Printable View
I Agree with you on part of that ccw in ohio lets the instructor decide what the class has. there are some top notch classes. But I have heard of one place where if you can hit a 9 inch circle with your gun bench rested at 15 feet they will let you have your permit :help: . Not all seek further instruction and many of them have never been shooting before.
Damn, if you cant hit a 9" circle at 150 ft you shouldn't have a gun, I would say 4 out of 5 hits on a man size target at 600 feet is reasonable, with optical sights of course ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Where do you shop Redleg? Do they make you empty your pockets when you enter a convenience store? Sure they have a right to stop whoever they want from entering their property- but, again, when its a public place of bussiness, the burden is on the store to identify people they don't want to do bussiness with and to inform them of it. Its extremely foolish to think that banning concealed carry in a store would solve anything- people that want to conceal a weapon and use it for criminal purposes will respect no such signs or "rights" of the ownersQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
How's that? I'd rather be both aware of my situation and armed. If you think you've accidentally wondered into a dangerous situation, the first thing you should do is leave. But, if leaving is no longer safe or possible it'd sure be nice to have a firearm to defend myself with.Quote:
A concealed weapon does not offer you anymore protection from criminal behaviors then being aware of the situations around you. What am I afraid of - not much.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? If you'd like, I can find you many instances of people using concealed weapons to successfully defend themselves- but it seems to me you've already drawn all of the conclusions yourself. If one is carrying concealed properly, it should take virtually no more time to draw than it does if carrying openly- sometimes it could even be faster. As has been said, I bet many police are wose shots than your average person who carries concealed on a regular basis.Quote:
Guess what if a criminal intends you harm personally - you most likely will not have a chance to get your concealed weapon out, and in an environment where you might be able to use it - I doubt the average concealed gun carrying individual has the training to fire a weapon in a stressful situation. Police - who are trained in firing their weapon in stress - have enough problems as it is.
And you honestly think that banning concealed carry permits will allow for this?Quote:
When I am in a situation I rather know who is armed and who is not.
Had you shot in that situation you could've likely been tried for it unless your life was in imminent danger. If you think that carrying a weapon gives you false bravado, then I would say you have no bussiness carrying any sort of weapon.Quote:
I was fixing my vehicle in the run down area and approached by a bleeding teenager being followed by the gang that initiated him, where talking allowed me to take the teenager to the hospital - where a concealed weapon might have allowed a false bravo to happen - instead of talking the gang into allowing me to take the teenager to the hospital - violence might have happened.
I too think they should be teaching children, I don't think I ever said otherwise. I also think, those that choose to do so, should be allowed to take steps to defend themselves and their students should the need arise.Quote:
But I am worried about the direction a society is taking when individuals believe that teachers should be armed and carrying concealed weapons into the classroom - verus teaching childern.
If by "support" you mean hunters and farmers should be able to have and use guns, then its not much support at all. You still have yet to present credible reasons why people shouldnt be able to carry handguns on their person- concealed or otherwise.Quote:
Like I have stated in other gun threads - I support the 2nd Admendment. But don't give me the hype reasons that one must have a concealed weapon to protect oneself.
The real irony here is while you advocate open carry and rail against concealed carry, according to Texas law OPEN carry of handguns is illegal- concealed is the only way of keeping a handgun on your person legally and only with a permit.
Yep, its a great deterrent. Surveys of criminals have shown that even more than the police, or prison time.. they fear armed citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I shop in a whole bunch of different locations - some that are not in the favorable parts of town. And I still see no reason to carry a concealed weapon. So your are advocating that your rights take overwhelming consideration over the property owners?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
If your aware of your surroundings and what the situation is - then there is no need to go armed.Quote:
How's that? I'd rather be both aware of my situation and armed. If you think you've accidentally wondered into a dangerous situation, the first thing you should do is leave. But, if leaving is no longer safe or possible it'd sure be nice to have a firearm to defend myself with.
And I can find many instances where carrying a concealed weapon did more harm then good.Quote:
What evidence do you have for that assumption? If you'd like, I can find you many instances of people using concealed weapons to successfully defend themselves- but it seems to me you've already drawn all of the conclusions yourself. If one is carrying concealed properly, it should take virtually no more time to draw than it does if carrying openly- sometimes it could even be faster. As has been said, I bet many police are wose shots than your average person who carries concealed on a regular basis.
Mixing the apple with the orange again - I have stated that its an individual state legislative process concerning concealed permits. That I am against concealed permits does not mean that I advocate going and ban them. Let the legislative process work, the way its intend to. And yes I see to much evidence on this board of false bravado concerning weapons from several different posters in this forum. Plus I see it out on the streets. Give me my mind to keep myself out of harm's way. Like I said I don't need a weapon to protect myself from possible harm - my mind and paying attention to my surroundings have worked for close to 40 years now.Quote:
And you honestly think that banning concealed carry permits will allow for this? Had you shot in that situation you could've likely been tried for it unless your life was in imminent danger. If you think that carrying a weapon gives you false bravado, then I would say you have no bussiness carrying any sort of weapon.
Not in the schools - weapons in the hands of untrained school teachers - yea right.Quote:
I too think they should be teaching children, I don't think I ever said otherwise. I also think, those that choose to do so, should be allowed to take steps to defend themselves and their students should the need arise.
The constitution states we have the right to keep and bear arms - I support that concept. The concealed weapons permit - is a legislative process not part of that admendment. I don't need to have a credible reason in your opinion for supporting a position on what is a legislative process, because its a simple matter of principle and how one thinks about the current law. However it seems that your one main reason to have a concealed permit - is to override the private property owner's right to know what people are bringing onto his property.Quote:
If by "support" you mean hunters and farmers should be able to have and use guns, then its not much support at all. You still have yet to present credible reasons why people shouldnt be able to carry handguns on their person- concealed or otherwise.
Talking about credible reasons for having a concealed weapon - you have not presented anything creditable yourself.
Like I have stated don't accuse other's of hype when you yourself are guilty of the very thing.
I don't carry a weapon - so its absolutely no Irony at all. And then you might want to check the law out a little more closely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Unlawful Carrying Weapons (Texas Penal Code)
A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife or club.
Except as provided in Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a class A misdemeanor.
An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it occurs on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
and the futher part of the penal code
Section 46.03 - Non-Applicable (Texas Penal Code)
The provisions of Section 46.02 of this code do not apply to a person;
in the actual discharge of his official duties as a member of the armed forces or national guard or a guard employed by a penal institution;
on his own premises or premises under his control unless he is an employee or agent of the owner and his primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a private security guard to protect person or property, in which event he must comply with subdivision (5) of this section;
traveling;
engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity if the weapon is a type commonly used in that activity;
who holds a security officer commission issued by the Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security agencies, if:
he is engaged in the performance of his duties as a security officer or traveling to and from his place of assignment;
he is wearing a distinctive uniform, and
the weapon is in plain view, or
6. who is a peace officer
Care to guess how many states I have lived in? Texas isn't even where I was born. Making assumptions again - your starting to show why its always bad to assume.
Of course there are exceptions- for soldiers, police, prison guards, ect. I hope that really isnt a suprise to anyone. The fact remains that open carry of handguns in TX is illegal for the general public- you havent refuted that.
I never thought you carried, but you are saying over and over that everyone should open carry if they're going to carry at all, when all the while someone could get arrested for doing so in the state where you live.Quote:
I don't carry a weapon - so its absolutely no Irony at all. And then you might want to check the law out a little more closely.
Again, I ask you to explain what awful things will happen if law abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. And please don't refer to criminals do (they're almost never permit holders) or what you would do if you carried (you admit you dont).
And is irrevelant to my point about concealed weapon permits. No need to refute it all all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Now your getting there. What reason is there to carry a sidearm in today's world. There are very few reasons for carrying a weapon on the public street. If your scared of criminals and fearful of being a victim of a crime - then you have absolutely no business carrying a weapon in the first place.Quote:
I never thought you carried, but you are saying over and over that everyone should open carry if they're going to carry at all, when all the while someone could get arrested for doing so in the state where you live.
Never said there was an awful thing that will happen if law abiding citizens have concealed weapons. All I stated was the the vast majority of those that carry concealed weapons are not adequately trained in the use of the weapon nor are they trained to fire a weapon in a stressful situtation.Quote:
Again, I ask you to explain what awful things will happen if law abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. And please don't refer to criminals do (they're almost never permit holders) or what you would do if you carried (you admit you dont).
That is the direction you wish to assume of my position on them. Just stated that I am against concealed weapon permits.
There are plenty of reasons. Read a few here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
A few samples:
Columbia, South Carolina: As two gas station employees left work just after midnight, two men attempted to rob them, beating them about the head and neck with a shovel handle. The male employee broke away long enough to draw a handgun from his pocket and shot at his attacker, who later died.
Detroit, Michigan: A mentally disturbed man,veiled that the President was going to have him killed, and started firing at people in passing cars. A man at the scene who had a permit to carry a concealed handgun fired shots that forced the attacker to run away.
West Palm Beach, Florida: After being beaten during a robbery at his home, a home owner began carrying a handgun in his pocket. When another robber attacked him just two days later the homeowner shot and wounded his assailant.
Do you know how many times more people police accidentally shoot and kill than concealed permit holders? The numbers of people accidentally killed by a legally held concealed weapon is almost nil, whereas police accidentally kill hundreds. Maybe you should be more concerned about police carrying handguns? If your argument amound to concealed carry being bad because permit holders could possibly do something bad, by accident while having no evidence to support that view Id say its not a very strong position.Quote:
Never said there was an awful thing that will happen if law abiding citizens have concealed weapons. All I stated was the the vast majority of those that carry concealed weapons are not adequately trained in the use of the weapon nor are they trained to fire a weapon in a stressful situtation.
You claim to be libertarian right? Read this when you get some time- maybe it can make a dent. ~;)
edit: You know, I used to hold the same view about concealed weapon permits. I bumped into a guy in college who said he had one- it was very unnerving to me to think that this nobody could be toting around a gun. Years later, after I was married, my wife began pressuring me to get a handgun for when I wasn't around (her mother had defended herself from a possible rape using one before). I thought sure, why not- I will enjoy target shooting with it at least.. So, like I always do when I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars on something, I spent some time on the net trying to make sure I got the best for my money. I invariably came across many arguments on both sides- and it opened my eyes. I now know many people who have permits and not one of them isnt a decent, level-headed guy who is easy to get along with.
BTW, I got a really great gun too- Ruger GP-100. ~D
http://ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/53L.gif
Should I now post an article that shows the opposite side of the story on concealed weapons. Because they are out there as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
LOL - your attempting a circular arguement because I don't agree with concealed permits. The police have a job to do which they are paid for by the taxpayer to do such a job. So you want to remove all police and allow citizens to carry weapons with concealed permits? Because I can easily state that from this attempt of an arguement.Quote:
Do you know how many times more people police accidentally shoot and kill than concealed permit holders? The numbers of people accidentally killed by a legally held concealed weapon is almost nil, whereas police accidentally kill hundreds. Maybe you should be more concerned about police carrying handguns? If your argument amound to concealed carry being bad because permit holders could possibly do something bad, by accident while having no evidence to support that view Id say its not a very strong position.
Yep I am more of a libertarian then anything else - and because I am - doesn't mean I have to agree with everything or disagree with it either. Another attempt at straw-man arguement I see.Quote:
And again you miss the point. You seem to be claiming that its a right - in this you are incorrect. Concealed weapons are a legislative act - not a constitutional one. If I can not disagree with the current law, and voice my opinion on that law - then why am I living in the United States?Quote:
edit: You know, I used to hold the same view about concealed weapon permits. I bumped into a guy in college who said he had one- it was very unnerving to me to think that this nobody could be toting around a gun. Years later, after I was married, my wife began pressuring me to get a handgun for when I wasn't around (her mother had defended herself from a possible rape using one before). I thought sure, why not- I will enjoy target shooting with it at least.. So, like I always do when I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars on something, I spent some time on the net trying to make sure I got the best for my money. I invariably came across many arguments on both sides- and it opened my eyes. I now know many people who have permits and not one of them isnt a decent, level-headed guy who is easy to get along with.
I got one better then that. A fully functional '73 winchester - been in the family for generations. Plus an assortment of rifles and shotguns I leave at my father's house.Quote:
BTW, I got a really great gun too- Ruger GP-100. ~D
http://ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/53L.gif
First of all- you said "What reason is there to carry a sidearm in today's world." So, I gave you some very good examples of why it can be beneficial. But yeah- I'll call that... find me 3 published news stories of permit holders using their concealed weapons in the commission of a violent crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I do say its a right- however, that is irrelevant to this discussion since it is also passed as law by state legislatures. You're free to disagree with a law or even a constitutional right if you want- its none of my concern. What I want to get to the root of, for the benefit of anyone else who may still be reading this, is why? You still haven't said why law abiding citizens who meet strict requirements should not be allowed to obtain government permits allowing them to legally carry concealed weapons. What harm comes from it? If your argument is that there's no need for it we can start adding alot more things to your list that we are legally allowed to do but don't need.Quote:
And again you miss the point. You seem to be claiming that its a right - in this you are incorrect. Concealed weapons are a legislative act - not a constitutional one. If I can not disagree with the current law, and voice my opinion on that law - then why am I living in the United States?
I have my CCW permit, but I never actually carry on my person. I have it because if you ever get pulled over on your way to the gun range, and your gun isn't in plain sight (and who really drives around like that) you could be in a world of hurt if the officer doesn't care for armed citizens and decides to write you up for carrying concealed (concealed in your vehicle counts) without a permit.
That was basically the reason that I originally got mine. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Of course, now I probably carry a good 2/3 of the time I'm out...
Xihauo i know of a gun forum you might like pm me if you want to join it. (there is a political section but alot of paranoid yahoos hang out in there) the rest of it is just people talking about tatics gear fire arms etc. I wont post it here cause i dont want the anti gun people to go over there and start trouble.
Again what is the reason to carry a concealed weapon. Are you living in fear of the criminal element that is out there? Are you living completely unaware of your surroundings? I don't think so - neither do I live in a fear state of what criminals might or might not do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
So you want to see stories - I guess you might want to check out the Bradley site about concealed weapons permits and thier holders.
Now of course its a baised site. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccwQuote:
The gun lobby claims that only law-abiding citizens get CCW permits. But an August 2000 study by the Violence Policy Center revealed that, from January 1996 through April 2000, the arrest rate for weapon-related offenses among Texas concealed handgun license holders was 66% higher than that of the general adult population of Texas. CCW license holders are committing crimes - including murder, rape, assault and burglary - but because the gun lobby makes it difficult if not impossible for the public to determine if a shooter has a CCW license in most states, the full story has not yet been told.
just like the one where you got your stories from.
The need to carry a weapon in today's society is different then it was back when the constitution was written. Now the constitution states we have a right to keep and bear arms. Which I support because its a constitutional right, and it can be shown where weapons are a functional tool of society. The concealed weapons permits are not as strict as you would like every one to believe. But that is also a different subject. You accused me of hype on the issue - but it seems again you are falling into that same trap yourself.Quote:
I do say its a right- however, that is irrelevant to this discussion since it is also passed as law by state legislatures. You're free to disagree with a law or even a constitutional right if you want- its none of my concern. What I want to get to the root of, for the benefit of anyone else who may still be reading this, is why? You still haven't said why law abiding citizens who meet strict requirements should not be allowed to obtain government permits allowing them to legally carry concealed weapons. What harm comes from it? If your argument is that there's no need for it we can start adding alot more things to your list that we are legally allowed to do but don't need.
I don't have to provide any overwelming reason why I disagree with the concealed weapons permit - other then the fact I do not believe in the necessity for a conceal weapons permit. For every situation where you show how an individual protected himself on the city street with his concealed weapon - there is another story about how it is misused.
Do you want an overwhelming justification for my postion about Concealed Weapons permits to convince you of the error of your thinking. Frankly is not going to happen when you are claiming that its a fundmental right granted by the constitution. And can you provide an overwelming reason why conceal weapons permits should be granted?
ichi = jealousQuote:
I got one better then that. A fully functional '73 winchester - been in the family for generations.
the bradies are more biased then the nra and thats pretty hard to do :dizzy2:
listen to their little propaganda recording on the home page notice it never says how these killers get guns ~:confused:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Im still waiting for even 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Any overwhelming reasons? I've said it several times- it saves lives.Quote:
Do you want an overwhelming justification for my postion about Concealed Weapons permits to convince you of the error of your thinking. Frankly is not going to happen when you are claiming that its a fundmental right granted by the constitution. And can you provide an overwelming reason why conceal weapons permits should be granted?
And I am waiting for 1 from you alsoQuote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Same thing can be said about not having concealed weapons permitQuote:
Any overwhelming reasons? I've said it several times- it saves lives.
Here are some statistics i found not sure if the first one is true
Medical Advice:
>>
>> Number of physicians in the US: 700,000. Accidental deaths
>> caused by physicians per year: 120,000. Accidental deaths per
>> physician.... 0.171
>> (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
>>
>> Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000. Number of
>> accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500.
>> Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
>>
>> Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more
>> dangerous than gun owners.
>>
>> "FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least
>> one doctor."
>>
>> Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban
>> doctors before this gets out of hand. As a Public Health
>> Measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that
>> the shock could cause people
>> to seek medical aid.
Here is a good reason to carry read the bottom lines
http://www.amfire.com/php/container....earmsFacts.htm
Here is why the awb is pointless
http://www.amfire.com/php/container....olentCrime.htm
I gave you 3 examples, you gave me 0- I know you saw them, you commented on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Honestly, I'm weary of debating this with you... Your opposition has shifted from 'you just dont like it', to 'they not trained well enough', to 'they're irresponsible' to claiming many of permit holders become criminals. Just say what you think- Average, law abiding common folk just can't be trusted to carry weapons on their person to defend themselves with. That's what it comes down to isnt it?
You're entitled to your opinions on gun control, as I've said. I'm just glad your thinking isnt in the majority and that our state legislatures are continuing to pass laws that empower people to defend themselves. :bow:
Now factor in how many lives doctors save, versus how many lives guns save.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Maybe you could send me a PM with whatever it was that was edited out of your post, Panzerjager. I'm curious about how I could possibly have prompted a personal attack. You must really care about your guns, huh...Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
My point, which you failed to pick up on, was that it is irrelevant that guns are a hobby for many. That's not the issue at hand. I've enjoyed time at a firing range myself. The issue is that they are used to kill peopleillegally. This discussion wouldn't be taking place if they were simply used for pasttime activities. It is the illegal use of these weapons that is of concern, it's not a conspiracy to specifically ruin someone's hobby...
Actually, that's a great point DGB. If we were allowed to in our country, we should publish some statistics on how many home invasions, rapes, robberies and muggings were stopped because the intended victim was armed. We can't, because the justice department refuses to consider that as a mitigating factor. Just listed as 'unsuccessful'. Just for the record, I don't think doctors stop many rapes or murders, but I could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgb
I don't know. I do know however that it is patent nonsense to suggest that doctors should be banned because they have a higher level of accidents than guns.
I would like to have information about how many lives are saved/crimes are prevented though.
I never understood the point with a concealed weapon if you don't have the intention ot actually hurt somebody. Even if I am against civilians carry any weapons, I can understand a visible weapon to deter any criminal acts against the carrier, but a concealed weapon speaks intent to me.....
I talked about that a few pages ago, but I'll happily re-summarize here...
Open carry of weapons is great- and I wouldn't mind seeing it more widespread, but there are some problems with it. First off, where open carry isnt common, it scares people. People have been known to call the police when they see it, and even in places where its perfectly legal, the police have been known to arrest, harass and otherwise embarass people for doing so.
Second, it gives up the element of suprise. The upside is, hopefully a bad guy will pick another target if they see you armed- the downside, if they don't, they already know your armed and where you're carrying it so they can plan accordingly. Again, if open carry was common this might be less a problem- but its not.
Ah but I work swing shift - so the amount of time to search the web to get the stories is limited - but you posted three - so here is three facts from three different sites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
It seems that concealed weapons permits don't have the effect on reducing crime that you would like to claim.Quote:
In the 29 states that had lax CCW laws during 1997 and 1998, the crime rate fell 6%, from 5296.6 to 4971.2 crimes per 100,000 population. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 7%, from 4613.7 to 4297.2 crimes per 100,000 population. While the rate of violent crime for states with strict carry laws fell at relatively the same rate as less restrictive states from 1997 to 1998 (8% and 7.5% respectively), the robbery rate for these 22 strict states fell 13%, compared to the lax state's 10% (this includes an 11% drop for those states which relaxed their CCW laws after 1992, and a drop of only 7% who have had lax CCW laws since before 1992).
"These numbers demonstrate what we've been saying all along," said Sarah Brady, chair of the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Inc. "We don't need to make it easier for just anyone to carry a gun nor do we need more concealed handguns on our streets to fight crime. The way to fight crime is to punish criminals and to make sure that criminals don't get guns in the first place."
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/r...truth&menu=gvrQuote:
Between 1992 and 1998, over a quarter (27%, 3/11) of the states that were "shall issue" during this entire time period experienced an increase in the violent crime rate, as well as in the robbery rate. This compares to increases in violent crime over the same 6 year time period in just 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws. Only 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws experienced an increase in robberies. If allowing more people to carry concealed handguns is supposed to be such an effective crime fighting strategy, why did the crime rate go up in so many "shall issue" states — particularly when compared to states that employed other strategies to fight crime?
A second site that shows the same data as the Brady site - but cites the FBI data sheets
Quote:
Between 1992 and 1997, the violent crime rate dropped by 24.8 percent in states enforcing strict concealed carry laws and no-issue laws compared to an 11.4 percent decline in states with lax or weak concealed carry laws.
Source: Press Release, January 18, 1999. Handgun Control/Center to Prevent Handgun Violence: Washington, DC [data analysis of Uniform Crime Reports, FBI]
Another case study of Florida's Conceal Carry Law.
http://www.vpc.org/Studies/cccrimst.htmQuote:
Recent numbers from Dade County, Florida do not offer a comforting picture. According to information first reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Metro-Dade Police Department tracked 63 incidents involving concealed carry license holders in a five-year period (1987 to 1992) after the law went into effect; 25 incidents involved arrests. The 25 arrest incidents included such crimes as: aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, reckless display and discharging a firearm in public, armed trespass, and cocaine possession. Despite the arrests, in at least 12 of the 25 cases the arrestee was able to retain his concealed carry license—including one incident in which an armed license holder was arrested for misdemeanor battery on his spouse. The remaining 38 non-arrest incidents included: four accidental shootings (resulting in two injuries); three cases in which the license holder's gun was stolen; two cases of unauthorized carrying in restricted areas; and six disputes that escalated to the point where a gun was pulled. A review of the Dade County information reveals that in a broad sense 16 of the 63 incidents could be classified as attempts at defense of person or property, or efforts to intercede during the commission of a crime. And while there do appear to be legitimate self-defense uses detailed by the Metro-Dade police, in many of the 16 incidents the actual threat is unclear, possession of a concealed carry license may not have been necessary (because the license holder did not leave his or her home), or it is unclear whether the license holder was legally justified in brandishing or firing the weapon. (Please see Appendix One of the full study for the complete list of incidents.)
And then another individual who express himself much better then I canQuote:
Charles Wesley Parrot was convicted in September 1958 of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. He was sentenced to serve three years in a state penitentiary. His sentence was suspended after 18 months and he was placed on three years probation. In March 1983 Mr. Parrot was convicted of unlawful possession of a pistol. He was sentenced to serve two years in the state penitentiary. After nine months his sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for 18 months and fined $512.25. He was granted a full pardon in the state of South Carolina in January 1989. On March 15, 1995 Charles Wesley Parrot was granted the specific authority to own, possess, and use firearms by the state of Florida's Office of Executive Clemency. Mr. Parrot has subsequently applied for, and obtained, a license to carry a concealed firearm.
http://lasthome.blogspot.com/2003_12...77145463406787Quote:
I would feel uncomfortable carrying a loaded weapon. Very uncomfortable that I would possibly have the means to end a person's life within arm's reach. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it, or would ever be tempted. Just that fact makes me uncomfortable.
I also would feel uncomfortable knowing that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person. And here's why - despite training, despite temperament, despite the best of intentions: I don't trust you. That's simply it, I don't trust you. I don't trust a person who is not a licensed law enforcement officer of some kind - someone who, by virtue of their job, I would assume they have proper gun training - to carry a weapon. You may be a great person, love your kids, go to church, would never pull a gun in anger at another person - you may be supremely confident of that fact in your own mind, but I'm not. To me, you would be just as likely to be the one sticking up the fast-food clerk as the one defending him, or - in your possibly untrained and excited state - could be the one who with the best of intentions attempts to intervene but misses and hits someone else. Or you could be the one who gets pissed off at me in traffic and, instead of the flipping me the finger you pop off a few rounds at my back window.
I'm not concerned whether there are documented cases of this happening - I am afraid that they will, when more and more people are allowed to carry concealed weapons.
I understand completely that you have the best of intentions, the best training, the best gun money can buy, and the best reasons in the world to want to defend yourself. But I'm sorry, I don't have insight into your character from my vantage point and I can't assume you can be trusted with a gun any more than I can assume you're not going to attack me anyway without a gun.
Some people have used the automobile analogy as a comparison: A car is as lethal a device as a gun - do you have ethical problems driving a car? To that I would say, no, because I have a reasonable trust in my mind that: a) an acceptable percentage of the people driving have a legal driver's license, have been driving for a number of years, and know how to operate a car. I trust myself in that regard as well. Therefore, I think the relative risk of getting in or causing an accident and vital necessity of using a car is acceptable compared to the hardship and chaos that would result in banning automobiles. With firearms, however, even with the several self-defense case story articles I've read recently, I'm not convinced that the negligible gain from carrying a gun would outweigh the high potential risk of an accidental or intentional shooting.
I'm not pushing for any legislation change, I'm not pushing for repealing the 2nd amendment or anything like that. I'm just saying that I don't think it's a good idea because inevitably - inevitably - there will be a tragedy, or tragedies. And I don't want to be anywhere near it.
Thank you. I hope I've made myself clear - please reference this post if necessary.
And did I not say that. The average person does not have the training to fire a weapon at another human being in a stressful situation. When you are in your home - you can do what the hell you want to defend yourself. However when your out in public - you have to be aware of other people's right to exist.Quote:
Honestly, I'm weary of debating this with you... Your opposition has shifted from 'you just dont like it', to 'they not trained well enough', to 'they're irresponsible' to claiming many of permit holders become criminals. Just say what you think- Average, law abiding common folk just can't be trusted to carry weapons on their person to defend themselves with. That's what it comes down to isnt it?
Then you should of just stated that verus calling my opinion hype.Quote:
You're entitled to your opinions on gun control, as I've said. I'm just glad your thinking isnt in the majority and that our state legislatures are continuing to pass laws that empower people to defend themselves. :bow:
Why would the police do that if it's legal and accepted ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yes, I've seen the Miami study- and it supports my point totally. Out of more than 22,000 permits issued only 13 actually committed a felony and had their permits revoked. Thats what? 1/2 of 1%? There are hundreds of thousands of permits issued throughout the state of Florida. Where are the shooting rampages caused by your untrained nervous-nelly permit holders? Even your own biased study says that there is no significant increase in crime when people are empowered to defend themselves. So whats your argument against it again?
[/quote]Again, you're proving my point by allowing this person to speak for you- you apparently just don't trust people to carry guns to defend themselves. I guess this is where we differ.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedlegAnd then another individual who express himself much better then I can[quote
It's interesting to me that while you claim to support gun rights you dredge up all of the muck and slanted studies you can from well-known gun grabber groups to prove how evil concealed carry is. If you think they're credible, you should keep reading and learn why all guns should be banned. Did you know that guns in the home are 33x more likely to be used against the owners than a criminal? It's not, but they'll still tell you that and give twisted stats to back it up. Keep looking to the Brady campaign for inspiration...
If only I knew the answer to that one. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Like I said, where its not common, open carry can throw certain people into a panic. You would think that police know better- but I've heard several first hand accounts that beg to differ. Maybe 911 operators should ask more questions when they get a 'man with a gun' call... like, 'what's he doing with it?' 'Buying groceries?' 'Then why do you need police?' ~D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinus
you talk about the government as if it is a thing, WE ARE the government. People rule themselfs out here, if it gets put to a vote, it will be fair, any full grown adult could vote on it. If it gets put to a vote and my side looses {I like guns so you know my side} I would not contest the results formaly, but you can be im going to say something along the lines of "I outta kill those bastards" then after turning in my guns, I would promptly strike the wall or lamp closest to me.
Well, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the risk for this happen is FAR much smaller if NOBODY carry a gun ?? ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
If no one carried a gun would there be less a risk for people making 911 calls about people carrying guns? Umm, yeah, I suppose so... Of course that's neither a practical nor desirable situation. ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
What the study shows is that it is not impossible for criminals to have a concealed carrry permit. Which is something those that advocate conceal carry permits state will not happen. Which was exactly your point that criminals would not get conceal carry permits. So what point did it prove?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Try again - I don't trust their training and ability to actually use the weapon on a city street. Defend yourself in your home that is your right - however you don't have the right to risk other people in a crowded store just because someone decides to rob the store. I guess you missed the six occasions that show that guns were pulled as an arguement escalated by concealed carry permit holders. Something once again those that advocate conceal carry permits stated would not happen. Just like while the study has a very low percentage of people with conceal carry permits committing crimes with their weapons - it goes to show that it does happen, again something that those who advocate the permit stated would not happen.Quote:
Again, you're proving my point by allowing this person to speak for you- you apparently just don't trust people to carry guns to defend themselves. I guess this is where we differ.
So an individual can not have multiple sources of input to come to their own conclusions? How interesting. THe studies of the like of Lott who advocated the reduceing the restrictions of concealed carry permits are not skewed and slanted? Yea right - I read his study, try again.Quote:
It's interesting to me that while you claim to support gun rights you dredge up all of the muck and slanted studies you can from well-known gun grabber groups to prove how evil concealed carry is. If you think they're credible, you should keep reading and learn why all guns should be banned.
And that makes the Florida Study invalid? Keep spouting about having guns in the classroom and I will go the opposite direction. That is the most ridiclous and acidine comment that comes from the pro-gun lobby - and is more dangerous then making assualt weapons completely illegal and banning the conceal carry permit. When the crowd that supports that type of nonsense screams baised about the Bradley Campaign - well they need to wake up themselves and stop reading the NRA sites.Quote:
Did you know that guns in the home are 33x more likely to be used against the owners than a criminal? It's not, but they'll still tell you that and give twisted stats to back it up. Keep looking to the Brady campaign for inspiration...
What the study points to about the 33x more likely is the high number of suicides and low number of accidents in the home involving firearms. Is it skewed - sure it is to make a point, but when one looks at the numbers one can see what the point is.
(Two can play that game)
Again be careful of accusing others of something you yourself are guilty of.
You keep trying to hammer this point home- but you're fighting an argument that Ive never put forth. I never said permit holders never break the law. The point that I've been making is that they are statistically less likely to commit gun crimes than any other group. They're less likely to use a gun criminally in public than people who arent even legally supposed to be carrying guns in public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
My point was, and still is, that if you think they're a credible organization you can't logically support people keeping guns in the home either as they've shown how dangerous it is to do so. Personally, I think they're full of crap, but you use it to support your arguments. Virtually every study of theirs has been disected and debunked, if anyone wants links I'll gladly provide them, but I wasnt wasting the time with you since you'll only believe data that supports your beliefs. I even took your skewed stats as a given, for the sake of discussion, and showed that even still it's not a compelling argument against concealed permits.Quote:
So an individual can not have multiple sources of input to come to their own conclusions? How interesting. THe studies of the like of Lott who advocated the reduceing the restrictions of concealed carry permits are not skewed and slanted? Yea right - I read his study, try again.
You already have. You've said in other threads that you don't like handguns and you've said you only support gun rights because they're tools for farmers or hunters.Quote:
And that makes the Florida Study invalid? Keep spouting about having guns in the classroom and I will go the opposite direction.
What is that point? Try looking at the stats they don't show you. Suicide rates in households without guns are just the same as ones with guns. There's no appreciable difference. That doesnt stop them from trying to blame guns.Quote:
What the study points to about the 33x more likely is the high number of suicides and low number of accidents in the home involving firearms. Is it skewed - sure it is to make a point, but when one looks at the numbers one can see what the point is.
To anyone interested, this pdf is a study on 'shall-issue' permits produced by the Minnesota legislature. It's probably the closest you'll get to an unbiased examination of claims on both sides. What it comes down to is, if you believe pro-carry studies permits can actually reduce crime. Alternatively, if you believe anti-carry studies, then permits have no significant effect on crime.
Now depending on your political leanings, I guess this could mean different things to people. From where I stand, I believe government should allow people to do what they want until it is convincingly proved that it's harmful to others. If the worst-case scenario that gun-grabbers can find is that it has no net effect on crime, why should we strip people of this right? If they could produce real proof that it actually increased crime in a significant manner at least they would have something to support their arguments with. I say let competent law-abiding citizens carry weapons to defend themselves with if they desire. There is certainly anecdotal evidence available in the media to show that people can and do save lives when carrying responsibly.
Note: Minnesota, in the end, did legalize 'shall-issue' permits.
Less likely does not equate to a perfect record now does it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
There just as credible as the NRA - both are baised and skewed in thier reports and their information. Just like everyother advocy group out there. Again be careful of accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. I have never stated I completely follow their agenda nor do I believe their information is 100% correct. But don't let that prevent you from arguing the arguement verus taking cheap ad homien attacks at someone who disagree's with you. Should I show you the studies on Lott's data that completely discredits his lack of scientific and social studies research on his report.Quote:
My point was, and still is, that if you think they're a credible organization you can't logically support people keeping guns in the home either as they've shown how dangerous it is to do so. Personally, I think they're full of crap, but you use it to support your arguments. Virtually every study of theirs has been disected and debunked, if anyone wants links I'll gladly provide them, but I wasnt wasting the time with you since you'll only believe data that supports your beliefs. I even took your skewed stats as a given, for the sake of discussion, and showed that even still it's not a compelling argument against concealed permits.
Yep that is correct - handguns are a useless tool as far as I am concerned.Quote:
You already have. You've said in other threads that you don't like handguns and you've said you only support gun rights because they're tools for farmers or hunters.
Never said it did - again making assumption on something? What I stated is that they are using suicides from guns to back up their 33x claims.Quote:
What is that point? Try looking at the stats they don't show you. Suicide rates in households without guns are just the same as ones with guns. There's no appreciable difference. That doesnt stop them from trying to blame guns.
There you go -Quote:
To anyone interested, this pdf is a study on 'shall-issue' permits produced by the Minnesota legislature. It's probably the closest you'll get to an unbiased examination of claims on both sides. What it comes down to is, if you believe pro-carry studies permits can actually reduce crime. Alternatively, if you believe anti-carry studies, n permits have no significant effect on crime
However it seems that you don't want to believe the anecdotal evidence that points out that sometimes the conceal carry permit holder's commit crimes with their weapons. Yep lets get upset with people who don't subscribe to your way of thinking.Quote:
Now depending on your political leanings, I guess this could mean different things to people. From where I stand, I believe government should allow people to do what they want until it is convincingly proved that it's harmful to others. If the worst-case scenario that gun-grabbers can find is that it has no net effect on crime, why should we strip people of this right? If they could produce real proof that it actually increased crime in a significant manner at least they would have something to support their arguments with. I say let competent law-abiding citizens carry weapons to defend themselves with if they desire. There is certainly anecdotal evidence available in the media to show that people can and do save lives when carrying responsibly.
Like I stated earlier - you want to carry a weapon then do so openly. The people around you in public have just as much right to know if you are armed as you have to be armed.
Using the strawman again- I never made an argument that there's a 'perfect' record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Good, then lets be clear- you don't support the second ammendment. While they're covered by it and I support their rights, it was not written with sportsmen in mind.Quote:
Yep that is correct - handguns are a useless tool as far as I am concerned.
You still havent provided any anecodtal evidence- despite multiple requests. Is there some? Probably- but it still doesn't override the fact that, at best concealed weapons holders reduce crime, and at worst they have no net effect. Yet you want it banned because you don't trust people.Quote:
However it seems that you don't want to believe the anecdotal evidence that points out that sometimes the conceal carry permit holder's commit crimes with their weapons. Yep lets get upset with people who don't subscribe to your way of thinking.
I believe that under both the 2nd and 9th amendments, people should have the freedom to do what they want, particularly when it comes to protecting themselves from harm until it can be proven convincingly that a great harm is being done by allowing people their freedom. There is no such evidence here. I don't believe in constraining people's freedoms just because they dont provide a clear benefit.
We can continue this if you want, but I think it's fruitless at this point. Any readers should be quite clear on both of our positions now and can judge the merits of each for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
A gun IS an inatimate object do they have a right to know if you have your car keys and money on you also.
There's that badly hitched trailer again. When was the last time somebody opened fire with their car keys and killed somebody?Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
The same methods that you have used - good to see that you recongize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Again you are incorrect - I support the second admendment - I don't support the concept of concealed carry permits falling under that protected constitutional right. Your confusing what I think as a useless tool means that I don't support the 2nd Admendment. A strawman arguement - which you should recognize by now - since I did it to you to drive a point home. Again the Constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms - it does not grant you the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is a legislative law - the consitution allows you to keep and bear arms that is exactly what it states.Quote:
Good, then lets be clear- you don't support the second ammendment. While they're covered by it and I support their rights, it was not written with sportsmen in mind.
Sure I have - there was even one about a convicted criminal getting a concealed carry permit in Florida - which you dismissed. People as a group have shown that they are not trustworthly. I trust individuals - but not the mob. Nor the mob believe that one must pack iron in order to protect oneself and thier property.Quote:
You still havent provided any anecodtal evidence- despite multiple requests. Is there some? Probably- but it still doesn't override the fact that, at best concealed weapons holders reduce crime, and at worst they have no net effect. Yet you want it banned because you don't trust people.
Again your confusing what I beleive with what you want to think I believe. The 2nd Admendment does not grant you the right to carry a concealed weapon. It does not grant you the right to carry out justice. What it grants you is the right to keep and bear arms - and the law allows you to defend yourself and your property. Like I have stated several times - carry any weapon you want - but do so openly so other members of society can evalute and decide if they want to be near you and your weapon. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms - does not give you the premission to stomp on other people's rights to know what is around them in a public area - nor and especially this one - on their property.Quote:
I believe that under both the 2nd and 9th amendments, people should have the freedom to do what they want, particularly when it comes to protecting themselves from harm until it can be proven convincingly that a great harm is being done by allowing people their freedom. There is no such evidence here. I don't believe in constraining people's freedoms just because they dont provide a clear benefit.
And again before accusing someone of hype - which was what started this - maybe you should discuss the issue in a calm and collective manner verus going off on them. Your attempts at ad homien arguements have fallen on death ears.Quote:
We can continue this if you want, but I think it's fruitless at this point. Any readers should be quite clear on both of our positions now and can judge the merits of each for themselves.
A firearm is a tool that has deadly consequences if used incorrect or disapportantly to the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
If you go into a store - and the owner dislikes firearms in his store - and you are carrying a concealed weapon - you have violated his rights - in order to carry the weapon.
If your on a communter train that is full of people - they should have the right to know that someone on that train is armed with a weapon so they can decide if they want to be in that situation or not? By carrying a concealed weapon - and not being an undercover police officer - you can recklessly endanger their lives because of your desire to go armed into society. Society allows you that right - however you should also owe society the ability to know that you are armed.
You want to carry a weapon on your person - then do so openly.
When is the last time someone who legallly owned a gun did that?Quote:
There's that badly hitched trailer again. When was the last time somebody opened fire with their car keys and killed somebody?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
If i walked down a crowded street with even a pellet gun displayed. I would have the cops called on me. If i walked down the street with it concealed there is no panic and people go about there every day activities.
Also you support carrying openly what about rifles and shot guns.
You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Actually, it's the tree service guy, he's 41, and not overweight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Also, I'm a rural boob. Not a sub-urbunite.
Id take that bet.Quote:
You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
How about double or nothing? I bet you the number of people killed by a person who had legal ownership of the gun in question is less than 10% of all people killed by guns in the US or Canada.
Are you suggesting that only those who are married to the very ugly should be allowed to legally own guns?Quote:
I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
or that promiscious women should also be armed?
what about the pool-boys, don't they a chance to defend themselves?
stats show that very few permitted carriers use their weapons, in response to violence or when they run amuck. Many many more are injured or killed by criminals with guns.Quote:
By carrying a concealed weapon - and not being an undercover police officer - you can recklessly endanger their lives because of your desire to go armed into society.
ichi :bow:
And it proves my point - you don't need to go into society armed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
When I go hunting the weapon is normally in the back seat of my truck for the police officer to see if I am stopped. When I go to a store to have the weapon looked at - I carry it into the store with the barrel pointed down. Like I have said not just once but numerous times - if you want to go around armed - then do it openly so that other citizens can make the decision to be near you or as far away as they need to be in their own minds.Quote:
Also you support carrying openly what about rifles and shot guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
Now Ichi - someone is going to come up and say that is nothing but disproved hype from the Bradley Campaign.
Now the question that needs to be answered is out of how many of suicides were done with legally obtained firearms. Most of them according to the studies were done with handguns.Quote:
2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005
A site with the Canadian Data.Quote:
How about double or nothing? I bet you the number of people killed by a person who had legal ownership of the gun in question is less than 10% of all people killed by guns in the US or Canada.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/The...unControl.html
http://www.tf.org/tf/alcohol/ariv/vfsum5.html#2Quote:
Type of document: peer-reviewed research report
Firearms and adult, domestic homicides: the role of alcohol and the victim. Joshua E. Muscat and Michael S. Huncharek. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 12(2):105-110. 1991.
Key words: homicide, firearms
Summary: This study found that alcohol may be a contributing factor to domestic firearm homicides:
53% of victims had been drinking before the homicide
40% of victims were intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or greater) at the time of the homicide
62% of offenders had been drinking before the homicide
58% of victims who incited the homicide (by initiating physical contact, drawing a weapon, or verbally daring the offender to attack) had been drinking
The authors note that over 80% of the homicides were committed with handguns, and 45% of the handguns were Saturday night specials. eover, only half the offenders owned the guns used in the homicides; handguns were easily obtained through friends, spouses, or relatives.
The data were drawn from police records of 129 adult homicides and interviews with 49 offenders in six major Ohio cities. The homicides occurred between 1982 and 1985. A domestic homicide was defined as involving relatives or close friends, occurring inside or immediately outside the home, and which did not occur as secondary to another crime (for example, robbery). Domestic homicides committed with firearms are the largest distinct type of homicides.
Practical implications: Because it found that alcohol appears to contribute to the likelihood of domestic homicide, this study lends support to efforts to reduce violence by reducing alcohol use. The study also suggests that limiting the availability of cheap handguns may diminish domestic homicide.
Yep achocal and legally owned guns can be dangerous. The bolded sentence could actually mean half of the domestic homicides were committed with legally owned firearms - primarily handguns.
Quote:
And it proves my point - you don't need to go into society armed.
Now what happened to open carry. Just answer this question do you think people should be allowed to own guns.(this includes "assault weapons and hand guns of all types)
Yes or no cause you are really confusing me on what you think of the 2nd amendment.
Indeed, now he's attacking owning guns at home because people might use them to commit suicide... :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Resorting to stereotypes now are we? How often do you think the scenario you've outlined happens? How big a percentage of gun deaths do you think that accounts for? 1%? 0.5%?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Here's a relevant news article from April.
Yes people should be able to own guns because its a protected right under the constitution. The founding fathers placed it into the constitution to insure that the citizens had the ability to overthrow a tryanical government.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Its confusing because your attempting along with another to pretend that conceal carry is part of the 2nd Admendment. The 2nd Admendment does not state that one is entitled to conceal their weapons upon their person and go into society. It clearly states something else. The conceal carry permits is a legislative action done by the states - not by the Federal Government.Quote:
Yes or no cause you are really confusing me on what you think of the 2nd amendment.
No such arguement has been shown - it seems that you only want to believe the data that supports your arguement - or you want to place words that are not there. (And you accuse me of strawman arguements) Here is what I stated with that data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Now the question that needs to be answered is out of how many of suicides were done with legally obtained firearms. Most of them according to the studies were done with handguns.
Don't try reading into what is written - read what is written.
I guess you missed the data about the achocal related - homicide's at the home which account for more deaths then the 1% your trying to downplay.Quote:
Resorting to stereotypes now are we? How often do you think the scenario you've outlined happens? How big a percentage of gun deaths do you think that accounts for? 1%? 0.5%?
Here's a relevant news article from April.
This isnt the first time in this thread that you've put forth evidence that condemns firearm ownership. You say I am mischaracterizing that as attacks on private gun ownership. You tell me, should I take it as evidence of your support for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I'm not sure what you're talking about.... this was clearly in response to Goofball, not any data presented by you. As he offered no data I don't see how I missed any.Quote:
I guess you missed the data about the achocal related - homicide's at the home which account for more deaths then the 1% your trying to downplay.
So an individual has to be blindly in support of something - or he is against it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Great logic on your part. I have clearly stated several times I am against concealed carry permits - because its a legislative process - not a consitutional right. And these means I am against private gun ownership, because I use data from anti-gun sites to counter your comments about gun save lives when carried by individuals with conceal carry permits.
Yep - someone accuses me of hype and then states something like that. Laughable.
What Goofball was talking about was included in part of the achocal-firearm domestic homicide data that was posted before you asked - and assumed it was a 1% figure - its much more then that.Quote:
I'm not sure what you're talking about.... this was clearly in response to Goofball, not any data presented by you. As he offered no data I don't see how I missed any.
Is it not illegal to operate a firearm while intoxicated?Quote:
Yep achocal and legally owned guns can be dangerous. The bolded sentence could actually mean half of the domestic homicides were committed with legally owned firearms - primarily handguns.
Ok, so what did this have to do with concealed carry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Or this?Quote:
2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005
Quote:
Type of document: peer-reviewed research report
Firearms and adult, domestic homicides: the role of alcohol and the victim. Joshua E. Muscat and Michael S. Huncharek. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 12(2):105-110. 1991.
Key words: homicide, firearms
Summary: This study found that alcohol may be a contributing factor to domestic firearm homicides:
53% of victims had been drinking before the homicide
40% of victims were intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or greater) at the time of the homicide
62% of offenders had been drinking before the homicide
58% of victims who incited the homicide (by initiating physical contact, drawing a weapon, or verbally daring the offender to attack) had been drinking
The authors note that over 80% of the homicides were committed with handguns, and 45% of the handguns were Saturday night specials. eover, only half the offenders owned the guns used in the homicides; handguns were easily obtained through friends, spouses, or relatives.
The data were drawn from police records of 129 adult homicides and interviews with 49 offenders in six major Ohio cities. The homicides occurred between 1982 and 1985. A domestic homicide was defined as involving relatives or close friends, occurring inside or immediately outside the home, and which did not occur as secondary to another crime (for example, robbery). Domestic homicides committed with firearms are the largest distinct type of homicides.
Practical implications: Because it found that alcohol appears to contribute to the likelihood of domestic homicide, this study lends support to efforts to reduce violence by reducing alcohol use. The study also suggests that limiting the availability of cheap handguns may diminish domestic homicide.
How many pages ago was it I mentioned the word hype- one time? And you still bring it up in nearly every post? But I'm laughable? Forgive me if I think that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:Quote:
Yep - someone accuses me of hype and then states something like that. Laughable.
Anyhow, if anyone else thinks I haven't been clear on my points or have left anything unanswered please do ask and I'll be happy to answer on either "assault weapons" or concealed carry. :bow:
Being drunk in US increase the risk to get shot ??
Mr. Murderer, it's only water in my glass, I swear......
That's funny, I never even thought of it like that, but, yes, it was an unspoken underlying assumption that I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
It never occurred to me to actually think the thought as you have written it. However, I bet everyone knows that its true.
ichi :bow:
It shows a counter to your comments about it being false or as you stated hype. It shows that the number of deaths from legally acquired handguns is greater then those that were gained illegally. And yes I consider suicide deaths as an arguement against handguns as legimated - when it is handguns that are used in the vast majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You might want to go back and read some of your other comments. And yep I am playing the same word game that you first started - so its more then a bit of the pot calling the kettle black - I am using your own technique of arguement in this case.Quote:
How many pages ago was it I mentioned the word hype- one time? And you still bring it up in nearly every post? But I'm laughable? Forgive me if I think that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:
Oh its quite clear - however if anyone disagrees with you its because they don't support the 2nd Admendment. Someone needs to show where it states in the constitution that you can carry a concealed weapon.Quote:
Anyhow, if anyone else thinks I haven't been clear on my points or have left anything unanswered please do ask and I'll be happy to answer on either "assault weapons" or concealed carry. :bow:
Its not written anywhere - it clearly states you have the right to keep and bear arms - but it says absolutely nothing about concealing the weapon now does it?
On what does an civilian need assault weapon for?
Well the first thing you'd need to do is define what an assault weapon is.Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
This site does an interesting job of explaining what an 'assault' weapon was under the ban- check it out. :bow:
I don't personally own any long guns at all, let alone something that'd be considered an "assault" weapon- but I dont see why law-abiding citizens shouldn't be able to.
Thanks for the info Xiahou.I thought the ban concerned fully automatic rifles but now i see its about semi-automatics i have no problem with that.We call semi-automatic rifles that have been chanced from fully automats "reservist rifles" here in Finland,and those are fully legal.But burst shooting fully automats i would like to see only in use of military and police personel. :bow:
Because guns are designed to injure and kill. I don't see what use a law-abiding citizen could put an assault weapon to without breaking the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
There's lots of reasons... target shooting, hunting, collecting, home defense.... pest control ~D . Seriously, I don't care why someone would want one- if they're not using them to commit crimes its none of my concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Again, if the government wants to take away people's rights, they need to show that allowing such a right causes unquestionable harm and that such a law will actually solve the harm. The assault weapons ban failed on all counts- 'assault weapons' are rarely used in shootouts and the ban did nothing to stop the few that did happen. It just made it more difficult for good guys to buy them.
Actually this is incorrect - the Assualt weapons ban does not prevent police departments from getting the weapons necessary to fulfill the requirements of their jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Police departments can get many different weapons and aspects of military hardware that you as a civilian can not get without special permits.
Some Police Departments have the same sniper weapons as the United States Army. (and I believe some are even trying to get the same .50 caliber system that the military uses.)
So no the "good guys" are restricted by their own budgets and beaurarcies (SP) from getting the hardware necessary to take out the criminal elements that have these weapons - the Assualt weapons ban did not prevent it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
target shooting - are you sure you need assault weapons? I'm sure there are less powerful guns you could use.
Hunting - again, less powerful guns could be used
collecting - Ever though about collecting something less...lethal? Spoons perhaps?
Home Defense - How about you just don't give criminals assault weapons either?
Pest Control - ! There are methods of pest control that don't involve blowing holes in your floor.
And how would you know what someone is going to use an assault weapon for when you sell them? Ask 'are you going to use this gun to kill people with'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Are there less powerful weapons that can be used? Ummm, yeah... try shooting at targets with a .22LR and a .308 and see if its the same experience with both. ~;)
Did you read the link about the so called 'assault' weapons that I posted? Most of the guns listed are in similar caliber to popular hunting rifles. The AWB only addressed "scary" features on the rifles. With little modifications the banned weapons were again legally available.
I think a decent criminal background check is a reasonable indicator.Quote:
And how would you know what someone is going to use an assault weapon for when you sell them? Ask 'are you going to use this gun to kill people with'?
This is apparently where we differ... I consider the average law-abiding American citizen a 'good guy'- you obviously don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
1) Ok, so you think that you should let potential criminals own assault weapons because it gives you a slightly better 'experience' during target practice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
2) So, if the ban still allows hunting rifles as long as they don't have grenade launchers or bayonet lugs, then what's your problem with it?
3) For a person to have a criminal background, then he/she must have committed a crime! Before this crime was committed, then he/she could have bought an assault weapon, meaning that you have just sold an assault weapon to someone who is about to commit a crime. The easier solution: Don't sell assault weapons (or better still guns) at all!
4) But a citizen is not necessarily a 'good guy': he could be a criminal. You just don't know.
Again, I think that gets to the heart of the issue. I think most people are law-abiding, reasonably intelligent, good natured and responsible. You think they're all potential criminals. ~D
Edit:
LINKQuote:
Contrary to myth and misrepresentation, most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly "blow-away" their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four.
Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records. Even a significant percentage of homicide victims themselves have criminal records.
Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The "crime of passion" homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule.
I think that it is foolish to give weapons designed to kill and maim to anybody. I think that 'law-abiding, reasonably intelligent, good natured and responsible' people do not need assault weapons (or almost any type of gun, for that matter). Thus only criminals will use the assault weapon. I therefore think that allowing people to have assault weapons will only benefit criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Edit:
What difference does this make? You are still allowing criminals to obtain assault weapons.Quote:
Contrary to myth and misrepresentation, most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly "blow-away" their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four.
Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records. Even a significant percentage of homicide victims themselves have criminal records.
Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The "crime of passion" homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule.
ALL of you people who think this ban is stupid are stupid. Think about it. Your protection excuse is stupid. Think about it. I'd not have a handgun to shoot a burglar. If i needed a firearm, I'd use a tranquelizer gun or a tazer. It won't kill anyone but will serve the job for protection. and you think that the goverment might turn facist. Jeez! if they turned fascist they would do a terrible atrocity eventually and a war against them would start with people that are trained and smart enough not to shoot a civillan because of the punishment they would get. Now a gangster wouldn't be reconized if he went into a gun shop really. so they you go. there's a lethel gun in the wrong hands. Please read this and see why a gun should not be selled in a smegging gun shop!
I don't think the facts back that up- rifles of any kind, let alone "assault" weapons are rarely used in violent crime. Am I the only one who thinks the anti arguments are somewhat circular?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
'You don't need them, so you shouldn't have them'... I point out legitimate uses... 'well, people could use them for crime'... I point out that almost all who do so already arent legally allowed to own any guns and those that own them legally are (in the vast majority) no threat at all.... now we're back to 'you dont need them, so you shouldnt have them'.
That's good stuff! ~DQuote:
ALL of you people who think this ban is stupid are stupid.
...and I argue against themQuote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Well, if there are no uses for weapons designed to kill, then I see no reason to put them out onto a market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Give it up Xiahou. The Left can't enslave you and force you to join your local collective if you and your fellow citizens are armed. Of course you can't win this argument! ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Don't worry Xiahou, I'm several thousand miles away, so I don't represent a threat to your massive collection of weapons (which are, of course, designed to kill and maim...) ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Stupid? Perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berserker!
By the by, what do you call people who cannot spell properly or use proper punctuation in their posts?
This is includes cars, knifes, bows and arrows, hammers, pipes, rocks, chainsaws, and my house keys, which could be used violently.Quote:
I think that it is foolish to give weapons designed to kill and maim to anybody.
It's not about the tool, its about the crime.
hmmm, you don't think reasonable people need assault weapons. OK. I don't think you need a car, or clothes, or a comp with a hot internet connection. Just because someone thinks that another person shouldn't have the right to possess something is a pretty thin reason to deny that person.Quote:
I think that 'law-abiding, reasonably intelligent, good natured and responsible' people do not need assault weapons (or almost any type of gun, for that matter). Thus only criminals will use the assault weapon. I therefore think that allowing people to have assault weapons will only benefit criminals.
I think that I do need a gun (assault weapons is not even defined well) and I claim my right to own several, for protection, hunting, investment, and personal enjoyment.
There are legitimate uses, protection, hunting, hobby, and there are intangible benefits from a society that is responsible enough to own guns. Just the idea that people are responsbile for themselves and not reliant on the nanny state from cradle to grave is important. Being around guns from a young age was one of things that helped me develop a sense of safety and responsibility.Quote:
Well, if there are no uses for weapons designed to kill, then I see no reason to put them out onto a market.
There may not be a need now, but just 60 years ago there was a tremendous need to have young men who knew how to handle a gun, and my guess is that free societies will have that need again.
Thanks for clearing that up, one of the most eloquent arguments I've ever heard from the gun control crowd. Pretty much sums up the debate. I am too stupid to be free and responsible. ~:confused:Quote:
ALL of you people who think this ban is stupid are stupid. Think about it. Your protection excuse is stupid.
ichi :bow:
I dont really think this whole discussion is about semi-automatic rifles.I think here are many people who would like to ban guns from all civilians.I dont understand that at all.Here in Finland we have somekind of firearm in almost every family for hunting.
And we dont shoot eachother more than normal Europeans.Infact majority of killing people in here are done with knives.Should we ban knives?