Oh sure, it's really comfortable. I find car keys and a cell phone unconfortable, what about you? I guess when a person lives in such ever-present fear that something bad is about to happen, they would feel comfortable with a gun."Long time coming," said Matt Slavik, 58, of Brookfield. He hand-filed applications for himself and his wife at the Justice Department's Capitol office on the morning of Nov. 1, the first day the new law was in effect. He said he got permit No. 20 in the mail two days later; his wife got No. 86 a day after him. "It's been wonderful, just to put the sidearm on as I start the day. I just keep it underneath my shirt and nobody knows. It's very comfortable."
But, the joke's on them. They and all those around them are less safe than before.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"They and all those around them are less safe than before."
ReplyDeleteThat is false and you know it.
AztecRed:
ReplyDeleteReally? I hear, on average, several reports a day, about some misguided moron with a gun killing people who were doing nothing to him except sharing oxygen. Reports of vigilantes savin' other folks lives by perpblastin'? considerably less.
The problem with you gunzloonz is that you constantly pontificate about how much safer and polite an armed society will be--knowing full well that you're liars or idiots; I lean toward the former descriptor.
I wonder how long it takes to get a family on WIC or a mentally/emotionally challenged person on some sort of assistance. I wonder how long it takes to get a restraining order when someone's spouse/ex-spouse/former significant other/random stalker issues a verbal threat or brandishes a firearm during a domestic disturbance.
ReplyDeleteCommie,
ReplyDeleteSaving the life of a stranger is no concern of mine. I carry my heater to protect numero uno. Though I know an MD at MGH who is happy there was a gun loon present during her stabbing.
You find car keys and a cell phone uncomfortable? Then don't wear them. The joke isn't on us. You can't provide evidence that concealed carry laws make society less safe--at least that go outside a margin of error. The best that you can come up with is a few cases here and there over a long period. Some on here boast of critical thinking skills, but apparently, mathematical analysis isn't part of that.
ReplyDeleteAssholonymous:
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem, dipshit. You want to dictate the way society works by thiniking it revolves around your safety and comfort. You arrogant jerks with teh gunz are the ones who y'know, actually shoot people. Not those of us withou gunz.
Name, date and circumstances of the attack so we can check to see if you actually tell the truth. And you actually "know" this person in the sense that you speak to them, hang with them or what?
Like I said, we rarely hear of you idiotz actually doing anything for the public. If your precious 2nd Amendment Rights are so sacred, why is that you don't all serve in a well regulated militia? Oh, wait, I know the answer; you don't do things for other people, because you're the only person that matters.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteConcealed carry, lawful or otherwise, makes life exceedingly unsafe for scores of thousands of people in the U.S. every year. I know that it doesn't matter to you and your pals when others get hurt or killed because, well, fuck it--they're not you.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI suppose that you can support your assertion that lawful concealed carry makes scores of thousands of people unsafe every day. Go ahead--this should be interesting.
By the way, unsafe means injured or killed. It doesn't mean would be annoyed if they knew.
For those that believe you are unsafe with people around you carrying, I present to you ONE instance of a boy with a gun saving his mother.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.komonews.com/news/local/Police-Boy-shot-man-with-BB-gun-after-man-began-attacking-boys-mom-134342463.html
Now it was only a BB-Gun, but it was only a boy. The facts of this though, are that if that boy did not have a gun, him and his mom would have been seriously hurt, or worse.
Criminals are going to get guns, no matter what. But it has been proven time and again then trained individuals that know how to use their concealed weapon will reduce crime and can potentially save their own lives or others. That doesn't mean crimes with guns won't happen, but they were going to happen anyway, as criminals will find a way to get guns.
All of that said, those that support concealed carry please help us spread the word and say hi to us on facebook. facebook.com/equip2conceal
Or visit our website http://equip2conceal.com and click on the facebook logo.
We are also offering concealed carry classes all over Wisconsin for those interested. Just go to our website www.equip2conceal.com and click on schedule.
Chad, I personally posted that story of the boy with a BB gun here, as evidence that non-lethal force could successfully stop an intruder intending harm.
ReplyDeleteThe trend in law enforcement and the military is towards non-lethal weapons, part of a post I have in preparation.
Deadly force, weapons capable of deadly force are not necessary in hands other than law enforcement. They can as easily be replaced by things like pepper spray and tasers - and BB guns.
That would also drastically reduce gun violence - homicides, suicides, domestic violence, and accidental fatalities and injuries.
Firing a more deadly firearm, one that fired a larger projectile, with considerably greater force, could as easily, more easily, not ONLY incapacitated the intruder (instead of causing him to flee the scene), but also injured the boy's mother in such close quarters. The intruder was not armed; a more deadly firearm could as easily have been taken by an adult male from a young boy, and used on the mother and the son. The intruder was choking her, in a rage. Do you seriously believe, given the number of instances reported of guns being taken away from bad guys, THAT would not be a likely possibility in this instance?
Further, had such a more powerful weapon been fired by this boy......what about bullets going through walls or windows, subsequently hitting other people? This was NOT a safe instance to fire a powerful handgun or long barreled weapon.
That you seem to think it is puts your credibility to provide firearm instruction in question.
And as to your contention that criminals will ALWAYS find ways to get firearms? That is not supported by any statistic anywhere. Rather, in those places that have instituted much greater restrictions on firearms, places where there are far fewer firearms, and then only in the hands of those who are carefully vetted first, there are in fact FAR less incidences of gun crime. It IS possible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
It SHOULD be possible to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously crazy, substance abusers, stalkers, and criminals than people like you would have us believe.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThe places where your proposals have worked never had that many guns to begin with. Here in America, there are entirely too many guns for these laws to be practical.
You want to register and check all new purchases. What about the hundreds of millions of guns already in the country? You're trying to create a vast black market.
GC wrote:
ReplyDelete"You want to register and check all new purchases. What about the hundreds of millions of guns already in the country? You're trying to create a vast black market. "
It won't happen over night Greg, but eventually, all of those existing weapons will at some future point change hands. Nobody lives forever, and further, we could as easily build in incentives for cooperating with registration.
The practice of registration of private firearm transactions, coupled with a background check through one's state police data base (and any other state police where someone has been a resident) WOULD work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It would make the people who are about to transfer a firearm be more careful, it would make the person wanting to acquire that firearm consider if he or she really wants to go through a background check or not, if they have something to hide - as did the kid from the Jonesboro shooting.
Btw - I'd bet a simple google of that kid's name would have turned up the same data as what was in the sealed records, under the kid's original name, don't you agree?
You appear to be arguing Greg that because we have a lot of firearms in this country, we shouldn't even try to improve on the status quo.
That makes no sense, particularly when you consider that computers now make such a check possible for all of us to do in a way that wasn't true twenty or thirty or forty years ago. It would be foolish to ignore what we can do now that we couldn't do as well in the days when checks were entirely manual operations.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteIncentives for cooperating with registration? Now I know that you're delusional. Have you ever listened to people on my side? Do you really believe that we'll just cooperate with your fool scheme?
Besides, I have many guns that I've bought through a private sale. That means no record. They were cash deals. No names asked or given. If your plan becomes law, how will the government ever know if I sell one of those guns to someone again through a private transaction? And what about importing guns through Mexico along with kilos of cocaine? What about the machine shop that starts turning out do-it-yourself guns?
Until you're willing to be reasonable, no compromises, and no deals.
Yes, Greg, I believe people would cooperate with what you call 'my scheme'.
ReplyDeleteParticularly if it were clear that there was no resulting confiscation - one of the MYTHS on your side, pure fantasy.
It would take a little trial and error to find out what the right incentive might be - possibly putting in more public accessible gun ranges, like the shooting park in Nevada. Or maybe free hunting licenses for ten years.
But yes, I am persuaded that such an effort, combined with negative consequences for anyone with an unregistered firearm, or even more serious consequences for selling someone an unregistered firearm used in a crime or where a crazy person goes off the rails and shoots or tries to shoot someone? Yes, that could be effective.
It's only you paranoid conspiracy theory bunch that have a problem with this.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou can't confiscate what you don't know about. Or, excuse me, you can't demand to be turned in what you don't know about. Use whatever term you want for it, but that's what happened in countries that we've discussed before. Good citizens had guns of one type or another before the law banned them and then they didn't have them. There was a convenient list of who had what.
You don't get it. We won't accept registration ever. We'll fight it every step of the way. And many gun owners won't comply with it, even if it passes. We won't even accept universal background checks, since we know that you refuse to stop there. You have no credibility with us.
Here's the thing Greg.
ReplyDeleteYou contradict yourself.
Either gun owners are law abiding.....or they are not.
You are apparently affirming they are not law abiding and we shouldn't expect them to be.
Which is it? Oh, never mind, you've made clear which it is - they're not.
No! No! Dog Gone, you can't pin Greg down to one simple concept.
ReplyDeleteHe prefers to live in a world where ignorant fucks can pass on their ignorance to others.
He
's had students like you, Ones that knew far more than he did.
And those were only the Kindergardeners!
I'd hate to think about him in a class with older students.
I'm telling you what some gun owners would do if your proposals become law. Many wouldn't sell guns illegally, but surely you can recognize that when a law makes a product illegal (or difficult to obtain), that creates a black market.
ReplyDeleteLaci the Dog,
That's college students. You, on the other hand, belong in obedience training.
Then you are indeed confirming that those gun owners you describe - which presumably includes yourself? - are not lawful gun owners.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with those people ending up without their weapons and behind bars,and never getting to own guns again.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWhen did I say that I'd do what I described? I certainly wouldn't sell guns illegally. I'm a collector, and I enjoy my guns as works of art and machining as well as their status as weapons. I don't know what I'd do if I were required to register all of mine. The good news is that we aren't going to come to that situation here.
In addition, at the moment, we're lawful, since your proposals aren't law. Are you so determined to disagree with me that you can't see the potential for a black market in guns if what you want does become law? Have you learned nothing from Prohibition and the War on Drugs?
'Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI suppose that you can support your assertion that lawful concealed carry makes scores of thousands of people unsafe every day. Go ahead--this should be interesting.
By the way, unsafe means injured or killed. It doesn't mean would be annoyed if they knew.
November 28, 2011 12:07 AM'
Do you read anything before you start your rant? I said, "lawful or otherwise". Many of the shootings are done in people's homes by friends or family members. Check the numbers.
I get that you and your gunzloonz buddies will only obey laws you like. I've understood that for a long, long time. You're all heroes in your own heads. Too bad that it is the only place you'll ever be heroes.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteYes, you did say lawful or otherwise. I'm insisting that you separate the two. Show me that those who carry a concealed handgun legally are a danger to their communities. Don't say a potential danger. Show me actual harm caused by even single digit percentages of licensees. Don't give me supposition. Don't speculate. Give me hard evidence that we're hurting anyone.
Greg, how about this for a little thought-exercise.
ReplyDeleteIn AZ where there are no requirements to carry concealed, are those who do safer or less safe than their counterparts in MA where they have to jump through all kinds of hoops?
The relevant laws of Massachusetts are a tangle, but I don't see how they make anyone safer. A person with nefarious intent is going to carry a handgun and not ask permission to do so.
ReplyDeleteTo carry a handgun for self defense in that state (not for transporting, etc.), one has to establish a need to protect life or property. That has nothing to do with a background check or showing oneself to be a good citizen. It's just a way of introducing arbitrary power into the issuance of licenses, and I do not trust arbitrary power.
"It's just a way of introducing arbitrary power into the issuance of licenses, and I do not trust arbitrary power.
ReplyDeleteNovember 29, 2011 12:34 PM"
Is this coming from the same Greg Camp who thinks that HR 822 is a great idea?
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteSince you insist on being dense, I was referring to government power. I thought that that would be obvious by now. There is a categorical difference between the power that a citizen has and that which the government has.
HR 822 isn't about "government power"? Do you stay up late watching people be stupid about shit, so's you can catch up to them.
ReplyDeleteThe bill was passed by a majority in the house. A majority, not a unanimous vote. The majority of the MA, NY and CA congressional delegations voted against the bill. so how about that state's rights issue you gunzloonz (and white supremacists, fundamentalists and secessionists) are all about when the feds aren't doin' things the way you think they orta?
Oh, that's right, "states rights" only apply when you guyz wants em to.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteStates' rights only apply to things not reserved to the people or the federal government. The constitution specifically guarantees the right to arms as belonging to the people. The Supreme Court has incorporated that right against the states. Using your logic, we'd have to say that when the federal government enforces the freedom of religion, that's also a violation of states' rights.
And since I have to lay everything out for you, H.R. 822 gives power to individuals, while a may-issue system gives power to governments.
It's always interesting to watch the gunzloonz turn themselves into moebius strips when they try to use logic.
ReplyDeleteI'll wait to see if Laci The Dog (who frequently hands Greg Camp his ass on legal matters) has any interest in exposing the flaws in Greg Camp's argument.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised that you have the ability to follow a legal argument, but then, Laci has been sounding more and more like you over the last few weeks. If he adopts an idiosyncratic spelling, he'll be completely intelligible--only to you, but who else really wants to read it?
Commie can't produce actual numbers when asked so he goes straight to invective. How brilliant! He outshines the sun!
ReplyDeleteJust 'fess up and admit all you have is a fear response to the evil and immoral guns and hide behind pseudo-intellectualism and name calling.
Greg said, "The relevant laws of Massachusetts are a tangle, but I don't see how they make anyone safer. A person with nefarious intent is going to carry a handgun and not ask permission to do so."
ReplyDeleteThat's a cop out. I asked who's a safer guy the concealed carry permit holder in AZ or in MA.
The answer is obvious. In MA there are some people who are denied who would be granted in AZ.
We weren't talking about criminals or folks with "nefarious intent."
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteCommie can't produce actual numbers when asked so he goes straight to invective. How brilliant! He outshines the sun!
Just 'fess up and admit all you have is a fear response to the evil and immoral guns and hide behind pseudo-intellectualism and name calling.
November 30, 2011 7:01 AM"
Which "actual numbers" would you be speaking of?
I have fear? Right. I walk around in a world that is full of criminals with gunz and non-criminalz with gunz (until they get busted for doing something stupid with or while carrying, depending on the locale) and yet I don't carry a weapon of any sort. I take sensible precautions to safeguard my life and property while in my home. I sleep as soundly as if I had an arsenal, more so actually.
I'm not sure what numbers you're referring to, dipshit. If you're talking about those killed or wounded, they number in the hundreds of thousand, annually, in this country.
This is an older study:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf
This one is a bit more recent:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
What's really amazing to me is that Gary Kleck and John Lott haven't yet produced a peer reviewed study buttressing the assertions of the gunzloonz about how CCW and DGU's are what saves me from being assassinated as I go about my daily business.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteWho is safer? I note that the Violence Policy Center can only come up with some three hundred licensees who have committed murder. That's out of six or so million, plus all the ones in constitutional carry states who don't need a license to carry. That means that we are a vastly safe group of people. Most of us come from reasonable states.
I can't compare licensees from Massachusetts to those from Arizona, but I can say that licensees in general are a safe group.
OK, Greg, there's a big problem with tallying most gun crime in the US--the reporting systems are shit.
ReplyDeleteAnd they are intended to be shit.
Tiahrt makes it impossible for law enforcement to show gun trafficking to the public.
VPC et al get their gun crime info from the news media.
And, despite what your side says, the media is biased toward the gun rights and one story. They are as liberal as the conservative companies that own them.
I can provide a few incidents from when I still lived in the States of CCW carriers committing crimes, people with criminal backgrounds getting CCW permits--Not to mention it was my client who brought attention to the "Florida Loophole".
Of course, that would all be anecdotal evidence since the arrest in question was expunged.
So, shall issue makes sure that people who probably shouldn't even dream of owning firearms are walking around packing heat.
And yes, Greg, misunderstands the concept of States' rights. It refers to the U.S. Federal system. Thus, States' rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government.
Of course, he is in good company.
For example, the Second Amendment does not apply to the states since it refers to Congress's power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16. In fact, States offered greater "gun rights" than that given by the Second Amendment: even under the Judicial Amendment made under Heller-McDonald!
Of course, the term "states' rights" has been used as a code word by defenders of segregation. It harkens to the "bad old days".
So, it makes sense that the Gun Rights Crowd are willing to invoke it; after all, they have decided that Dred Scot demonstrates that the Second Amendment is an "individual right."
What Bozos.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteWe've covered this before. The Second Amendment doesn't require me to belong to a militia. It says, "the right of the people. . ."
I don't know what news papers or television and radio reports you take in, but every one that I see about guns is spotty in detail and opposed to the idea of individual gun rights. A matter of perception, I suppose?
Now, how many anecdotes can you provide? Can you add those up to constitute a significant percentage of licensees who commit crimes with their guns? Don't you imagine that the Violence Policy Center does a desparate search through every article and account that it can find? I hardly trust them to be objective, but the best that they can do is name some three hundred.
Greg, all that blah, blah, blah is nonsense about how safe the CCW permit guys are. I say they're not safe enough, you say they are.
ReplyDelete"I can't compare licensees from Massachusetts to those from Arizona, but I can say that licensees in general are a safe group."
You could if you wanted to. And if you did, honesty would compel you to agree with me.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI can't compare Massachusetts licensees to those from Arizona because the rules are too different. My read of the Massachusetts rules tells me that safety has nothing to do with the licensing standard in that state. The rules look a lot more about cronyism and control.
So no, in all honesty, I don't agree with your position, nor do I feel compelled to do so.
All I know is this... I have the right to protect myself, and my family. My job on this earth is to make sure that my children live longer on more productively than me, And I will do everything within reason, and in my power to make sure that that happens.
ReplyDeleteI know that I live in America, and there are far worse places on this earth where "Shit Happens" is a daily part of life. I'm also not disillusioned to believe that I live in a safe place where we have public servants that are here to "protect" me. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for the police to protect everyone. To do so, everyone would have to be issued a bodyguard. We all (should) know that the majority of police work done is chasing down people that have already committed a crime.
Ultimately I am the only person that is responsible for my well being, and to do so, one needs to use common sense, and whatever knowledge one has obtained... this includes:
Not walking/driving around a bad neighborhood day or night unless I absolutely have to.
Not wearing revealing clothing when about late at night alone.
Calling the police when I see suspicious activities, fights, arguments, robberies in process.
Standing down to confrontation, walking away, and reporting to the necessary authority... EVEN though I have a gun at my side in all the above scenarios!
I'm no hero... nor do I wish to be. Ego? I have nothing to prove... It's MYOB 99% of the time.
How many times have Churches, Schools, Malls, etc been the venu for a single gunman to enter and slaughter 10s of people? How do most of these occurrences end? The gunmen save the last bullet for themselves... an extra 20 bucks on ammo and the body count could have been higher.
These people move along their playing-fields with zero resistance because we live in a society where we pass on the responsibility of self preservation.
If 1 other person had a gun. If one person at any of these places could have taken out a guman and saved 1 life... your son, your daughter, your mother/father... YOU! If someone saved your life under these circumstances...
I think the argument being made here by some of you is to disarm the general public...
Well... Drugs are illegal and some of you very same people have a bag of pot somewhere close by.
'Pot never killed anyone; That's not my point...
You will never be able to disarm everyone, and to even attempt to do so would require the encroachment on other rights that even you might care about.
Now having said all that... I think it's fucked up how easy it is to get a permit!
EpicVids,
ReplyDeleteIt's good to have some more voices on my side--welcome to the battle.
Jeff Cooper wrote an article that appears in his "To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth" on the subject of bodyguards. His point was that they can always be subverted. It's better to be able to take care of yourself.
On the subject of permits, I don't see that they're too easy. There's a background check, and in many states, you have to demonstrate that you can hit the broadside of the barn from inside it. Sounds challenging enough to me.
EpicVids said, "How many times have Churches, Schools, Malls, etc been the venu for a single gunman to enter and slaughter 10s of people? How do most of these occurrences end? The gunmen save the last bullet for themselves... an extra 20 bucks on ammo and the body count could have been higher.
ReplyDeleteThese people move along their playing-fields with zero resistance because we live in a society where we pass on the responsibility of self preservation.
If 1 other person had a gun."
I appreciate your comment and welcome you to the blog. You sound like a very responsible person who takes the protection of his family very seriously. I feel the same way about our regular commenter Greg. My concern is that you guys are not the rule, you're the exception to the rule. Most gun owners are not nearly as responsible and serious as you guys seem to be.
But, about your comments, I don't completely agree. "How many times" have we seen the bad guys shoot up the place, you ask. Please note when I ask things like that I'm usually hit with the old percentage game. The percentages are so low we don't have to worry about it. You guys keep telling me that. Yet, now that it suits your justification, you hit me with the "frequency" and the "possibility" of attack.
It's not likely enough to carry a gun over. That's my opinion.
You said, in these cases, if only one other person had a gun.... Again, that argument fails as proven in the Loughner shooting last January. The news reported one or maybe two other armed guys who could not stop it in time. I've always said, being Arizona, there were a number of others, all too embarrassed to admit they'd been there armed and couldn't do anything quickly enough to help.
So your idea that carrying a gun in case of an extremely unlikely event would be helpful, is just wrong.
Then there's the downside. You could shoot someone who doesn't need shootin', You could get depressed and do something stupid. You could have a negligent discharge while cleaning the gun. Thieves could steal it. And on and on.
It's a no brainer. The best way to protect your family would be to throw your guns in the river.
Let me add to the 'what about the mass shooter who goes into a mall or a school?
ReplyDeleteYeah, here's the problem. Those venues all typically have lots of other people besides the shooter. You have to care about not accidentally shooting one of them while trying to take out the bad guy. You have to identify if the bad guy is alone or if there is more than one.
And as soon as you fire off your first shot, if you don't take down the bad guy -- ALL the bad guys, if there is more than one ---YOU will move to the top of the list out of all those other people. AND unlike you, that shooter won't care who else he shoots while trying to get you.
While there is a possibility of saving lives, there is also a greater risk of life and limb inherent in shooting in those situations.
Again - retreat is always the better option if possible, coordinating what information you can provide to police with SWAT teams is more helpful usually than blazing away with your personal firearm, not to mention adding to the confusion for law enforcement trying to identify who is the good shooter and who is the bad guy.
And then there is the potential, as has been the case in a number of other mass shootings, that the bad guy is not just armed with firearms, but may also have some form of explosive devices that you could accidentally set off by shooting.
I am not persuaded that every single person who is legally allowed to carry a firearm is all that thoughtful about the potential harm in such situations that they avoid making them worse, not better; that the death toll won't be higher, not lower.
A better solution is for the people who do these kinds of mass shootings not to get their damned hands on firearms in the first place.
Like the crazy guy with the 'ye olde' style firearm and the pipe bomb. Like Anders Breivik or Jared Loughner. Like the guy in Seal Beach California. Or the woman in North Carolina that I posted about here just recently.
How many cases can you name, where a private person shot a mass murderer?
Not many. Not enough to rationally argue that arming private citizens is a better solution to those events than taking guns away from the people who do mass shootings.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThose mass shootings often happen at places where guns are banned. In other words, the people who abide by the law are unarmed. Those who intend to commit mass murder don't worry about the law. Churches, schools, and malls often ban guns--either by state law or the choice of the owner. Answer that. Don't go off on a tangent about how gun control would keep guns out of the hands of these shooters. That kind of gun control is decades away, if it ever could be possible in this country. What about right now? Right now, in our country with all of its guns, let's say that a man walks into a "gun-free zone" with a gun or several guns and starts shooting. The good people are unarmed, thanks to their obedience to the law. What you said means that they have the choice to get shot in their front sides or in their backs as they try to run away. The only limiting factors will be the whims and the ammunition supply of the shooter. SWAT won't get there in time, since they weren't there to begin with. They have to be called up.
What's your answer to this?
Mikeb302000,
The risk of a mass shooting isn't great enough to make carrying a handgun worth it? Even if we add in the risk of mugging, car jacking, and so on? Those risks are small, to be sure, but the risk of harming myself or another innocent person with my carry gun is much smaller.
And while we're on the subject, I drop the magazine and rack the slide several times, then feel the empty chamber with my finger before I start cleaning. I do something similar with revolvers and rifles.
GC wrote:Those mass shootings often happen at places where guns are banned. In other words, the people who abide by the law are unarmed. Those who intend to commit mass murder don't worry about the law. Churches, schools, and malls often ban guns--either by state law or the choice of the owner.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't addressed a single issue I raised about the complications that would result from having a gun in those situations, and shooting. So, your point is irrelevant as to whether or not your gun is allowed.
I'm not aware of any ban on a firearm, for example, in the Salon shooting in Seal Beach California. I don't believe the place of business was posted either way.
In each case, we are addressing how a civilian with a firearm (and no phone to coordinate with the police in particular) would make the problems of a mass shooting worse, not better.
Address them, one by one.
Except you can't. All you've got is
'but I wanna, and I like the fantasy that I'm a hero'.
Time for a reality check.
Go read them again. Even if you were allowed to carry, it would still make things worse - which is why many people don't want you in their place of worship or business with your gun.
The answer is fewer firearms not more firearms in more places.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteFillibuster doesn't equal truth. The people of California are largely unable to carry legally, so we'll never know what could have been done. You're asking me to play out a scenario, but I know that you'll just quibble and argue on every point. Let's cut through the rubbish here. Do you think that it's impossible for someone with a concealed handgun to stop a mass shooting? Are you claiming that such a thing could never be done? Rather than banter about with hypothetical situations, just tell me if you think it's ever possible.
And by the way, you needn't use the subjunctive with regard to my carrying. I am allowed to carry in most states of the Union.
There are an infinite amount of "what ifs" on both sides of the argument... What if you hit an innocent bystander..? What if I hit the bad guy..? What if i get depressed..? What I decide to jump off a bridge..? What if I decide to drive my car into a bunch of toddlers crossing the street..? We can go back and forth on scenarios all day.
ReplyDeletePercentages... I understand that they are low... and EXTREMELY unlikely that these horrible scenarios occur (to me, or anyone as an individual)... but the fact is... they do occur.
While talking about percentages... I once heard that 86% of all % are BS... that kinda made me laugh... but seriously... they say 3% of Americans obtain permits... but only 1% of that 3% (thats what I was actually told, but that could be 1% of all Americans*) actually carry "religiously," because it is a pain in the ass both due to restrictions and comfort. So mentioning how unlikely it is for someone to intervene, in an already unlikely event... yeah.
Your quote about the armed citizens not being able to change the outcome of a situation though they were armed...
By them being armed was the situation any worse? This is reality... This is what happened.
Back to ifs... If they were unarmed... the situation would have played out the same. In a different similar scenario, maybe they would have been able to take out the rouge gunner... or maybe they would have shot everyone in the place besides the bad guy.
I see that there multiple outcomes to these situations... GOOD and BAD. Is the glass half empty? I'm failing to get the feeling that some could possibly fathom that there ever could be a positive outcome from such a scenario. Any chance of a negative outcome = a NO?
You are probably more likely to be hit by a car or hit someone with your car than to be involved in any of the said scenarios... It is more likely that YOU will kill someone with your car, Than I with my gun! Will you sell your car or stay in you safe and happy home?
"It's a no brainer. The best way to protect your family would be to throw your guns in the river."
No... the best way to protect my family from GUN violence, is for everyone in the world to throw their guns in a river.
Complete and total disarmament.
No Accidental Deaths (AD) due to firearms (Though some of the self inflicted ones needed to go... Darwinism).
The crazies that go on their rampages, well... they would still do that, but probably with knives, fists of fury, and M80s. For a sec I thought maybe the body counts would decline just because its hard to stab 15 people to death, but then I read somewhere that some guys killed a few hundred people on airplanes with box cutters. Also, those suicide bombers are pretty damn crafty as well. But I think there has been some cases where a gun has stopped one of these guys from pressing the button.
So your AD go to 0... but will there be gains in other crimes because of the reduced ability to enforce (and im talking about by the appropriate officials)?
The real answer to the problem is EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION.
Make the exception the norm!
If someone wants to kill you, they will.
In a world with guns, which we do live in; in the highly unlikely event that I am in a situation where I have to opportunity to save my family, my, or a strangers life... I have exactly that... the opportunity to do so. For the rest... there is always prayer.
democommie,
Thanks for the welcome to the blog!
P.S.
ReplyDeleteRemember that extremism on both ends of the spectrum is equally as dangerous... No one should have guns = Everyone should have guns
EpicVids, I want strict qualifications for gun ownership. Greg and his kind will not budge an inch in compromise.
ReplyDeleteWho's the extremist.