's sick. Because even those who ARE armed will be caught by surprise, and in consequence the nervous will gun down any poor bloke who happens to lean a little over their fence to see what the leaves of there tree is like. Like the poor Jap student shot in new Orleans a few years back.
              Google ergo sum


              • Morgan Kane
                Lost in the multiverse
                • Jun 2006
                • 1428

                European attitude is that if nobody has weapons everybody would be better .... but many people have weapons, even illegally .

                For most people to be armed would be an incentive to violence.

                And " ordinary " people are not the less dangerous .

                The problem was treated by Van Vogt ( Isher ) and by Heinlein ( Beyond This Horizon ) in a positive but not convincing view.


                • lemec
                  Eternal Champion
                  • Jul 2005
                  • 5317

                  (lemec's opinions do not refect that of the site etc.) haha

                  okay, I'll take the pro-gun stance on this one:

                  I just would like to point out that "conceal carry" is nothing new. We are as safe as we have always been.

                  The Mafia, gangs,common thugs etc. steal what weapons they want.

                  Anyone that does not have a fear of getting caught without a permit and with an illegal firearm, will carry one anyway. The law did not stop an underage man from going into a casino the other day to murder someone with a handgun that if purchased in the legal manner, he would have had to been 21 years of age with a background check and waiting period.

                  Due to the Brady Bill, extra information and background information is now required for rifles,shotguns and black powder firearms.

                  In my opinion the debate is pointless because there are too many illegal firearms in the country, despite all the efforts to remove them, many tons of firearms are welded together and in the bottom of the ocean. War souvenirs are hidden all over the place. Handguns go missing from evidence rooms. There are handguns around from the start of the country to when one could order them from magazines and even when they were easy to get, they were still stolen, and all of those guns that were stolen back in the early 1900's are still around. It was not until after the Assinination of J.F.K. that the government began to make strict rules. Times are different. Why, with all the military grade weapons floating around in the 1950's for instance, were there not massive killings? There were and are enough firearms to wage an old fashioned conventional war. Out representatives do not fear an armed populace in modern times because they have better equipment, they can just send a tank to your house or an Apache helicopter. That is why there can't really be another Civil War again or violent uprising. The politicians have us just where they want us, they can really do anything, that is why everything is corrupt, they have no fear of the people. I, for one have contacted my representatives for different reasons and they never did anything to change laws etc.

                  I agree with what Mike said, if I understood correctly, that our firearms are not a deterrent to nations who want to conquer us, that time has passed.

                  The truth of the matter is, firearms are for the protection of the individual.

                  To be fair to victims of violent crimes, I think those of us, no offence to anyone, that live our lives with no problems of that sort, such as being victims or your family and friends are victims, -(we) should not deprive the innocent of a chance to save their own lives. Yes, we have a right to make and change our laws, but I do not feel the laws function. Laws of the sort are useless as the charges of having the illegal firearm would be tacked on to the crimminal/defendant, if found guilty, after the fact that they had already committed the murder. The law did not prevent the murder. Also, I think statistically, most murders and violent acts are crimes of passion, often by people they know, but there are still the crimminals who take advantage of the moment and try to harm someone, as in a rape or mugging that quickly turns to murder. In either case, I am not going to take a firearm from someone who could have either defended themselves at home or on the street. They can always try to wound an attacker a well, so they don't always need to kill the person. Alternate means of defense are still encouraged, modern tasers are improved, but even those can kill and sometimes they will not stop the attacker.

                  Our own police are often more of a threat to our safety, they seem to get more and more trigger happy these days.

                  It all depends on the person. I used to be constantly surrounded in my area with people with firearms of all kind. I never was shot once and the other citizens where I lived did not shoot each other either. Nor did they abuse the firearm and threaten people.

                  A person can not carry a firearm in government and Federal buildings.

                  A person can not carry their gun to work. (unless police etc.) Most companies will not allow you to have a knife for ctting tape and boxes.

                  A person can not carry a gun into posted establishments.

                  The conceal carry laws, as they stand are not very helpful anyway. With all
                  the restrictions, the person ends of carrying it in their car/vehicle and their are several laws about that in each city and town. You can not cross state lines. You can not have your gun loaded in the car. You can not cross counry or township/city boundaries with a firearm. Again, this does not stop those who break the law, they break several laws.

                  All that considered, a legal person ends up only taking their gun to the range or their rifle to hunt.

                  Knives and sharp objects are more dangerous, imho, they are silent,small and deadly. One could get stabbed in a crowd or alone on a street and there are not many ways to find the killer, they would be gone before anyone knows there has been a murder.

                  Knives are illegal in cities too, at least those over about two-inches, you can even take a four-inch blade on airplanes now. Despite that, alot of people carry knives. (and an assortment of other weapons)

                  Firearms can be made at home, they do not need to be bought or stolen.

                  In Pakistan they make full automatic machine-guns by hand!

                  They can make them here also if the need arises.

                  Ammunition can also be made.

                  The F.B.I. has a wide assortment of homemade firearms.

                  The most common a steel pipe, a steel pin and another pipe to slide the pin into the primer.

                  Laws are mostly are not effective if they are not obeyed.

                  The feel of safety provided by such laws is an illusion, a false sense of security. Also, those gated communities are useless, I see people jumping over theri walls all the time and people drive right in after the gates are open.

                  People just need to go about their business and pleasure and forget about making laws about every little thing.

                  Bureaucratic nonsense.

                  Granted, the innocent person with a firearm is not invincible, but at least they might have an extra chance to survive.

                  They should not cross the lines of morality either though!

                  They should only use it when they have absolutely no other recourse.

                  The people of this country need to practice responsibility.

                  They need to respect and obey all rules, laws and safety measures pertaining
                  to firearms.

                  (The "wild west" was not even lawless. People had all sorts of firearms and they did not really have that many accidents and murders.)

                  I go to work and back with no problem either. Same goes with shopping, eating and entertainment. I don't carry a gun around with me, but I will respect those who feel the need to carry a firearm.

                  In fact, I feel, since The United States is one country, a person should be able to get a federal permit that they can use in all states. Why should regualar abiding folk have to penalized by the crimminals who do not obey laws and make society a bad place?

                  The only thing extra laws do is make more money for the federal and local governments. They like getting that money from gun sales, not only the taxes, but the extra paperwork fee. Where does all that money go?

                  I do not believe in anti-gun propaganda either, especially when they outright lie in movies. Some facts and statistics are true, but alot is simply made up of the filmakers opinion. They do not check the facts or the what the laws actually state. Illegeal is illegal, even when a firearm dealer breaks the law, he breaks the law. For example, there is no gun show "loophole." The gun dealer or seller would first lose their Federal Firearms License, then they would
                  be sent to prison. Underage sales are illegal. Selling handguns without a license and background check, without the waiting period is illegal.

                  Individuals can not sell handguns to individuals. Anything that has a 16" barrel or over, (some states 18"), still needs to have the background check, Brady Law papers, and they need to fill out the "yellow" form with identification. They can not have had any previous crimes. They can not use illegal drugs etc.

                  They can not conceal a firearm without a permit.

                  Open carry has been allowed for a long time in most states and cities.



                  "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
                  - Michael Moorcock


                  • DeepFixer
                    Eternal Champion
                    • Dec 2003
                    • 2249

                    Well, I think that allowing citizens to carry weapons is fine, providing these citizens are careful, can shoot straight and not prone to a quick temper.

                    I don't think that making them take a gun saftey course to obtain a carry permit really means anything. Most drivers have had driver's ed but that's not evident on the roads (I see speeders and tailgaters several times a day).

                    When the right to carry comes up, I always think of The Battle of Coffeyville. The Dalton Gang rode into Coffeyville, Kansas to rob a couple of banks there, were spotted by the citizens, who then went to get their guns.

                    When the Daltons came out of the banks, they got into a fire fight with the townies. All but one of the gang were killed, many of the townies were injured.

                    I've always wondered how many of the townies were hit by their own neighbors.
                    Madness is always the best armor against Reality


                    • L'Etranger
                      Veteran Moorcockista
                      • Dec 2003
                      • 4772

                      Originally posted by DeepFixer
                      Well, I think that allowing citizens to carry weapons is fine, providing these citizens are careful, can shoot straight and not prone to a quick temper.
                      Who's to decide and to know who is a responsible citizen and will never over-react?

                      If you care to hear my reasons for being (largely) against anti-firearms in private hands, here goes!

                      I do not think fewer crimes are committed when the citizens are armed. There will always be villains who are desperate enough to break into your house or steal things, always and everywhere. BUT I believe that a crook knowing he is likely encounter armed resistance will decide to shoot first, before finding out the hard way.
                      Posessing arms can already be attractive for those who need some. In my childhood in Africa we had indeed several arms - big calibre hunting rifles, a shot gun and a N° 4 bore signal pistol (flare gun?). We always kept them secret (although we had them legally), not even the servants were to know (yes, we had up to two servants ). The concept was to conceal them to avoid break-ins or assaults to get our weapons. Weapons are attractive, always! We know of several other Europeans who handled this matter much less responsibly and some got into huge trouble.

                      If you are attacked you are always, always in a disadvantage - armed or unarmed, as the element of surprise is most likely on the assailer's side. So better if a robber enters your house with a knife or only physical strength to hold poor you at bay than shoot you in your beds! And you are less an object of assault, because at least you aren't attacked to procure arms. I also don't want to be morally responsible for what the hood ultimately commits with my weapon, nor do I really need the kick to be able to decide over life and death of an attacker. I don't want to be tempted to act the hero, when I know deep down that most heroes are stupid. What for? To prevent the theft of my video-recorder, a couple of cameras that few people can handle anyway and 80 Euros that happen to be in the house? Never!
                      Fortunately I do not live in an extremely violent society. Nowhere in Europe (at laest West of the Belarus border) do I think it is justified to live in so much fear.
                      Mind you, I also know "the feel" of owning guns. I used to have two Lee-Enfield rifles when I was 16 to about 20. Guns can have a "sex appeal", they are inexplicably attractive, but I got over this after a while and destroyed them, bloody rugged things that they were. I now occasionally go to a shooting-range and fire a few shots with front-loading blackpowder pistols, which is fun for all the ado about it and the moments of concentration (as you know you need so long until you get the next shot ready). But I don't even need to own one of those stylish percussion or flintlock pistols, even though I know I'd be very responsible and all that, blabla...

                      Look at the mortality rates in our countries! The US figures are appalling, don't tell me you want that to go on this way just because of certain civil rights you so free-born Americans cling to. Have the civility to hand over the guns and enjoy the liberty of not posing a threat even to gangsters (you're bound to lose anyway)!

                      Yes sure, armed violence does occur here too! But even with the influx of Eastern European gangs it is so rare that it doesn't merrit even rethinking this stance.
                      One thing we mustn't forget either: Just like with the cigarettes there is a gigantic industry behind it all. All the big companies that profit immensely poducing small arms and ammo are also feeding the public with phony arguments.

                      And to round it all up: the worst thing you can do is get fake weapons or gas guns that look like real. They give you a false sense of security and invite a crook to shoot a you at first sight! Fake guns are sheer stupidity!


                      Google ergo sum


                      • Morgan Kane
                        Lost in the multiverse
                        • Jun 2006
                        • 1428

                        I know that many factors can be invoqued but roughly, each year, for 100 000 inhabitants :

                        - in the United States, 6,2 homicides against 4, 2 in Albania,1, 9 in Belgium, 1, 2 in Italy an Suede, 0, 9 in Spain or 0,7 in France or United Kingdoms .....

                        - 11, 3 suicides in the United States, against 21, 3 for Belgium, 17, 5 for France, 14, 2 in Suede, 8, 6 in Spain, 8, 2 in Italy , 7, 5 United Kingdom,

                        - 16,5 dead by accident during transport in the United States, 15, 7 in Belgium, 14, 7 in Spain, 13, 5 in Italy, 12, 9 in France, 10, 5 United Kingdom, 5, 5 in Suede.

                        I am not sure that this numbers do not reflect cultural differences ..... the attitude to weapon owning being a factor among others ...

                        for the full numbers page 2 of this document ( sorry he is in french ) :


                        Sorry, forgot Germany and others....

                        But the U.S.A. apply the death penaltyand it does not seem to be a deterrent.

                        I guess it is more a social attitude to violence ....
                        Last edited by Morgan Kane; 07-09-2006, 07:15 AM.


                        • Hieronymus
                          Angelic Painter
                          • Mar 2004
                          • 712

                          Here it's very difficult to have a lagal permission to take a gun.
                          Or you are a policeman, or an advocate or a goldsmith or somebody who has the reason to have a gun with him.
                          Otherwise you can have a shotgun for hunting ( with legal permission after a test ) or a "sport permission" with everybody has a subscription to a shooting range can buy a gun or a rifle but you cannot have it with you. Only in the shooting range.
                          He have very closed laws in this field because in the 70s we have the season of internal terrorism ( fascists and communists, both have killed here a lot of innocent people during those years ).
                          If you buy a crossbow or a sword you have to tell to the police district which realease you the permissino to buy it...
                          I'm an collector of replicas of ancient swords and every time I have to inform police I have bought a new broadsword or a poignard...this is exaggerate in my opinion

                          - Dalmatius -

                          "I'm forbidden to reign, but I'll never yield before the facts: I am the Cat"


                          • Doc
                            Eternal Champion
                            • Jan 2004
                            • 3630

                            Originally posted by Morgan Kane

                            But the U.S.A. apply the death penaltyand it does not seem to be a deterrent.

                            I guess it is more a social attitude to violence ....
                            Bingo! You've hit on two myths--guns prevent violent crimes and the death penalty deters violent crimes. The numbers point to higher instances of violent crime in areas with relatively lax handgun laws and an increase in violent crime when the laws are relaxed. The death penalty trends the same way: death penalty states, on average have more violent crime, and violent crime goes up on average when states re-institute the death penalty.

                            One of the most prominent explanations is that both handguns and the death penalty encourage an enculturation of violent solutions.

                            I grew up around guns, but find handguns very distasteful, simply because they are made for one reason: to kill people. The same isn't the case with rifles and shotguns. Of course, why someone would want to use those to kill something else is a different matter...


                            • Zax
                              Citizen of Tanelorn
                              • Jan 2004
                              • 227

                              The equation seems simple enough to me: the fewer guns there are around, the fewer people will get killed by them. For proof of this, take any major city (regardless of the extent of its gun problem) and make a note of the number of deaths by gunshot in, say, a five-year period. Now take the same city over the same period and see how many people were killed by elephants. The general paucity of elephants in most major urban centres clearly indicates that the less of a deadly thing there is around, the less deadly it is overall.