Beginning Thursday you can carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without a permit.In other words, tough shit, gun controllers. The author of this article is a bit more optimistic than I am. I don't think too many people who decide to carry concealed guns in Arizona will bother with the classes and training. If they were they types to do that, they would have already gotten the concealed carry permit like so many others.Supporters of the new law say it's all about freedom and extending Second Amendment rights.
Some supporters even argue that the more people who carry firearms, the safer we will all be from robberies, assaults and lunatic shooting sprees.
We think not. We suspect a bunch of armed citizens trying to intervene in such incidents will be more likely to endanger innocent, unarmed citizens than to prevail over the bad guys.
But the law's the law. So let's be responsible with these new freedoms.
Good luck Arizona. I sure wouldn't want to be in the vicinity of a crime when the intervention of some armed citizen is so much more likely. I predict these guys will do more harm than good.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"In other words, tough shit, gun controllers."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't have said it better myself.
Nothing is really different--except for one word: concealed.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't need a permit, training, a competency test, etc. to carry with one in a visible holser. Never had to, and many people do regularity, even in Phoenix.
"We think not. We suspect a bunch of armed citizens trying to intervene in such incidents will be more likely to endanger innocent, unarmed citizens than to prevail over the bad guys."
ReplyDeleteSurely there is an example of that happening.
I think that there will be blood in the streets, and shoot-outs over parking spaces, every argument will end in bloodshed thanks to this new law, because the Bradybunch has predicted it.
ReplyDeleteOr not.
Anon's comment snarking about "blood in the streets" is a pretty standard gunloon tactic.
ReplyDeleteIt conjures up an image of rivers of blood coursing down streets and boulevards. Of course, if there were a full-fledged war going on --you wouldn't see blood in the streets to such an extent either.
IOW, it's a dodge to avoid the fact that gun violence is unacceptably high in this country.
It's like when I mention that a number of gunloon bloggers are actually subsidized by the NRA--the typical response is 'oh, yeah" Where's my Ferrari?'
Well, Jade, it's only used because of claims made by the Brady's over twenty years ago when Florida became a shall-issue state.
ReplyDeleteJade: “IOW, it's a dodge to avoid the fact that gun violence is unacceptably high in this country.”
ReplyDeleteYou also said Australia’s gun violence is unacceptable. It seems you won’t be appeased as long as there are guns around.
Kevin H: How much blood do you need to see? Do you really require rivers of blood or will 30,000+ American lives suffice each year?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that on 9/11, we lost 3000 Americans and that was enough to cause us to change all kinds of laws and spend 100s of billions of dollars. Are you seriously suggesting 30,000+ lives each year is worthless?
TS: Actually, I didn't say it was but I agree. It was Australian citzens who demanded laws be changed because they believed it was unacceptable. And as we know, Australian gun violence was a fraction of ours.
Jade: “Actually, I didn't say it was but I agree.”
ReplyDeleteI was getting that from this comment by you: “The reason Australia--and other nations--ask for more regulation is because they deem gun violence unacceptable.”
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/07/australian-gun-laws-failing.html
It wasn’t a big leap of mine to assume you were interjecting your feelings on Australia, and as you said- you agree. If you want to keep making the argument that the NRA uses the slippery slope boogie-man to build members, you would want to show how other nations stop their gun control efforts after “reasonable regulations”. Australia is not a good example for you to keep pointing to.
Jade: “It was Australian citzens who demanded laws be changed because they believed it was unacceptable.”
In the US, the citizens have demanded that disarming the innocent is unacceptable.
The "blood in the streets" line is one of the many examples of pro-gun folks putting words in the mouthes of their opponents. Even if the Brady Campaign actually used those very words, they weren't meant literally. But that doesn't stop the legions of gun advocates from repeatedly using them literally in a sarcastic attempt to discredit. Isn't that sheep-like behavior, all that repeating?
ReplyDeleteCould you keep up with the context, Jade? I didn't make up the claims about "the gunshine state". So if anything, the Brady Campaign wants to see rivers of blood. Otherwise their claims are unjustifiable.
ReplyDeleteLet's see how Arizona turns out.
MikeB: “But that doesn't stop the legions of gun advocates from repeatedly using them literally in a sarcastic attempt to discredit.”
ReplyDeleteIt is not literal when the gun rights side repeats it either. What was meant by the “blood in the streets” comment was that murders would increase. But they decreased. So when the rights side says “where is your blood in the streets?” they are simply pointing out that the gun controllers were wrong. No Jade, the gutters don’t have to be overflowing with blood for you to be right- but you are still wrong because murder rate have gone the opposite direction.
OK TS. Let's say that everybody uses that expression in a non-literal way. But, to qualify for not having "blood in the streets" it's not enough that murders go down. You'd have to factor out all the other causes, like changes in law enforcement techniques and improvements in emergency trauma care, to name just two.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can do that, so our side can honestly claim that whatever the rate of murders is, or whatever yardstick you want to use, it would be much lower if not for gun availability.
Mike: “I don't think you can do that, so our side can honestly claim that whatever the rate of murders is, or whatever yardstick you want to use, it would be much lower if not for gun availability.”
ReplyDeleteYou can keep speculating that, but at some point you’ll have to at least show a correlation... and then move on to causation.