Kirbs, unfortunately Mort (with whom I usually agree) has slipped up by not accepting that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will carry guns. Because that's true. Very, very true. It's fairly friggin' obvious when you think about it.

But anyways, I'm not qualified to argue here, I have an opinion that guns are bad, and that only responsible people should be allowed to carry them, but that's neither here nor there because I've not fired a gun, held a gun or seen a crime I may have interrupted with one.

/end ramble

It's both true and not true, that's the problem. People are complex, and society is far more complex than the sum of its citizens. Reducing societly to 'good' and 'bad', or 'outlaws' and 'citizens', is naïve.

Organised crime is a vast and powerful business (and forms a perfect example of free market capitalism), and I am under no illusion that legislation alone will stifle it. Gangs have illegal firearms and they will continue to have illegal firearms regardless. They aren't going to be affected by gun restrictions.

Joe Average, however, is. And the uncomfortable truth that I'm putting forth is that the vast majority of crimes are comitted by Joe Average. Completely 'normal' people, but in unfortunate circumstances. If Joe Average has a gun, a domestic dispute can easily escalate to murder. If there is tighter gun control, all manner of these normal 'day-to-day' disputes can be resolved.

I understand that you'll be worried that you can't defend yourself against random muggers and thieves and rapists, but this is really quite an irrational fear that is difficult to stifle. You must understand that you are far more likely to be raped or murdered by someone you know, not by gangs of 'outlaws'.

Crime is a complex system, and you cannot brush it all over with a single solution and hope it will all sort itself out. Tackling organised crime is an entirely different area to tackling domestic murders. Gun legislation is not going to 'solve all problems' by any means, but it will limit the latter situation and prevent disagreements turning to violence.

What about those of us that advocate gun ownership for it's original purpose and not because of supposed boogeymen?

I'm not convinced. Convince me that Joe Average is suddenly going to rationalize the situation due to lack of a gun. My golf clubs will get the job done just as well. Might even be able to squeeze in a bit more of a torture aspect to it, too.

Oh he isn't going to rationalise the situation, and that's the point. With a gun, he can act on the moment and kill with ease. With a golf club, he can probably inflict some serious damage but actually killing a man would take a lot more effort, and give more opportunity for the victim to escape. I'm not saying murder-by-golf-club never happens, I'm just saying that it's less likely to.

Don't worry, as much as we'd like to, I don't think the English are going to invade you rebel colonies (yet). The US army is itself quite a well-armed militia, I don't think they particularly need your help.

This is true.

Why is the "war on drugs" in America failing? Why are teenagers in highschool getting weed? Aren't drugs only managed by gangs and shady dark-alley dealers? Take away the competion from regulated sales, the blackmarket grows. Not to mention, the products from these underground sales are often much more deadlier and destructive than if-legalized counterparts. It would be a nightmare for the police in the US to track down illegal weapon sales, not to mention more deadlier, when the demand for blackmarket good goes significantly up as soon as the stores are closed. America is a big country, area-wise, and shares its borders with two other major nations. You simply can't keep an eye out everywhere.

There are so many factors to crime rates that trying to solidify a undebatable link of legal possession of guns as helping/hurting criminal influence of major countries is such a challenging task. One study shows that the crime rate (per/1000 people) of New York City has been drastically going down where, in London, hasn't changed from a high number. Why? Other studies show America has the same level of violent crimes as the UK, while some surveys show US has a higher rate of gun-related homicides but significantly lower numbers for violent assaults. Some conflict while other propose whole new thoeries of what guns have done to society (good and bad). I don't see how certain people against guns circlejerk each other, after reading some statistic, proclaim "less guns, less crime!!!" and how, on the other end, pro-legalized gun-happy individuals state how "guns make the world a better place." Not trying to single out people on the forums, but I think we should agree that there is so many elements to consider that it's too hard or too broad to make a definite connection as to if allowing citizens to have firearms contribute positively or negatively to violent crimes in general.

It seems to boil down to finding one story and trying to take it from there. Look, here's a story of a kid using firearms to muder his own grandmother and grandfather. But wait, here's a story of a would-be killing spree cut short by a citizen using his concealed weapon. You can go on for days.

edit: screw it, I type too slow.

This is why I don't support a gun ban. I simply think the attitude of gun owners should be a little less naive.

People, quit assuming that people carry guns because they're afraid of getting mugged. It is not the truth. Please.

... this thread was originally started because JLee thinks that having a gun on him at all times is going to stop freak incidents from happening. And that isn't even the naivety we're talking about. Good vs Evil is a concept that our society embraces entirely, and it doesn't work.

I entirely agree. It may seem somewhat odd that I support the legalisation of marijuana, while also supporting gun legislation, but it arises from the understanding that crime (as in society, and life) is characterised by its complexity. However, complexity is not unsurmountable if tackled rationally.

I still want to know when detterant meant to stop someone who is already commiting a crime. Because you say that you feel safer with your concealed carry, but your average joe junkie wont know or possible be in a state of mind to go through the thought process of whether or not you may be armed.

Also, as I already said, if someone is trying to rob you and already has a gun, they will probably have it out and ready to threaten you with it, so they are quite likely already on edge, so makeing sudden movements (such as, reaching for a gun), could quite possibly set them over the edge and have them shoot you. Now, unless you have an instant reaction time, and have hands that are somehow able to unholster, aim with any accuarcy at all (as in, aim it so that when you shoot your assailant wont be able to shoot back before he dies), all before the assailant can have his reaction time and just pull the trigger (after all, he did have a weapon out didn't he? and a knife can also be used on you if you make sudden movements around a jittery assailant).

I mean, isnt the idea of laws meant to discourage people from commiting crimes in the first place?

Also, problem with the seatelt analogy, you cannot be seriously injured someone else mearly because they didnt have a gun (wasnt wearing a seatbelt), even though you may very well have been armed yourself had been armed (wearing a seatbelt) and used said gun on the person who was trying to shoot up the place (either the sudden loss of movement of the car without the sudden loss of movement of your body or the thing that caused the crash ), but you still got hurt because someone next to you (seat next to you) didnt think to be ready for someone to shoot up the place (car crash) so they didnt arm themselves (wear a seatbelt) and... somehow... this lack of a gun... somehow got you injured (the forces of the crash caused their unseatbelted body to ram into yours, just like an unrestrained piece of cargo).

I realy did try, but unfortunately, the fact remains that wearing a seatbelt may protect you, but unless everyone wears a seatbelt in a car, then you basicly have unrestrained cargo that can fly into the people who are wearing seatbelts, while when it comes to guns, only one person needs to shoot the guy shooting up the place.

Also, it seems that your pro gun lobby suffers from certain fallacies. Because you can have gun restrictions without completely banning all guns and making people turn in their guns. It could quite easily involve having stronger requirements for ownership, better checks before allowing someone to purchase a gun, not to mention taking action to stop the major sources of the imported illegal weapons (because people who know how to get an illegal weapon are not going to buy one off some joe black market salesman off the street that could have crimes connected to it), and most importantly, at least try to get some semblance of law conformity, even if it is just makeing sure that the differant laws in differant places make gradual changes instead of allowing someone to just got a few miles further to a place where the laws are remarkably differant. Or heck, just make it so not matter where you buy the gun, you get subject to your areas laws (you seem to be ok with breaking international sovereignty by baning US citizens from buying anything cuban even if they are overseas, so what does it matter if you make it so someone has to purchase a gun according to the state they live in).

The main problem is that the scare-moungers in the NRA like to say that if you prevent the dangerous wackos from getting guns, then the perfectly fine people must be next. (After all, they seem to think that shooting the assailant is better than any project that could be designed to stop the guy from becoming an assailant in the first place)

Before you go off at me about makin guns harder to get making the market for illegal guns more attractive. I would point out that professional criminals (organized crime types) can get their guns from connections outside the country and dont use those street corner sales (after all, they want a gun that cannot be traced to them, because plea bargains would be attractive to low level criminals such as street corner illegal gun sellers), and your gang type criminals also buy their guns illegaly to begin with. So basicly, most of the people who would be affected by restrictions are quite likely the type who ALREADY buy their guns illegaly.

I'm too drunkenated to deal with the rest of the thread, but this I totally agree with. If you'd said this the first time round I wouldn't have picked you up - it's a valid and (in my opinion) correct assessment.

xxx

Wait, the only people the laws would affect are the people who don't give a **** about laws?

Stop waxing philosophic. People who have no regard for the law will not surrender their weapons. That's all that's saying. There are plenty of people like that out there.



You need to provide some statistics there. Most of the murders I hear of happening occur in the really poor gang ridden neighborhoods.



Yes. In situations involving non-premeditated murder where the killer is much weaker than the victim, and there are no other effective weapons in the vicinity. Again, you really need *good* statistics if you want to make that argument.



The people who rape and murder are probably very likely to do it to each other hence the high rate of rape and murder among acquaintances. A lot of us prefer avoid associating with those sorts of people. You're monkeying are with statistics you haven't even cited.

Besides, your argument is like saying that since it is very unlikely that you will be involved in a dangerous accident, no one should wear seatbelts. People don't wear seatbelts because they think they will be involved in an accident.



No one says it will solve all problems. It just puts the strong or armed on a more even ground with the weak. Violence happens independently of the tools that people happen to be around when it occurs. The question is, will decreasing the difference between the strong and the week decrease or increase the amount of successful violent crimes.

If someone gets so enraged that they are going to kill someone, they are going to kill someone, regardless if there is a gun somewhere to be wielded.

Seatbelts and firearms are completely different things. Please stop using them synonymously. Firearms are powerful weapons that require a great deal of responsibility to save lives. Seatbelts are a strap that keeps your foreward motion in check with the vehicles.

If guns only shot bad guys, all of your arguments would make sense. They don't.

har

Except if you had sweated comprehension, you'd have noticed that I simply gave a personal antecedent to underscore the need for statistics. I didn't actually claim to know the ratio of gang to domestic murders.




You're extending the analogy *way* to far. The analogy only extends to the responsible use of conceal carry firearms by trained individuals against clear aggressors. I was responding specifically to his argument that it's very unlikely to run into a dangerous aggressor. That wasn't an argument against gun control as a whole. You really should have picked up on that the first time.

And if you werent so uptight youd realize how silly your statement was. o wait im dum dont listen to me

Yeah, you're asking too much of the metaphor. All the seatbelt analogy was intended for was to illustrate the intent of someone buying a gun. Most people don't buy a seatbelt (buy a car with seatbelts) so that they can crash into walls, they buy it just in case. The same is true of most people who carry a concealed weapon, they carry it just in case. That's all that the analogy was meant to illustrate.

I'm not taking the metaphor too far. A just-in-case object that can potentially cause a liability is like a seatbelt that has the potential to kill 100 people in the middle of a school.

You're considering the physical function of the seatbelt too much. It's the feeling of being "on the safe side" of the using the seatbelt that is what is being focused upon in the analogy. That's it.

It's really not that hard to follow this through.

Supplemental reading:

You carry a gun on the off chance that you run into a mugger.
You wear a seatbelt in the off chance that you hit a car.

My argument is that a seatbelt is only a safety device.
A firearm can be a safety liability if used incorrectly, or without safety in mind.

"Anything can be a weapon though, Brandon!"

We don't hand out atomic bombs, either. A gun can kill several people without any warning. A seatbelt cannot.

I am running with the analogy because it's a dumb analogy. Seatbelts aren't a liability, so there's a reason you feel safe when you wear them.

Seat belts are hazardous when not used properly either.

"We shouldn't have things because some people are dumb!"

This is incredibly dumb reasoning.

I have a shoulder holster and a concealed (in pants) holster. The latter is way more comfortable, so it tends to get used the most for my glock. I have a gimmicky ankle holster for my PPK-S, but I don't feel safe having it on and it makes me look like I have a tumor unless my pants are huge.

Is this a serious question?

The answer is NO!

hang on, you feel safer when potetial muggers DONT know that you are armed?

HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THAT WORK! Serously, you could provide training to people who are unable to afford or cannot obtain a gun on how to produce those "I may not look like I am armed but I actualy am" vibes, you could make a fortune in self defense courses. /sarcasm

Also, the idea of the ankle holster confuses me. I mean, wouldnt you make yourself into a target by having to lean down to get something hidden near your ankle, because no matter how fit you may be, someone that already has a gun in their hands, if they see you reaching down, will probably try and take out someone reaching for a weapon (after all, if they are trying to kill lots of people, killing a person who might be reaching for a weapon would make sense to a killer).

I can understand the inside trousers one and the shoulder one, but an ankle holster is only going to hide the weapon when it is not needed, it is not going to hide the move you make for it (after all, the point of concealment is so the person that you are trying to defend yourself against doesnt know you are armed until they see that you have fired your gun at them).

Thats right.



THEY'RE ALL MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY THE GOVERNMENT



DUN DUN DUNNNNN

Stop. Stop posting in this thread. Just stop. Only you.

Concealed carry isn't necessarily for defense if you're getting mugged. If someone points a gun at your face and says "give me your money" you give them your ****ing money. But if you're standing at the fountain at QuikTrip and a guy busts in and says "give me the money" and points a gun at the cashier, you shoot him. If someone opens fire in a crowded mall, you shoot him. It's not supposed to be the be-all-end-all solution to everything. More like "i bought a gun, why not carry it sometimes for a chance to defend myself if that rare situation arises instead of letting it collect dust on a shelf in my house when not in use?"

Regarding the danger of allowing guns on the streets...I challenge you to find a significant number of cases where someone with a legal concealed weapon commits a crime with it. I bet you won't find much.

Everyone keeps acting like you can only shoot to kill.

Of the few of us that do conceal or would like to conceal I can only think of two people that are actually trained to do that.

To be honest, I don't know if I'd even be able to pull the trigger after pointing at someone. And if I did end up shooting, it'd probably only be to wound.


Like when I wanted the shotgun because I was having serious problems with people trying to break into my garage. Sure I wanted to hurt these *******s, they were here like every other week trying to cut off my ****ing door hinges! Whats next? They going to try and come in the house when they notice there aren't any cars parked outside? What if they get into my garage? Nothing in there has anything more than sentimental value. It's all pretty much USELESS CRAP that looks valuable.

I didn't want to kill them though. I wanted them to stop coming onto my property because they'd start telling their crackhead friends the last time they tried it they got pelted with rocksalt.

Yeah, I didn't mean a militia to fight the red coats.

I don't mean to contradict Rob here, but I would never shoot to wound. If I pulled my gun you'd better bet i'd be shooting center of mass and I wouldn't stop until he was on the ground. But that's only because the only situation in which I'd pull the gun would be an absolute last resort in a very serious situation. Regarding home defense, like out at my house in the country with a shotgun, sure, different story. Warning shots, shooting the wound maybe, sure. I don't know...I've never thought about it because I don't see why that would ever happen.

No one with any kind of weapon training is trained to shoot to wound. It's shoot to kill because the threat is over when the person causing the threat is dead.

Well Bob, I think the idea is that most street thugs won't be able to successfully mug you or injure you if you pop their knee or shoulder. Especially their knee.

If one really wanted to murder someone, preventing them liberty of arms will not stop him or her.

No what I'm saying is you would be really surprised by the types of people who deal with drugs.. professionals, business men, you name it.. It's not always the low-lifes

"You carry a gun on the off chance that you run into a mugger.
You wear a seatbelt in the off chance that you hit a car."

This is as far as the analogy extends. Beyond that, it ceases to become a valid argument. It purpose was only to address a very specific argument about the likelihood of running into a violent criminal. I have have told you this many times now. Stop being lazy and take the time to read posts before you react to them. You could have easily gotten that from the context of he first post if you had paid attention.