Science Right-to-carry laws make us less safe

[Jade Falcon]

My politics have absolutely nothing to do with it, so please don't even try to go there.

....where the hell did I say anything about your politics? Calm down.

I base my views on common sense

There's nothing "common sense" about gun control. Nothing. It is based on emotions, false and misleading advertisements, and uneducated and outright stupid opinions.

Beat me up all you want, statistics favor the need for stricter gun controls

No they don't. And they have been debunked hundreds of times before.

And all the NRA propaganda you choose to dig up and all the political finger pointing in the world isn't going to change that.

"NRA Propaganda"? That is the typical label of someone who has never dealt with the issue of firearms ownership personally. The typical response of someone who bases their opinions about guns and gun owners based on what some nerd on Twitter says about them.

And while we're on the issue of "opinions"...

My lifelong personal opinion (please note I said "personal opinion") is that handgun ownership is either for the perpetually fearful or for those who have low self esteem.

You should definitely hear what my personal opinions of people like you are. It would get me banned from this site.

But hey....they're just opinions....right?

21 shot last night...pretty current news whether you want to call them criminals and lump them in with the majority of criminals is up to you..I don't know any of those folks...but I know there were a lot of guns in that nightclub...and it didn't keep the peace or make anybody safer

And yet you seem pretty quick to lump a bunch of gang bangers in with the majority of gun owners in this country. Are you saying that the majority of gun owners are criminals? That is what you meant by "gun toting Americans", right?

but I know there were a lot of guns in that nightclub

Carried illegally. That's the part everyone who's against gun ownership continues to conveniently ignore. As they usually do.

If I need to explain to you the folly of that of your post, and why you cannot take a gang shooting of this nature seriously as a model of the majority of gun ownership in this country....then I'm wasting my time.

I won't ask how you know this...I sure wouldn't but your entire post was a childish insult and is full of shit....but maybe that's how you intend to talk with people...get off your anti British horse cowboy....this is an international community whether you can handle it or not..I know plenty of hunters and war vets who don't agree with gun laws as they stand....you might want to stop leaving them out in the cold because your Soldier of Fortune magazine subscription is feeding your vitriol...people are not as shallow as you need them to be bucko

Yet it's NOT full of shit. Every single post, he demonstrates a CLEAR and immature bias against anyone who's not an elitist European asshole like him. And I'll call it exactly how I see it. We are ALL sick of him on this forum, and he can fuck right off.

There. How is THAT for being blunt?

I know plenty of hunters and war vets who don't agree with gun laws as they stand

You mean someone like you? Someone who was born and raised on a farm, then went into the Military.....yet now hates the majority of those who lived that very same lifestyle? Because I'll tell you: the majority of Vets and hunters in this country are NOT Democrats or Liberals. And those are the very same people you continue to sneer at and scorn time and time again on this forum.

I've never understood that about you, river. It's utterly baffling to me. Not many people who grew up on farms and went into the military later went on to hate Republicans and gun ownership. That's truly baffling to me.

The only thing wrong with the gun laws as they stand is the belief that you can put more laws in place (which only effect the law-abiding) without addressing the very root causes of violence in this country. How fucking stupid do you have to be to fuck that up in this country?

You know who has a history of doing that when it comes to the issues of firearms? DEMOCRATS. Because they operate on emotion and cherry-picked statistics.

When you consider the fact that you are the only person responsible for protecting yourself and those that depend on you, it is foolish to be unarmed when you need to be.

There you go.

View attachment 14966

This. And they DO NOT represent the majority of gun owners int his country. They are NO friend of mine in the fight for legal firearm ownership!

When's the last time being armed saved your life?

Holy shit. See, THIS is why EVERYTHING you've said is utter bullshit. There are countless instances in this country where being armed saved a person's life. Surely even YOU can admit that. Come on River....show me that you have that much common sense. That's not an insult; I genuinely want to know if you can just admit that yes, there are times where having a firearm is actually a SMART thing.

I pers0nally know a man who used a firearm during a road rage incident many years ago. He survived (the other guy didn't), and went on to have a good family (his son went into the Navy....ahem....), and he himself went on to be a doctor. He also owns more guns than I can ever hope to have.

Guns have absolutely saved countless lives in this country. Only a fool denies this. Hell, I'm quite sure even that dictator Michael Bloomberg can admit this.

 

[MarAzul]

When's the last time being armed saved your life?

Hard to say.

 

[riverman]

You should definitely hear what my personal opinions of people like you are. It would get me banned from this site.

We've all heard this many times......you are a name caller....nobody gets banned from OT for insults and you know that

 

[Jade Falcon]

If you grew up in that neighborhood you may not have a choice

LMAO, really? Going to a concert where you KNOW there will be trouble brewing, and choosing an immature and dangerous lifestyle with firearms is absolutely a choice.

 

[riverman]

Hard to say.

Make it easier....in civilian life has being armed protected you or your dependents on a daily basis.....? Even occasionally?

 

[Jade Falcon]

We've all heard this many times......you are a name caller....nobody gets banned from OT for insults and you know that

I don't name call; I imply it. Just like you and everybody else does on this forum. Get over yourself.

Make it easier....in civilian life has being armed protected you or your dependents on a daily basis.....? Even occasionally?

So because it might not happen to him, it will never happen to anyone? Give me a break.

 

[Denny Crane]

How's that gun control working in Chicago?

/thread

 

[riverman]

LMAO, really? Going to a concert where you KNOW there will be trouble brewing, and choosing an immature and dangerous lifestyle with firearms is absolutely a choice.

I've heard enough Jade....sorry dude....good luck with all that maturity

 

[riverman]

How's that gun control working in Chicago?

/thread

Might work out better if they cleaned up the police dept there

 

[Jade Falcon]

I've heard enough Jade....sorry dude....good luck with all that maturity

By all means, if you want to discuss this topic then you come on back. But I won't stand for implied insults and bullshit theories.

Might work out better if they cleaned up the police dept there

Holy shit, something we agree on!

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

If you grew up in that neighborhood you may not have a choice

You said before that they all need to be at the library. Now they don't have a choice but to be gang bangers. Got it

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

When you consider the fact that you are the only person responsible for protecting yourself and those that depend on you, it is foolish to be unarmed when you need to be.

Yahoo!! Good to know. We don't need law enforcement OR a military. So when do I see a huge reduction in taxes so I can afford to thoroughly arm myself??????

 

[Jade Falcon]

Yahoo!! Good to know. We don't need law enforcement OR a military. So when do I see a huge reduction in taxes so I can afford to thoroughly arm myself??????

You know what they say....when the seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

8 to 14 minutes, if you live in England.

 

[riverman]

You said before that they all need to be at the library

So....you still don't have a library card? ....you keep bringing this up...just be aware that no handguns are allowed at the library

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

You take them away? They will be had other ways and likely used for violence. See Chicago.

You keep the laws in place? Some really dumb people will kill theirselves or someone else being a dumbass OR will be used for violence. See suicide, showing off, Or James Hodgkinson.
However in the reality of gun ownership this is very rare.

It's our right as Americans to have firearms, end of story. There is no perfect answer to solve violence... I guess you could say it's PART AND PARCEL of living in a country with legal gun ownership.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

So....you still don't have a library card? ....you keep bringing this up...just be aware that no handguns are allowed at the library

I just wish you'd be consistent on your inner city violence opinion. On one hand every kid there should go to the library because their schools are like this concert. Now, due to their environment they have no choice but to go to these types of concerts.

If all of the teen gangbangers go to the library I'm sure they'll turn in their guns.

This lack of logic deserves sarcasm in every way.

 

[MarAzul]

Make it easier....in civilian life has being armed protected you or your dependents on a daily basis.....? Even occasionally?

I've heard enough Jade....sorry dude....good luck with all that maturity

River, my man, you would not ask these questions if you knew how to present yourself as being armed, regardless of whether you are or not.
I don't want to school you about this, it is not my job I seriously doubt you want to know.

 

[Jade Falcon]

You take them away? They will be had other ways and likely used for violence. See Chicago.

You keep the laws in place? Some really dumb people will kill theirselves or someone else being a dumbass OR will be used for violence. See suicide, showing off, Or James Hodgkinson.
However in the reality of gun ownership this is very rare.

It's our right as Americans to have firearms, end of story. There is no perfect answer to solve violence... I guess you could say it's PART AND PARCEL of living in a country with legal gun ownership.

People don't understand that, which is why, for me, it's so utterly frustrating to discuss this topic with someone like riverman or UncleCliffy. They don't understand that criminals using Rights against us is the price we pay for Freedoms in this country.

And it's hardly limited to guns. Criminals have abused Freedom of Speech, Religious Freedoms, and many others. Yet people think that if you limit that to a select portion of the population, or ban them outright, then somehow we as a society win.

Wrong! When we limit or restrict freedoms because of criminals, nobody wins. And especially not Freedom itself.

I just wish you'd be consistent on your inner city violence opinion. On one hand every kid there should go to the library because their schools are like this concert. Now, due to their environment they have no choice but to go to these types of concerts.

If all of the teen gangbangers go to the library I'm sure they'll turn in their guns.

This lack of logic deserves sarcasm in every way.

This.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

You take them away? They will be had other ways and likely used for violence. See Chicago.

You keep the laws in place? Some really dumb people will kill theirselves or someone else being a dumbass OR will be used for violence. See suicide, showing off, Or James Hodgkinson.
However in the reality of gun ownership this is very rare.

It's our right as Americans to have firearms, end of story. There is no perfect answer to solve violence... I guess you could say it's PART AND PARCEL of living in a country with legal gun ownership.

I'm still trying to understand how the part of the 2nd Amendment that states citizens have the right to bear arms as part of "a well regulated militia" translates to unfettered (or limited restriction) gun ownership if you are not part of the aforementioned well regulated militia. But I'm sure it will be "interpreted" for me. The NRA has all the answers......

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

People don't understand that, which is why, for me, it's so utterly frustrating to discuss this topic with someone like riverman or UncleCliffy. They don't understand that criminals using Rights against us is the price we pay for Freedoms in this country.

And it's hardly limited to guns. Criminals have abused Freedom of Speech, Religious Freedoms, and many others. Yet people think that if you limit that to a select portion of the population, or ban them outright, then somehow we as a society win.

Wrong! When we limit or restrict freedoms because of criminals, nobody wins. And especially not Freedom itself.



This.

I think Mr. Patrick Henry said it best... "Give me liberty or give me death!"

Even if that was used in an entirely different context lol

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

I'm still trying to understand how the part of the 2nd Amendment that states citizens have the right to bear arms as part of "a well regulated militia" translates to unfettered (or limited restriction) gun ownership if you are not part of the aforementioned well regulated militia. But I'm sure it will be "interpreted" for me. The NRA has all the answers......

The vast majority of NRA members are responsible gun owners so I don't know why you're going after them?

 

[MarAzul]

We don't need law enforcement

That would be foolish, don't you think? However, the police are not responsible for protecting you. Ask! They may, when they can.

 

[Jade Falcon]

I'm still trying to understand how the part of the 2nd Amendment that states citizens have the right to bear arms as part of "a well regulated militia" translates to unfettered (or limited restriction) gun ownership if you are not part of the aforementioned well regulated militia. But I'm sure it will be "interpreted" for me. The NRA has all the answers......

The "Well-Regulated-Militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment was very clear 200 years ago: it meant a functioning and well-kept militia. The "militia" at the time consisted of us, the citizens of the US. It said nothing about the State or the Federal Government. It was speaking to US the individual citizens. And it simply meant that you were to keep yourself and your firearm functioning at all times to be ready to defend your hearth and homeland if necessary.

It said NOTHING about the militia being the standing army, and thus, it was not for the Federal Government or the State to regulate the militia.

That would be foolish, don't you think? However, the police are not responsible for protecting you. Ask! They may, when they can.

Correct! The Supreme Court has already found in the favor that the Police are not responsible for your safety; IE: they do not have a "Constitutional Duty to protect the Citizens of the United States."

 

[riverman]

River, my man, you would not ask these questions if you knew how to present yourself as being armed, regardless of whether you are or not.
I don't want to school you about this, it is not my job I seriously doubt you want to know.

I was robbed in Denver a block from my apartment in the 70s with 2 bags of groceries in my arms....3 kids with handguns to my head...staying calm saved my life....not a handgun. Most of the circumstances where gun violence occurs...being armed would not change a thing. Drive by shootings...etc...even cops who are armed get shot....my whole point is that carrying guns doesn't stop gun violence. I'm 63 and have never felt the need to carry a weapon around at all...and I've owned weapons...my father had 12 guns...his handguns stayed in his locker ...everybody had guns but nobody felt any need to carry them around in public at all...some folks just need to make this some kind of liberal angst but that's really not the conversation we should be having

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

The vast majority of NRA members are responsible gun owners so I don't know why you're going after them?

I agree with the law abiding part wholeheartedly. So why are they opposing those laws??? And it is the NRA (as an organization) who fights every attempt to tighten restrictions, regardless of their intent. They spend millions and millions of dollars to keep their "rights" from being "infringed". I know gun owners (and NRA members) who have no problems with the restrictions, if for no other reason than they are law abiding. From everything I've seen and read, the NRA doesn't even want to be part of the conversation except as an opponent.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I was robbed in Denver a block from my apartment in the 70s with 2 bags of groceries in my arms....3 kids with handguns to my head...staying calm saved my life....not a handgun. Most of the circumstances where gun violence occurs...being armed would not change a thing. Drive by shootings...etc...even cops who are armed get shot....my whole point is that carrying guns doesn't stop gun violence.

Anecdote, but being more aware of your surroundings is more useful than a gun.

One cop got shot at a gas pump a while back. I'm always watching the cars and the people around me when I get gas. He may have still shot me but I'd have seen it coming. Guaranteed.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

The "Well-Regulated-Militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment was very clear 200 years ago: it meant a functioning and well-kept militia. The "militia" at the time consisted of us, the citizens of the US. It said nothing about the State or the Federal Government. It was speaking to US the individual citizens. And it simply meant that you were to keep yourself and your firearm functioning at all times to be ready to defend your hearth and homeland if necessary.

It said NOTHING about the militia being the standing army, and thus, it was not for the Federal Government or the State to regulate the militia.



Correct! The Supreme Court has already found in the favor that the Police are not responsible for your safety; IE: they do not have a "Constitutional Duty to protect the Citizens of the United States."

What was clear 200 years ago is utterly murky (if not absolutely irrelevant) in the 21st century......I'm sorry you're still living in the 18th century.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

I agree with the law abiding part wholeheartedly. So why are they opposing those laws??? And it is the NRA (as an organization) who fights every attempt to tighten restrictions, regardless of their intent. They spend millions and millions of dollars to keep their "rights" from being "infringed". I know gun owners (and NRA members) who have no problems with the restrictions, if for no other reason than they are law abiding. From everything I've seen and read, the NRA doesn't even want to be part of the conversation except as an opponent.

Because they don't want more red tape and bureaucrats getting involved in gun ownership, I mean people fight for less restrictions for lots of things. For example I am a pro-marijuana advocate and I believe more states and the federal government should legalize it, why restrict our freedom?

 

[MarAzul]

I'm sure it will be "interpreted" for me

I will give it a go, even though I am not an NRA member. Not much of a joiner.

There is a long standing concept of the right of man to defend himself, with the force of arms if necessary. This was put in print in the Law of Nations which was an influential source on the founders. You have heard about, I am sure, how the founder delayed the subjects of rights in the Constitution. But they took this subject up right after completing the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights.
The 2nd Amendemt, one of these first 10. Madison included it here from the concept that, Men have the right to defend themselves with the force of arms. Well I am sure you are familiar with the legislative process and the word smithing that goes on, perhaps by folks that do not want the Right to be a right at all. So we have the language as it stands, it passed and is the law. Modifiable of course by another amendment.

 

[Jade Falcon]

I was robbed in Denver a block from my apartment in the 70s with 2 bags of groceries in my arms....3 kids with handguns to my head...staying calm saved my life....not a handgun

That worked for YOU. It doesn't work for everyone. And if you doubt that, go read about the Carr brothers.

Most of the circumstances where gun violence occurs...being armed would not change a thing.

That is false, because it does not take each individual incident into account. Yes, there are SOME times where cooperating MIGHT work.

But....do you want to trust your life to a criminal and a "maybe"? I don't.

Drive by shootings...etc...even cops who are armed get shot....my whole point is that carrying guns doesn't stop gun violence.

Nobody here is suggesting that it does. You certainly won't hear any argument from me about that! What I am arguing is that I don't trust the government enough on this issue when they tell me "you don't need a gun". They have fucked too many things up in this country for me to have any faith in them when it comes to the issue of firearm ownership.

What was clear 200 years ago is utterly murky (if not absolutely irrelevant) in the 21st century......I'm sorry you're still living in the 18th century.

You were confused about the "regulated" part, and I explained it. Just because YOU don't agree with it, doesn't make it any less relevant in the 21st Century.