What Would Happen if the Right to Bear Arms was Taken Away.

Page 5 of 8 [ 128 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

25 Apr 2011, 10:52 pm

aghogday wrote:

Given all the facts presented in this discussion. For what objective reason did people stock up on ammo when the administration changed. Why would someone believe that the government could take their guns, even if they tried? Are people really that afraid of Democrats? Is it just the Democrats or the whole government?

Yeah, I honestly think people were afraid of the stunts the Democrats would attempt to pull. As mad as people can get at Republicans, Republicans are generally against trying to take people's guns away.

aghogday wrote:

Listening to Rusty Humphries on the radio, "man up Monday", he was making fun of Democrats saying words to the effect that there were not, "real men". If so, what the heck are people afraid of; that maybe Democrats aren't real men, and somehow this phenomenon will spread into the country with Democratic control?

Uh I would actually call them Demo-rats, if that gives you the idea.

aghogday wrote:

Not to long ago another talk show radio host was talking about Obama smoking Virginia Slims on the Beach.

Okay, so what's the point of bringing that up?

aghogday wrote:

I often wondered if that's what is behind most of political impasse in the country. Seriously, deep down people may be afraid of losing the Patriarchal tradition that has historically, been a strong part of our country. Gun ownership is key to it; the ability to protect the security and liberty of one's family.

I think it is more of people are remembering why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

aghogday wrote:

Why else, would anyone be willing to die for their guns unless they thought their life or their families life could be threatened without them?

Well, it is that and they think their rights will be trampled on without their firearms.

aghogday wrote:

I have an old 28 gauge shot gun that was given to me by my great grandfather. I'm not sure but I don't think they even sale ammo for it. And I doubt it even works anymore. But, it does have sentimental value to me, and I would have a hard time parting with it.

The probably do sell ammo that is compatible with it, heck there is ammo compatible with guns from the 1700's. With some work I think that weapon could work again.

aghogday wrote:

I would imagine that's a big part of it too, most men might not want to admit that it is a part of the reason, but who wants to part with a rifle that was passed down through their grandfather, and father; I know it's a big part of it.

That may be a reason, but that isn't the only reason.

aghogday wrote:

I live in an area where hunting is the most popular recreational activity right behind fishing. People have stories about their guns, it's almost like the guns are part of the family. And in someways they are.

While that is part of it, people are beginning to realize again that the 2nd Amendment is the keystone amendment, it protects all the other amendments and gives said amendments real teeth.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

25 Apr 2011, 10:53 pm

I own a few guns. Sure I occasionally eat at burger king and outback steakhouse but I prefer duck, lamb, venison, and pork as part of the meat portion of my diet(occasionally horse or cow but horse is 250 a pop at some farms, and cows are generally expensive too, especially free-range ones), and I hunt or kill them usually using a gun.

Ive also always had a fascination with them as well. Not the power to end some ones life, but its ability to take out something from a great distance away. I also like mod weaponry with cool toys and expensive scopes on them. My scopes are always usually Leupold & Stevens because my father's worked there for 20 years building scopes so we're sort of a L&S family.

But anywho...

Forget those who are moderate and just want increased gun control (which I don't mind... I prefer a country with increased gun ownership and increased gun control)... I don't get those who shriek at horror of the USA turning into what they call a police state, and, at the same time, also advocate for the banning of all guns.

WTF?

I guess its more a Portland / San Francisco, left-coast thing. But whatever.

_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,946

25 Apr 2011, 11:15 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

aghogday wrote:

Uh I would actually call them Demo-rats, if that gives you the idea.

aghogday wrote:

Not to long ago another talk show radio host was talking about Obama smoking Virginia Slims on the Beach.

Okay, so what's the point of bringing that up?

aghogday wrote:

I think it is more of people are remembering why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

aghogday wrote:

Why else, would anyone be willing to die for their guns unless they thought their life or their families life could be threatened without them?

Well, it is that and they think their rights will be trampled on without their firearms.

aghogday wrote:

The probably do sell ammo that is compatible with it, heck there is ammo compatible with guns from the 1700's. With some work I think that weapon could work again.

aghogday wrote:

That may be a reason, but that isn't the only reason.

aghogday wrote:

While that is part of it, people are beginning to realize again that the 2nd Amendment is the keystone amendment, it protects all the other amendments and gives said amendments real teeth.

I've heard some talk about stricter gun control, but never have I heard anyone in politics mention the banning of all guns. Has any mainstream politician ever said something like this? Or, is it supposed to be somekind of conspiracy that is being kept secret from the American Public?

The point on the Virginia Slims comment was the connection with the fear of the loss of Patriarchy in the Country. There is no organized effort but many of the factors that separate the two political parties are related to it.

Seriously, though, there is no danger of losing the 2nd Ammendment. Much of the information discussed in this topic, makes it a ridiculous thought to be taken seriously, as long as we remain the USA.

You don't think it could really happen, do you?

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Apr 2011, 11:16 pm

aghogday wrote:

For what objective reason did people stock up on ammo when the administration changed.

It makes more sense if you know what was stocked up on specifically, semi-automatic rifles and their ammunition and accessories, especially magazines and folding stocks. You have to remember that Obama had previously pledged to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and that many of these items became scarce and expensive afterwards. A lot of the buying that went on wasn't so much to resist the government if it came for the guns as it was to cash in on a newly scarce commodity if new regulations were enacted, or just to insure access to particular types of guns in the event of same.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,946

25 Apr 2011, 11:26 pm

Dox47 wrote:

aghogday wrote:

For what objective reason did people stock up on ammo when the administration changed.

That part of it I understand, but there were many scare tactics in the media that led people to believe the Government was coming for their Guns. Some of the people that live in my area still believe it could happen.

Obama wasn't going to get to reauthorize the assault weapons ban on his own without a vote, but it was possible for it to happen; it becomes a serious problem when some people think the Government has got somekind of agenda against them; or the President and Democrats have more power than they do.

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

26 Apr 2011, 5:25 am

Vexcalibur wrote:

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

If more citizens were allowed to legally carry guns, some of the massacres used by anti-gun nuts as rhetorical devices could have been nipped in the bud.

Aren't guns already allowed? Or do you think that for example, teens should carry guns with them in their schools to prevent those massacres?

Hey, I don't think it is beneficial at all to ban guns, but I do think you should have a license, just like with cars. In anyway, illegalizing guns wouldn't prevent massacres but I cannot really agree with the notion that making them more easily available would help people stop massacres...

To be allowed to carry a concealed weapon one does require a permit, and in some jurisdictions those can be next to impossible to obtain no matter how justified the need. There was a woman who was at a famous massacre at a McDonald's. She was a good shot, and she testified that if she had legally been allowed to have a gun with her, she could have stopped the killer before more died. I have heard similar accounts of similar mass killings, that if someone in the crowd who knew how to use a gun had one with them, not as many people would have been killed and justice would have been swift. Columbine was a bit different, being mainly kids, but if one of the teachers had a gun...of course considering the blatant disrespect shown teachers nowadays, that might not be a good idea, lol.

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

26 Apr 2011, 5:29 am

Inuyasha wrote:

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

While I tend to vote towards the left on many issues, gun control is one where I sit on the far right.

If more citizens were allowed to legally carry guns, some of the massacres used by anti-gun nuts as rhetorical devices could have been nipped in the bud. Nowadays, with all the smart weapons, robots and lasers, having a simple firearm really doesn't pose much of a threat to the government. Even if we wanted to take the government down, it wouldn't work unless we had the military refusing to fire on their own people. So the right to bear arms as a means of keeping the government in check is pretty much bogus, in my opinion.

For defending oneself from criminals though, that's where it makes a difference. Sure you can call the police, but you will be raped or murdered before they get there. Now when toddlers get hold of parent's guns and accidentally shoot themselves, siblings, or others, that's bad. But that's why if you have guns you need to train your kids young to respect them. Back in the day, hundreds of years past, firearms were part of daily life for survival some places. You can bet that children were taught about them, and toddlers watched carefully. It is tragic whenever a kid uses a gun on purpose or accidentally to hurt or kill someone, but that's no reason to outlaw guns.

The laws suggesting that one keep one's gun locked up and the ammo locked up separately are stupid though. Do you think an intruder is going to patiently wait when you ask, "Pardon me while I unlock my gun cabinet and load my firearm?" No, it is on the parents to teach their children to not mess with guns, or if they do mess with them, how to aim and hit your target. That's my opinion FWIW.

Contrary to what the lamestream media would like people to believe Conservatives generally are not kooks. The media just likes to paint conservatives as kooks to promote their leftist agenda.

I don't see how you got that from what I wrote, or what the relevance is. From my viewpoint, in general conservatives are more likely to be kooks than liberals. Liberals tend to be better-educated and less motivated by fear, greed and religious brainwashing than conservatives are.

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

26 Apr 2011, 8:42 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

Contrary to what the lamestream media would like people to believe Conservatives generally are not kooks. The media just likes to paint conservatives as kooks to promote their leftist agenda.

I don't recall Rush Limbaugh wishing anyone's grandchildren get AIDS and die...

I don't recall Glenn Beck saying that if he saw someone have a heart attack in front of him that he would just laugh as they died.

ManBearPig
Butterfly

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 13

26 Apr 2011, 8:57 am

aghogday,

The reason people stockpiled when Obama was elected was because he had a strong history of voting anti-gun when he was a Senator and was completely for another "assault weapon ban" (scary looking semi-automatic rifle ban); plus his VP was one of the original authors of the first one back in 1994. People were not stocking up because they actually thought "the Demz r gunna git r gunz", they were stocking up because they believed there was a real chance that a ban on future sales of sem-automatic rifles was very possible. They just wanted to get stocked up now with extras; with many of those extras gaining tremendous value for resale after the ban. Luckily Obama has been smart enough to see gun control, especially any ban is a loser for Dems.

Also, this isn't about a worry on a ban on ALL guns. But the otherside loves to try to obfuscate the issue by saying things like "we aren't trying to ban ALL guns". Well, no you aren't. But you are trying to ban the most popular and commonly owned guns, not-to-mention that your definition of "assault weapon" includes almost all guns. So no, you might not be trying to ban all guns, but you are trying to ban so much that all we are left with is double barrels and bolt-action guns. Also, aghogday, the other side likes to twist definitions and pretend a ban isn't a ban. Like if they ban all future sales of certain guns (semi-auto everything), but let you keep what you already have, somehow (in their mind) that isn't really a ban. The anit-gun side is capable of doing a fit of mental gymnastics that is completely on a level of it's own.

Let me give you a few more examples of the anti-gun sides mental gymnastics:

1) When debating gun control, a pro-gun person may not use a link to the NRA, however, it is very much ok for an anti-gun person to link to the Brady Campaign.

2) If you are a gun owner that appreciates how a gun looks and you purchase your guns based on looks, that makes you evil. You aren't supposed to appreciate how a gun looks. The only reason you are against banning assault weapons is because you think they look cool and a revolver doesn't satisfy you anymore. Appreciating the looks of a gun is bad bad bad.

3) When debating gun control, any antecedotes a pro-gun person gives of self-defense uses of a gun do not show a trend that guns are good in civilian hands. However, any antecedotes an anti-gun person gives of misuses of a gun do in fact show a trend that guns are bad in civilian hands.

4) When debating gun control, any time an anti-gun person is loosing to facts, they are still in fact winning because "they are just morally right and you, the evil gun owner, are a wretched person for liking a wretched killing machine".

5) When debating gun control, often the anti-gun side will accuse the pro-gun side of not having empathy for the victims of gun violence. "Empathy" is a euphamism for "yes, I am wrong and I will disarm immediately".

6) When a pro-gun person presents an antecedote of a good defensive shoot, it still isn't a good defensive shoot in the anti-gunners mind. We should feel sorry for that guy that broke into the house at 2am, as he was just there to take a couple of stereos; who is that evil gun owner for trying stop that criminal from making the only living they can? It's just stuff. You, the gun owner, are actually worse than that person who just committed B&E for the simple fact that you own a gun.

7) Going along with #6, any and all good self-defensive shoot stories need to be ripped apart by making up facts against the person who had the audacity to defend themselves with a gun. That homeowner must have been one or some of many things: they were looking to shoot someone, they were a drug dealer, they were involved in other crimes, they should have bought a dog, they should of had an alarm system. Any or all of these factors must have been present, because we all know that there is no "good shoot".

A criminal with a gun isn't as bad as a homeowner with a gun. The reason for this is because social economical circumstances put that criminal in the position they are in, and they are just trying to survive. They can be rehabilitated. A homeowner with a gun is worse and can not be rehabilitated, because they were sick enough to actually choose to have a gun; therefore, that makes law-abidding folks with guns worse than non law-abidding folks.

I think I'll stop here, but I could go on...for a while.

Edit: Actually, let me give one more.

9) Because the 2nd Amendment does have SOME limits, that means there is no right to bear arms, as it can be limited out of existance since it can be limited in the first place.

Last edited by ManBearPig on 26 Apr 2011, 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

26 Apr 2011, 9:30 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

There was a woman who was at a famous massacre at a McDonald's. She was a good shot, and she testified that if she had legally been allowed to have a gun with her, she could have stopped the killer before more died. I have heard similar accounts of similar mass killings, that if someone in the crowd who knew how to use a gun had one with them, not as many people would have been killed and justice would have been swift.

The "justice would have been swift" part of that is a serious problem in that kind of scenario. I personally have no problem with "swift justice" (as someone might perceive things) in the form of true and actual self-defense, but then the kind of thing you have mentioned hearing about is far more like "taking the laws into one's own hands" by going far beyond permissible "citizen's arrest".

If I were on a jury hearing such a case, I would definitely sympathize ... yet I would still vote for at least some low level of manslaughter since we dare not let society return to the days of "the wild west".

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Subotai
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,036
Location: 日本

26 Apr 2011, 9:35 am

Vigilans wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

aghogday wrote:

ManBearPig wrote:

I think the ironic thing about the world some anti-gun extremists want to create, is that it would be far more violent than the one we have now. Think about it:

1) If all guns are illegal, then you have to either turn your guns in or keep them hidden forever. A lot of people would keep at least some of their guns because they value their life and the lives of their family in case of a break in, but that will now make them criminals in the eyes of the anti-gunners.

2) If all guns are illegal, you can't use your guns in self-defense. If a criminal breaks in your home, you can't hold them at gun point until the police arrive, because the police will put you in jail for life for having a gun in the first place. You also can't let the criminal go because they might tell someone about your guns and then you'd go to jail for the rest of your life. So that only leaves one option. Anyone who breaks into your home has to die and you have to dump the body Soprano's style, not-to-mention that you'd have to break another federal law by constructing illegal silencers for any guns you plan to use to defend your home from criminals, as you would want to lessen the chance of anyone hearing the shot when you defend your home. The only thing in your favor here is that you'd be harder to catch, as killing someone who randomly breaks into your house is like killing a complete stranger; which is much harder to solve than someone who kills a friend, neighbor, lover, or ex-lover.

3) So in the anti-gunner's world, they've taken people who would have otherwise gone the rest of their lives as law-abidding, and turned them into criminals over night for keeping property the anti-gunners find distasteful, turned them into law breakers for constructing illegal silencers, and turned them into premediated murderers who dump bodies in order to defend their lives and the lives of their families, all in the name of hating the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense with a firearm. Way to go anti-gunners, way to go.

Guns are a huge part of our culture. There is no chance they will be taken away, unless there was a drastic change in our country, like anarchy, or another country establishing rule over us

If another country would actually dare try, we're the most heavily armed nation in the world.

I'd like to put my rifle between her blades of glass

The US would be pwnt by Japanese ninjas. Radiated super ninjas.

ManBearPig
Butterfly

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 13

26 Apr 2011, 10:01 am

leejosepho wrote:

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

You would be wrong to. This could be numer 10 on my list of mental gymnastics. Self-defense of a person's life or another's is not "taking the law into one's own hands". Trying to pin manslaughter on the woman if she had shot back at a criminal executing people in a resturaunt is so disgusting, that there are hardly in words to describe it. That's not "taking the law into one's on hands", that's trying to stop someone from killing yourself as well as others.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,946

26 Apr 2011, 12:24 pm

ManBearPig wrote:

A criminal with a gun isn't as bad as a homeowner with a gun. The reason for this is because social economical circumstances put that criminal in the position they are in, and they are just trying to survive. They can be rehabilitated. A homeowner with a gun is worse and can not be rehabilitated, because they were sick enough to actually choose to have a gun; therefore, that makes law-abidding folks with guns worse than non law-abidding folks.

I think I'll stop here, but I could go on...for a while.

Edit: Actually, let me give one more.

9) Because the 2nd Amendment does have SOME limits, that means there is no right to bear arms, as it can be limited out of existance since it can be limited in the first place.

All good points. Thank you. Number 9, is particularly relevant in this topic.

I can understand the concern warranted by Obama and Biden's voting history. Obama's promise in his campaign was that he would support gun rights, but I guess people were afraid he wouldn't. The NRA did start a campaign to warn people of the potential. The greater potential may have been with others Democrats supporting stricter gun control and a democratically controlled congress, before they lost the 60 vote majority

The thing that concerns me is when I hear people talk about the government abusing it's power, and a need to protect themselves from the government. People get talked into these ideas from people that are alarmists that like a good drama; it keeps people listening to them.

This kind of sentiment is real, I'm sure it is a relatively small minority, but I have heard too many people in the general public say the government is their enemy and they are ready to fight it if necessary.

The way our government is structured, such fears are ridiculous in my opinion, at least in our present day, we have more to worry about the government doing nothing, than the government imposing it's will on the people without concern for the will of the people.

The government has a history of pampering more than exhibiting any abusive control on it's own people, and borrowing money as necessary to do so. It is evident from the bottom to the top. Even in the mandate, in healthcare reform, it is called a mandate, but there is no real penalty for someone that does not comply, other than the government taking it out of a refund if they are due one.

The thing that bothers me most, is when people talk about the government as somehow separate from the United States. It is a constantly changing entity that is composed of Americans and influenced my Americans. Is is a product of Americans, designed by Americans, with the good and bad that comes from every American influence that has made it what it is.

And yes, it is full of corporate influence, special interests, and everything else that makes it what it is, but all these things are part of the American way, and an inseparable part of the Captalism that most of us participate in and take advantage of as we can.

If it is somekind of dangerous monster, we are all part of that dangerous monster. This kind of thinking is protecting under free speech, but it can be dangerous, never the less, particularly when it is not objectively warranted.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,946

26 Apr 2011, 12:48 pm

ManBearPig wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

While the person could of had the best of intentions and been successful in preventing more killing, another person who is pretty good with a gun, but has nothing like the training afforded to a SWAT team, could shoot the wrong person at the wrong time and many more people could get killed.

The scenario becomes very subjective if civilians are given the opportunity to make these kind of decisions on their own in the general public to use guns against an armed individual. Is it better to have the opportunity to prevent it from getting worse, with intention or is it better to have the opportunity to make things worse with the best of intentions?

A room full of people is much different than a shooting range. Law enforcement officials receive vigorous training, taking a myriad of complex factors into consideration before they take lethal action in a scenario like this.

I don't think we want non-lawenforcement individuals making these kind of life or death judgements for the general public.

It is like the cases where the walmart employee disarmed someone in the store and was dismissed from employment for not following store policy. They happened to be successful, but the next 10 attempts might have resulted in someone's death.

Laws have to apply to those with good intentions and bad intentions, because it is the results of their actions that count most not their intentions.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

26 Apr 2011, 5:58 pm

Quote:

The scenario becomes very subjective if civilians are given the opportunity to make these kind of decisions on their own in the general public to use guns against an armed individual. Is it better to have the opportunity to prevent it from getting worse, with intention or is it better to have the opportunity to make things worse with the best of intentions?

Well, you've got a shooter killing innocents. How much worse can it get???

Quote:

A room full of people is much different than a shooting range. Law enforcement officials receive vigorous training, taking a myriad of complex factors into consideration before they take lethal action in a scenario like this.

Quote:

I don't think we want non-lawenforcement individuals making these kind of life or death judgements for the general public.

What if there is no one else? I can pretty much assure you that those members of the "public" that are being massacred would like very much for an armed citizen to intervene on their behalf.

Quote:

It is like the cases where the walmart employee disarmed someone in the store and was dismissed from employment for not following store policy. They happened to be successful, but the next 10 attempts might have resulted in someone's death.

Quote:

Laws have to apply to those with good intentions and bad intentions, because it is the results of their actions that count most not their intentions.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,946

26 Apr 2011, 8:11 pm

Raptor wrote:

Quote:

The scenario mentioned there was no SWAT team on hand to end the killing. How clear does it need to be made for some of you that the law can not be everywhere yet trouble can crop up at any time and any place???
Even if they did show up they'd likely "assess the situation" long enough for the bad guys to run out of ammo or kill themselves before they manned up and went in to do what they’re supposed to.

I'm presenting alternate results; from someone that might not be as good as they think they are with a weapon or do not have the training to assess the situation properly. Skills in shooting aren't the only skills that law enforcement receives in training that can allow them to make the right judgement in using a weapon They also may have experience in dealing with similar situations.

The original point that led to the McDonalds example was the question of whether or not if it was easier for people to carry guns; more public shootings might be prevented.

I used the SWAT as an example of skills; regardless, of if they were at the situation or not. I don't see any indication in the post of whether or not they were there, but that is not why I mentioned it. Part of their skill is assessing the situation, and a Swat Team is often successful in preventing a massacre, depending on the situation.

Now if a person has a weapon and a permit to carry it and they are successful in defending themselves against someone who is threatening to kill them in public, I'll be the first to defend them.

On the other hand, if someone posseses a weapon, it is clear they have one, there is an argument and a statement of if you don't shut up I'll shoot you and someone from across the room takes them out, or misses and takes someone else out, that is where the risk comes in from living in the wild west, and the relationship with reducing restrictions for people to have the authority to carry a concealed weapon.

For those people that are responsible with their weapons, and have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, it's not likely they would be stupid enough to do something like that.

How many heated arguments or fights might end with someone pulling their gun and shooting someone, if many people carried a gun? Humans are more likely to kill someone with a gun than if they are in a physical fight with no weapon.

The original point assumes that the laws would change to make it easier for people to carry guns legally than it is now.

I don't have a problem with someone that has a permit for a concealed weapon, as it is now; only people that are checked out to be responsible can gain such a permit.

Quote:

Well, you've got a shooter killing innocents. How much worse can it get???

I'm not talking about that specific example, I'm talking about civilians with greater access to concealed weapons using their judgement on whether or not to use a gun against an armed individual.

Just because someone is armed doesn't mean that everyone is going to get massacred; and if many people are armed to defend themselves, it becomes a matter of judgement on when to use lethal force.

Statistically, if every adult that could gain a license for a weapon could carry it as a concealed weapon, what would the result would be? How many massacres in a year would happen vs. how many heated arguments would lead to lethal force with a hand gun?

I think the gun control we have now is fine, but the fact remains, and statistics prove out more people are injured by their guns from domestic violence in the home than they are used in self defense in the home. Would this be any different on the street if there were many people carrying concealed weapons?

Quote:

Where did you get this from? Your average patrolman isn't that skilled with weapons. Training is better now than it was in the old days because of more emphasis on tactical type shooting but on the whole we're not talking about expertise. Training done at the academy or by the individual agency is budgeted by bean counters and bureaucrats that could care less about the quality of training. Some agencies pay for advanced training which is good but not all officers get to attend and not all agencies will spend the money on it. Some individuals officers take it upon themselves to hone their skills, too.
SWAT is better trained but they are usually not the first responders and have shown a reluctance to engage in the really nasty scenarios.

It's not just shooting expertise, it is the training they receive to take appropriate action when when there is a risk by an armed gunman in the public. That is the key difference. And it is not only the training they are much more likely to have had experience in similiar situations than someone carrying a gun that is not involved in law enforcement.

Quote:

I don't think we want non-lawenforcement individuals making these kind of life or death judgements for the general public.

What if there is no one else? I can pretty much assure you that those members of the "public" that are being massacred would like very much for an armed citizen to intervene on their behalf.

I agree, if someone who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, is able to correct the situation, with appropriate justification, they should receive accolades. They would be stupid not defend their life, if they have that opportunity. My issue here is what would happen if it became easier for people to get the legal authority to carry concealed weapons and the cost/benefit of loosening the restrictions.

Quote:

If the shooter came in to do some killing and said employee hadn't been successful it stands to reason that there still would have been deaths.
Businesses like that make those policies not out of concern for safety but for liability reasons. If the sh!t hits the fan they can be sued from any direction, right or wrong, including by the shooter if he is stopped by the employee and is injured. The fact that the shooter was in the wrong won't matter so much in civil court if "his rights were violated".
The only concern Wal-Mart has about you or anyone else being hurt is the company getting sued, that’s just business in the world we live in.

Walmart employees are not trained to deal with armed customers; they have procedures to contact people that are, if the situation arises. Whether or not Walmart get's sued, it's stupid for an employee to try to subdue an armed individual when they have people that are responsible to respond to the situation that are trained to deal with it.

It's the same in the general public, someone might be successful in preventing a massacre, but someone could just as easily cause a massacre by getting involved with a weapon, if they use the wrong judgement because they are not properly trained to assess the situation and make the proper judgement. I think a cost benefit analysis should be weighed before more individuals could have the opportunity to make this kind of judgement.

Quote:

Laws have to apply to those with good intentions and bad intentions, because it is the results of their actions that count most not their intentions.

There are laws, of course. The shooting must be justifiable (in defense of life and limb) and you are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your weapon. If you miss the bad guy and the bullet goes through a window and kills someone across the street it’s your ass. You (probably) won’t be charged with murder but very possibly involuntary manslaughter and/or being sued.

True, but would you feel more comfortable if the majority of people on the street had the right to carry a concealed gun. The possibility that every person that might not be having a good day that thought you looked at them the wrong way, might snap and shoot you?

Yes, it can still happen with or without a permit, but statistically I think it is more likely to happen if many people are carrying guns and the requirements to carry them aren't as strict as they currently are. I think the bottom line is the likelyhood of individual incidents like this happening vs people stopping massacres that might happen several times a year at most.

I could go on and on about the legal ramifications associated with this and this topic in general but I hope I don't have to.
This topic has come up before.

I'm not sure you understood I was responding in context to the post regarding the ability for more people to carry concealed guns to prevent massacres that led to the McDonalds example and the factors I think should be considered in a cost/benefit analysis if such a change was proposed. Sorry, if that was not clear, and hope it is clarified now if it wasn't clear before.

Page 5 of 8 [ 128 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

What Would Happen if the Right to Bear Arms was Taken Away. Post Reply New Topic

What Would Happen if the Right to Bear Arms was Taken Away.