Science Right-to-carry laws make us less safe

[MarAzul]

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

>>> This has never happened to me.

I'm 63 and have never felt the need to carry a weapon around at all

>>> Then I don't think you should carry. But I hope you don't mind if I do, when I think it is appropriate, Not when you do, but when I do.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

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?

I appreciate your reasoned and reasonable response. I too believe strongly in states rights. But life and the world today are so very different than they were almost 300 years ago. Mankind (despite massive evidence otherwise) IS capable of evolving. I'd even have no problem with each state determining it's own position on gun ownership and leaving the federal government out of it completely. If someone does not agree with the gun ownership laws of the state in which they reside, then they are free to move to a state with more agreeable laws. But it's obvious that some sort of control or increased oversight is critical.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

I appreciate your reasoned and reasonable response. I too believe strongly in states rights. But life and the world today are so very different than they were almost 300 years ago. Mankind (despite massive evidence otherwise) IS capable of evolving. I'd even have no problem with each state determining it's own position on gun ownership and leaving the federal government out of it completely. If someone does not agree with the gun ownership laws of the state in which they reside, then they are free to move to a state with more agreeable laws. But it's obvious that some sort of control or increased oversight is critical.

I agree to an extent with states deciding guns, it should be based on counties for vs counties against. It isn't fair for the big cities of states to make decisions for the entire state.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

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



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.



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.



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.

Ummmm.........your "explanation" of "regulated" is nothing more than your opinion. That doesn't make it fact, it only makes it your opinion. And that is all I have been expressing on my part.....

 

[Jade Falcon]

I agree with the law abiding part wholeheartedly. So why are they opposing those laws???

Because when something violent happens to you and you need a gun, the person who obeys that law is the victim. The perpetrator doesn't care about laws, and he doesn't care about you.

And it is the NRA (as an organization) who fights every attempt to tighten restrictions, regardless of their intent.

Because restrictions don't work. This has been demonstrated time and time again in places like California, Chicago, New York, Jersey, Baltimore, and DC. They only make it more difficult for the law-abiding to abide by the law.

I know gun owners (and NRA members) who have no problems with the restrictions, if for no other reason than they are law abiding

Don't confuse "obeying the law" with "I agree with restrictions". I know numerous NRA members on another forum....all of them obey the law, even if they vehemently disagree with it.

From everything I've seen and read, the NRA doesn't even want to be part of the conversation except as an opponent.

Well....maybe...just maybe.....if Democrats would stop pushing bullshit like "10 round capacities" and "Assault Rifle bans", among other stupid pointless "feel good" bullshit....then they would stop fighting.

They only fight because there's a fight. And I, having studied the cases that the ILA takes on, am glad that they fight for our Rights.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Ummmm.........your "explanation" of "regulated" is nothing more than your opinion. That doesn't make it fact, it only makes it your opinion. And that is all I have been expressing on my part.....

If you want to call the study of many scholars "an opinion", then you go right ahead. But at least that "opinion" has weight and merit.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I agree to an extent with states deciding guns, it should be based on counties for vs counties against. It isn't fair for the big cities of states to make decisions for the entire state.

Boy howdy do I agree with you on that. And I'm a moderate (though haters love to put the liberal tag on me) from the Portland metro area. But then, that topic is a whole 'nother YUGE (and separate) thread. Another antiquated "system" or concept from another era in need of modernization.....

 

[MarAzul]

It isn't fair for the big cities of states to make decisions for the entire state.

Isn't that the truth.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Isn't that the truth.

I never thought I would agree with UncleCliffy about something.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

If you want to call the study of many scholars "an opinion", then you go right ahead. But at least that "opinion" has weight and merit.

I suspect most of the "opinions" posted in this forum are based on "scholarly" studies and related factual information. One only has to read Denny's posts to see that. And as Denny is fond of pointing out, just because it's printed doesn't make it so. Funny how many opinions you trash as fake news or bullshit when they don't agree with your views. But hey, welcome to Ripcitytwo.......

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

I never thought I would agree with UncleCliffy about something.

I find men will agree on lots of things besides politics... like pussy, porn, and grilling.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I find men will agree on lots of things besides politics... like pussy, porn, and grilling.

Throw in some top shelf weed and we have a party!

 

[Jade Falcon]

I suspect most of the "opinions" posted in this forum are based on "scholarly" studies and related factual information. One only has to read Denny's posts to see that. And as Denny is fond of pointing out, just because it's printed doesn't make it so. Funny how many opinions you trash as fake news or bullshit when they don't agree with your views. But hey, welcome to Ripcitytwo.......

Alright. I can agree with that to a certain extent. The scholars I was referring to have spent their entire lives studying the topics of Firearms and Firearm Law....but okay, you make a point.

But I have a couple of questions:

1) why does such a scholar not have as much merit as someone quoted in, say, a Huffington Post article? What I mean is, why should I trust someone at Stanford, who did some 3rd-party "study", instead of someone like Alan Korwin or Massad Ayoob?

2) If we agree that these are "opinions", then why does the opinions of anti-gun folk and/or politicians who agree on gun control allow them to have a say over MY beliefs on what is best for ME?

I find men will agree on lots of things besides politics... like pussy, porn, and grilling.

Amen.

 

[MarAzul]

You are responsible for defending yourself. No where in this country, are the police responsible for defending you.
Depending where you live, the police may defend you if someone is on duty near enough to do it, if it is not too difficult.
If you live in rural Oregon, tomorrow maybe as soon as you can expect an officer to show up, if he knows you need him.

Perhaps you should thank Madison for reading Vattel's message. It is a logical concept. Emotion may chip away, wishing for no need, but logical men will not give up their right to defend their life from the fools that would take it for giggles.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

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

I grew up in the country, surrounded by farmers. I saw shotgun cartridges scattered all over the woods when I would go for a walk. People loved shooting clay pigeons, and I've got no problem with that. But nobody needs assault weapons. Nobody needs handguns. Every study shows they make you less safe. People in this country just have a weird fetish about them.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Alright. I can agree with that to a certain extent. The scholars I was referring to have spent their entire lives studying the topics of Firearms and Firearm Law....but okay, you make a point.

But I have a couple of questions:

1) why does such a scholar not have as much merit as someone quoted in, say, a Huffington Post article? What I mean is, why should I trust someone at Stanford, who did some 3rd-party "study", instead of someone like Alan Korwin or Massad Ayoob?

2) If we agree that these are "opinions", then why does the opinions of anti-gun folk and/or politicians who agree on gun control allow them to have a say over MY beliefs on what is best for ME?



Amen.

1) I read the HuffPost pretty much for the same reason I read Fox News. They're entertaining and I find the truth usually lies (no pun intended) somewhere in the middle. My opinions on gun control has been formed over the course of years, just from watching the nightly news, regardless of who is peddling it. Gum violence is endemic and that is a true fact.

2) Welcome to the world of the governed. Why are motorcyclists (for instance) required to wear helmets? Why is marijuana illegal in the majority of states? Why is abortion legal? The general answer is public safety. Because our government chose to govern (ostensibly) in our best interests. Well meaning politicians (if such creatures exist) want gun restrictions for public safety reasons. It doesn't make their laws "right" or acceptable for everyone, it only makes them the law.

 

[Jade Falcon]

I grew up in the country, surrounded by farmers. I saw shotgun cartridges scattered all over the woods when I would go for a walk. People loved shooting clay pigeons, and I've got no problem with that. But nobody needs assault weapons. Nobody needs handguns. Every study shows they make you less safe. People in this country just have a weird fetish about them.

We don't live in a country of "needs and requirements". We live in a country of "wants and desires".

I don't NEED a Corvette with 650 horsepower. I WANT a Corvette with 650 horsepower. And I should be able to have one if I can afford it.

Likewise, if a person can afford an AR-15 or handgun, and they can pass the required background checks, then they should be able to have the firearms they want. It is not up to you to decide for them.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

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.

I have always been one to believe that I prefer to be able to return fire from a superior position

 

[MarAzul]

Every study shows they make you less safe.

Did you ever study your TP? Before and after?

 

[MarAzul]

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

Yes, I think this has more to do with why I could say, "This never happened to me". Whether you are armed or not. The perception of might be armed is another.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Yes, I think this has more to do with why I could say, "This never happened to me". Whether you are armed or not. The perception of might be armed is another.

so..is the perception created by the NRA sticker? The Smith & Wesson T Shirt? Or the "I fucking dare you" look in your eye?

 

[Jade Falcon]

My opinions on gun control has been formed over the course of years, just from watching the nightly news, regardless of who is peddling it.

My opinions on Gun Rights have also been partially formed from watching the news (the other half from studying texts and books about the issue). And seeing as how dangerous this country can be, and how incompetent and petty our government is, I find it baffling that anyone would want to put "public safety" in their hands; especially the issue of gun ownership.

I don't personally understand why the law-abiding looks at how violent our society can be, and then thinks "yes, that's right....I'll trust the government to know what's best for me, and if they say I shouldn't defend myself with a gun, then by golly I'm going to believe them!"

Gum violence is endemic and that is a true fact.

I don't believe this, and I'll tell you why. And it's very simple.

We have over 300 million guns in this country; almost enough to arm every person. 180 million out of about 330 million people total in this country own the majority of those guns.

If we had an "epidemic", I have to believe it would look FAR worse than this. What's the number that many gun control advocates throw around? About 29,000 deaths a year from firearms? I don't believe or agree with that number, but for the sake of argument, I'll play with it.....

When you take away self-defense cases, criminals using guns illegally (which is the majority of that number), and cases where no shots were fired (such as simply drawing a gun), then the number becomes quite a bit smaller. The number that is most concerning left over is about 1,000 or so people across the US each year committing suicide with a firearm. And while that is very tragic, that is hardly at the levels of an "epidemic".

And if lawful, law-abiding gun owners and legally-held firearms were the issue....well, as a fellow gun owner once said to me...."trust us Liberals, you would know about it."

The guns have always been here. Something else has changed. We as a society are far more stressed out and emotional, and it's showing by the fact that our mental health system cannot keep up with the sheer amount of new cases each year that occur. Furthermore, there is a higher population of poor people who do not have access to proper education, and that greatly contributes to the rise of criminal activity in this country.

The effort to fix "the epidemic of gun violence" in this country would be better spent towards improving mental health access, education, and jobs. Fix those three issues, and I promise you in a couple of decades that gun violence will be an afterthought.

As for #2....they may be well-meaning politicians, but that doesn't make them informed or educated on certain subjects.

 

[MarAzul]

so..is the perception created by the NRA sticker? The Smith & Wesson T Shirt? Or the "I fucking dare you" look in your eye?

Don't belong to the NRA. Don't like bumper sicker T shirts. I warmly greet every friendly soul I meet.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Some day, You may catch on to why I prefer to arm my companions when I want too.

 

[MarAzul]

Walter Huston was a hoot! Bogart was pretty good too.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Walter Huston was a hoot! Bogart was pretty good too.

LMFAO, at first I thought you said "Walter Huston was hot!" I was like "oh....okay, well.....right...."

 

[MarAzul]

LMFAO, at first I thought you said "Walter Huston was hot!" I was like "oh....okay, well.....right...."

Careful son! I can be riled.

 

[riverman]

Then I don't think you should carry. But I hope you don't mind if I do, when I think it is appropriate

I honestly don't want to see an armed adult attending my grandchild's school recital ever or a Blazer's game.

 

[MarAzul]

I honestly don't want to see an armed adult attending my grandchild's school recital ever or a Blazer's game.

Well river, I guess that is your position. It appears you think guns are evil. Where as I think men are the only thing that can be evil.
A gun alone will not harm your grandchild, a gun in the possession of a non evil man will not harm your grandchild.
An evil man may harm your grandchild with or without a gun, unless you are personally ready to prevent it.

 

[MARIS61]

I'm moving to CA in a couple days. I'm leaving most of my firearms in WA but I need to look into the laws. I think there is a 10 round limit/magazine so I'll probably just bring my carry 40 which only holds 6 rounds, and perhaps my shotgun.

Anyone with CA experience, speak up, I don't want to do anything illegal. I will travel with firearms unloaded and in a locked container. Anything else?

Silly.

The right to carry at all times is inalienable and absolute for all persons born on this earth.

The Bill of Rights recognizes this and through the 2nd Amendment further forbids our government from enacting any laws of any kind that could affect our rights.