Why I Carry A Gun ...

[twinoaks207]

Let's see, just to illustrate a point of fact, using data from 2003/2004:

Death from "injury by firearms" = 29,036
Death from "Motor vehicle accidents" = 43,947

(source of information: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_19.pdf National Vital Statistics Reports,vol. 54, No. 19, June 28,2006; p. 18.)

Why are we not banning motor vehicles? After all, more people are killed using motor vehicles? Oh, and by the way, neither of those things can kill anyone unless there is a person operating it!

Or, perhaps we should ban hearts as 862,800 people were killed by major cardio-vascular disease, etc., etc., etc.

In the words of MY President (the late Charlton Heston), "from my cold, dead hands".....

 

[chophouse]

Not the answer and certainly not the state I'd be moving to for more gun rights if I were to move.

People should have the right to carry there firearms as they see fit. Concealed or Open.

I agree for the most part. There are some people in society who simply won't behave in a civilized manner, the ones that are not responsible should not be able to carry or own guns.

Responsible people should have the right to carry firearms as they see fit, concealed or open.

 

[AK-74me]

I agree for the most part. There are some people in society who simply won't behave in a civilized manner, the ones that are not responsible should not be able to carry or own guns.

Responsible people should have the right to carry firearms as they see fit, concealed or open.

I am fine with felons and people with a legitimate history of mental illness being rescritcted from carrying and owning guns. Other than that, anyone over 18 should be able to own and carry a gun no questions asked based on the 2ndA.

 

[Pushrod]

I am fine with felons and people with a legitimate history of mental illness being rescritcted from carrying and owning guns. Other than that, anyone over 18 should be able to own and carry a gun no questions asked based on the 2ndA.

I disagree completely with you on this. If a person is a violent felon, they should be locked up period. If society deems them safe to release back into the population, then they should have all of their rights (not priveleges) restored to them as free men (an women)!

How about the 100's of felonies that are non-violent and shouldn't even be listed as felonies, and misdemeanors that have a possible sentence of more than one year which causes the lose of gun ownership for life. What part of shall not be infringed covers this?

Again, if you are a free person, then you have all, and I mean ALL of your rights! If they are a menace to society they should be locked up, for life if necessary!

 

[AK-74me]

I disagree completely with you on this. If a person is a violent felon, they should be locked up period. If society deems them safe to release back into the population, then they should have all of their rights (not priveleges) restored to them as free men (an women)!

How about the 100's of felonies that are non-violent and shouldn't even be listed as felonies, and misdemeanors that have a possible sentence of more than one year which causes the lose of gun ownership for life. What part of shall not be infringed covers this?

Again, if you are a free person, then you have all, and I mean ALL of your rights! If they are a menace to society they should be locked up, for life if necessary!

No, you are are absolutely right and I should of included the word "violent", because I agree that if you pay your debt to society you are in fact free.
I was just trying to make the point that I am not for EVERYONE being able to own a gun because unfortunatley there are people in society that need to be locked up either in a jail or a mental hospital that are walking the streets.

 

[Tilted]

I disagree completely with you on this. If a person is a violent felon, they should be locked up period. If society deems them safe to release back into the population, then they should have all of their rights (not priveleges) restored to them as free men (an women)!

How about the 100's of felonies that are non-violent and shouldn't even be listed as felonies, and misdemeanors that have a possible sentence of more than one year which causes the lose of gun ownership for life. What part of shall not be infringed covers this?

Again, if you are a free person, then you have all, and I mean ALL of your rights! If they are a menace to society they should be locked up, for life if necessary!

No, you are are absolutely right and I should of included the word "violent", because I agree that if you pay your debt to society you are in fact free.
I was just trying to make the point that I am not for EVERYONE being able to own a gun because unfortunatley there are people in society that need to be locked up either in a jail or a mental hospital that are walking the streets.

Agreed.

 

[Xaquin44]

Why are we not banning motor vehicles?

Because you can't drive to work in a gun.

 

[edinsomd]

Because you can't drive to work in a gun.

And I can't carry a cop on my belt. I'm of two minds about open/concealed. I perfer concealed in a more urban environment so as not to frighten the rubes, but in the small towns and big sky places open carry would be fine.
Ed

 

[Xaquin44]

And I can't carry a cop on my belt. I'm of two minds about open/concealed. I perfer concealed in a more urban environment so as not to frighten the rubes, but in the small towns and big sky places open carry would be fine.
Ed

I'm not sure why people think carrying a gun will really help them.

I mean, I assume criminals don't let you know they're about to rob you right?

Most robberies (granted, not all) take place in the darker seedier more secluded areas specifically so no one else gets involved.

I mean, the odds of it actually being useful have to be astronomical.

meh

edit: or the home (where you have guns anyway)

 

[Bird Dog]

I'm not sure why people think carrying a gun will really help them.


If criminals had a shadow of a doubt that grandma was carrying a 40 cal and knew how to use it, I doubt they would mess with her.

JMHO

 

[Xaquin44]

I'm not sure why people think carrying a gun will really help them.

If criminals had a shadow of a doubt that grandma was carrying a 40 cal and knew how to use it, I doubt they would mess with her.

JMHO

Wouldn't they just wait till she had her back turned?

alternately, they could just shoot her from a ways away .... it's not like criminals are exactly honorable.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

I agree for the most part. There are some people in society who simply won't behave in a civilized manner, the ones that are not responsible should not be able to carry or own guns.

Responsible people should have the right to carry firearms as they see fit, concealed or open.

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

Tennessee is a "Shall Issue" CCW state. Tennesseeans are some of the most courteous folks around. You also don't hear a whole lot about hostage situations or citizens being robbed. Why? I believe it is due in part to "Shall Issue." Nobody knows who is carrying and who isn't. That might encourage civility, don't you think?

Maryland would be better off if it's lawmakers adopted "Shall Issue" as PA, WV, VA and DE all have. The only reason against it.....our proximity to D.C..

 

[Xaquin44]

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

Tennessee is a "Shall Issue" CCW state. Tennesseeans are some of the most courteous folks around. You also don't hear a whole lot about hostage situations or citizens being robbed. Why? I believe it is due in part to "Shall Issue." Nobody knows who is carrying and who isn't. That might encourage civility, don't you think?

Maryland would be better off if it's lawmakers adopted "Shall Issue" as PA, WV, VA and DE all have. The only reason against it.....our proximity to D.C..

Florida and Texas are shall issue states and they're (The data I found was from 2006) the second and third most violent states in the country.

(unless something drastic happened for good in 2 years, I'd wager they still are)

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

Florida and Texas are shall issue states and they're (The data I found was from 2006) the second and third most violent states in the country.

(unless something drastic happened for good in 2 years, I'd wager they still are)

Maybe Tennessee is one of the rare exceptions?

 

[Xaquin44]

Maybe Tennessee is one of the rare exceptions?

couldn't tell you hehe

I just looked for the top few states

California was the highest.

I was kind of surprised that New York wasn't number 1

/shrug

I really don't think stats have anything to do with who owns/carries guns, but with overall population. You cram so many people into one area and there will be crime no matter who has guns or doesn't.

EDIT!

whoops, I looked again and New York edged Florida -barely- making Texas #2 and Florida #4 (Illinois was #5 and Pennsylvania was #6)

 

[itsbob]

I'm not sure why people think carrying a gun will really help them.

I mean, I assume criminals don't let you know they're about to rob you right?

Most robberies (granted, not all) take place in the darker seedier more secluded areas specifically so no one else gets involved.

I mean, the odds of it actually being useful have to be astronomical.

meh

edit: or the home (where you have guns anyway)

You mean like Sean Taylor who was defending himself from armed criminals with a baseball bat, because he was not allowed to possess a firearm (even in his own HOME) for a prior possession violation?

 

[Xaquin44]

You mean like Sean Taylor who was defending himself from armed criminals with a baseball bat, because he was not allowed to possess a firearm (even in his own HOME) for a prior possession violation?

I would argue that if he was released, he should be allowed a firearm in his home, but that's a different argument.

 

[Tilted]

couldn't tell you hehe

I just looked for the top few states

California was the highest.

I was kind of surprised that New York wasn't number 1

/shrug

I really don't think stats have anything to do with who owns/carries guns, but with overall population. You cram so many people into one area and there will be crime no matter who has guns or doesn't.

EDIT!

whoops, I looked again and New York edged Florida -barely- making Texas #2 and Florida #4 (Illinois was #5 and Pennsylvania was #6)

Yeah, I'm not sure what numbers you are citing, but it looks like they are just based on total incidents and aren't weighted for population. So, they don't mean much.

Either way, of course some 'shall issue' states would be high on such a list - most states are 'shall issue'. The more telling point of the list you're using, would be that there are 3 states that aren't 'shall-issue' in the top 5, despite the fact that only 13 out of 50 states aren't 'shall-issue'. (As of 2004 - that could have changed a little, but nevertheless, I'm sure the majority of states are still 'shall-issue'.)

 

[Xaquin44]

Yeah, I'm not sure what numbers you are citing, but it looks like they are just based on total incidents and aren't weighted for population. So, they don't mean much.

Either way, of course some 'shall issue' states would be high on such a list - most states are 'shall issue'. The more telling point of the list you're using, would be that there are 3 states that aren't 'shall-issue' in the top 5, despite the fact that only 13 out of 50 states aren't 'shall-issue'. (As of 2004 - that could have changed a little, but nevertheless, I'm sure the majority of states are still 'shall-issue'.)

but if you're using 'people being able to carry guns' as the catalyst for lower crime rates, no shall issue state should be in the top 13.

 

[Tilted]

but if you're using 'people being able to carry guns' as the catalyst for lower crime rates, no shall issue state should be in the top 13.

First of all, I don't use lower crime rates as a catalyst for people being able to carry a gun - I use an individual's right to defend themselves and more importantly the Second Amendment as the reason. The Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with the need to defend oneself from other people.

Second, as I said, whatever list you are using probably doesn't mean much because it looks like it isn't weighted for state population.

Third, your statement is ridiculous on its face. The fact that a certain condition doesn't have a 100% effect in the desired direction, means that you can't use the fact that it has some effect in the desired direction to argue in favor of said condition? By that logic, almost no statistics could be used to argue one point over another. Come on now, you can do better than that. If the average per capita violent crime rates in all 'shall-issue' states is lower than the average per capita violent crime rates in non 'shall-issue' states; then, that statistic can reasonably be used to argue in favor of states being 'shall-issue'.

However, as I said, I couldn't care less what the statistics say - I don't need them to justify why individuals have or should have a certain right. Your right to smoke is not contingent on it having some tangible benefit to society at large.