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  
Joined: 8/14/2007
Msg: 2
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea Page 1 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
I think it's a very GOOD thing to have ARMED citizens who have shown their ability to carry a weapon responsibly to be able to have said weapons in public.
This very act gives me a better sense of security as I know the cops cannot be everywhere to protect fellow citizens when the protection is needed.
These law abiding citizens will be able to help others in a time of need.

I hate the government and think they are crooks but I love This land of my fore fathers and wish only the best for ALL of us.
GOD Bless the USA.!!!
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 4
view profile
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 8:18:24 AM
It's just something that cannot compete against that "gun myth" I've spoken about in the other threads. It's so deep in the American DNA, that one has to realize that it's one of those given cultural filters I so often refer to.

That's something that's a valid point to consider, whenever one discusses gun laws in the USA.

I don't think that ever will change, quite frankly, and one simply has to accept it as it is.
Joined: 2/22/2008
Msg: 7
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 10:42:12 AM
I personally despise guns, particularily combat weapons like handguns and semi autos
long arms.I also think anyone out of their teens who is still playing with guns is an idiot.
And this is from an ex-soldier. Combat weapons have no place in a civilized society.
But given all that I have seen of human nature, I think it has to be all or nothing. Either you have a society where all firearms are banned and removed ( the ideal situtaion) or
one in which everyone of legal age can carry them. You cant argue that horrifying
mass murders like the Virginia Tech shooting wouldnt occur. By the time he had gotten to the second or third victim, someone would have pulled a weapon and
blow his head off.
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 9
view profile
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 11:39:34 AM
Actually that recent police shooting of a Latino teenager once again revealed that there is a deep cultural filter working behind the scenes here in Canada that kind of proves how different those filters can be.

After that shooting, which (at first glance, and before the investigation is completed) was seen as the shooting of an unarmed man who was placing the officers involved in no physical danger - a wave of concern was felt and expressed here by many (including at least one ex police officer).

Police officers here are expected to use a firearm in essentially the exact same way any citizen here is - only as a last resort, against a very real threat to their lives, or other citizens.

In relation to the topic at hand, it serves up perhaps the more important side of the discussion, and the more valuable one to it's central concern.

Why does one feel the need to pull a firearm on anyone, unless they are posing a serious threat to one's life ?

Why is violence so often seen as a solution, before all other options are tried ?

Unlike the firearm debate, with it's cultural limitations, this one is a neutral one. It works just as well with a knife, as it does with a firearm.
Joined: 3/5/2008
Msg: 10
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 12:20:16 PM
I maintain that none of the below listed atrocities would have occurred were baseball bats not so readily available!
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 12
view profile
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 1:07:55 PM

MG ~ we are usually on the same page, politically....but I'm going to disagree on this one &side w/ Mr. Th. Jefferson.

Don't misread what I'm trying to say here. Had we been switched at birth, the overwhelming odds would suggest we'd also switch our opinions on the subject - due to those cultural filters.

What works here only does so because we see firearms differently in a cultural sense, and dramatically and distinctly so. The same path won't work for you, for those very reasons I've stated in all those firearms threads I've posted in.

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

As I alluded to in my previous post, perhaps the discussion as to what " as a last resort" is more suited to the discussion - in all situations.

Why is pulling a weapon and using it so easily done, and seen as a positive all too often ? Why are some people here (as evidenced in many posts) so willing to pull a weapon (any one) on a fellow human being before exploring all other possibilities ?

I think that's the central question, and it's a good one.

I think even a die hard gun lobbyist would agree (at least I hope they would) that one should only point a weapon at another person under some very stringent limitations, meaning the great possibility that innocent life will be lost.

I think that decision to draw and point a weapon at someone should only be made if there is no other solution - and life is at risk, to a high probability.

That's the only reason I'd ever draw a weapon, any weapon, if I had to.
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 15
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 3:09:53 PM

Canadian criminals[in theory should] share this same cultural thinking.They don't use weapons in an illegal fashion because of cultural background??
If not using Canadian people fight back and not allow the scene to go awry in some magical fashion you are not sharing with the world?

You are totally missing the point.

Canadians, generally simply do not feel the same NEED to have a gun for protection and are far less likely to see violence as a solution for any situation that isn't certain to cause death or serious injury. You would be hard pressed to find a significant number of Canadians who feel it is acceptable to kill someone for stealing their tv set (this is where that difference in 'culture' as it relates to guns is highlighted most clearly, in the use of lethal force to protect property).

They don't feel the same NEED to have a gun at their bedside "just in case" or to have a gun tucked away on their person "just in case". Canadians simply don't see the world and others as being the threat to their persons that Americans often do, don't have the same "just in case" mentality and therefore don't see firearms as being an absolute necessity.
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 18
view profile
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 3:41:21 PM
Canadian criminals[in theory should] share this same cultural thinking.They don't use weapons in an illegal fashion because of cultural background??
If not using Canadian people fight back and not allow the scene to go awry in some magical fashion you are not sharing with the world?

Actually, I can give you some evidence across the board that the cultural basis of using firearms is indeed different.

Montreal's police officers, roughly something like 7,000 men and women, fired their weapons (for ALL reasons, including accidental discharges) only 100 times over the course of five years - including the year of the Dawson College shooting spree.

Each time a weapon is fired, on duty, it's recorded. Those stats were published in the Montreal Gazette.

While the robbery rate dipped only slightly in the decade between 1992 and 2002, the number of robberies involving guns per 100,000 people declined by 62 per cent, according to Statistics Canada data released yesterday.

In 1992, 8,736 robberies were committed across Canada with firearms. By 2002, while the population of the country had grown, the number of robberies with firearms had dropped to 3,472."

That's 3,472 firearm robberies, in a country that has 33 million people (roughly) - and about 50 or so citizens that can legally carry a concealed handgun for their own protection.

I work occasionally on dispatching hold up alarms here, and in the twelve years I've done that the number of times an actual handgun was used I could count on the fingers of one hand - and I've handle hundreds of such alarms each and every year.

Canadians have free access to baseball bats, knives, and a whole host of other potential weapons - legally.

Our homicide rate is still much lower than yours.

How does this relate to the thread topic ?

It's rather simple, actually.

My contention is that my society, even down to the criminal element, sees using a weapon as being something that's not easily done - except perhaps upon one another. It's quite rare here, across Canada, for a regular citizen to be threatened with a gun by a criminal - or to be shot by one. When it happens, it's generally headline type material.

It's even rarer for a criminal, facing a peace officer , to be shot ....or for a police officer to be shot by a criminal.

That tells me it's simply some cultural filter that's at work, since we do have criminals, gangs, and legal/illegal firearms here. That changes little in the sense of our homicide and robbery rates, in terms of firearm use.

In a sense, to paraphrase an oft used phrase " Guns don't kill people, people who live in societies where gun use is seen as a positive kill people. "

In the OP's post, there was no reason for a gun to be pulled in the first place as quickly as it was.

If I was living there, and carrying a concealed weapon, no one would ever know I had it except my family members . It would never ever be drawn unless I was in imminent danger of serious harm or death, or some other innocent person was.

If someone was trying to steal my car, or run from my house with my TV - it would not be drawn.

I would practice using it weekly, on static and moving targets, and know my legal rights to use it to a T.

Should that nightmare scenario arrive, and my life (or someone else's ) be in imminent danger from an armed individual , then (and only then) would I reach for it, release the safety, and aim at my attacker. I'd also make sure I understood what was happening as much as possible, and was as close as possible to avoid missing my target.

In this case distance is important, against someone who isn't carrying another firearm. Twenty feet away from me, he poses almost no threat, if carrying only a knife.

Depending on the situation, a quick warning would follow to stop where he was.

Then, and only then, would my finger curl around the trigger, and I'd fire three rounds into his center body mass if he continued in my direction . Should that not stop the attack, more would follow.

At that point my only motive is to stop the attack from occurring, and stop the danger to life involved. My only intent would be to stop the attack, and not kill the attacker.

As long as I had correctly done everything, I would feel little remorse over it, except in the general sense of having taken (potentially) a human life when it could have been avoided had things been different.
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 20
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 3:44:43 PM

What happens when you get confronted by a bad Canadian??

Again, you're missing the point.

You are still approaching the idea from the perspective that "I MUST have a gun 'JUST IN CASE'. Until you are willing to think beyond "ANYONE out there is a potential threat to me" you never will get it.

Your "What happens..." question is irrelevant to it because Canadians, generally, don't see "others" as inherent threats and, consequently, don't have the same "just in case" mentality of "nobody did anything today but whatif someone does tomorrow?".

You're trying to make the "bogeyman" argument to people who aren't afraid of the "bogeyman".
Joined: 6/9/2007
Msg: 23
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 4:45:52 PM
Actually, your premise, while sincere, I am sure, is incorrect. In states where it is legal to carry concealed, crimes actually go down.

Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

Why you think the incident could not have happened without a concealed weapon law, is beyond me. It makes no sense. People commit heinous crimes daily with guns, or without concealed weapon permits. The one thing you don't hear about very often is the numbers of people who use guns legally to stop a crime.

More Guns, Less Crime, John's worth reading. Good topic.

Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 24
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 5:43:26 PM

More Guns, Less Crime, John's worth reading. Good topic.

You really push this book a lot despite the many flaws in his methods.

This wouldn't happen to be YET ANOTHER case of Lott spamming the internet with reviews and praises using a fake identity, would it?
Joined: 6/19/2007
Msg: 25
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 6:17:37 PM

I know everyone thinks they live in a perfect world and that kind of stuff will never happen to you.

Never had a gun, knife, baseball bat pointed my way in anger. My world is not perfect, but it is not doing too bad.

There is a reason we are the way we are in this country, and guns brought it about. They left them in the hands of citizens to prevent the government from completely taking away your rights. Like it or not, but guns made your freedom possible, and help you keep your freedom.

I am free from the worry some guy who wants to feel manly is packing. Around here it is the cops and bad guys who have guns on the street. The bad guys generally shoot at other bad guys and the cops shoot at the bad guys. It is slowly getting worse with kids wanting to be tough guys like they have in the States.

I fail to see how I am less free than my American brother considering we have not felt the need to enshrine gun ownership to protect us from our government.

I am not saying it is right or wrong that you have concealed carry permits. If I spent much time in the US I might be inclined to get one also. But the reason they may be needed may have something to do with the attitude that comes with the right to bear arms.
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 27
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 7:11:26 PM

I have worked with a local police dept for two years and we have a name for people like you VICTIM

Let's just have a little look at that statement. We'll use this line as our point of reference for this little example since it is a good example of this 'imminent doom' fear that gets tossed out all the time.

I often drive through areas known for violent activities, and there have been 2 violent home invasions in "safe" neighborhoods in Orlando in the past week.

2 home invasions in just 1 week, that sounds really scary.

Let's see, metro Orlando has a population of ~2 million so...

If we assume everyone is a single citizen in a separate home it would take almost 20 thousand years for each resident to experience this JUST once at that rate.

Now, we can be certain that every Orlando resident ISN'T a single resident in a single home so let's go the other way and assume that every 4 residents comprise a single home (that would be mom, dad and 2 kids). In this scenario it would STILL take almost 5 thousand years for each family to be hit JUST once at that rate.

ONE chance every 5 thousand years of being hit by a home invasion for the average family.

Even if we increase the frequency of invasions by 5 times it would still take one thousand years for each family to be hit just once.

ONE chance every 1 thousand to 5 thousand YEARS.

Yep, that sounds SO MUCH like the kind of imminent and impending doom that requires being heavily armed, sure does, yep.
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 30
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 7:33:39 PM

It is simple to make statistics of the victims of violent crimes.

But not nearly as simple as shouting "Booga, booga, booga, you'll die if you don't have a gun, booga, booga, booga".

At least considering the possibilities in light of their reality requires that you actualy give the problem some rational thought rather than merely jumping for the most firepower you can muster as if it somehow changes that reality.
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 33
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 11:10:28 PM
Are you Canadian? If so, why do you think this is??? I have read MontrealGuy's cultural filter thoughts, and that is true to an extent I'm sure, but then at the same time it must go beyond that. Why exactly does America seem to simply be a more hostile environment in general than Canada or western Europe?

Actually I'm American. Other than a few years I lived outside North America, I've lived back and forth between the two all my life.

I think MG has a good part of it with the filters. Some of it is rooted in the fundamental attitudes that formed the nations. If the birth of the US were to be described by "Don't tread on me", the the birth of Canada could be best described by "It seemed like a good idea". While it certainly helps account for the difference in attitude regarding the whole "guns against tyranny" thing (which is pretty much just an outdated joke at this point. When I start hearing about how someone's S&W is going to save them from a fully equiped infantry fire team I just think of that bit from "Casablanca", the "...don't amount to a hill of beans..." part) but, I don't think that quite covers it all, especially the propensity to justify violence over property.

That part, I think, is more about how the countries grew and their arche-typal myths, if you will. America grew, in large part, through military conquest (the various Indian Wars, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Phillipine-American War) Canada grew more through 'absorption', assimilation basically (it had it's violent moments but not anything close to the same extent). Americans have Mountain Men with their Kentucky longrifles, Canadians have Voyageurs with their canoes. Americans have pioneer families with wagons in a circle fighting marauding Indians and Canadians have les Habitants and soddies. Americans have the cavalry charging over the hill while Canadians have the North-West Mounted Police sauntering up and saying "What's all this then?".

A lot of that propensity, the NEED, evolves from those "frontier legends". As a result, Americans tend to view guns as a shield, primarily for use against others (i.e. "What good is a gun if I can't get to it before he gets me") while Canadians tend to view them more as a means, primarily to put food on the table (i.e. "What good is a gun if there's no game to hunt").

Those are the PC answers anyway (meaning the ones that won't attract the attention of our local "House Committee on Un-American Activities"). There are a lot of other contributing factors for the easy attitude around what is worth killing for but I'll probably just get slammed for those.

Is this country simply more hostile , or at least more potentially hostile, than other countries

Overall, no but when it comes to managing conflict, yes
Joined: 7/23/2007
Msg: 34
view profile
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 11:56:05 PM
IF..all those people mentioned in the above post that were harassed by a gun HAd a gun...there would probably be ALOT LESS of those incidents happening...

the bad guys get really bold when their victims do not have a weapon...Bad guys will always have guns..its pretty niave to belive that disarming the innocent polulation would end would only makes us..the good guys..sitting ducks..

Guns dont kill people....PEOPLE do..

Just recently...they REARMED Washington DC...Why...because they disarmed the good citizens...and crime ran rampant...alot of innocent people died during that liberal gun law crap..

people need to realize one thing....its a big ugly mean world out there...there are bad guys...the good guys MUST be armed..

I could own 20 machine guns...10 bazookas...a tank...50 grenades...I wouldnt be using them unless attacked...I wouldnt be holding up banks...robbing peoples houses...but when the bad guys came to my house....they would definately have a problem...

Arm the innocent to protect the innocent..The bad guys will always have think anything different is niave. sorry.

*Two posts following this deleted = Billboarding. Let other people have a turn before posting again...if you didn't edit your post in time, wait. And - I don't know how many times I'll have to say it - Under NO Circumstances are you to EVER post the details of another posters profile data in open forums. Ever. Consider yourself lucky you are not suspended for this.* TheMadFiddler - PoF Forum Moderator
Joined: 4/23/2004
Msg: 35
view profile
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/15/2008 12:38:05 AM
It is particularly silly to try and use metaphors like: murder with bats, or steak knives, or cars to those committed using handguns; it shows ignorance and a real lack of critical thinking about the subject.

Bats are for playing baseball, people could kill with a bat, but never as easy as with a gun. Cars are made for transportation; even though you can kill using a car, it's still easier to rob and kill using a gun. I could go on using all those moronic suggestions that were brought up.

Guns are made to kill. If u wanna argue that killing is sometimes required for defence, go ahead, at least were getting onto the right track.

The U.S. is a very violent nation. Some see no other way to protect themselves, so they believe guns are the only answer. It's kind of like living in the old West - -shootouts, and call out the sheriff, there's gonna be a hanging. Nice to see some countries have opted to progress, some others are struggling to convince their Neanderthal demographic that it's for the best.

I agree that it's predominantly a cultural thing.
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 36
view profile
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/15/2008 3:30:58 AM
I think Munjo is one of the better sources in this thread on the subject , since he's one of the few that has actually spent a lot of time in both countries, and that gives him a rather unique view on their differences.

If one centers the discussion in this thread on just the "gun" element, it won't lead us to what I feel is the heart of the actual social paradigm that's responsible for driving the incidents the OP refers to . I really do think it goes far beyond that in it's complexity, and centering the argument only on it misses that entire side of the "why".

Through my foreign eyes, when I look at America, I see this country that has defined itself in so many ways through it's association with firearms. The sound of a musket was the birth cry of your nation, and all through it's history the sound of gunfire has been a constant.

Your defining moments, many times, have centered around men with guns. Your cultural heroes, even ones in your arts and culture, are often armed. The quintessence of the American cultural hero is one man standing up against the crowd, and that man is frequently armed. This returns to that concept of the individual over the group, and enforces and enables it, and that's another American social paradigm.

There's a commonality between these myths, a line that connects them in a straight path over your country's history. From your founding fathers, your frontier gunslingers, your Civil War heroes, your Roaring Thirties gangsters, right through to fictional characters like Al Pacino's Scarface , and Bruce Willis in Die Hard - they all represent the same cultural model of the armed individual as this positive embodiment of that individual standing alone against the group.

If we look at the gangsta rap music world, we see this same model being presented as a positive one. To me, it's the same American myth at play.

Think about it for a moment, even outlaws with guns there have this "positive" modeling about them, in almost a romantic sense. When Tony Montana yells " Say hello to my little friend! ", the audience cheers him on.

I've always found it ironic that your laws make it quite difficult to kill a convicted criminal without rounds of appeals for a heinous crime like murder, but in some states there any citizen can kill someone who is only trying to break into their car with full protection under the law - and be considered a hero while doing it. The individual has more power than your judicial system does, and can apply the death penalty instantly to someone who is committing a minor non-violent crime.

My feeling is that this is only due to that social paradigm at work. Those two classic American cultural filters , those of individuality and firearms, intersect there and allow such acts to be legally done. The supreme power the individual has there is the one over life and death, in an almost godlike manner.

What occurs is that the bar is lowered, and that type of mindset is perhaps what drives the people that the OP mentioned to do what they do, in a corrupted version of that same social paradigm.

Now in this country, as recently seen, when even a policeman shoots someone dead - he better be armed and about to kill someone, or the population is revolted.

Now if you take this way of looking at it, and then throw in the demographics of higher population density, and greater wage inequality and poverty there - it multiplies it.

So I see this as being the base part of the reasons for such illegal use of firearms in the acts the OP mentioned. It has far less to do with guns, than it does with the social paradigm that the society those guns are found in does.

If I was to be handed a firearm here, it would carry none of those qualities with it. It would be a tool to target shoot with, to collect, or to hunt with. I would not see it as a means of self-defense.

Even if I were to somehow be one of those fifty or so Canadians that have a right to carry a concealed weapon for protection, I would be legally limited to using it to protect myself, and no one else. Technically, were I to shoot someone with such a legal weapon who was trying to kill a member of my family - I'd be breaking the law. Of course, in the real world, in a justified case of such use, such an act would probably not lead to a jail sentence.

Canadians still have a right to use their legal firearms for self-defense against a clear and present danger to their lives, but that's considered the last option only after a rather long list of possible other actions.

The reason that occurs is simply due to the cultural models that drive society here, and those models are as deeply embedded in our DNA as yours are in America.

That's why I don't think that one can change such models as easily as some might think, and trying to do so will be resisted heavily by a majority of the population of both countries if one attempted it.
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 42
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/15/2008 8:14:23 AM
^^ I agree 100% wildcat. I have always felt the same exact way. Unless I were literally about to kill someone, and/or myself (which I of course would never be "about" to do), I see absolutely no reason to have that kind of tool , with ammunition, at hand. That was basically the mindset we were raised in growing up as well.

This is utterly ridiculous! I was raised by a cop. I've been hunting all my life. I definitely have that kind of tool, with ammunition, at hand, at all times. Why? Well, come break into my house in the middle of the night, or try to harm my daughter, or anyone else I care about for that matter, and you'll find out real quick!

I have a good friend who is a police dispatcher. She's in training to become a cop. Not long ago, her house was broken into for the THIRD time, but this time, she walked in on the guy in her carport. He beat her so badly she had to be hospitalized.

She's trained with a Glock 40, so that's what I bought her as a gift. Personally, I'm really hoping that creep comes back a 4th time.

BTW - we have a town here in Georgia where the head of every household is REQUIRED to own a gun, unless they state that they are some kind of concientious objector. I don't think I'll be breaking into any houses in Kennesaw anytime soon!

Joined: 11/2/2006
Msg: 45
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/15/2008 8:58:12 AM
You're full of nonsense. A permit for concealed carry is only bad for rapists, robbers, muggers, and other low lifes.

All people deserve to feel secure about their persons when they are out and about. They shouldn't be hasseled by anyone even including men who just want to hit upon some woman they have targeted.

Women should learn to say, "Make my day dude," as they pull their Dessert Eagle 44 Magnum special from their purses, the world's most powerful handgun. BTW, it only takes a little bit of training to feel confident and emotionally calm dealing with scumbags.

The Eagle
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 47
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/15/2008 9:13:51 AM

By your goofy logic, if there are drunk drivers who mow down pedistrians or kill someone crashing their cars; therefore all our cars have to be taken away because some fool ran amuck with a car.

Cars were not designed with the specific and primary purpose of killing people instantly at a distance. Cars are inherently dangerous devices nontheless, and you have to be trained and pass a test that demonstrates you are capable of operating one safely before you can legally drive one. You can't just go out and do it.

So what are the appropriate safeguards and standards for a device that _is_ designed to kill people instantly at a distance? You're the adult here, so you tell me.

That type of reasoning is perposterous and offensive to adults. You pull this kinda crap on children only!!


If someone uses a steak knife and fork to stab a neighbor, I got to eat with my fingers?

No, but knives and forks aren't specifically designed to kill other people at a distance. The knives are dangerous, and as you claim to be an adult, I assume you know enough to store them so that people won't readily cut themselves when they reach for one.

Having a device that is designed to kill people instantly at a distance in a place that provides ready access to someone who is liable to become thoroughly enraged, is like randomly scattering sharp knives throughout your silverware drawer. Somebody's bound to get needlessly hurt in an arrangement like that. How do you store _your_ knives?

You are an idiot. The bradycampaign is moronic, and as brain dead as the clown it was named after.

Mr. Brady was no clown, and he was perfectly fine until some crazed idiot who got access to a gun shot him in the head. That was about the most cretinous remark I have ever seen, and if you, sir, are half the adult that you claim to be you will apologize for it.

If you do not do so, how can you expect anyone to trust you with a steak knife, let alone a gun?
Joined: 9/13/2007
Msg: 49
view profile
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/15/2008 10:51:29 AM
Violence isn't always the answer.

However, there are certain questions where it is the only answer.

Criminals and terrorists will not give up their guns and so therefore, neither will I.

In an ideal world we'd live in peace and love and sunshine, but until that day unless someone has the ways and means to prevent violence (i.e. with violence directed at that perpetrator) then it won't change, it doesn't matter how many laws (20,000 and counting) you pass, it still won't matter.

Murder, rape, and robbery are already against the law, and laws don't discourage them from happening at all.

Besides, there are almost 40 of our 50 states where it is "shall issue" in terms of permits, or in the case of the ultra-violent Vermont and Alaska, no permit is needed at all. Some states have no permits for carrying openly and you just need a permit to carry concealed, and other states consider the vehicle an extension of your home so you need no permit to carry in a car.

Laws against automatic weapons did a great job preventing the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout, I might add, but that'd be seen as silly by people who think laws prevent any sort of crime.

I was told years ago that locks and fences "kept honest people honest", but what a stupid statement. If they were honest in the first place they wouldn't be thinking "gosh if there wasn't a lock I'd take everything not nailed down".

One more tidbit.....I'd still rather go hunting with****Cheney than driving with Ted Kennedy, who is one of the most hypocritical people in terms of gun control, as most elitists typically are.

Did you know that in D.C., one of the few organizations with a gun license is the very group being quoted by the original poster? With that license they're allowed to possess firearms.......kind of a double standard. Kinda like Diane Feinstein having a permit to carry while at the same time trying to make sure San Francisco people couldn't even own a pistol at all.

And how about Chicago, where you can't own a handgun legally since the 1980's and crime is so bad they're talking about deploying the National Guard and giving cops M4's and M16's to go on patrol? I mean, in Europe cops typically openly carry assault rifles (and I mean actual, selective fire type rifles, not the ones that the Brady people get into a tizzy over) and submachine guns, yet most places there you can't own more than a double barrel shotgun, and even those require an extensive wait and a reason, which self defense doesn't qualify.
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 50
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/15/2008 10:57:01 AM
Guns don't kill people; ignorance, apathy, and misdirected anger do, and these things are unlegislatable.... (or ARE they...?)

Give someone with misdirected anger ready access to a gun, and bang! You could be dead.

As with all other inherently dangerous devices, guns should be stored with proper safeguards. And, no one who isn't adequately trained should have access to them.

Since we hold guns to be a constitutional right, we have an obligation to train each and every citizen in their proper use and safe storage, and also in the safe way to defuse emotionally charged situations in which guns are present.

If we simply make guns accessible to random idiots who refuse to recognize their responsibilities when dealing with such inherently dangerous devices, we can't very well complain when frightened people clamor for them to be banned.

We either deal with guns like responsible adults, or we don't. We can ban them, thus infantilizing ourselves, or we can let them run amok, in which case no one is really safe. --unless you think that having a gun will somehow protect you from a bullet whizzing toward your head.

Or, here's a novel idea for you: We can do what the Founders intended. We can make sure that our militia--our armed citizenry--is well regulated by making sure that all of our citizens are adequatel trained in the proper use and safe storage of firearms.
Joined: 9/13/2007
Msg: 51
view profile
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/15/2008 11:09:23 AM
Our Militia Acts require every able bodied male (and being the 21st century, we can include women) from ages 18-44 to own a rifle and keep ammunition, and also know how to use them.

Being the 21st century, that means every household should have an M16, ammunition, and each person should be required to qualify with them at least once a year.

We'd be kinda like Switzerland, though they've got the SIG 550 series (which we can't have due to import restrictions, while police can) which are far superior to Eugene Stoner's type of rifle.

(Being an enthusiast I only speculate and quote what I've heard from anyone with SIG rifle experience......)

They didn't have "safe storage", much less gun safes, back when our country was founded. Arms were above fireplaces, left by back doors, in drawers, and generally anyplace where they might be convenient. Such as in a belt or pocket, also.
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 52
view profile
Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/15/2008 11:37:34 AM
I already think EVERYONE is a potential threat to me and would rather take all the legal measures available to me for my defense and those who I care for.
You're on your own.

That's a very "American" viewpoint, that you won't find many people here having.

Most Americans cannot even imagine a city , Canada's second largest Montreal , that in roughly 35,000 man years ( 7,000 officers/five years) of policing - fired one hundred shots.

As to the ability of the police to protect people, let me submit this, for your consideration:

Source: The Geographic Reference Report 2007 (3/2007)

Crime Rates - Selected North American Cities
(per 100,000 population)

Cities Homicides Robberies
Baltimore, MD 43.5 638.5
Detroit, MI 42.1 596.2
Washington, DC 35.8 552.3
Atlanta, GA 25.8 724.6
Philadelphia, PA 22.2 657.4
Dallas, TX 20.1 607.5
Miami, FL 17.9 614.5
Chicago, IL 15.5 552.0
Minneapolis, MN 14.1 597.5
San Francisco, CA 11.6 399.9
Boston, MA 10.5 418.6
Vancouver, BC 3.0 149.0
Hamilton, ON 2.0 39.0
Toronto, ON 2.0 108.5
Montreal, QC 1.5 147.5
Ottawa, ON 1.5 88.0
Sudbury, ON 1.0 53.0
Guelph, ON 1.0 60.0

Again , in reference to Munjo's point about the fear of crime, check out those numbers (even in their highest areas) and how very small a chance anyone has of experiencing those things in their lifetime.

Now Canada has a lot of firearms owners:

Gun Ownership and Crime

A national survey commissioned by the Canadian Firearms Centre in 2000 found an estimated 2.3 million firearm owners.

And yet these guns, and the many illegal firearms we have here too, are not being used in anywhere near the same numbers to rob, kill, or to injure fellow Canadians.

Homicide and robbery rates are far lower here, even if the NRA says that this is impossible.

We have street gangs (Crips and Bloods , etc) , illegal drugs, and poverty . We watch the same violent TV shows and movies you do, and we play the same violent video games.

So what's different , and why do we have a society that's far safer ?

Remember, there's no death penalty here for murder, less police officers per capita , and less prison cells too.

And yet ?

The 2004 GSS asked respondents how safe they felt from crime while walking alone in their areas after dark. Possible responses included very safe, reasonably safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe. For the purposes of this study responses were divided into two categories such that experiencing fear of crime was represented by feeling somewhat or very unsafe, and not experiencing fear of crime was represented by feeling very or reasonably safe.

Among the population of urban Canadians aged 15 years and older considered in this study, 18% (representing about 3 million Canadians) indicated that they experienced fear of crime while walking alone in their areas after dark, while the majority (82%) indicated that they did not experience fear of crime in these conditions.

More than eighty percent of Canadians did not fear walking in their neighborhoods on the street , alone, and after dark.

If you look at Americans, and how the see crime, I'm pretty sure you'd see nowhere near that level of comfort - armed or not.

With about half of Americans currently saying crime is up in their local areas, and about 7 in 10 saying it is up nationally, Americans have a decidedly negative outlook about crime.

The recent increase in negative public perceptions of crime contrasts with actual government crime statistics, which show that rates of violent crime as well as property crime have generally leveled off at extremely low numbers.

And this echoes back to what Munjo was referring to, about the perception of crime being a critical part of all this. Generally, in North America, crime rates have gone down (overall) since their high point in the Seventies. That's due to many things, especially the decline in the youth demographic.

In 1997, the U.S. murder rate was the lowest in 30 years

The primary focus of each Crime in the United States report is the estimated number of crimes reported to law enforcement agencies. While only a portion of all crimes that occur are reported to law enforcement, those that are provide an assessment of the workloads of the criminal and juvenile justice systems.

The FBI estimates that in 1997, 7,726,000 larceny-thefts, 2,461,000 burglaries, 1,354,000 motor vehicle thefts, 1,022,000 aggravated assaults, 498,000 robberies, 96,000 forcible rapes, and 18,200 murders were reported to law enforcement agencies. One would have to go back to 1971 to find a lower annual number of murder victims in the United States and to 1967 to find a lower murder rate (i.e., murders per 100,000 persons in the population).

That wonderful world that we older people can recall was actually far more dangerous than it is today, statistically.

And yet, if you look at public PERCEPTION of crime, it far exceeds it's real threat level.

The strange thing is that you can see this same pattern repeating itself in North America and Europe, crossing those barriers of cultural filters almost equally. In almost all cases, crime has decreased (especially violent crime) , but public perception/fear has increased.

That's quite possibly due to an increased media coverage which magnifies the problems in the eyes of it's viewers due to the constant flurry of stories and images.

This leads to more scared people, and more armed people.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea