|
|
|
|
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 10:05:07 AM |
What really throws me is when I see firearm owners who get aggressive on internet forums, and seem ( at least to me) to be looking forward to the day they finally shoot someone.
I'd feel better if they were the calmest people here, honestly.
You may have to kill someone to defend yourself, but I don't think that act (however justified it may be) is something to ever celebrate.
Exactly. Deadly force is no joke. And when y'all give the impression that you get your rocks off by playing around with devices that project deadly force, you come across as the most irresponsible idiots imaginable. There is no way that I'd trust you with a gun. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 102 | |
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 10:12:45 AM | For the record, I don't support anything like a complete ban on guns. I realize in this country, given the country's history (which goes back far longer than my family has been here), it is basically impossible and would furthermore be logistically impossible to implement in any case. I only question concealed carrying in highly populated city and/or suburban areas just outside the cities.
I can't help but feel, as I stated earlier in this thread, that had the (in this example) 65-yr old otherwise law-abiding dialysis patient NOT been able to legally carry that on him in that area of the state (a populated urban-type area), the main crime cited in the OP would not have been able to happen. And of course this case is but one example of extreme hot-headedness in the heat of a moment carrying someone away with a gun literally right at hand.
And yes I realize had he had a knife or even brass knuckles , technically, he could still have possibly killed the other driver .... BUT, it would have taken a whole hell of a lot more personal engagement, so to speak, a fistfight of some sort at least, in order to effect that end.
And even then, being stabbed once or twice, or being bludgeoned a couple times with a weapon like a brass knuckles (to use my own example) , is still not quite AS likely to kill you instantly as being shot in the head at near range. It takes far less thought, arguably less courage, IMO, to draw a gun (in seconds of extreme rage) and point and/or fire it, than it would take to firstly engage in hand-to-hand combat and then produce some other sort of weapon and attack with that.
Furthermore, it's known that there is, psychologically, a big difference between knifing someone for instance, and standing several feet away and pulling a trigger once or twice. It's known to be more difficult for most otherwise sane people to stab someone else -- enough times to kill them -- than it would be to stand back (again, in the heat of an enraged moment) and fire a pistol at them.
All I'm saying, basically, is that IMO policies (in the states that have such policies) of allowing civilian pedestrians or motorists to walk or drive around legally armed with a gun in a city or near-city suburban area, where there are lots of other cars and people, etc, is essentially one that breeds this kind of possibility on a daily basis. It's surprising we don't hear more of this really. | |
|
| |
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 104 | |
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 10:28:08 AM | | ^^^ In Chicagoland, shootings and "gun incidents" are so commonplace, whether road rage-related or not, that we only hear about the ones that result in deaths. Frankly I am surprised however that there are not more cases like the Wonder/Pettits case which just recently happened in Florida, that's all I'm saying. Given the fact the fuel is certainly there (hot-headed disgruntled drivers, lots of traffic, etc ~ combined with citizens who can lawfully carry). The Brady Campaign website archives many more cases however; I only cited two recent ones. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 10:28:25 AM | Nothing deters crime more then a known gun owners presence. Sadly, the police, our paid gun owners are also required to wear uniforms and badges all the time, so they are easy for the crooks to spot. Also they are required to arrive in clown cars with lights and stickers all over them, further helping the criminals spot and elude our gun carriers.
And then they are bound by so many civil rights laws, they are basically already in handcuffs when they arrive 15 minutes after the crime.
As was pointed out, there would be no more 10-20 murders by one or two people, they would be mowed down before they got to number 3. The idea of grandma carrying a cannon, will prevent countless crimes against them.
would you break into a gun owners house?
would you pull a gun on a crowd of gun owners?
would you take a knife to a gun fight?
what is the value of baseball bat vs Smith and Wesson?
if your gonna die by a criminals hand, and you have 3 choices, here they are..
beaten to death with lawn rake
stabbed to death with kitchen knife
shot in head with .45
are you sure your gonna want the guns removed from the honest men and women?
I say lets get more of them. the biggest voice against legal gun ownership would have to be those with criminal intent, bleeding hearts with no sense of reality, or crooked governments with eyes on even more control over the population.
All these have one cure, and a lawn rake or kitchen knife is not it. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 10:52:41 AM | | The streets would be a better place if everyone had guns, most people now who have guns on their persons are the criminals. If the decent people had guns to, the criminals would think twice before doing the things they may want to do. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 12:00:56 PM | Provided people are trained, and have the self-restraint not to go off half****d, I would agree.
However, when people are not trained and display attitudes that make it seem likely they will shoot when upset, I would not agree. Would you?
Far more people are shot by acquaintances or family members than strangers. This suggests that the scenario of an upset person going off on a loved one is much more likely than a crimestopping grandma saving the day.
There are risks with any policy, and those risks all need to be weighed before we make a collective decision. I don't know what the right decision is, but I do know that letting untrained idiots wave guns around is just plain stupid. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 12:12:24 PM | Fact is more crimes have been prevented and citizens have been able to protect and defend themselves against crime than things like this have occurred. The liberal gun grabbing media simply refuses to report the good side of the gun issue where someone has saved their own or someone elses life/limb/property with a legally possessed firearm. It's time the media went back to reporting the news instead of creating and editing what gets reported.  | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 12:13:49 PM | So why is it a terrible idea ? The person could have just as easily and probably would have slammed his car into the hummer if he did not have to gun. It is more of a need of better screening about who buys the guns. I am honestly tired of every social liberal trying to decide what I should and should not do...Pay attention to your own business and stay out of mine !!
I am a retired Police Officer having spent 28 years with societys dredges..I still run into some of my "customers" and I am happy we have the freedom to bear arms. Just remember..if guns are outlawed...only outlaws will have guns !!!! | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 12:45:21 PM | Fact is more crimes have been prevented and citizens have been able to protect and defend themselves against crime than things like this have occurred. The liberal gun grabbing media simply refuses to report the good side of the gun issue where someone has saved their own or someone elses life/limb/property with a legally possessed firearm. It's time the media went back to reporting the news instead of creating and editing what gets reported.
EXACTLY!
We see stories in the news almost every single day about crimes being committed WITH a gun, but how often do you see stories about crimes being PREVENTED with a gun?
Mark
| |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 12:47:36 PM |
The liberal gun grabbing media simply refuses to report the good side of the gun issue
if guns are outlawed...only outlaws will have guns !!!!
The person could have just as easily and probably would have slammed his car into the hummer if he did not have to gun.
This is exactly the kind of mindless sloganeering that makes anti-gun control types seem like unthinking, irrational nutbars that need to be restricted to nothing more dangerous than plastic forks and spoons.
Plus a lot of that same old illogic and false arguments about gun control being gun banning. No one has said a word about banning guns yet some just can't seem to make that logical connection. Instead the words are drowned out by those little voices in their heads that say exactly the opposite of what was heard.
Why would we want to trust anyone who is incapable of tasks as simple as listening to what is said or actually understanding what is said to have their hands on something as potentially dangerous as a gun? Such an obvious lack of critical thinking is exactly what makes them incompetent to safely own a gun. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 112 | |
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 1:07:51 PM | | Well, obviously the whole apparatus is just far different in Florida than around here where I'm from. Further articles I've read on the case in the OP are saying now that the defense atty's feel it will be arguable as a self-defense case under something Florida has (a counterpart to concealed carry, I'm sure) called "Stand Your Ground" law. And it seems the victim did pull into the parking lot after the older man, evidently with the intent of carrying the dispute further. Obviously that was wrong on his part; especially with his 12-year old daughter in the car. A fatal misjudgement. So , some are arguing on some other forums I've seen that were talking about this case that the victim essentially caused his own demise through his own hot-headedness, and so on. Still, I can't fathom how threatening he could have been to render necessary this level of "defensive" action on the part of the older gentleman. I think that will be a hard case to sell a jury. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 3:14:45 PM | Guns are dangerous and so are cars when driven by a drunk. It's all about responsibility!!!!
Criminals don't go through all the procedures to attain their gun. I on the other hand had a background check done for every firearm I own (rifles included). I took the state approved safety/training course in order to recieve my CCP.
I hope and pray I never have to use my weapons against anything other than a paper target, but if the need should arrise then I feel ( and the state agrees) that I am capable of using a firearm in the defence of my life and property so don't come in my house uninvited or threaten my life and we will all get along just fine | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 4:28:18 PM | I do not have an aversion to guns having shot many thousands of rounds through a barrel. I am luck to live in a country where there is no need to carry a firearm, not that it is allowed here. I am sure there are places in the US that I would not feel safe to walk the streets, actually just crossing the border I do not feel the sense of security that I do anywhere I do in my country. I can understand the feelings of the posters that are for civilians to walk around armed.
The question as I see it is in the long run would the US be safer if people were allowed to carry or not. By allowing people to carry firearms the implication is that it is ok to shoot another human being. Just for now let us put aside weather or not it is justified or not.
So now you have a society that allows a person to take another's life. And according to your constitution every citizen has that right. (Actually that was not the intention when the constitution was written up, the right to bear arms was enshrined so the population had a way to combat Brittan if it ever decided to come knocking again.)
So you have a society that allows killing but the only check that you have is the moral fiber of the person with the gun to keep his or her finger off the trigger. At one time the general population had more moral fiber but today it seem to be lacking (Too much refined food I think).
So I think the two sides of the argument is do you take a stand and say it is not acceptable to kill others and try to back society away from thinking it is ok to do such a thing? Or do you arm a large portion of society and just trust in the luck of the draw to deter the dim witted members of society that they should not commit crime.
Tough choice. Glad I live in Canada. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 4:41:52 PM |
And when y'all give the impression that you get your rocks off by playing around with devices that project deadly force, you come across as the most irresponsible idiots imaginable.
I don't believe I come off that way at all. I would appreciate if you refrain from lumping all firearm owners and carriers in the same group. You are only promoting the idea that there is a "yes or no" agenda. This doesn't help at all and only furthers us from sanity in these debates.
I'm a firearm carrier in favor of stricter laws. I don't believe any yahoo should be able to own a gun. I would like some form of restriction and filtering process before you can buy one. Of course, this wouldn't cut down on all firearm related accidents or assaults, but it probably would cut down on them. If you are ever commited into a psychiatric instintution, you should have to be cleared by a medical board before you should ever be allowed to own a gun. I realize this is somewhat coming into play now after the Virginia Tech shooting, but this should have been implemented on day one. A lot of people are saying they need to restrict and test and ban firearms, but honestly if they figured out the very simple basics of this problem, it would be a better deterent then stricter gun laws.
And I also agree that firearm safety should be taught at a young age. At the age of twelve, my father took me to a course to learn the ins and outs of firearms. The instructor was a police officer. She went through everything we needed to know how to operate, dismantle, clean, and handle firearms safely. This should be mandatory in our society. Too many children see guns as toys, like in many video games and movies, and this is how a lot of these incidents occur.
But your point that military bases lock down firearms isn't valid. Think of where they are. They are in a base, surrounded on every sides by armed soldiers with emplaced weapons and support vehicles. There is a huge gap between them and danger. Storing weapons is a way of controlling inventory and making sure everything is in working order. I can guarentee you that if an invasionary force was to break through the lines at some point, the armories wouldn't even hesitate to open there doors and arm anyone of those soldiers. However, we don't live in that type of system. We don't have a sufficient amount of armed guards and secure locations to make sure we are never in danger. I hope we never do, because you would have to live in a police state for that to ever become a reality, and then there are bigger problems you would need to worry about. The only place outside a military base that operates in a similar fashion is a prison. So keep that in mind. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 6:29:49 PM |
I'm a firearm carrier in favor of stricter laws. I don't believe any yahoo should be able to own a gun. I would like some form of restriction and filtering process before you can buy one. Of course, this wouldn't cut down on all firearm related accidents or assaults, but it probably would cut down on them. If you are ever commited into a psychiatric instintution, you should have to be cleared by a medical board before you should ever be allowed to own a gun. I realize this is somewhat coming into play now after the Virginia Tech shooting, but this should have been implemented on day one. A lot of people are saying they need to restrict and test and ban firearms, but honestly if they figured out the very simple basics of this problem, it would be a better deterent then stricter gun laws.
Thank, Sidd, for speaking up and making sense. Now, if you can just talk some sense into those yahoos who keep spouting "guns don't kill, people do. Dah yup!," that would be great!
The only place outside a military base that operates in a similar fashion is a prison. So keep that in mind.
In prisons, guns are strictly segregated from the inmate population. Guards who interact directly with prisoners NEVER carry guns. Access to guns in both settings is strictly controlled, and no soldier will ever get access to a gun unless there's an order to issue him one. And that's not just a matter of inventory control, it's a matter of military discipline. Drunken soldiers with access to guns would be a very bad idea on any base, even the ones in the middle of Missouri.
But you and I are essentially in agreement about the principle. Let's either do the right thing by training everyone in school, or let's do the other right thing of restricting access only to those who have been successfully trained.
And, if you're one of those idiots who is about to scream that I'm trying to take your guns away, think again, idiot! I'm urging you to stop blowing smoke out your ass and go get the training you need to KEEP YOUR GUNS SAFELY.
If you don't want to exercise your right responsibly, you are setting yourself up to lose it. And if you do eventually lose it because you refuse to think it through, go look in the mirror, pal. I'm trying to help you out. The rights of every innocent bystander in your vicinity are balanced against your right to bear. If you can't bear your weapons in such a way as to respect their rights, you forfeight yours. AND YOU KNOW IT.
So do us all a favor. Shut the f up and go get trained. If you've been trained, excellent! Thank you! I don't want to know anything more than that. You can have all the guns that you've been trained to use and store safely as far as I'm concerned. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 7:37:55 PM | Ace, I think you and I are in agreement, but the prison comment wasn't about the guards having weapons. I was talking about the control factor. The prisoners have no immediate access to firearms and the neither do the guards inside. I'm saying we can't turn our population into that sort of society.
Small communities such as prisons and bases can function that way because of there design, but average society never will be able to. Normal society will never have the control spectrum a prison or a military base will, and that's a good thing. But with the freedom not to have a cop on every corner watching everyone, we have lost a more total sense of security, and in some cases, I do believe an individual has the right to carry a firearm, if they are responsible and understand its use. I don't want someone pulling out a gun they just got and have never fired to try to save me. I do want person who has gone to the range, trained, and put more thought into this decision then just, "I like guns."
When I trained for my concealment permit, the instructor ended the class by saying,
"This is a major decision you are all making. If you decide to carry, you have made the decision to intervene with deadly force at the appropriate time. You have to. You cannot sit by and let a woman be raped if you have the ability to stop it. But know this: You will never know how you will react to killing someone until you do. You may save someone's life, but at the risk of ruining your own. You may lose your family, your job, your mental health, and more. You need to think about this every time you decided to take a gun with you."
I think everyone needs to think of this before taking a firearm anywhere. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/18/2008 8:23:43 PM | You will never know how you will react to killing someone until you do. You may save someone's life, but at the risk of ruining your own. You may lose your family, your job, your mental health, and more. You need to think about this every time you decided to take a gun with you."
I think everyone needs to think of this before taking a firearm anywhere.
Wiser words were never spoken. Thank you. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/19/2008 10:44:03 AM | This law can really have a negative effect on Tourism. Have they even considered that?
I will certainly think very, very carefully before visiting any area that allows thier citizens to carry concealed weapons. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/19/2008 4:12:12 PM |
Well, obviously the whole apparatus is just far different in Florida than around here where I'm from. Further articles I've read on the case in the OP are saying now that the defense atty's feel it will be arguable as a self-defense case under something Florida has (a counterpart to concealed carry, I'm sure) called "Stand Your Ground" law. And it seems the victim did pull into the parking lot after the older man, evidently with the intent of carrying the dispute further. Obviously that was wrong on his part; especially with his 12-year old daughter in the car. A fatal misjudgement. So , some are arguing on some other forums I've seen that were talking about this case that the victim essentially caused his own demise through his own hot-headedness, and so on. Still, I can't fathom how threatening he could have been to render necessary this level of "defensive" action on the part of the older gentleman. I think that will be a hard case to sell a jury.
it's sad that you know nothing about the law. of course the case was self defense, and if the case goes to trial, the chap will be acquitted.
if someone attacks you, you have every right to kill him. that is legally, and morally, proper. there is NO rational reason for retreating, which is why the laws exist. florida's law is not as good as texas', but, the truly civilized states are adopting the morally proper laws and allowing people to protect themselves. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/19/2008 4:43:04 PM |
So I think the two sides of the argument is do you take a stand and say it is not acceptable to kill others and try to back society away from thinking it is ok to do such a thing? Or do you arm a large portion of society and just trust in the luck of the draw to deter the dim witted members of society that they should not commit crime.
it is NEVER acceptable to kill anyone who is not trying to harm you in some way. obviously, if an individual chooses to announce to the world that he is not worthy of being deemed a human being, and tries to break into your house, it is ALWAYS acceptable to exterminate it. there is a huge difference. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/19/2008 5:10:50 PM | it is NEVER acceptable to kill anyone who is not trying to harm you in some way. obviously, if an individual chooses to announce to the world that he is not worthy of being deemed a human being, and tries to break into your house, it is ALWAYS acceptable to exterminate it. there is a huge difference.
It's the "in some way" loophole that bothers me. It's also your willingness to presume that the alleged rapist doesn't have a mother whose expectation of due process for her child is something you can violate with impunity. You have no right to do that, gun or no gun.
When you are elected Sheriff, then you can do that duty. Meanwhile, as a citizen, you can make a citizen's arrest and use reasonable force to hold a suspect in place until the authorities arrive. If a suspect attempts to use force to escape, you can do what you have to do. But you do not, and never will, have a license to kill. Sorry dude.
You come across as someone who itches for an excuse to kill, and your attempt to rationalize the act beforehand lead me to think that you are not someone with the sobriety or maturity to handle the responsibility of a gun.
I don't expect you to understand that or why I would say it. But perhaps if you think about it with something other than your adrenal glands you will get a clue.
Arguments like yours convince responsible people, both gun owners and nonowners alike, that not everyone is capable of managing the responsibility of gun ownership. So you might want to stop puffing your chest and realize that the more you talk that way the more ammunition you give to people who want to take guns out of the hands of people like you. Personally, I'll feel much safer when you, in particular, are disarmed.
Before you go off, why don't you stop and think about why I might say that to you, when I have told other people in this thread that I support them in keeping theirs.
And if you do decide to go off on me because you prefer that to thinking, you lend even more credence to my claim that you, in particular, are unfit to own a gun. In other words, let me put it this way:
Grow the F up. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/19/2008 5:21:47 PM |
it is NEVER acceptable to kill anyone who is not trying to harm you in some way. obviously, if an individual chooses to announce to the world that he is not worthy of being deemed a human being, and tries to break into your house, it is ALWAYS acceptable to exterminate it. there is a huge difference.
I have noticed in your posts that you do not specify the level of violence that would be needed to justify shooting a person. Wait let me rephrase that. It is acceptable to shoot (exterminate) a person if he tries to beak into your house even if no violence towards you is committed. I think you just proved the point for people who think yahoos should not be armed. | |
|
| |
| |
|
| Page 5 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
