I am not trying to be self-righteous, but am interested in ways to end violence and I do not think Conceal and Carry is an answer that is a good fit for our society. Though, when I read the debates, the only options have to do with guns, either restricting them for protection or making them more prominent for protection. Aren't there solutions that don't revolve around weapons? It's why I didn't put this in debate. I wanted discussion about possible alternatives to conceal and carry that we're not founded on violence and result in people choosing not to be violent rather than being forced not to be. Forcing someone to refrain from doing what they want creates resentment towards a system that making the choice yourself does not.
Sadly idealism oftentimes cannot be applied to real life. It would be wonderful if we lived in utopia where we don't have to fear for our lives and livelihood, but as far as anyone knows that is virtually impossible. Forever.
What you speak of can certainly be established through greater education and development of great understanding among people, but it takes time. A very long time. Decades.
The only possible solution you have against people who threaten violence is violence.
Do you have any reservations against people learning some sort of combat sport for self-defense?
You mean like the Westboro people and all those other people opposing same sex marriage?
Westboro, loons like Miz Tsarnaeva and other radical Islamic folk, virgins with rage, Chairwoman Harel, the neckbearded dwellers raging for more cheetos in Seattle, and other lolcows too. Course no one in their right mind would give any of these a Concealed Carry. No one would sell them a gun if we had a law on that. Oh, wait...
I believe research has shown that about 4% of society is comprised of people displaying psychopathic tendencies. If that figure is correct, it would mean that 1 in 25 people would lose no sleep after cutting your throat. You can argue about the philosophical implications of using the threat of violence as a deterrent of bad behavior, folks in my field (psychology) certainly do, but the fact of the matter is, for that 4% of society, no amount of moral reasoning is going to sway them. Then there's the other factors, such as crimes of passion committed by otherwise sane people in a state of extreme emotion. You may argue that we have no right to take the life of someone aggressing on us in such an emotional state, but in my mind, no person has any more objective right to live than any other, and, as such, I'm going to defend those I subjectively care about more, and with lethal force if absolutely necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Many thanks to ChibiSwan of The Ugly Swan for the great banner!
Quote from CherryBoom! »
It mostly consists of a napalm filled trench around my house and a stack of 1994 pornography in my basement.
Quote from HandwrittenHero »
As much as I'm against the OTT view that this card is going to solo tournaments, cure cancer and make Susan Boyle attractive I'm not really a fan of the opposing camp who think it slaughters puppies and sired Justin Bieber.
I find what you just said impolite. Would you still say such an impolite thing to me if I was armed and standing right in front of me?
If your answer is "yes" than obviously an armed society does not result in a polite society. If you said "no" then I just managed to use the threat of violence to take away your free speech rights.
What does politeness have to do with anything? What I say to you does not constitute as aggression or a threat on your way of life. It sounds like you need to read about the non-aggression principle to see where I'm coming from.
What does politeness have to do with anything? What I say to you does not constitute as aggression or a threat on your way of life. It sounds like you need to read about the non-aggression principle to see where I'm coming from.
Fear of getting shot by people who get angry over minor things.
This is totally wrong. Some science will inform you that violent crime does not depend upon concealed carry and that it can be lowered by means that have other benefits as well and also don't have the increased risk of accidents and gun theft that arming civilians does.
Never mind that humanity doesn't split down the middle between kind old schoolteachers and merciless raiders.
Then tell me why states with conceal carry have lower gun deaths and violent crime rates to states with stricter gun control laws?
I never said the population was split evenly. It only takes one person to create fear in an area.
Then tell me why states with conceal carry have lower gun deaths and violent crime rates to states with stricter gun control laws?.
It sounds like you're already hitting the NRA Kool-Aid pretty hard but the actual numbers don't support your gun-lobby talking points. You should probably read all of this at least before you comment on the issue any further. Your arguments show a lack of education on the subject.
Fear of getting shot by people who get angry over minor things.
Doesn't happen? Look up road-rage statistics.
You think a guy that would shoot someone for following them too close on the road or for not blinkering would give a **** if the law said they cant carry a gun? People who shoot people over minor things are already displaying their lack of care for law. The law says you cannot shoot someone just for being a jackass on the road. Why do you think making it illegal to have a loaded gun in the car is going to stop them?
Similarly... if your neighbor is a nut job that would come over and shoot you for having your music too loud does it really matter if legally he has to keep his gun locked up with the ammo locked in a different container? All that does is maybe make it take an extra 5 minutes before he knocks on your door and blasts a hole in you. On the other hand if he knows that it's entirely possible that you may have a loaded gun on you instead of knowing that chances are if you have a gun it is locked up in a case with the ammo also locked up he may think twice about whether or not he is prepared to get shot.
Here's the simple fact: I have the right to live and to defend myself. Cavemen threw rocks because it was the toughest weapon and they only survived by being the toughest dude on the block. Medieval age used swords...you died if you threw rocks (you dirty peasant). Now we have guns. So you bring a taser or roll over dead to defend yourself...you're still at a very critical disadvantage to survive.
I'm okay with that for you. It's your right to be weak and assume flight or rolling over dead will work. That's your risk. I'm not trying to take away your right to flop over or let the bad guys take your wife/kids/possessions away so quit bothering me about my right to be prepared to survive and protect my family.
What does politeness have to do with anything? What I say to you does not constitute as aggression or a threat on your way of life. It sounds like you need to read about the non-aggression principle to see where I'm coming from.
Considering we are discussing the statement that "An armed society is a polite society", the concept of "politeness" has everything to do with it.
I find that statement to be horribly misguided because while it sounds nice, it ignores what "politeness" really means in society. A lot of time people consider anything that is non-conformist to be rude. People who "do not know their place" are seen as not polite.
eg. Rosa Parks was rude for not moving to the back of the bus. Would she have been more 'polite' if the bus driver pointed a gun at her?
What should be advocated is "An armed society is an impolite society" because it implies that in an armed society people feel confident enough of their security to freely express opinions that might not be popular of 'acceptable'.
I think you may be taking that saying just a bit too literally...
Also, I feel that I should point this out since I don't remember anyone else doing it, but that quote is by Robert Heinlein - not Twain - and Heinlein was ****ing insane. It's best if you don't take anything that guy said too seriously.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
It sounds like you're already hitting the NRA Kool-Aid pretty hard but the actual numbers don't support your gun-lobby talking points. You should probably read all of this at least before you comment on the issue any further. Your arguments show a lack of education on the subject.
I was using Arizona (conceal carry state) vs Illinois (state with some of the strictest gun laws).
Again, as a whole conceal carry works. We are always going to find flaws in any plan or facts, anomalies in the data.
I personally live in a conceal carry state and we have one of the lowest gun deaths per capita rates. I dont find any problems with the law or carrying. I do have my permit to do so, and I do.
I think carrying a gun with you is the best self defence. Unfortunately the canadian goverment in their infinte wisdom decided self defense is an invalid reason for owning a gun. They do have concealed carry liscenses, but it's for show only. Since Ontario became a province I think only about 11 or so permits have ever been issued. Besides guns, tasers, pepper spray and knives are also banned so you're pretty much screwed if you ever get attacked here. You are allowed to have guns for hunting, collecting and shooting at a gun club, but they have to be locked up and unloaded on the way there, and you have to have a permit to transport them from your house to the club. Even in your house the gun can't ever be loaded. It's completely ridiculous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard
none
Modern UBG B/U/G control BBB MBC WUR Control WWW Prison RRR Goblins
Legacy BBB Pox UBG B/U/G Control UWU StoneBlade UW Miracle Control
You think a guy that would shoot someone for following them too close on the road or for not blinkering would give a **** if the law said they cant carry a gun? People who shoot people over minor things are already displaying their lack of care for law. The law says you cannot shoot someone just for being a jackass on the road. Why do you think making it illegal to have a loaded gun in the car is going to stop them?
You COMPLETELY missed the point.
Ordinary people who would never violate the law do insane things when they get pissed off while driving. That is the scary thing about road rage-it is completely unpredictable.
I was saying that if everyone had a gun due to conceal and carry, then it raises the possibility of what happens when those people get pissed off. I wasn't saying guns should be illegal for that reason- I was saying that you seem to ignore the fact that people are simply not rational and cannot be rational needs to be taken into consideration.
People who break and do horrible things under stressful circumstances are not always hard-wired to be insane or monstrous.
And please stop raising the same argument over and over. Why must the "if someone did something, then they would have done it regardless of X anyways!" the fall-back point? It's a boring argument that doesn't even make sense. It largely ignores human psychology for the above reasons.
Similarly... if your neighbor is a nut job that would come over and shoot you for having your music too loud does it really matter if legally he has to keep his gun locked up with the ammo locked in a different container? All that does is maybe make it take an extra 5 minutes before he knocks on your door and blasts a hole in you. On the other hand if he knows that it's entirely possible that you may have a loaded gun on you instead of knowing that chances are if you have a gun it is locked up in a case with the ammo also locked up he may think twice about whether or not he is prepared to get shot.
As I wrote above, this assumes that the person takes the time to think and is rational. If they were rational then they wouldn't have gotten angry over that in the first place.
The entire idea rests on the belief that people are rational, but they're not. Emotion exists for everyone, and crimes of passion exists for a ****ing reason.
As I wrote above, this assumes that the person takes the time to think and is rational. If they were rational then they wouldn't have gotten angry over that in the first place.
The entire idea rests on the belief that people are rational, but they're not. Emotion exists for everyone, and crimes of passion exists for a ****ing reason.
Good thing I've got a gun to protect me from all these crazy emotional trainwrecks, amirite?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
Ordinary people who would never violate the law do insane things when they get pissed off while driving. That is the scary thing about road rage-it is completely unpredictable.
I was saying that if everyone had a gun due to conceal and carry, then it raises the possibility of what happens when those people get pissed off. I wasn't saying guns should be illegal for that reason- I was saying that you seem to ignore the fact that people are simply not rational and cannot be rational needs to be taken into consideration.
People who break and do horrible things under stressful circumstances are not always hard-wired to be insane or monstrous.
And please stop raising the same argument over and over. Why must the "if someone did something, then they would have done it regardless of X anyways!" the fall-back point? It's a boring argument that doesn't even make sense. It largely ignores human psychology for the above reasons.
As I wrote above, this assumes that the person takes the time to think and is rational. If they were rational then they wouldn't have gotten angry over that in the first place.
The entire idea rests on the belief that people are rational, but they're not. Emotion exists for everyone, and crimes of passion exists for a ****ing reason.
I understand that. I did not miss the point at all. I just disagree with your solution.
You seem to think that the better option would be to lessen the damage that person can do by not letting them have a gun. I say instead lets let the victims be able to defend themselves. A pissed off road rager could run you off the road, or follow you home and beat your head in with a tire iron... making it so that person doesnt have access to a gun there doesnt help. But in some situations me having a gun to defend myself against that road rager does help.
That fact that people are not rational is why we DO need to be able to protect ourselves.
No, what you missed was that I had no solution- I was merely voicing my opinion that I think conceal and carry supporters ignore the fact that people are not rational.
I did not say that we should ban guns; I did not say that we shouldn't allow conceal and carry. I was merely stating something that I never saw properly addressed anywhere concerning this topic.
If you follow the train of thought I'm on, then maybe you might arrive at the conclusion of "let's not allow conceal and carry", or you might not. But I intentionally chose not to write a conclusion to avoid folks saying the very things you wrote...
redthirst- Eh, most people have the possibility to become said crazy trainwreck; even the most normal people you can find. Again, sort of the point of road rage.
I get the feeling that proponents of conceal and carry create this aura of "us vs them", and they can't bring themselves to consider the negative aspects of allowing everyone to be armed.
Try to think without being emotionally vested in the issue for once.
No, what you missed was that I had no solution- I was merely voicing my opinion that I think conceal and carry supporters ignore the fact that people are not rational.
This alone shows how you are misinformed about CHL owners. We COMPLETELY agree that people are not rational. Why else would we feel the need to obtain a defensive object to protect ourselves?
Sure, the bad guys MAY get guns too (but remember ~ not the felons). That's where intelligence comes into play.
Most CHL owners even without their guns tend to not get jumped like the rest of you bums who are oblivious to danger. Lots of CHL training in the course is on how to defend yourself and be aware of your surroundings. Intelligence is a tool the good guys use far more often than the bad. This, along with our "tools" is why we stand a better chance and should have the right to protect ourselves.
Point is, I am perfectly fine with others having a CHL even the irrational ones. They apparently have guns now in Texas and our crime rate is still low. Much lower than Illinois for example...
Your "thoughts" about what irrational people MAY do does not translate into crime statistics.
redthirst- Eh, most people have the possibility to become said crazy trainwreck; even the most normal people you can find. Again, sort of the point of road rage.
I get the feeling that proponents of conceal and carry create this aura of "us vs them", and they can't bring themselves to consider the negative aspects of allowing everyone to be armed.
Try to think without being emotionally vested in the issue for once.
I am thinking rationally: if someone goes nuts and attacks me then I want to have a gun.
If I go nuts and attack someone else for whatever reason - they're probably going to want to have a gun too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
No, what you missed was that I had no solution- I was merely voicing my opinion that I think conceal and carry supporters ignore the fact that people are not rational.
I think maybe the difference is the percentage of people we find to be irrational...
I know full well that there are in fact people out there that would decide to run me off the road or shoot me for this but if a dumbass is tailgating me I will slowdown to a crazy level until they back off or tap my breaks to let them know they are too damn close and they need to back off. Why do I do this even though I know there is a chance someone will kill me for it? Because the chances are low. I am not going to risk a more likely event (an animal jumping in front me me causing me to get rear ended by this douche behind me) just to not take the chance that the douche behind me gets pissy. Now if I lived in an area where people were getting shot on the road all the time I might modify that behavior because there would be evidence to suggest that the chances of me pissing someone off to irrational levels is high.
I am much more worried about running into someone that would harm me for no reason. I find my chances of being mugged to be much greater than my chances of running into someone that is emotionally charged. Those are the people I worry about.
Try to think without being emotionally vested in the issue for once.
Explain to me how someone whos way of life from a child has had guns around them, they have done classes and got permits to do things with guns legally. Then a group of people want to come along and tell you, the law abiding gun carrying person who has gone through hours of classes to get the permit, you can not carry any more, and your guns have to be turned in. Then tell me how we can not be emotionally invested in the decision.
I am 50 years old. I have been around guns since I was born. Shot my first gun at 5 years old. Have hunted and taught my children how to handle guns. Sat through classes to get licenses and permits to own, carry and use the guns I own. I have never shot another human being. Explain to me why I should give up my weapons or my legal rights to carry.
In modern times, the gun has become more like a magical safety-totem to its owners rather than the actual defensive tool that it once was. One needs not look any further than rhetoric by pro-gun politicians and groups like the NRA, who allege that "the only thing stopping Obama and his negro socialist army is a guy named Skeeter in Kentucky with a .22" - to steal a joke from Bill Maher.
How many people conceal and carry on a daily basis but have little to no training at all? How many people carry a gun but have no hand-to-hand combat or retention training in case someone snuck up on them and yanked the gun out of their hand/holster?
How many people have completely resigned from caring about politics as a whole and are instead waiting at home with a dozen guns for the "zombie apocalypse" or "SHTF" or "EOTWAWKI" or "WROL" ? How many overweight diabetics sit there and worry about a "home invasion" on a daily basis vbut **** a brick if someone mentions healthcare?
Stashing guns in every room of their trailer home, using thinly veiled racist codewords like "gang banger" to describe their daily fear of having their home brutally invaded and their entire family murdered. There's an unhealthy obsession with "criminals" and "crime" and a constant fear that the "gang bangers" get only a slap on the wrist for felonies (utter bull****) and will be back out to murder them next week. They speak as the good, Christian patriot who is a constitutional scholar, defending this Republic against the "liberal sheeple" and "obama zombies" with righteous fervor. Their beliefs are unwavering in a fundamentalist view of the constitution. Where even organizations like the FDA or NASA need to be abolished entirely.
How many people are sitting home with 40,000 rounds of ammunition and STILL scared that it's gonna "dry up" or they're gonna "run out"
There's an appeal to fear, it's basic and almost instinctual. There is a lot of psychology at work here and the consequences are dangerous to society. George W. Bush said in '04 that he'd sign an assault weapons ban if it landed on his desk. There was no massive run on guns. Ronald Reagan praised the Brady Bill. In 2008, when Obama was the likely winner, gun stores could not even keep ammunition or popular gun models in stock for hours and there were month-long backlogs. Why is that?
If you'd like to see this sort of talk, you don't have to dig very deep. You don't have to take the media's word for it and certainly don't have to listen to me. Look at your Facebook feed. I live in "liberal" NJ and I can count three people who post right-wing nutjob garbage on a daily basis. Right now I'm looking at someone calling the current government Communist because branches of the government such as the Dept. of Labor and the FDA exist. I wonder what the feed of someone in Georgia looks like?
Or better yet, just go spend an hour on a gun forum. Like ar15.com, saiga-12.com, ak47.net. Look at the type of signatures and comments you see. Look at the concerns people have when selecting a gun/ammo. Better yet, check out the politics section if you want a real eye opener. Even the typical humor section can be scary. And these are just mainstream, popular websites with strict moderators. These are not lesser-known sites. And who knows what kind of deranged, paranoid ravings can be found on the deepweb.
It's all there. Take a look, and see for yourself, and decide if you think having a society full of people like this is a problem or not.
In modern times, the gun has become more like a magical safety-totem to its owners rather than the actual defensive tool that it once was. One needs not look any further than rhetoric by pro-gun politicians and groups like the NRA, who allege that "the only thing stopping Obama and his negro socialist army is a guy named Skeeter in Kentucky with a .22" - to steal a joke from Bill Maher.
How many people conceal and carry on a daily basis but have little to no training at all? How many people carry a gun but have no hand-to-hand combat or retention training in case someone snuck up on them and yanked the gun out of their hand/holster?
How many people have completely resigned from caring about politics as a whole and are instead waiting at home with a dozen guns for the "zombie apocalypse" or "SHTF" or "EOTWAWKI" or "WROL" ? How many overweight diabetics sit there and worry about a "home invasion" on a daily basis vbut **** a brick if someone mentions healthcare?
Stashing guns in every room of their trailer home, using thinly veiled racist codewords like "gang banger" to describe their daily fear of having their home brutally invaded and their entire family murdered. There's an unhealthy obsession with "criminals" and "crime" and a constant fear that the "gang bangers" get only a slap on the wrist for felonies (utter bull****) and will be back out to murder them next week. They speak as the good, Christian patriot who is a constitutional scholar, defending this Republic against the "liberal sheeple" and "obama zombies" with righteous fervor. Their beliefs are unwavering in a fundamentalist view of the constitution. Where even organizations like the FDA or NASA need to be abolished entirely.
How many people are sitting home with 40,000 rounds of ammunition and STILL scared that it's gonna "dry up" or they're gonna "run out"
There's an appeal to fear, it's basic and almost instinctual. There is a lot of psychology at work here and the consequences are dangerous to society. George W. Bush said in '04 that he'd sign an assault weapons ban if it landed on his desk. There was no massive run on guns. Ronald Reagan praised the Brady Bill. In 2008, when Obama was the likely winner, gun stores could not even keep ammunition or popular gun models in stock for hours and there were month-long backlogs. Why is that?
If you'd like to see this sort of talk, you don't have to dig very deep. You don't have to take the media's word for it and certainly don't have to listen to me. Look at your Facebook feed. I live in "liberal" NJ and I can count three people who post right-wing nutjob garbage on a daily basis. Right now I'm looking at someone calling the current government Communist because branches of the government such as the Dept. of Labor and the FDA exist. I wonder what the feed of someone in Georgia looks like?
Or better yet, just go spend an hour on a gun forum. Like ar15.com, saiga-12.com, ak47.net. Look at the type of signatures and comments you see. Look at the concerns people have when selecting a gun/ammo. Better yet, check out the politics section if you want a real eye opener. Even the typical humor section can be scary. And these are just mainstream, popular websites with strict moderators. These are not lesser-known sites. And who knows what kind of deranged, paranoid ravings can be found on the deepweb.
It's all there. Take a look, and see for yourself, and decide if you think having a society full of people like this is a problem or not.
Did it really take you that many words and almost six paragraphs to generalize, marginalize, strawman, and ad hom pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with this new wave of ant-gun activists?
I assure you, you could have said the same thing in maybe less than 10 words.
"Pro-gun people are just heartless wackjob hillbillies!"
See, super easy and says everything you just said without all the useless fat you included, and just like everything you just said, does absolutely nothing to support the cause it attempts to support.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Did it really take you that many words and almost six paragraphs to generalize, marginalize, strawman, and ad hom pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with this new wave of ant-gun activists?
I assure you, you could have said the same thing in maybe less than 10 words.
"Pro-gun people are just heartless wackjob hillbillies!"
See, super easy and says everything you just said without all the useless fat you included, and just like everything you just said, does absolutely nothing to support the cause it attempts to support.
The funny part is, I'm a gun owner and advocate. I think Assault Weapons bans are horse ****. I just also understand that there is a very, very big problem with wackjob hillbillys that is foolish to ignore, mostly because it bleeds out into all other areas of politics.
I am a gun owner, advocate, NRA member, etc. I don't trust the government, I do believe Feinstein and Friends want to take guns away...
However, I am not a christian, not a hillbilly. I am a college grad, pro-choice, pro-LGBT marriage, pro-legal pot advocate. I did not vote for Romney, I did not vote for Obama either.
I've said many of the same things that you would hastily label as a wackjob hillbillie, yet I'm none of those things.
I happen to believe the Constitution was written for a reason, and was written very well the first time.
We have natural rights, we protected those rights by constitutional amendment.
You should not punish millions of good people for the actions of a minuscule few.
You should not write policy based on emotional appeals, no matter how tragic the derivation.
The government is full of corrupt career politicians. They should not be trusted with all the power.
I vote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sadly idealism oftentimes cannot be applied to real life. It would be wonderful if we lived in utopia where we don't have to fear for our lives and livelihood, but as far as anyone knows that is virtually impossible. Forever.
What you speak of can certainly be established through greater education and development of great understanding among people, but it takes time. A very long time. Decades.
The only possible solution you have against people who threaten violence is violence.
Do you have any reservations against people learning some sort of combat sport for self-defense?
Westboro, loons like Miz Tsarnaeva and other radical Islamic folk, virgins with rage, Chairwoman Harel, the neckbearded dwellers raging for more cheetos in Seattle, and other lolcows too. Course no one in their right mind would give any of these a Concealed Carry. No one would sell them a gun if we had a law on that. Oh, wait...
Many thanks to ChibiSwan of The Ugly Swan for the great banner!
What does politeness have to do with anything? What I say to you does not constitute as aggression or a threat on your way of life. It sounds like you need to read about the non-aggression principle to see where I'm coming from.
Fear of getting shot by people who get angry over minor things.
Doesn't happen? Look up road-rage statistics.
Then tell me why states with conceal carry have lower gun deaths and violent crime rates to states with stricter gun control laws?
I never said the population was split evenly. It only takes one person to create fear in an area.
It sounds like you're already hitting the NRA Kool-Aid pretty hard but the actual numbers don't support your gun-lobby talking points. You should probably read all of this at least before you comment on the issue any further. Your arguments show a lack of education on the subject.
You think a guy that would shoot someone for following them too close on the road or for not blinkering would give a **** if the law said they cant carry a gun? People who shoot people over minor things are already displaying their lack of care for law. The law says you cannot shoot someone just for being a jackass on the road. Why do you think making it illegal to have a loaded gun in the car is going to stop them?
Similarly... if your neighbor is a nut job that would come over and shoot you for having your music too loud does it really matter if legally he has to keep his gun locked up with the ammo locked in a different container? All that does is maybe make it take an extra 5 minutes before he knocks on your door and blasts a hole in you. On the other hand if he knows that it's entirely possible that you may have a loaded gun on you instead of knowing that chances are if you have a gun it is locked up in a case with the ammo also locked up he may think twice about whether or not he is prepared to get shot.
I'm okay with that for you. It's your right to be weak and assume flight or rolling over dead will work. That's your risk. I'm not trying to take away your right to flop over or let the bad guys take your wife/kids/possessions away so quit bothering me about my right to be prepared to survive and protect my family.
That's not even touching on the 2nd amendment...
So keep on hoping your tasers will work, the police will arrive before the ambulance, and your freedoms will remain intact. I'll keep my CHL & gun collection.
PS. Texas born & bred. Low crime, great economy, great gun laws...great state.
Considering we are discussing the statement that "An armed society is a polite society", the concept of "politeness" has everything to do with it.
I find that statement to be horribly misguided because while it sounds nice, it ignores what "politeness" really means in society. A lot of time people consider anything that is non-conformist to be rude. People who "do not know their place" are seen as not polite.
eg. Rosa Parks was rude for not moving to the back of the bus. Would she have been more 'polite' if the bus driver pointed a gun at her?
What should be advocated is "An armed society is an impolite society" because it implies that in an armed society people feel confident enough of their security to freely express opinions that might not be popular of 'acceptable'.
Also, I feel that I should point this out since I don't remember anyone else doing it, but that quote is by Robert Heinlein - not Twain - and Heinlein was ****ing insane. It's best if you don't take anything that guy said too seriously.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
I was using Arizona (conceal carry state) vs Illinois (state with some of the strictest gun laws).
Again, as a whole conceal carry works. We are always going to find flaws in any plan or facts, anomalies in the data.
I personally live in a conceal carry state and we have one of the lowest gun deaths per capita rates. I dont find any problems with the law or carrying. I do have my permit to do so, and I do.
none
Modern
UBG B/U/G control
BBB MBC
WUR Control
WWW Prison
RRR Goblins
Legacy
BBB Pox
UBG B/U/G Control
UWU StoneBlade
UW Miracle Control
You COMPLETELY missed the point.
Ordinary people who would never violate the law do insane things when they get pissed off while driving. That is the scary thing about road rage-it is completely unpredictable.
I was saying that if everyone had a gun due to conceal and carry, then it raises the possibility of what happens when those people get pissed off. I wasn't saying guns should be illegal for that reason- I was saying that you seem to ignore the fact that people are simply not rational and cannot be rational needs to be taken into consideration.
People who break and do horrible things under stressful circumstances are not always hard-wired to be insane or monstrous.
And please stop raising the same argument over and over. Why must the "if someone did something, then they would have done it regardless of X anyways!" the fall-back point? It's a boring argument that doesn't even make sense. It largely ignores human psychology for the above reasons.
As I wrote above, this assumes that the person takes the time to think and is rational. If they were rational then they wouldn't have gotten angry over that in the first place.
The entire idea rests on the belief that people are rational, but they're not. Emotion exists for everyone, and crimes of passion exists for a ****ing reason.
Good thing I've got a gun to protect me from all these crazy emotional trainwrecks, amirite?
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
I understand that. I did not miss the point at all. I just disagree with your solution.
You seem to think that the better option would be to lessen the damage that person can do by not letting them have a gun. I say instead lets let the victims be able to defend themselves. A pissed off road rager could run you off the road, or follow you home and beat your head in with a tire iron... making it so that person doesnt have access to a gun there doesnt help. But in some situations me having a gun to defend myself against that road rager does help.
That fact that people are not rational is why we DO need to be able to protect ourselves.
I did not say that we should ban guns; I did not say that we shouldn't allow conceal and carry. I was merely stating something that I never saw properly addressed anywhere concerning this topic.
If you follow the train of thought I'm on, then maybe you might arrive at the conclusion of "let's not allow conceal and carry", or you might not. But I intentionally chose not to write a conclusion to avoid folks saying the very things you wrote...
redthirst- Eh, most people have the possibility to become said crazy trainwreck; even the most normal people you can find. Again, sort of the point of road rage.
I get the feeling that proponents of conceal and carry create this aura of "us vs them", and they can't bring themselves to consider the negative aspects of allowing everyone to be armed.
Try to think without being emotionally vested in the issue for once.
This alone shows how you are misinformed about CHL owners. We COMPLETELY agree that people are not rational. Why else would we feel the need to obtain a defensive object to protect ourselves?
Sure, the bad guys MAY get guns too (but remember ~ not the felons). That's where intelligence comes into play.
Most CHL owners even without their guns tend to not get jumped like the rest of you bums who are oblivious to danger. Lots of CHL training in the course is on how to defend yourself and be aware of your surroundings. Intelligence is a tool the good guys use far more often than the bad. This, along with our "tools" is why we stand a better chance and should have the right to protect ourselves.
Point is, I am perfectly fine with others having a CHL even the irrational ones. They apparently have guns now in Texas and our crime rate is still low. Much lower than Illinois for example...
Your "thoughts" about what irrational people MAY do does not translate into crime statistics.
I am thinking rationally: if someone goes nuts and attacks me then I want to have a gun.
If I go nuts and attack someone else for whatever reason - they're probably going to want to have a gun too.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
I think maybe the difference is the percentage of people we find to be irrational...
I know full well that there are in fact people out there that would decide to run me off the road or shoot me for this but if a dumbass is tailgating me I will slowdown to a crazy level until they back off or tap my breaks to let them know they are too damn close and they need to back off. Why do I do this even though I know there is a chance someone will kill me for it? Because the chances are low. I am not going to risk a more likely event (an animal jumping in front me me causing me to get rear ended by this douche behind me) just to not take the chance that the douche behind me gets pissy. Now if I lived in an area where people were getting shot on the road all the time I might modify that behavior because there would be evidence to suggest that the chances of me pissing someone off to irrational levels is high.
I am much more worried about running into someone that would harm me for no reason. I find my chances of being mugged to be much greater than my chances of running into someone that is emotionally charged. Those are the people I worry about.
Explain to me how someone whos way of life from a child has had guns around them, they have done classes and got permits to do things with guns legally. Then a group of people want to come along and tell you, the law abiding gun carrying person who has gone through hours of classes to get the permit, you can not carry any more, and your guns have to be turned in. Then tell me how we can not be emotionally invested in the decision.
I am 50 years old. I have been around guns since I was born. Shot my first gun at 5 years old. Have hunted and taught my children how to handle guns. Sat through classes to get licenses and permits to own, carry and use the guns I own. I have never shot another human being. Explain to me why I should give up my weapons or my legal rights to carry.
How many people conceal and carry on a daily basis but have little to no training at all? How many people carry a gun but have no hand-to-hand combat or retention training in case someone snuck up on them and yanked the gun out of their hand/holster?
How many people have completely resigned from caring about politics as a whole and are instead waiting at home with a dozen guns for the "zombie apocalypse" or "SHTF" or "EOTWAWKI" or "WROL" ? How many overweight diabetics sit there and worry about a "home invasion" on a daily basis vbut **** a brick if someone mentions healthcare?
Stashing guns in every room of their trailer home, using thinly veiled racist codewords like "gang banger" to describe their daily fear of having their home brutally invaded and their entire family murdered. There's an unhealthy obsession with "criminals" and "crime" and a constant fear that the "gang bangers" get only a slap on the wrist for felonies (utter bull****) and will be back out to murder them next week. They speak as the good, Christian patriot who is a constitutional scholar, defending this Republic against the "liberal sheeple" and "obama zombies" with righteous fervor. Their beliefs are unwavering in a fundamentalist view of the constitution. Where even organizations like the FDA or NASA need to be abolished entirely.
How many people are sitting home with 40,000 rounds of ammunition and STILL scared that it's gonna "dry up" or they're gonna "run out"
There's an appeal to fear, it's basic and almost instinctual. There is a lot of psychology at work here and the consequences are dangerous to society. George W. Bush said in '04 that he'd sign an assault weapons ban if it landed on his desk. There was no massive run on guns. Ronald Reagan praised the Brady Bill. In 2008, when Obama was the likely winner, gun stores could not even keep ammunition or popular gun models in stock for hours and there were month-long backlogs. Why is that?
If you'd like to see this sort of talk, you don't have to dig very deep. You don't have to take the media's word for it and certainly don't have to listen to me. Look at your Facebook feed. I live in "liberal" NJ and I can count three people who post right-wing nutjob garbage on a daily basis. Right now I'm looking at someone calling the current government Communist because branches of the government such as the Dept. of Labor and the FDA exist. I wonder what the feed of someone in Georgia looks like?
Or better yet, just go spend an hour on a gun forum. Like ar15.com, saiga-12.com, ak47.net. Look at the type of signatures and comments you see. Look at the concerns people have when selecting a gun/ammo. Better yet, check out the politics section if you want a real eye opener. Even the typical humor section can be scary. And these are just mainstream, popular websites with strict moderators. These are not lesser-known sites. And who knows what kind of deranged, paranoid ravings can be found on the deepweb.
It's all there. Take a look, and see for yourself, and decide if you think having a society full of people like this is a problem or not.
Did it really take you that many words and almost six paragraphs to generalize, marginalize, strawman, and ad hom pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with this new wave of ant-gun activists?
I assure you, you could have said the same thing in maybe less than 10 words.
"Pro-gun people are just heartless wackjob hillbillies!"
See, super easy and says everything you just said without all the useless fat you included, and just like everything you just said, does absolutely nothing to support the cause it attempts to support.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The funny part is, I'm a gun owner and advocate. I think Assault Weapons bans are horse ****. I just also understand that there is a very, very big problem with wackjob hillbillys that is foolish to ignore, mostly because it bleeds out into all other areas of politics.
I am a gun owner, advocate, NRA member, etc. I don't trust the government, I do believe Feinstein and Friends want to take guns away...
However, I am not a christian, not a hillbilly. I am a college grad, pro-choice, pro-LGBT marriage, pro-legal pot advocate. I did not vote for Romney, I did not vote for Obama either.
I've said many of the same things that you would hastily label as a wackjob hillbillie, yet I'm none of those things.
I happen to believe the Constitution was written for a reason, and was written very well the first time.
We have natural rights, we protected those rights by constitutional amendment.
You should not punish millions of good people for the actions of a minuscule few.
You should not write policy based on emotional appeals, no matter how tragic the derivation.
The government is full of corrupt career politicians. They should not be trusted with all the power.
I vote.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein