Like what, for instance?

I think there's a world of difference between a gun owner (hunter, hobbiest....) and someone who packs heat everywhere he/she goes.


Yes... the gun owner who "packs heat" ...I prefer to say.... exercises my God given second amendment right to protect myself from threat of bodily harm with my concealed weapon......everywhere he or she goes is informed ready to take care of themselves.


I never thought this thread would last this long or have such a well spoken  and informed group of participants. Kudo's to you all... those who carry and those who don't.

bdickens


Like what, for instance?

For instance a hunter has a gun for hunting at a certain time of year (away from society) or a hobbiest has a gun because he collects and uses them at a range to fire them (away from society).
 
Someone who carries it on his person all the time is not hunting or collecting but carrying it with the mindset that the world is basically threatening and he'll be damned if it's gonna get the best of him.   He doesn't have it locked up at home he has it on him ready to use when HE thinks he needs to.  Not a lot of room for error when talking about using a gun.   He is not out in the woods freezing waiting for deer he is on the subway next to you and hopefully not out of work or in a recent breakup. 
 
See the difference?

bdickens


So?

I guess that explains why you don't see the difference.

bdickens


Don't ever come to the US, then. 48 states allow their free citizens to carry defensive sidearms legally. You will probably die of fright never knowing whether or not the guy in line behind you is armed or not.  If you do, go to Chicago and stay there.  Handguns are illegal to own there, so you will be perfectly safe.

 
I'm from Chicago.   It's a great city.   (I didn't stay...sorry.)   Are you suggesting that the teen should have had his own hand gun to protect him?
 
Thanks for the warning on the other places.   I always do get nervous in check-out lines as it is....(Good thing I don't have a hand-gun in a check out line.)
 
Free citizens = being able to carry a deadly weapon to protect yourself from some other guy who has a deadly weapon?  Interesting lingo "defensive firearms" .  Defensive from what????  From another 'defensive firearm'!
 
 
I would think "free" meant never having to worry about protecting yourself.
 
 

bdickens


Maybe it is a good thing you don't want to carry a handgun.  It is very common for anti-gun people to have projection issues.

I don't have any such problems. I'm fairly patient in check out lines. I'm fairly patient with people who cut me off in traffic. I do my best not to be rude and to give others the benefit of the doubt. I do my best not to let other's rudeness get to me.
 
But I'm sure as hell not going to get beaten to death with a board. "Defensive sidearm" means just that: defensive.
 
And yes, being legally armed is the mark of a truly free citizen.  If you  "think "free" meant never having to worry about protecting yourself" you are living in a delusional fantasy land.  There is violence. There has always been violence. There will always be violence. No amount of wishing will make the world different. 

I'm so glad to hear you give others the benefit of the doubt (today).   Now i can relax.
 
So, Mr.Dickens, you are suggesting that high school kids carry their own hand gun too?   Then they WON'T get beaten to death....nope....they'll blow each others brains out and anyone else within range.   How comforting this 'freedom' is.
 
I'm not deluded about violence.  Lots has happened in my life.   If you think that because you pack heat you're free of violence I'll have to shift the delusion to you.
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. 
If someone is out to get you and they know you're packing heat do you think that will stop them?
No.  In fact you pose far more of a threat to them.  You'll just get it when you least expect it.
 
 
I know there's lots of violence out there but I feel safer with the odds then giving every other human a gun.  
For the record:  The cause of violence is NOT because everyone is not armed with a deadly weapon.
The cause of violence is because we're a race of messed up insecure egos.

I never said weapons are not the cause of violence.   I said the cause of violence is NOT because we aren't all armed....meaning if we all had guns violence wouldn't go away...it would greatly increase.  
 
"It is exactly because "we're a race of messed up insecure egos" that some people choose to prepare themselves instead of wishing it would all go away."

"Race" as in all inclusive.   no one's exempt ... 
I'm not wishing the Human race would go away....just slow down 

Like I said, a delusional fantasy world.


Now I'm confused. So guns are the cause of violence? Is that why yout utopian  Chicago and DC with their handgun bans are the most peaceful cities in the US?
 
A firearm is only a tool. 
 
Remember:
 
"To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities. Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle "gives claws to the weak.""
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

You see the video from Chicago? Is that poor kid any less dead because he was beaten to death with boards rather that shot?

The common train of though by most people who don't like or own guns, is that if we simply get rid of all guns, the violence level will go down. This is pure fantasy....living in a dream world..... can't we all just get along type of thinking.  Unfortunately, this is not reality, and simply doesn't work.

Having and carrying a gun is a detriment to crime.... the criminal has to think twice before committing his crime...after all, if he picks the wrong person..... one who is armed..... his day could go badly.

In Florida, which I believe was one of the first states that allowed concealed handguns by adults over the age of 21 with a clean criminal history, the anti-gun lobby here in the USA predicted bloodshed in the streets over minor traffic accidents and other small things. Despite their strong objections to allowing citizens to carry handguns, the law was passed. Amazingly to them ( the anti-gun crowd), what they predicted did NOT happen, as a matter of fact, crime rates for serious crime actually started to fall. Other states followed, and the same results..... the "old west" didn't happen and crime fell.

John Lott Jr did extensive scholarly research on the results of the gun laws that were passed. His research yielded a book called "More Guns, Less Crime" which is a good read on this subject.
His web site: http://www.johnlott.org/ 

Looking at the Bill of Rights and the Amendments to the Constitution..... the Supreme court has confirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right. They have also confirmed that the outright gun ban laws of the big liberal dominated cities like DC..... whose gun ban was just deemed to be unconstitutional and reversed, and of course the other cities like Chicago, NYC, et al...are all unconstitutional and they are ALL being challenged in legal suits right now and will soon be overturned. Soon the citizens in those cities will have the right to defend themselves.

Of course, in this country as in all countries, self defense against bad men and evil men has always been a concern. However, the second amendment is not a right given to US citizens simply as a way to allow citizens to defend themselves against men. It is given to allow American citizens as a whole and as individuals to protect ourselves against a government that would become tyrannical. The constitution as a document, does not allow government power.... it limits government power. And in the case of the second amendment, it limits the government's ability to disarm the US citizens. Government elected officials who are passing and trying to pass laws that limit or prohibit a citizen who is not a convicted felon, from owning and carrying a lawful gun are clearly violating the constitution and the resultant law is an unconstitutional law, and as time goes by this is being shown to be the case, as we just saw in Washington DC's gun ban being overturned at the supreme court.

From the time concealed permits were first issued to now...... the number of law abiding citizens who have used their handgun in an unlawful manner are so few in number...the percentages are less than a fraction of one percent of all the CCP holders. You have a better chance to be shot by a policeman who has a negligent discharge of his weapon than to be shot by a CCP holder.

And yes.... you are right.... guns do not cause violence. People kill people. They don't need a gun, they'll use a knife, a baseball bat, a tire iron, a rope, an ice pick, a screwdriver, an automobile, a 2 by 4, a hammer, poison, and bare hands.

The problem we have now, more than ever is a society, and individuals that have no conscience. And that goes back to the breakdown of the family unit, and a lack of moral standards...which becomes a topic for a whole 'nother thread.....

No.
 
BTW, editing your post to change the content after someone replies is disingenuous  at best.
 
No one believes that all human beings are capable of controlling their violent instincts. It is precicely that reason why some choose to weight the odds in their favor.

bdickens
 
BTW, editing your post to change the content after someone replies is disingenuous  at best.

And you added that to your post...when?

I'm just playin with you man. Please don't get mad. After all, you're the one with a gun in your hand.

As I said before, I don't go for red herrings.

For example, I ask: "Isn't an armed man capable of more violence than an unarmed man?"
And you answer: "Derrion Albert wasn't shot."

Red herrings are diversions to avoid the original point.

I'm not trying to change your mind or even prove you wrong. I just noticed in the past few pages that you don't understand the basic argument against you, so I was trying to make you understand it.

As you said, the violent nature of human beings will exist no matter what. We agree on that.

But the sticking point is that you won't admit that a gun can magnify the violent potential of a human being.

Once you accept that point, THEN we can go about discussing the best way to counter that person's violent potential--whether it's by carrying a bigger gun, or by taking his gun awau. There's logic to both arguments, but we haven't reached that point yet.

You really think an unarmed man can do as much damage as a man with a gun?

I ask: "Isn't an armed man capable of more violence than an unarmed man?"

To the first question......Absolutely..... and more.

To the second question...NO.

Without a gun...if one plans to kill someone, or a group of people, one must be creative.  Using that rational..... the shooter with a gun is limited to the number of bullets in the gun....assuming all are lethal hits. An unarmed man with a creative...albiet evil  imagination can kill many more.

Witness:

Tim McVey... no guns involved there..... 168 killed and over 680 injured... and not one gun involved in the crime.

New York City 9-11-2001  .... over 3000 people killed..... thousands more injured.  Again, no guns involved. They did use a handful of box cutters..... and airplanes..... again evil minds came up with a creative way to kill thousands.  Were it not for the heroic actions of the first responders, perhaps up to 50,000 people would have died that day...and not one was killed by a gun.

And I don't have statistics (though I'm sure some of you do) but my guess is that drinking and driving - or just drinking for that matter - kills a lot more people annually than guns do (though I might be wrong) and I sure as hell don't want anyone to ban beer!

I would agree with that statement. I don't have any numbers on that, so I can't say for sure but it does seem reasonable.

The point is.... guns do contribute to the death rate. however that percentage...when compared to all causes of death are very small, and when you filter that gun number for accidental shootings as opposed to criminal use of a gun, the number becomes even smaller. So if the gun ban group was actually concerned about saving the lives of people.... they would ban cars, cigarettes, beer, electricity, gasoline, kitchen knives, baseball bats, rope, and water. All of these things individually cause more deaths than accidental shootings.... so lets get serious and start banning the real causes of unintentional deaths. The entire gun control issue is about government power and control of the people who, if disarmed, are powerless to stop the encroachment of government.

If you don't believe me, simply stop and have a look at the countries that have banned guns from the citizens of that country. Their liberty and freedom have been curtailed, and the level of safety of the people has not increased to compensate.

Someone said: Those who are willing to give up liberty and freedom for the sake of security and peace.... deserve neither, and usually don't get them.

A gun, more than anything else in the hands of a free man represents liberty and freedom in so many ways.

One of the things that helped our service men in WW1 & WW2 was the fact that most knew how to shoot, and shoot well before they joined up and found themselves in combat. Read the story of Sgt Alvin York: http://homeofthebravejour...ter-american-war-hero/