Gun politics

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Everyone has the right to protect themselves, their family and friends

from criminals.

However, there is one point that noone brought up here, I think

because the reasons are outdated and not practical.

But the reason we have the 2nd Ammendment isn't just for protection

against criminals or hunting, or hobby, it's to protect American

citizens against the possibility of being victimized by a tyranical

government and to protect our freedoms.

Personally, I believe such reasoning is outdated. I don't think

we will ever face persecution of tyranical govts or authorities

atleast in our lifetime or the lifetime of our children.

But you just never know...

2 or 300 years from now, politics may change. The philosophy of

our govt may change. Or some other emerging superpower may

want to take down the world's number 1 superpower by invasion.

Who knows. Like I said, I think in today's society, the idea

of protecting oneself against a tyranny is not really an issue.

Like the declaration of independence states, when the

people feel like the govt is abusing its power and becoming less

democratic, it is the duty of the people to change the govt.

I don't think this really applies today. There will always be problems

with govt, and there will always be people who are angry about

the govt. That is no reason for a new system.

I am just throwing this out to see how others feel about this.

Do you think this is still a valid argument for the 2nd ammendment?

Like someone else said in this thread. I think it is unlikely this

will ever be the case in this country, but it is better to have

that protection and not need it, then not have that protection

and then one day find your the freedoms we have may be seized

by a sudden radical change in power or have your communty subjected

to a dramatic Nazi or Stalin like regime no matter how low the possibility.

Let me quote another post I made in another forum a couple months back concerning the very same thing.

Honestly, specially the way that you're thinking about it, this comes down to the philosophy behind the constitution and it's amendments. And Thomas Jefferson was one of the most brilliant philosophers of his time.

In his wisdom, he realized that to have a fully free government, it was vitally important that the government have no possible way to physically or mentally oppress it's citizenship. This is where the important part of this argument comes into play.

With the post-1986 FA ban, the government either inadvertently or even possibly purposely assured that if in a time of political public unrest, the government would have the very best tools to combat it's citizenship while it's citizenship would be left with much worse in the way of tools to protect themselves and their freedom.

There's no way to argue it; that is absolutely and completely contrary to the purpose and philosophy behind the second amendment.

-----------------------

This obviously sounds like a very radical point of view. But the constitution and it's amendments were and still are a very radical change in government philosophy. And the reason it was written in the first place was because those very radical things that we discuss as distant unfathomable possibilities were actually happening.

This can, and very likely will happen again. I agree; I don't see them happening in our lifetime, or even a few lifetimes from now. But if we say "This is no longer relevant now" and remove the amendment, then it doesn't matter if it becomes relevant in the future, because we've already given it up. And once we give up a right, we're not getting it back.

[Baff1 0]

In this case, if all you could think about when carrying a weapon is being some glorified hero, I can absolutely understand why YOU don't want a gun, and I completely support you in that. .

You think it's just me then?

You don't think for example a police officer carries a gun for the same reason?

You don't think those same fantasies attract people to their chosen careers as gunmen?

There is plenty honorably and glorifiable about killing another man.

The very words honour and glory derived from battle codes. Honour and glory are all about killing.

They are words of war.

We all have the ability to be proactive protectors. Not just you.

But it takes a certain type of person to want to be. The type of person who is comfortable with violence.

Children can be stopped from going ballistic with guns in school by removing their access to weaponry.

It's that simple.

Not 90%. 100%.

If you want loose gun restriction in your country then you should at least understand the price that your society has to pay for this liberty.

There is nothing wrong with being willing to pay that price, this is a choice you must make for yourself, but there is plenty wrong with trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

When you are wrearing a gun with your family and girlfriend, you are not making them safer, you are increasing the risk to them that you pose and the risk to you, that they pose.

Most gun crimes are domestic in nature.

Statistically, it's you that is going to shoot them, not you who is going to save them with your gun (ROFL at church LMAO . You wear a gun to church to protect your girlfriend. Who from? The vicar?).

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------

Nonsense. People don't spontaneously become violent by virtue of having a weapon at their disposal. Violent people are violent by nature; guns are merely tools that they use.

Bullies don't bully if the other person is stronger than them.

If you have access to a gun it enables you to bully others where previously you could not.

Guns are tools.

Tools enable us to amplify our capability.

With agun my lethality is much enhanced. My increased capability opens new options to me.

Likewise it does not have to be a negative scenario.

The last time I used a gun in a defensive scenario I was outnumbered 1,000 to 1. The object of bullies.

The ownership of a gun enabled me to stand up for myself my family and my posessions.

I was only willing to stand up and fight, because I had a gun on me.

The gun facilitated my confrontational response. Without it, there would have been none.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

You can't remove that capability. It doesn't matter how many laws you pass; people who want guns will get guns. Gun control never limits anyone with violent intentions. These people have already decided to break the law, and illegal gun ownership pales is comparison to assault, rape or murder.

Like I said earlier in this thread, if there were some way to magically stop everyone from acquiring guns, I would be 100% in favor of it. But there's not. There never has been, and there never will be. The best thing we can do is allow everyone to protect themselves.

No. People who want guns will not all get guns.

Some people who want guns will get guns.

Others will not.

Others will be put off by all the paper work or the social pressure.

If there is a gun in my house, my teenage son will find a way to access it. That will be a lot easier for him to readily do than it will be for him to join the local crime gang and work his way up through it for a few years until he finds an underworld gun dealer.

The type of guns they get will be a factor too.

A concealable gun for example is easy to smuggle into a school while a rifle is less so.

Please try not to too deeply associate gun violenece with hardened criminals. Most gun violence is domestic in nature.I agree that no gun ban or government restriction will ever complete remove the baility for hardened criminals to get guns,. although obviously they will massively reduce that ability.

(The biggest criminal gun haul here recently was 2 flare pistols to flintlock pistols and a beat up 100 year old revolver with no ammo).

But this ignores that by far the bulk of all gun violence does not occour in a hardened criminal scenario. A father kill his family before commiting suicide. My mate blows her husbands bollocks off with his own gun.

A man goes on a killing spree with his legally owned shotgun and rifle.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

Yes. Yes it did.

If statistical proof and citations wont help support an argument in your eyes, then I agree, let's just look at the common sense of this argument.

You're saying that if someone gives you a gun, eventually, you're going to shoot someone... because it's a gun, right? (Just using you as an example. Not insinuating anything) Because being a 'hero' has just way too much draw to keep that firearm in it's holster where it belongs. .

I'm saying that the chances of me behaving in such a manner are enormously increased by my access to a gun.

That should I have no access to a gun, the chances of my behaving in this manner are removed completely.

I don't want to overplay the danger posed by the holding of a firearm, I'm a shooter. A gun nut.

But I don't want to underplay it either.

I'm well aware that many people can and do live with firearms without ever becoming violent. I consider myself to be such a person.

Compared to where I live, your streets are running with blood. Is it really that hard for you to see why?

It's a political choice.

If you choose guns, then you have to pay the price that comes with them. I assure you, there is one.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Baff1

[st_dux 26]

Children can be stopped from going ballistic with guns in school by removing their access to weaponry.

It's that simple.

You are never going to be able to do this with total success. It's already illegal for kids to have guns, and yet the occasional school shooting has happened anyway. There is no way to effectively ban guns. It doesn't work. All you accomplish with a gun ban is granting violent offenders free reign over the general public. If safety is your primary concern, the best you can do is allow people to protect themselves.

Bullies don't bully if the other person is stronger than them.

Exactly right, which is why people should be allowed to carry guns. This way the general public won't be so easily pushed around by any thug with a gun. You seem to want to take the gun away from the thug, but that's not possible. Making it illegal doesn't make it impossible, or even difficult for that matter. It just makes it so that the only people with guns are the thugs.

Please try not to too deeply associate gun violenece with hardened criminals. Most gun violence is domestic in nature.

Most gun violence with legally-obtained firearms is domestic in nature, but most gun violence overall definitely isn't. And domestic violence happens with or without guns; guns are just convenient. Someone crazy enough to kill their spouse/kids/whatever is going to do it with or without a firearm.

Edited September 26, 2011 by ST_Dux

[Baff1 0]

You are incorrect.

We have had 100% success in preventing schoolkid rampages.

The children here don't have access to guns.

It's got nothing to do with legal or illegal guns. It's to do with "no guns".

They can't steal their dad's gun or bring their legally owned guns to school because neither they nor their dads own any. They can't get an illegal gun, because there aren't very many of them round here either.

It just doesn't happen here. It has never happened here.

(We still have gun crazies of course, but not kids in school).

I agree with your reasoning about guns giving you the ability to stand up to thugs. However, carrying a gun is something I am extremely opposed to for the reasons given previously.

I would rather be scared of a random bully than a random gunman. I am less scared of taking a beating than I am of taking a bullet.

Most gun violence in my country (and America as I understand it) is domestic in nature. Defending yourself against hardened criminals... that's just the little Boys Own fantasy we all have.

Should you live in a country where the fear of criminal gun violence is so much higher than it is here.... you might want to ask yourself why.

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

Someone crazy enough to kill their spouse/kids/whatever is going to do it with or without a firearm.

No. They aren't.

A gun makes it easy. It makes it quick.

You can do it all before you have a chance to cool down. While you are still seeing red.

It's one thing to kill with gun, it's quite another to kill with your bare hands.

The path of least resistance.

It's the difference between climbing your local hill or climbing Mount Everest. You have the capability to do either if you are mad enough to want to. But the more difficult it physically is to do something, the less will you will consider it.

The more easy it is to do, the more often it gets done.

In the circumstance you describe a gun is a facilitator. A tool that makes a job easier to do.

The more easy something is to do, the lower the barrier to doing it.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Baff1

[Herbal Influence 10]

(...)

Compared to where I live, your streets are running with blood. Is it really that hard for you to see why?

It's a political choice.

If you choose guns, then you have to pay the price that comes with them. I assure you, there is one.

I completely agree with Baff1 and again I am astonished what wonderful threads and posts there are on this forum. (I recently tried to find a serious thread on Android for my smartphone ... all spoiled with kids of the sort I don't really like .... unbelievable.)

I personally see that guns are a million business and industry is advertising as hell, lobbying like hell, financing 'studies' like hell ... and Baff1 arguments simply remain true. Every single one.

I wanna stress the fact that weapons also change persons attitude. They make them feel stronger. That's why they buy them. But why do you need to be stronger in civil everyday life? What's going wrong? Don't you feel strong enough? Seems to be a naive question ... I live on this planet since more than 40 years now and I do not even KNOW a single person who would have ever needed a weapon.

But I have seen people getting into a personal crisis and then misusing them. Who doesn't get into a crisis all his life?

And there are very few weapons here. In Germany. Am I peacefully dully naive? Sure - compared to an Israelian or Palestinian guy ... but there's war and here's peaceful civil life.

(From my point of view.)

Therefore, yes, I frown at persons (and I avoid them) who 'love' weapons.

I do not want them in my neighbourhood or as close friends because they treat something as 'hobby' or 'sport' which is deadly. Every now and then. Instruments of war should not be in a hobby room together with a billard table. That's - my point of view - utmost decadent.

What I absolutely understand is the fascination of the technique and the beauty and fascination of a piece of intelligent technique, may it be a gun or a machine/engine/computer/smartphone. But thats all that can ever fascinate me about a gun. And then I would drown it into a deep, deep lake.

But I like to play cops & robbers with ArmaII ! ;-)

[HyperU2 11]

No. They aren't.

Clearly no point it attempting to reason with you.

For any others though, you can find here nearly more people were beaten to death by hands and fists in 2010 than were killed with long arms. (rifles, shotguns)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Edited September 26, 2011 by HyperU2

[Baff1 0]

In your linked table murder by firearms is twice the total of all the other murders combined.

I agree with you however that long rifles are less likely to be used in murders than pistols for example. It's the concealment factor in my opinion.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Baff1

[HyperU2 11]

You claimed that no one gets beaten to death. I wasn't trying to prove anything against pistols or rifles.

[froggyluv 2130]

What could be said for school massacres is the same thing said after nearly every university shooting. Put a gun in every professor and teacher's hand, give them a 4 hour defensive handgun course, and it will solve 90 percent of these school shootings. Even teachers with guns may not detour some crazed kid filled with hate from bringing a weapon to school, but they sure as hell will stop him from the carnage that has happened before.

.

Professor 4 hour handgun course, cmon. We did a 3 week "win a firefight course" when I worked security for the Federal Building down Island -my classmates wouldn't win a paintball tourney.

And really, think a Prof. is going to win a firefight when a nut storms the auditoriom and open fires with his shotgun and 9mm, that teacher wouldn't stand a chance -especially if they all carried so they'd be the first to be shot. This really is a Hero dream. So now besides years of schooling to be a PH.D in their field, they must also risk all and save the classroom in this fantasy firefight....This goes back to my 'animal out of it's element ' Law.

You think bank robbers worry about the armed guard? Nah, he's easy part. They've planned their attack and know who to take out first. Bookish Prof's wouldn't stand a chance and would serve as zero detterent.

And now to the old NRA faithful:

Guns don't kill people -people kill people

Really? Well of course thats true but guns are instant death. Sure you can be killed by a punch or knife -but you have much more of a chance surviving and less likely to be huge amounts of victims in a massacre.

If a gun is just 'a tool' -then so is a bomb. So is a nuclear bomb for that matter. Give some to Iran as they are just tools for negotiations. And if used, well don't blame the lack of regulations, blame people :rolleyes:

Edited September 26, 2011 by froggyluv

[HyperU2 11]

Yeah, bombs are responsible for the two largest mass murders in the US, excluding 9/11 and Waco.

[froggyluv 2130]

Yeah, bombs are responsible for the two largest mass murders in the US, excluding 9/11 and Waco.

No, people are.

[Baff1 0]

You claimed that no one gets beaten to death. I wasn't trying to prove anything against pistols or rifles.

I didn't make that claim.

I claim that guns facilitate violence. That a person is significantly more likely to commit a murder if he has access to a gun than if he does not.

Thank you for posting statistical evidence to reinforce my position.

[HyperU2 11]

If you can read that from that data you're nuts and shouldn't have weapons.

[Baff1 0]

If you don't intuatively understand the relationship between weapons and acts of violence, neither should you.

The data you have provided reinforces my opinion. It does not prove anything to me. You will notice that I held this opinion before you re-affirmed it.

What I read from that data is that (in a world famously gun wielding society with world famously high murder rate) that gun murders outnumber all other types of killing combined by a factor of two to one.

And guess what, I draw a connection.

Lots of guns.. lots of murders... hmmm. Go figure.

Few guns... few murders.... hmmm.

Some things are just blindingly obvious, even to people like me.

If you can't read that from this data, then you are actively trying hard not to.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Baff1

[st_dux 26]

You are incorrect.

We have had 100% success in prevent school shootings.

So far, but school shootings are exceedingly rare anyway. Countries with gun laws similar to those in the UK have experienced school shootings (e.g., Germany), so clearly the regulations don't work 100% of the time everywhere. If I were a citizen of the UK, I would be more concerned with the statistically significant increases in crime -- particularly violent crime -- that occurred following the handgun ban in 1997. In the decade since the ban was passed, firearm use in crimes has doubled (source). The evidence is quite clear: Tighter gun control increases violent crime levels.

The children here don't have access to guns.

See the article linked above.

Most gun violence in my country (and America as I understand it) is domestic in nature. Defending yourself against hardened criminals... that's just the little Boys Own fantasy we all have.

I'm not sure about the UK off the top of my head, but most gun violence in America is definitely not domestic. Most of it is gang violence.

A gun makes it easy. It makes it quick.

You can do it all before you have a chance to cool down. While you are still seeing red.

It's one thing to kill with gun, it's quite another to kill with your bare hands.

True, but the real problem in any domestic violence case is the perpetrator, not the tool that he used. It takes a special kind of asshole to murder members of their own family; the average Joe is not suddenly going to become a murderer one day just because he was a little pissed off and had access to a gun. The vast majority of people just aren't like that.

I will concede that there have probably been a few domestic violence cases that would not have escalated to murder had the perpetrator not had access to a gun; however, I believe you are grossly overestimating how often such a situation plays out. Banning firearms could very well cause a marginal decrease in deaths due to domestic disputes, but it would by no means eliminate domestic murders, and it would give violent criminals who don't follow gun laws carte blanche to assault, rob, rape, etc. law-abiding citizens that they now know aren't armed. As all of the crime data demonstrates, the result would be a net increase in violent crime. Moreover, it wouldn't do anything to fix the actual domestic violence problem. Someone who is on the verge of killing someone but refrains only because he lacks a convenient tool with which to do it is still a violent person and is still a threat to society.

---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

I claim that guns facilitate violence. That a person is significantly more likely to commit a murder if he has access to a gun than if he does not.

The fact that guns are a popular means of committing murder does nothing to show that guns cause people to commit murder. All that it shows is that violent people favor guns as their tool of choice, which isn't really surprising. Your conclusion is based on the frankly ridiculous assumption that all of those gun murders simply wouldn't have happened in the absence of available firearms. People killed people before guns, you know. There is no evidence anywhere that supports your assertion that guns, in and of themselves, compel people to commit acts of violence. They don't.

Lots of guns.. lots of murders... hmmm. Go figure.

Few guns... few murders.... hmmm.

Switzerland has more lax gun control than most of the United States and almost every household has an assault rifle, yet their murder rate is quite low. Conversely, Mexico has very strict gun regulations, and their murder rate is sky-high. The fact of the matter is that there is no simple correlation that can be drawn between legal firearm availability and murder rate across the globe. It varies based on economics and culture. In smaller sample spaces, where cultural differences are less prevalent, all of the data points to a decrease in violent crime levels (murder included) as legal firearm availability goes up.

Edited September 26, 2011 by ST_Dux

[GRS 10]

People, research the rate of firearm crime committed by those with CHL's in the United States. Guns don't make people killers. Killers are killers. I'd sooner trust the stranger with a CHL than one without who is not carrying. The few give the many a bad name.

Edited September 26, 2011 by GRS

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

People, research the rate of firearm crime committed by those with CHL's in the United States. Guns don't make people killers. Killers are killers. I'd sooner trust the stranger with a CHL than one without who is not carrying. The few give the many a bad name.

This is it. Crime involving a firearm initiated by a legal person who is licensed to carry is virtually non-existent in my state. Literally, the last relevant case is from 1971.

[weaponsfree 46]

Very interesting thread.

I purchased my first firearm last week (good old inexpensive Remington 870). For me it's entirely meant for hunting. Will be using it for the first time this weekend and I am looking forward to it. However when not being used, it will be under lock and key separated from ammunition (as per Canadian law even if I wanted it more... accessible).

I've found TheCapulet's comments most interesting because he seems to represent the "knight in shining armour" side of the gun ownership spectrum. I mean that in a good way. He represents what responsible gun ownership and gun carrying is. If he is true to what he says, then I think he is perfectly safe in public and will show proper judgment when in a situation and maybe one day save an innocent victim or himself from violence.

That being said, to me a carrying public, legally or not, ads a level of unwanted dread and alienation to society. If everyone is armed, I can't help but just see a frightened, paranoid society that is constantly terrified of being victimized. I know open carry die hards may see my opinion as wanting to live with your head in the sand, just a victim waiting for an aggressor. But most of the gun carrying talk comes from people who are in incredibly low risk places/cultures/states/etc. So it often strikes me as a matter of principle and ideology more than actual fear of being attacked. It's true that legal gun ownership rarely translates into crime. But I think it's ridiculous to say that if everyone carried we would all be polite to each other. And even if we were, imagine the creepy world it would be where what kept people in line was the fact that everyone was armed. There are other better ways to reduce violence in our society.

So speaking from someone in a relatively low violence country and city, I think we should be seeking to be a society that does not need to have extreme violence just a arm movement away at all times.

[raynor 0]

Very interesting thread.

I purchased my first firearm last week (good old inexpensive Remington 870). For me it's entirely meant for hunting. Will be using it for the first time this weekend and I am looking forward to it. However when not being used, it will be under lock and key separated from ammunition (as per Canadian law even if I wanted it more... accessible).

I've found TheCapulet's comments most interesting because he seems to represent the "knight in shining armour" side of the gun ownership spectrum. I mean that in a good way. He represents what responsible gun ownership and gun carrying is. If he is true to what he says, then I think he is perfectly safe in public and will show proper judgment when in a situation and maybe one day save an innocent victim or himself from violence.

That being said, to me a carrying public, legally or not, ads a level of unwanted dread and alienation to society. If everyone is armed, I can't help but just see a frightened, paranoid society that is constantly terrified of being victimized. I know open carry die hards may see my opinion as wanting to live with your head in the sand, just a victim waiting for an aggressor. But most of the gun carrying talk comes from people who are in incredibly low risk places/cultures/states/etc. So it often strikes me as a matter of principle and ideology more than actual fear of being attacked. It's true that legal gun ownership rarely translates into crime. But I think it's ridiculous to say that if everyone carried we would all be polite to each other. And even if we were, imagine the creepy world it would be where what kept people in line was the fact that everyone was armed. There are other better ways to reduce violence in our society.

So speaking from someone in a relatively low violence country and city, I think we should be seeking to be a society that does not need to have extreme violence just a arm movement away at all times.

Here in the US where you have to go through a nutroll in most states to get the right to carry I would imagine most people don't pay ~$250 just for the right to carry a firearm legally on their body to use it in an illegal manner. So the vast majority of conceal carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens and will only use their weapon for what it is intended for: self defense and self defense only.

On the contrary most of the people I have met that carry in my area are level-headed law-abiding citizens that carry for their own protection. While there may be better ways to reduce violence it is a sure sign that conceal carry laws work when the only places left with high violence crime are those places without right to carry. Being afraid of a national conceal carry is ludicrous.

If everyone was armed and for the right reasons the only people that would have to worry are the criminals. Where I live it has gotten to the point where criminals specifically target areas with gunbuster signs ( no lawfully obtained conceal carry weapon holders allowed ) because the likelihood of anyone having a firearm is substantially less then elsewhere.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Very interesting thread.

I purchased my first firearm last week (good old inexpensive Remington 870). For me it's entirely meant for hunting. Will be using it for the first time this weekend and I am looking forward to it. However when not being used, it will be under lock and key separated from ammunition (as per Canadian law even if I wanted it more... accessible).

I've found TheCapulet's comments most interesting because he seems to represent the "knight in shining armour" side of the gun ownership spectrum. I mean that in a good way. He represents what responsible gun ownership and gun carrying is. If he is true to what he says, then I think he is perfectly safe in public and will show proper judgment when in a situation and maybe one day save an innocent victim or himself from violence.

That being said, to me a carrying public, legally or not, ads a level of unwanted dread and alienation to society. If everyone is armed, I can't help but just see a frightened, paranoid society that is constantly terrified of being victimized. I know open carry die hards may see my opinion as wanting to live with your head in the sand, just a victim waiting for an aggressor. But most of the gun carrying talk comes from people who are in incredibly low risk places/cultures/states/etc. So it often strikes me as a matter of principle and ideology more than actual fear of being attacked. It's true that legal gun ownership rarely translates into crime. But I think it's ridiculous to say that if everyone carried we would all be polite to each other. And even if we were, imagine the creepy world it would be where what kept people in line was the fact that everyone was armed. There are other better ways to reduce violence in our society.

So speaking from someone in a relatively low violence country and city, I think we should be seeking to be a society that does not need to have extreme violence just a arm movement away at all times.

Thanks for the compliment, I suppose. But you'd be surprised to find thousands and thousands of people just like me who carry every day where I'm from. :) And in all honesty, I absolutely agree with the wish that no one 'needed' to carry at all. In a perfect world, we'd all be safe. In retrospect, I may have come off earlier making it sound like I wanted every single person in the world with a gun on their hip. And ideologically, it'd be awesome. But realistically, not only is it an impossibility, but a terrible idea as well. Some..., dare I say most, just aren't capable of shouldering that burden in a responsible way. And I don't think you're just wanting to live 'with your head stuck in the sand' at all. As a LEO, as a daily gun carrier and owner, and as a peaceful citizen, I absolutely support people's right to not carry if they don't want to. So in conclusion:

"So it often strikes me as a matter of principle and ideology more than actual fear of being attacked." This. This isn't a total approximation on why I carry, but outside of official duty carry, it is a big part of why I do.

Here in the US where you have to go through a nutroll in most states to get the right to carry I would imagine most people don't pay ~$250 just for the right to carry a firearm legally on their body to use it in an illegal manner. So the vast majority of conceal carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens and will only use their weapon for what it is intended for: self defense and self defense only.

On the contrary most of the people I have met that carry in my area are level-headed law-abiding citizens that carry for their own protection. While there may be better ways to reduce violence it is a sure sign that conceal carry laws work when the only places left with high violence crime are those places without right to carry. Being afraid of a national conceal carry is ludicrous.

You bring up a really good point. In my area, and most areas where carry is pretty common, crime is low. So some would label the carriers at this point as gun nuts or paranoids. But when compared to areas that carry is absolutely illegal, or at the very least, virtually illegal, crime is rampant. And whether or not guns are involved in that rampant crime is irrelevant. Like it was stated before, As a state, Indiana's TOTAL crime is only slightly more than UK's violent crime alone. Yet, I can literally drive a few miles right now and pick up nearly any gun I wanted and walk out with it today. (I say nearly, just simply because there aren't any local class 3 dealers. :P)

Btw, the State refunded my entire lifetime license to carry fee from a few years ago just last month, since LEOs get a free Lifetime carry license. And in Indiana, the lifetime license only costs $115 total. :) (Indiana is the only state in the US to offer a lifetime license.)

[weaponsfree 46]

Yeah, it's an interesting debate.

I understand the carry argument, and to a degree I agree with it. A perfect example is from here in Montreal. The Dawson Cegep shooter's rampage was cut short because a police officer (aka an open carrier) was fast on the scene because of an unrelated event. The cop heard the first few shots, reached the shooter, and took him out before he was able to do more damage. In the end, only one person was killed. There is no doubt there would be more dead if an armed person wasn't on hand to stop him fast. This does tend to support the argument for armed teachers/citizens and such.

But for every example like this, you can find an example of a wife who would be alive today if her husband didn't have a gun in the house when tempers flared (or inverse the sexes depending on your preference :P).

I guess my point is more about what kind of society we want to live in. One where violence is curtailed because people carry weapons. Or one were violence is lessened because it's been stamped out through cultural/economic/social means. The numbers can be used to support either opinion (as this thread shows), and it's clear a person's stance is more ideological than related to what the stats say.

In the end it's not much a debate for me. I live in Quebec, it is never permitted to carry a firearm in public. So I already live in the kind of gun nation I want. Don't get me wrong. Guns in the house is something I am less concerened with (being a new gun owner myself). I think the American/Swiss idea of having an armed populace is valid. If government gets out of hand, for protecting the home, etc. I just tend to think that guns in public takes us down an ugly road. Like I said, I don't want to live in a world where the average joe on the street is always an arm movement away from extreme violence.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

I think the problem people have comes down to the psychological alignment. I mean, its obvious that gun hoarders seem like crazy people, but I think its necessary that these types of groups exist. If things get out of control, they will be available to help at any time.

I think one of the most misused quotes of all time is violence never solves anything. People tend to use that quote for anything involving a gun, but in reality its not about killing someone. Its about having leverage in a situation to create peace. But again, leverage should be fair. It should not be in the hands of a few. Everyone should have a right to own a gun to solve problems involving self defense until they do something terribly wrong involving it themselves. There is no way to do a mass disarm and make sure none of the bad guys have weapons. It always results in the few with power issue.

[GRS 10]

Oh I agree with that one. The proper application of violence solves a great many things.

[froggyluv 2130]

I think the problem people have comes down to the psychological alignment. I mean, its obvious that gun hoarders seem like crazy people, but I think its necessary that these types of groups exist. If things get out of control, they will be available to help at any time.

.

The problem is what one considers out of control and helping others see as a threat.

Look at the current political climate here in the States -you have armed miltia types drumming up "revolution 1776" style because we have a president who's tax numbers are a couple digits higher then the last guy. WTF would I trust these guys to keep things American? That would be like the Crips and Bloods keeping the peace to others.

Again, I got no problem with people owning guns especially for protecting their homes and hunting but I wouldn't trust these guys interceding in anything in an armed way.

Edited September 28, 2011 by froggyluv

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Lol. Radical militia type numbers are way way down from what they used to be. And if you can post one link to an article reporting an incident involving a radical militia group, in the US, in the last 5 years, I'll honestly be blown away.