Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 gmain
Joined: 11/4/2004
Msg: 276
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea Page 12 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

I hope this helps some.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 277
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/16/2008 9:35:45 AM
Gmain,

I'm not going to argue that an unarmed populace is vulnerable to tyranny and genocide. Who could?

However, there is a difference between gun control and confiscation.

Making sure that all potential owners are trained in the safe storage and proper use of guns is consistent with the right to bear arms.

It is interesting that people claim crime stats go down in "will issue" states. However, the majority of shootings involve people who know each other. The risk of being shot by a loved one is higher than the opportunity to stop a crime in progress. At some point you have to decide if it's worth the risk. Again, training and safe storage can go a long way toward preserving the safety of a distraught person and his/her loved ones.

I don't think the government needs to know where the guns are or who has them. But as a citizen, I need to have some assurance that the person who's got one tucked in her purse isn't going to shoot me by accident or just because she's having a bad day.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 278
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/16/2008 2:43:50 PM

Making sure that all potential owners are trained in the safe storage and proper use of guns is consistent with the right to bear arms.
...
However, the majority of shootings involve people who know each other.


How does training in the safe storage and "proper use" (whatever you might mean by *that*) keep people from shooting people that they know?
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 279
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/16/2008 6:39:10 PM
Usually people know who the crooks are in their neighborhood...the FBI does not differentiate between a casual acquantence and a good friend, they are all lumped in together.

Honestly, it's like Archie Bunker says..."Would you feel better if people pushed each other out of windows??" If someone truly wishes to kill someone else, they WILL. There isn't a whole lot that can be done about it. Take a look at England's rise in knifings since guns were outlawed...they're STILL killing each other, one of the kids from the Harry Potter movies just died to a knifing a few months ago. What can be done? Not much, unless you are going to outlaw the instruments of a butcher's trade and peeve off every housewife & chef in the world.

The biggest headache is people who are sloppy with that "Storage & Use". Recently a woman was shot in the abdomen by her husband while he was cleaning his gun...just so happened she was pregnant, sitting at a kitchen table, and he didn't check to make sure the chamber was empty before fooling around with it. She barely survived, her unborn child did not, and the hubby has to deal with not only killing his unborn child, but also the heavy legal ramifications.

A few months ago a police officer killed a student of his during a gun safety course in Georgia. For whatever reason he mistook a loaded real weapon for one with blanks in it, and fired point blank into a student during a session, killing her. Of course, there never should have been live rounds AT the classroom site...and the trainer should have CHECKED his magazine prior to loading his weapon. But there you are...even the BEST are prone to occasional screwups.

And hey, some of us who like to bowhunt deer carry a revolver in case the Black Bear that live in our area get froggy on us while we are in the woods...not to mention the copious amounts of Alligators & other dangerous animals...I believe that my life is worth more than an animal that attacks a human, and I Further Believe that my life is more valuable than that of a human who attacks ME/my Family/my Friends whilst trying to rob/rape/etc.

And I also believe that serious training should be sought by those who wish to own firearms...but to what level they seek it should be a PRIVATE MATTER...but there should be a Basic Firearms Course available in every state at minimal cost...in Florida we have FREE courses taught on a regular basis at State-run gun ranges...advanced courses tend to have a cost dependant on the skills involved. But they are AVAILABLE.

The CCW course in Florida is Heavy Duty Training and in the years that have followed the CCW activation, there have been ZERO incidents of criminal nature in Florida with a licensee. That alone should say something.

Much like driving a car, it's the NUT in Control who determines if they do the right thing or the wrong thing. With humans you will have errors, illogical behavior, and outright stupidity...but with All Men Are Created Equal...we all have equal opportunity and the RIGHT to be as smart or as stupid as we care to be.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 280
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/16/2008 8:19:56 PM
Proper use differs according to state laws about when and how deadly force can legally be used. In California, a citizen can use whatever level of force is reasonably necessary to enforce a citizen's arrest. You cannot transport anyone or force them to move, that would be kidnapping. However, you can hold them in place until a sworn officer arrives to take them into custody.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 281
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/16/2008 10:48:18 PM

...the FBI does not differentiate between a casual acquantence and a good friend, they are all lumped in together.


I think this is a straw-man argument. The point still holds that having a gun in your house makes it more likely that you or a loved one will get shot.


If someone truly wishes to kill someone else, they WILL. There isn't a whole lot that can be done about it.


Not so. People are impulsive. If it take them a while to get at the gun, they have time to settle down and reconsider. Gun safes and trigger locks are a very good idea.


Take a look at England's rise in knifings since guns were outlawed...they're STILL killing each other, one of the kids from the Harry Potter movies just died to a knifing a few months ago.


Knifings don't put bystanders at risk of being hit with stray bullets.


The biggest headache is people who are sloppy with that "Storage & Use".


On this we agree.


And hey, some of us who like to bowhunt deer carry a revolver in case the Black Bear that live in our area get froggy on us while ... I Further Believe that my life is more valuable than that of a human who attacks ME/my Family/my Friends whilst trying to rob/rape/etc.


A training requirement in no way interferes with your right to defend yourself and your loved ones.


And I also believe that serious training should be sought by those who wish to own firearms...but to what level they seek it should be a PRIVATE MATTER.


I'm afraid I must disagree. If my right to life is threatened, even remotely, by someone who improperly exercises her or his right to own a gun, it is no longer a private matter.

I have a right to live free of the threat of those idiot gun owners who are sloppy or impulsive. There are many rights that have been regulated to preserve public safety--even the rights of free speech and assembly. I advocate the absolute minimum regulation of firearms needed to protect the safety of everyone. To me, the minimum regulation is the requirement that every purchaser show a certificate of training completion before any gun can be purchased from a commercial dealer. If that seems too stringent for you, I'd like to know why.
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 282
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/17/2008 2:41:20 PM
Pretty simple, there are far less idiot gun owners than there are crooks who will NEVER pay attention to ANY law reguarding weapons. Even if we did pass heavier gun laws than are already on the books, we could NEVER hope to enforce them due to our pourous borders.

Anyone can ride down to any of several towns/cities in Mexico and purchase an UZI/Ingram/etc, full-auto, with no background check, no FFL check, NOTHING...except cash on hand. And drive BACK across the border with it, and never even SEE Border Patrol or any other law enforcement. There is NOTHING to stop it, especially if you know where to cross. And then you have a weapon with No Paper Trail. Just don't get caught with it ;)

Or if you get bored, take your boat to any of several countries and purchase whatever you please...then cruise back along the coast fishing and if you know what you are doing, you won't even raise an eyebrow...much less be boarded & searched. Cubano, anyone? Or a maid & gardener couple ;) What the heck, the Kennedy's do it all the time. Might as well enjoy the benefits of a Free Society with No Real Border Protection!

You can legislate all you want, until the border problem & the crime problems get resolved, all you are doing is wasting time & money.

Meanwhile...get yer own gun & get yer own training :)

 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 283
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/17/2008 3:47:28 PM
Idiot criminals won't pass the training course. If the course stops even 1 idiot criminal or sloppy owner from killing an innocent citizen or loved one, don't you think it's worth it? And, since you value competence and would want the course anyway, what skin is it off of your nose? In what way is your right infringed upon?
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 284
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/18/2008 1:11:12 AM
I'm ex-military and ex Class-G...I'd pretty much always be exempt from training course requirements as I've already had more weapons training than many civilians would ever see in their lifetimes. So it's no "skin off my nose".

However, as a long-time SASS shooter, I also know that not everything gets taught in a classroom. Take SASS for example, everything taught is pretty much informal, non-classroom. Yet these guys & gals are some of the best shooters in the world for speed & accuracy & safety. Not to mention most spend more time on the range in one year than the average cop spends in a lifetime.

The cost of guns & ammo & rangetime is considerable and the last thing anyone really wants that has a gun habit is yet ANOTHER cost requirement. And let's face it, if liberals have proven one thing it's that they can make anything expensive.

Example of making things expensive and no longer worthwhile: Volunteer Firefighting. Since 2005 membership rates across the country have DROPPED, leaving many communities undermanned and even largely unprotected. Why?? Because liberals got involved and started adding in all kinds of training requirements that really aren't germane to a rural fire department...creating a 180 hour course that IMHO only needed to be half that long. In 1987 I took a 40 hour course then an air pack certification course and that was it...it was firefighting time. I later got certs as a Driver & First Responder Medic to upgrade, along with tons of training every Monday night for years. Volly's get LOTS of training. We used to get to pick our specialty and run with it...now one is forced to take ALL the courses at once (except driver) which takes up huge amounts of time initially before one even gets to pee on a campfire. And that's just annoying. And because you have to waste tons of time Waiting For, then taking the 180-hour course...there are VERY few incoming volunteers willing to do all that before they even get to do a Ride-Along (because you can't have untrained people in a Hot Zone). So NOW all we get as volunteers are those who grew up in firefighting families or watched Backdraft one too many times. You just don't get the community-minded individuals anymore because it's too much bother. Why spend a YEAR becoming a Volunteer when you can spend a Year and become a Paid Firefighter?? Ah, but only so many Paid slots per year open up...depending on need & who quit/died...

This is why I'm anti-legislation...you can teach someone in a matter of a few weekends the basics on how to survive & fight fires, enough to where they can tell if it's something they want to pursue for a lifetime...but it's been legislated into Stupid Level. I want to get the government the heck OUT of my life, not get more invasive. This is NOT what the Founding Father's intended. 90% of the crap the Gov't does now should never have been started. is some of it nice? Yep, but it's not needed any more than the Subsidy on Sugar.
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 285
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/18/2008 1:45:00 AM

Idiot criminals won't pass the training course. If the course stops even 1 idiot criminal or sloppy owner from killing an innocent citizen or loved one, don't you think it's worth it? And, since you value competence and would want the course anyway, what skin is it off of your nose? In what way is your right infringed upon?


You don't seem to get it, the criminals won't take it because they don't CARE, and there are so many under-the-table weapons in america that it could never be ENFORCED. There are currently 82 guns per person in the US alone. About half don't have serial numbers because they are pre-1964.

You can't legislate Intelligence any more than you can legislate good behavior. Even the stupid have the right to own a gun. That much was given by the Supreme Court early this year. The courts are done with Gun Control for the next 50 years.

Also, Joe Farmer ain't gonna bother with a COURSE when he's 200 miles from a city. On the other hand, Joe Farmer was taught by his Dad to use proper care when using tools. And he's probably got his grandaddy's shotgun (and one or two more for duck hunting), a hunting rifle or three, and a handgun or two for wildlife containment purposes...are you going to try to force him to take a course? Good luck.

Let me put it this way, you can make a Shotgun from a nail, rubber band, & a drilled-out 4x4 piece of wood. Most anyone with a decent woodworking shop already has the tools to build basic firearms & revolvers on hand! Metalworking is EASY. Making a gun barrel is SIMPLE with good drill press.

It's kind of like trying to stop countries from making Nuclear Weapons...you've seen how successful we are at that...WE AREN'T. And what we prevent from making Nuclear Power Plants goes around us and buys Nuclear Warheads from the Russians because those mooks are BROKE and will take a dollar from anyone.

Even California, which has the most strict gun control laws of ANY state has massive problems with illegal guns in the hands of individuals who should never have access to a gun EVER. But then, when you can walk across the border and get one for $20-$50, why bother getting one from a California Gun Store which has rules & laws??

I'm saying that you are pissing in the wind. Gun laws are a joke. More legislation will just make good citizens into law-breakers. And we already don't have the space to spare in jails/prisons because those liberal fawkers took the Insta-kill out of the Death Penalty. Can't even fry a child molester anymore. STOP MAKING LAWS WHEN YOU CAN"T HANDLE WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE WRITTEN!!!!
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 286
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/19/2008 3:50:26 PM

Idiot criminals won't pass the training course.


Sir, you have a solution in search of a problem.

"Idiot criminals" cannot legally purchase a firearm in the first place.

"Idiot criminals", by definition, don't care what the law says they must do to legally possess a firearm.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 287
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/19/2008 6:30:11 PM

You don't seem to get it, the criminals won't take it because they don't CARE, and there are so many under-the-table weapons in america that it could never be ENFORCED. There are currently 82 guns per person in the US alone. About half don't have serial numbers because they are pre-1964.


But the dealers care because they don't want to lose their licenses/businesses. And sure, the smart criminals will get them, the really smart criminals don't shoot people. but if the overwhelming majority of people who possess weapons are _trained,_ then we will all be a lot safer. And if the test screens out the stupid and forewarns the impulsive about what will happen to them if they screw up or let an idiot get at one of theirs, we will have done what is reasonable to safeguard one another.

The Supremes allowed for reasonable regulation in their ruling. So what's unreasonable about what I propose? The fact that there are other unreasonable laws out there has got nothing to do with it. I'm talking about _this._

And please don't start in with the slippery slope argument. I'm not interested in taking away your guns--unless you feel entitled to own them without being responsible for them. No one has a right to be irresponsible with dangerous equipment--that's called criminal negligence. This isn't a black-and-white issue. There are competing rights involved. YOu might prefer the "every man for himself" solution, but that is exactly the sort of lawless climate that makes it easy for criminals to get guns. By advocating inadequate laws, you create an arms race.

Can you imagine how many nations would have nukes right now if the big powers hadn't been working hard to stop them? Can you imagine how many of them would have used them by now if they weren't assured we'd drop one on them a moment later?

And as for your farmer who knows how to take care of her tools? She goes in, takes the test, since she knows the stuff anyway she passes. 5 minutes later she's done and makes the purchase. No big deal for her. And if she doesn't know as much as she thought she did, so much the better for her, her family, and the rest of us. I'm sure she'd much rather find out sooner rather than after it's too late.

The fact that there are dumb laws out there doesn't mean we don't need good ones that actually preserve the balance between our competing rights. So now, if you would please answer the question I asked, I would appreciate it. What skin is it off of your nose if legitimate buyers are required to show a certificate of training before they purchase a gun? Exactly which right of yours would such a requirement infringe upon?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 288
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/19/2008 10:46:45 PM
Example of making things expensive and no longer worthwhile: Volunteer Firefighting. Since 2005 membership rates across the country have DROPPED, leaving many communities undermanned and even largely unprotected. Why?? Because liberals got involved and started adding in all kinds of training requirements that really aren't germane to a rural fire department...creating a 180 hour course that IMHO only needed to be half that long. In 1987 I took a 40 hour course then an air pack certification course and that was it...it was firefighting time. I later got certs as a Driver & First Responder Medic to upgrade, along with tons of training every Monday night for years. Volly's get LOTS of training. We used to get to pick our specialty and run with it...now one is forced to take ALL the courses at once (except driver) which takes up huge amounts of time initially before one even gets to pee on a campfire. And that's just annoying. And because you have to waste tons of time Waiting For, then taking the 180-hour course...there are VERY few incoming volunteers willing to do all that before they even get to do a Ride-Along (because you can't have untrained people in a Hot Zone). So NOW all we get as volunteers are those who grew up in firefighting families or watched Backdraft one too many times. You just don't get the community-minded individuals anymore because it's too much bother. Why spend a YEAR becoming a Volunteer when you can spend a Year and become a Paid Firefighter?? Ah, but only so many Paid slots per year open up...depending on need & who quit/died...


This is a very valid point, and a very strong case against my idea. Well said.

However, I'd tend to blame the lawyers rather than the liberals. I suspect that some agency somewhere got sued by a volly who saw backdraft one too many times and got hurt.

But yes, we do need to watch this government like a hawk. That's why I tend not to believe either the liberal guilt-tripping or the conservative fear-mongering. Both of those activities, which the pols and pundits thrive on, are just pandering to idiots if you ask me. As we're now finding out the hard way, too little regulation can be just as devastating as too much.

You can't evaluate things dispassionately and clearly if you're pissed off or guilt ridden. If you're feeling either way, it's time to step back, take a deep breath, and start thinking about why someone would want to work you up.
 where4
Joined: 10/1/2008
Msg: 289
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/21/2008 6:07:10 AM

But yes, we do need to watch this government like a hawk. That's why I tend not to believe either the liberal guilt-tripping or the conservative fear-mongering. Both of those activities, which the pols and pundits thrive on, are just pandering to idiots if you ask me. As we're now finding out the hard way, too little regulation can be just as devastating as too much.

Thank you. Well said. Why the need for name-calling and polarization? Based on most of my writings here some might think I have a big "L" tattoo on my forehead. Not so. And I don't appreciate anybody else trying to tattoo me. The world is more complex and nuanced than radio talk shows portray.

Moving right along... I don't feel sorry for the shooting "victim" here:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08295/921466-53.stm

Woman shoots man in Downtown road rage incident
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The district attorney's office yesterday was considering whether to charge a city woman who shot a man she said attacked her on Interstate 279, Downtown, on Sunday afternoon.

State police said Ericka Johnson, 24, shot Harry E. Titus, 59, of Steubenville, Ohio, in the stomach after he punched her in the face through the open window of her car. The two had just crossed the Fort Duquesne Bridge and were stopped near the Fort Pitt Museum.

Mr. Titus was in intensive care at Allegheny General Hospital yesterday. No one returned a message left at his house.

Police said the incident started when Ms. Johnson exited Route 28 onto I-279 at about 2:30 p.m. and cut off a car driven by Mr. Titus.

Mr. Titus drove past her, pulled in front of her, then stopped and yelled at her. She drove around him, but he drove in front of her again and stopped, causing her to stop.

She said he got out, walked to her car and punched her in the face through the open window, knocking her into the passenger seat.

Ms. Johnson said she then pulled a .38-caliber pistol, which she is licensed to carry, and shot Mr. Titus once.

He retreated to his car and drove himself to a nearby hotel. Ms. Johnson drove to the Port Authority police station to file a report.
First published on October 21, 2008 at 12:00 am


There are some interesting differences in details in the version of the story (excerpt below) that appears in Ohio, the man’s home state. There’s video that shows the guy’s neighbors talking about what a nice person he is and how they can’t imagine him doing anything like this. And then there’s this blurb about the “Castle Doctrine”: http://www.wtov9.com/news/17766536/detail.html

Johnson turned herself into police and hasn’t been charged.

Had this incident happened in West Virginia or Ohio, she very well could have been protected by the Castle Doctrine -- a law recently passed giving people the right to use deadly force if they feel threatened in their own home or car.

That bill has been introduced in Pennsylvania, but has never passed.


If this man really was as aggressive as the woman’s story indicates I’d have to say that’s what the gun’s supposed to be used for. I’ll be watching to see if her account pans out and if she remains without charges. Conceivably HE could be charged with assault on top of having been shot!

BTW, I thought Bernard Goetz, the so-called “subway vigilante” in New York was kind of a hero.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 290
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/21/2008 9:54:50 AM
Moving right along... I don't feel sorry for the shooting "victim" here:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08295/921466-53.stm


Well, someone above asked me what I meant by the "proper" use of a gun. I'd have to say that this qualifies. This man threatened her with bodily harm twice by interposing his car in her right of way. He then assaulted her. What could she have done to stop him from killing her shy of shooting him?

She was licensed and trained, and only used deadly force when her life was apparently at stake.

Now let me ask you this. What if an impulsive idiot like this had access to a gun and no real training in when and how to use it? He might have just taken a pot shot at her out his window and hit some poor innocent.

The "well regulated militia" clause in the 2nd Amendment isn't just window dressing, my friends.

There it is, that God-awful, Liberal-sounding word, right there in the Constitution for all to read: R E G U L A T E D.

Eeeeeekkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grow up and get used to it.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 291
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 10/21/2008 10:30:54 AM
The "well regulated militia" clause in the 2nd Amendment isn't just window dressing, my friends.

There it is, that God-awful, Liberal-sounding word, right there in the Constitution for all to read: R E G U L A T E D.


Before getting too smug about this, you really should research the meaning of the word "regulated" as used in the English language AT THE TIME THE AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN.

I know you'd like to think "with the proper amount of controlling laws", but you'd be wrong. "Well-regulated", in the language of the time, meant "well-practiced".


"Well-regulated" appears to have meant "well-disciplined" or "well-functioning." See 13 Oxford English Dictionary 524 (2d ed. 1989) (offering definition "regulated . . . . b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare [providing example from 1690] . . . .");

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

 tacitus1
Joined: 10/12/2007
Msg: 292
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 12/3/2008 3:27:53 PM

However, the majority of shootings involve people who know each other. The risk of being shot by a loved one is higher than the opportunity to stop a crime in progress. At some point you have to decide if it's worth the risk. Again, training and safe storage can go a long way toward preserving the safety of a distraught person and his/her loved ones.

I don't think the government needs to know where the guns are or who has them. But as a citizen, I need to have some assurance that the person who's got one tucked in her purse isn't going to shoot me by accident or just because she's having a bad day.


I recently had the experience of being involved in a hit and run caused by a drunk driver who was 'having a bad day'. Far more cars than guns out there, and far more people killed by bad or impaired drivers. How about some car control?

And why the phrase 'loved one' when discussing someone you know? The police are almost never surprised by a domestic shooting, because it's usually at the home of a frequent customer. Not much love going around in those households. As far as the crime in progress? I had a homeless woman pull a knife on me today because she didn't like my dog. She was fairly easy to avoid, but if she hadn't been, YES, I'd have shot her without any qualms.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 293
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 12/3/2008 4:23:25 PM

I recently had the experience of being involved in a hit and run caused by a drunk driver who was 'having a bad day'. Far more cars than guns out there, and far more people killed by bad or impaired drivers. How about some car control?


Sorry to hear about your hit and run. Yes, some car control would be good. However, with car contol the idea is not to hit anything.

Unfortunately, the people who are worked up about guns aren't going to buy off on the idea that cars are more dangerous. The issue of gun safety can't be dismissed so lightly.

I used to work with domestic violence offenders, and every one of them would claim that they loved the people they beat on--but that it was the fault of those people for provoking them.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 294
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 12/4/2008 10:54:40 AM

Unfortunately, the people who are worked up about guns aren't going to buy off on the idea that cars are more dangerous.


I presume you are speaking from experience, as one of those people.
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 295
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = GREAT Idea
Posted: 12/4/2008 4:45:26 PM
The Death Penalty is ONLY a Deterent when used QUICKLY. All this farting around with limitless appeals has taken the bite out of it. Give 'em One Appeal, and then zap 'em.

Add the lack of enough police and you have a situation which can ONLY be handled by private citizens taking care of themselves.

Add the lack of Honor or Personal Responsibility to that and you have the giant clusterfoobar which we currently call our Nation. Few understand either Honor and fewer still understand what Personal Responsibility is.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 296
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 12/5/2008 9:53:55 AM

I presume you are speaking from experience, as one of those people.


LOL!!! Nice try.

I am speaking from experience all right, as someone who actually talks to and listens to those people.

Try it some time, you might find it enlightening!
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 297
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = GREAT Idea
Posted: 12/5/2008 10:02:09 AM

The Death Penalty is ONLY a Deterent when used QUICKLY. All this farting around with limitless appeals has taken the bite out of it. Give 'em One Appeal, and then zap 'em.


Would you feel the same way if someone stole one of your guns, shot a cop in the back with it (no witnesses and no fingerprints), and they tried you for the murder because they needed to close the case and you were a suspect they knew they could convict?

I don't like criminals, but I'm not willing to forego my due process rights just because there are some bad people out there. I have the right to use a gun to protect myself. That should be plenty of deterrence.

I do agree that the concept of honor has not been emphasized nearly enough, but I find it hard to put much credibility in calls for personal responsibility from a movement whose rallying cry implies that guns aren't dangerous and therefore need not be restricted in any way. Where is the honor in that?
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 298
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 12/5/2008 10:05:51 AM

I am speaking from experience all right, as someone who actually talks to and listens to those people.

Try it some time, you might find it enlightening!


Try not making foolish assumptions.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 299
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 12/5/2008 11:25:33 AM
A suggestion is not an assumption, nor is a conclusion based on the evidence of your own words. You haven't listened to a thing I've said since you first took offense in the gun control thread.

Foolish? As foolish as insisting that guns aren't dangerous? Pulleeeese.

Grow the hell up. I said you could expect better of me, and you can. Can I expect better of you? The evidence so far indicates that I cannot.
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 300
view profile
History
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = GREAT Idea
Posted: 12/5/2008 11:25:47 AM
Someone would have a VERY hard time of stealing one of my guns. I live in a former Missle Silo, the security is better than average.
If someone were to be able to get past the security features and past the concrete door, they then would have to face two rather large and very well trained dogs. If they managed to get past the dogs, the second level security features then come into play...one of which is rather mean, but effective.
My wife-to-be is retired from the Marines...she keeps house, doesn't like it outside, so the burglars would then have to deal with Her. Even I don't want that kinda heat aimed in my direction
Then after that, there are the booby trapped safes. Alarms and hazardous. We're talking HOURS to crack...and by that time, I'll be back home...and I carry a Glock 20...thank God for CCW's.
If someone survived all that and managed to get one of my guns, I'd be bloody amazed. I'd also probably be dead and not have to worry about it.

What tbe people in the Movement are saying is that there are already ENOUGH laws on the books. Nothing more need be added. The Gun Show Loophole is no longer existant. What you are seeking has alreadybeen written. But unfortunatley no matter HOW many laws are written, criminals are still going to commit crimes. Until we start disposing of them in a more Permanent Manner, criminals will continue to flourish.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea