Talk:Concealed carry in the United States
POV?
This article could benefit from some additional text covering some of the arguments against concealed carry. Right now it's less neutral point of view than it could be. (this from a handgun owner, btw).
-- Pat
- That is could. I wrote the original, and didn't intend it to be a love-fest for either the pro- or anti-gun crowd. Anyone from Handgun Control out there to provide another opinion?
- dino 03:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The article doesn't need arguments against concealed carry. A neutral point is view isn't always the right point of view. The arguments against concealed carry fall flat when you consider the statistics gathered on the subject.
- -Alyeska
- It DOES need arguments on both sides or by defenition it is not Neutral. Right or wrong, Wikipedia attempts to be neutral. Statistics don't prove anything. Stats are so easy to manipulate, they can be turned around faster than you can say "Gun rights" or "Gun Control". motor.on
- Reality Check! NPOV means presenting facts and not opinions. Presenting both sides of an arguement is not NPOV, it's anti-informative and biased. Period. --Shawn 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that there should be equal time to the pro KKK wiki page, or equal time to Holocaust denialists?
- This article primarily states the status of current laws in the US regarding concealed carry rights. It would be a point of view to make the case that such laws shouldn't exist in the overview or introduction of the article. That said, however, because concealed carry laws are controversial, there are collections of points made on both sides of the argument to summarize differing points of view contained in the article. These points of view don't have to be NPOV, but they do need to be balanced. The current article does seem to be balanced in total. But, it is not our position to make the case for or against concealed carry laws as much as to state the current status of these laws, and, for balance, to state the points of view of the major viewpoints, including significant minority viewpoints, of why such a right exists or should not exist. Yaf 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Other weapons
Concealed carry covers all weapons, not just guns. Concealed knives and (in some states) collapsible batons also required a concealed carry license. Fuzzy 21:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not everywhere it doesen't. I posess an Ohio Concealed Handgun Licence. It applies to nothing but my handguns. It's like that in some states.... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Which States?
Could someone list the States which (or, as it would be shorter: which do not) allow Concealed Carry?
If you go down to the bottom of the article, in the links is the one to Packing.org, which is described as having a state-by-state database. It is difficult to give a simple list, as different states have different definitions of concealed carry and some may not include reciprocity. -Fuzzy 01:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not sure about relevance of state coverage
Many countries allow, or do not intervene in the freedom of, their citizens to carry handguns concealed to some degree or other. It would be somewhat slanted to adopt an Americocentric point of view of concealed carry without deliving into the rest of the world with a similar degree of resolution. The countries Switzerland, Israel and Yemen come to mind.
- Agreed, I think someone should write a more international POV article at the top, and then a per-country view further down. Most of the current article could be moved to an "America" section. --84.119.225.232 13:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (user:kasperl before logging in.
- Since this article was written with only the US in mind, I renamed the article to be "Concealed carry (USA)" and forwarded the old name to it. If somebody wants to create an "international" concealed carry page under the old name, go ahead. Otherwise for searching sake, I'll leaving it as a redirection. Wodan 15:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
From Concealed carry
Text restored from the 18:45, 14 May 2005 revision of this page. It was originally at Concealed carry. dbenbenn | talk 18:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this was moved to "Concealed carry (USA)." Can I get an explanation? Notthe9 19:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Somebody had a problem with the lack of representation of concealed carry in non-USA countries and called the page USA-biased. In order not to have USA pertinent information removed, I moved the page to Concealed carry (USA) and ended the "confusion." Unfortunately I didn't know about the page move function and just did a cut a paste, so the talk page was not moved. I have requested the admins to migrated the old talk page and histories to the current Concealed carry (USA) page. Wodan 21:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I was the one who complained, in the vain hope that some EU legal knowledgables would add some more info. Still, the move was a good idea IMHO. I just hope that a more general page might someday be written by someone who knows enough about it. --Kasperl 18:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think it does make sense to have a US-specific article, since it's a major and somewhat insular debate in the U.S. A broader article could discuss concealed-firearms laws in general, and link to this one for the specifics on the U.S. debate. --Delirium 08:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
For enquiring minds
According to http://www.packing.org, there are currently 4 states out of 50 that do not have any provision in their laws for allowing concealed carry of firearms. Those four are Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
In Nebraska, apparently open carry is legal, although regulated in some localities. Kansas issues CCW permits to Private Investigators only, and those typically will be honored in other states. Also, open carry does appear to be legal in Kansas as well. In Wisconsin, while CCW is not legal, again, open carry is, although there are some restrictions.
In Illinois, open and concealed carry of a LOADED firearm is illegal. However, there was a change in the law a few years ago, that some people have been taking advantage of. For further info, you should check out http://www.concealcarry.org. WARNING!!! I have been told that most Illinois County prosecutors are looking to get someone for following the advice from that site. So far I understand they haven't been too successful. --Al 22:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FBI statement
> A quote at the following site: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry > > > > The FBI's statistics also concluded: "Violent crime rates are highest overall > in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms > for self-defense." > > I called the FBI this morning and they claim they made no sush statement. > Could you please send me you exact reference to this quote? > > Thanks, Lance May
Can anyone investigate this further for us? -- Zanimum 18:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is doubtful that a random staff person answering the phone would know the source of this quote off the cuff. As for the quote, it was published in the 1992 Uniform Crime Report issued by the FBI. Have added citation, with a verifiable citation, for substantiating this quote. Yaf 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[How would you know how extensively I called the FBI? [You are making assumptions. Lance May] Your reference YAF is worthless even if correct. You need to get the crime report from the FBI and quote it exactly ie page number etc. I have already tried this and it does not say any such thing. This famous quote is based on an individuals interpretation of the FBI statistics and as such is disputable. Sincerely, Lance May
Lance, Where did you find a copy of the FBI's 1992 Uniform Crime Report, was it online? I was just at the FBI's UCR page: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm and they show no UCRs before 1995. Thanks, David Fortini
- If anyone is interested, I just received a CD containing pdf files of the FBI's UCR's from 1980-1994. The 1992 report is there but it's 426 pages long. If someone has OCR software I'll be happy to email them a copy so we can do a search. A cursory review of the "violent crime" section (where I would assume any quote like this would be) showed no mention of gun ownership at all. Lawyer2b 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
State Total?
The opening of this article states "Currently, 47 U.S. states permit adults who have applied, have no criminal record, and (in some cases) meet training requirements to carry one or more handguns in a concealed manner." Isn't this up to 48 with Nebraska? Later in the article it sayst that only Wisconsin and Illinois prohibit CCW. Marknoble 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm... We really should have a definitive list on that, although a list of states that don't allow concealed carry at all would be far more sensible than listing all those that do. Dick Clark 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
make sense
Opening paragraph says "In others open carry is prohibited even with a permit." this doesn't make sense in context. should be "even without" or "with a different"
table?
A table would be useful, with following details about which states:
no permit required/shall issue/may issue/prohibit
with may issue states, what is the real practice
reciprocal agreements
allow open carry
allow back-ups
allow alternative weapons
mandate new weapon integral locking mechanisms
it could be stated to be correct as at a certain date
Quotes Needed
Lance, Where did you find a copy of the FBI's 1992 Uniform Crime Report, was it online? I was just at the FBI's UCR page: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm and they show no UCRs before 1995. Thanks, David Fortini
Good point David! I think 1995 is as far back as is available at the FBI site. I called the FBI and had the assistant pull the file and scan it for key words. She was unable to locate within it any statements that are quoted in this article. You see, I'm a gun owner and strongly believe in ownership. The problem with this article is that the quotes from the 1992 report are taken from unreliable sources like blogs and biased sites. Whoever the author is, they should get a copy of that report and quote the page these statements appear on. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Also why quote 1992 statistics when the 2003 report is available at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec2.pdf. There is further data at: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ I'll tell you why because it's a case of quoting someone else in an unbroken chain for over a decade. An antigunner would make fun of such a pathetic piece of propaganda as this article. I can't imagine the author quoting a blog for a reference. Let's show some class! On further note, the article is not even close neutral. Take a look at the FBI statistics for Illinois http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm It shows just as much or more reduction in crime, and it is a non-carry state. Could it be that crime rates are dropping regardless of carry permits? A non-biased article would be frank about this posibillity. As of today June 2006 on the news: Crime is up. See: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/12/national/w060449D57.DTL
Tags added
Article is unencyclopedic. It offers arguments for and against ccw, but not enough basic information on these laws. A summary of laws by state would be a good place to start. Article contains whole sections without sources. Pro-ccw arguments are stronger than anti-ccw arguments.--JChap 02:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- While I would agree with your comments regarding more information about state laws and sources I find your comments upon the strength of arguments to be irrelevant given the situation. The strength of ones arguments do not reflect on any bias or misconduct, they represent the merits of ones position.--Mutex 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's the wrong tag and I will be removing it. That tag is for articles on subjects that simply shouldn't be on wikipedia, this article needs work, but the subject is encyclopedic. The right tags would be the Citations tag, This article needs to be expanded tag, and probably the clean up tag. The tag you put is "This article shouldn't be on wikipedia on this subject at all." PPGMD 01:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok I added the tags that I tought it needed, the intro needs cleanup badly, it's way too long. PPGMD 01:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)