Personal Carry

[gunslinger]

See this is exactly what i knew this thread would turn into. A debate over if you like guns and believe you have the right to defend yourself or you don't like guns and think the police will always be there to protect you.


People like me will never convince MobileTechie or people like him that they are wrong and they will never convince me I'm wrong. Its like a Muslim debating religion with a christian. You have been raised with certain laws and values and I have been raised with a different set of values. We will have to agree to disagree.


TechLady you are just flat out wrong.

 

[Xander]

With so many people talking about how their government will tyrannize them, I'm amazed they haven't moved away. Why own a gun when you should just be emigrating to another country? If your government is do distrustful, don't live under it.


Documents written by people who had been bullied in their lifetime two hundred years ago... aren't necessarily good documents to base your "rights" on now.

 

[Tekko]

With so many people talking about how their government will tyrannize them, I'm amazed they haven't moved away. Why own a gun when you should just be emigrating to another country? If your government is do distrustful, don't live under it.


Documents written by people who had been bullied in their lifetime two hundred years ago... aren't necessarily good documents to base your "rights" on now.

Not intending to argue here, just wanted to address this point of view with my own. It's a tough topic and I respect multiple viewpoints on the subject.

This is a free country. We don't trade freedom for security, unless it deliberately infringes on another's human rights. If you wish to trade freedom for security, feel free to leave.

If we FORCED intoxilocks on every vehicle so it could not be operated by an individual intoxicated over the legal limit, we would save lives and money. Why don't we? We don't trade freedom for security, unless it deliberately infringes on another's human rights.

If we FORCED speed limiters on cars so they could never go faster than 75 MPH, we would save money and lives. You say no one needs guns, I say no one needs to drive faster than 75 mph. Why don't we? We don't trade freedom for security, unless it deliberately infringes on another's human rights.

If we took away every firearm(Which is impossible anyways, look at the war on drugs), we could [Arguably] save money and lives. Why don't we?

We don't trade freedom for security, unless it deliberately infringes on another's human rights.

 

[compnet]

Taking our guns away has nothing to do with our safety or reducing crimes. It has to do with enslaving the population, taking away their rights, and taking away their freedom. Every-time in history there was gun confiscation, tyranny followed. You don't have a dictatorship when the entire populace is armed.

Well. They are already taking away our rights. The government could decide you having a gun and posting something like this on the internet makes you an "enemy combatant," and lock you away without trial.. Sounds like tyranny to me.. Sounds like we've already lost rights and freedom. And none of you gun toting red blooded americans have done anything about it. So ya, the gov't called your bluff, now what's your excuse for having a gun?

 

[parker.casey]

I'll be getting a concealed permit as soon as possible, and an arm to go with it ... Personally, I think Everyone in the US should own at least one gun. Our military likes to grab power, and if you notice the things going on in legislature recently ... your right to have a gun will soon be gone, and by then you damn well better have one.

 

[MobileTechie]

I always wonder how people arrive to a conclusion that if a country has gun restriction then most crimes are committed without a gun. Is there such a survey, asking criminals if they own a gun or not?

If the info is based on crime stat, then it's only based if the criminal was caught or if the firearm was discharge. Since a lot of crimes are not been solve, then info couldn't be that accurate.

It's self evident that most crimes in the UK are committed without a gun. I've never heard anyone ever suggest otherwise be they the police, criminals or other. What on earth leads you to believe otherwise? LOL

 

[MobileTechie]

Not intending to argue here, just wanted to address this point of view with my own. It's a tough topic and I respect multiple viewpoints on the subject.

This is a free country. We don't trade freedom for security, unless it deliberately infringes on another's human rights. If you wish to trade freedom for security, feel free to leave.

If we FORCED speed limiters on cars so they could never go faster than 75 MPH, we would save money and lives. You say no one needs guns, I say no one needs to drive faster than 75 mph. Why don't we? We don't trade freedom for security, unless it deliberately infringes on another's human rights.

I don't get your example. If you're free to do whatever unless it infringes another's rights then why can't you drive at 76mph. How is that infringing when 75 apparently isn't?

You do trade freedom for security in all sorts of areas if you think about it, even when it doesn't deliberately infringe on another's human rights.

You don't have the right to possess heroin or crack even as a single adult with no children - how does that deliberately infringe on another's human rights?

Many (most?) states fine you for not wearing a seatbelt despite nobody being involved in that at all - how does that deliberately infringe on another's human rights?

You are not allowed to even carry alcohol in the main part of a car in some parts - how does that deliberately infringe on another's human rights?

Most democracies base their legal system on the basic premise that you you can roughly do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt other people. The USA is not special like that. Older democracies than yours have been like this for 100's of years.

 

[gunslinger]

Yea....I'm pretty much done with this thread. Its just making me lose respect for fellow members because of their lack of common sense and ignorance.

 

[NETWizz]

With so many people talking about how their government will tyrannize them, I'm amazed they haven't moved away. Why own a gun when you should just be emigrating to another country? If your government is do distrustful, don't live under it.


Documents written by people who had been bullied in their lifetime two hundred years ago... aren't necessarily good documents to base your "rights" on now.

Where would I go? As much as I realize we need our guns (it is a sad reality), I realize this is NOT a kind world. Bad stuff happens every day and in the United Sates 2 million crimes are prevented every year due to guns! I know it is NOT any better if I leave the U.S.A. - Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, are even less appealing to me than the United States.

Many of you may call me a Yank and make fun of me for my attachment to my Glock and my Smith and Wesson, and I am perfectly okay with that. I genuinely feel sorry for you people in the UK... not sorry that you can't even carry a Leatherman tool but that you are conditioned to not even have a problem with that or question that the law is wrong!

Tell me: When you go to a nice restaurant and eat a beautiful 1 KG steak Medium-Rare, do they not give you a Steak Knife?

I respect that you guys may not all want to have a gun, but please don't try and take away my right to have one!

Understand, that unlike some of you, I don't need permission. I do not need a document or another man to explain to me or give me permission to defend my God-given Gift-Of-Life. How dare anybody tell me where, how, and if I have the right to defend myself. I am a free man!

 

[hondablaster]

MobileTechie is right. America is obsessed with guns and we will will do anything to rationalize keeping them.

When our founding fathers wrote about "the right to bear arms," they were referring to general defense for miltias fighting Britain, not a prescription for every man, woman, child and dog to have a killing weapon.

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights."

"The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the American War of Independence,[9] or simply the Revolutionary War to many Americans, began as a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and thirteen British colonies in North America, and ended in a global war between several European great powers."

The Revolutionary war ended about 8 years before the second amendment was adopted.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 2nd amendment was not for militias and Britain, but to protect the people from the thier own government. Which today still is relevant, considering the shape of other parts of the world and the recent attempt to sieze control of the internet. Control the media control the world

Tech Lady spoken like a true ill informed Californian. Every American should have the right to own a firearm in the saftey of thier home and be allowed to use it in the defense of self and family.

Why are we comparing the U.K. Mexico has a ban on gun ownership, we see how well that is working out.

http://davekopel.org/Espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm

 

[HFultzjr]

Well. They are already taking away our rights. The government could decide you having a gun and posting something like this on the internet makes you an "enemy combatant," and lock you away without trial.. Sounds like tyranny to me.. Sounds like we've already lost rights and freedom. And none of you gun toting red blooded americans have done anything about it. So ya, the gov't called your bluff, now what's your excuse for having a gun?

My excuse for having a gun in the above scenario is.....


Because they haven't pried it from my cold, dead hands yet!

 

[Xander]

Yea....I'm pretty much done with this thread. Its just making me lose respect for fellow members because of their lack of common sense and ignorance.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. But I wasn't going to say it because your government would try to enslave me and, armed only with a pair of mukluks, I would be helpless.

 

[HFultzjr]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. But I wasn't going to say it because your government would try to enslave me and, armed only with a pair of mukluks, I would be helpless.

I've never shot a mukluk......

Are they rimfire, centerfire or smoothbore?

Where can I get some to add to my arsenal?

Since, you've mentioned them in a pair.....are they a double barrell or over and under?

Are they available in a drilling.....say a .308 over a pair of mukluks?

 

[TechLady]

Why are we comparing the U.K. Mexico has a ban on gun ownership, we see how well that is working out.

Oh hai, I wonder where they got all those guns? You don't say?

Quoting conservative thinktank opinion articles is one reason you will never change anybody's mind. That tactic alone is a debate skills 101 fail.

I could show you facts about guns and laws and violence all over the world, and you will not see them. If it's a government report, well they are lying because they want to take your gun. If it's an independent agency, they're part of a vast liberal conspiracy. Either way, it's spitting in the wind. You are not here to have your mind changed; I know this. But you know, it's a sad state of affairs when citizens face an angry driver on the road and have to worry the hothead will settle things with a gun. Or when you drop off your kids at school and it crosses your mind that the unstable dad of that certain kid in their class--the one with all the guns and in the middle of an ugly custody dispute--might go postal. Or the fact that we even have that term "going postal," and that everybody in this country instantly knows what it means. It's just sad. If guns (like the beloved death penalty, another American favorite) are truly meant to be a deterrent to crime and problems, clearly it fails. Europe may have other problems, but I envy them for not having this one.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. But I wasn't going to say it because your government would try to enslave me and, armed only with a pair of mukluks, I would be helpless.

Ha ha ha

Also, I enjoyed the term "bullsnot" used in this thread

 

[abyssinian]

It never ceases to amaze me how little respect people have for other peoples opinions. A fact that doesn't get more clear than here in this thread. I will not debate the politics of gun ownership here, but the fact that I am a gun owner (times 5) pretty much shows where I stand.

To the OP...I used to carry a concealed handgun most everywhere. I eventually realized that it was more trouble than it was worth to me. The time and expense involved with keeping myself as proficient as possible (as ALL who carry a handgun should be doing) was simply more than I was willing to put forth. I haven't carried a handgun in almost 20 years now. I would love to be more prepared for "that day", but now I am relying on the law of averages and percentages to protect me. When I did carry a concealed handgun, it was either my Beretta 92 (Stainless 9mm), or my Smith & Wesson SP101 (5 shot .357 snub nose w/spurless hammer). I am not too impressed with the 1 shot stop ratings of anything smaller.

If I were to carry a gun to a job site, I would keep it on me and keep it to myself. A gun should NEVER be anywhere but in your possession or locked up in a safe. If you have to leave your gun in your car, than you shouldn't have it with you at all.

 

[MobileTechie]

It never ceases to amaze me how little respect people have for other peoples opinions. A fact that doesn't get more clear than here in this thread.

Really? Who is showing lack of respect here? I thought it was just an interesting debate with surprisingly little rudeness for an internet forum - a credit to the forum members if anything.

I'm not anti-gun for the sake of it. If the people of America democratically vote to own guns then they should have guns. I'm not ideologically opposed to them just pragmatic about the effects they have.
I'm really responding to comments from pro-gun posters who "feel sorry" for us in non-gun countries on the basis we are being "oppressed" despite the fact that we are also democratic but happen to choose NOT to vote to own guns.

What I'm interested in is the arguments as to why it's such a necessary or good thing in general. The arguments put forward about government tyranny or fairness and human rights don't seem to stand up to much logical scrutiny to me.

However I think these is one good reason why you might want a gun in the USA - I suspect it's far too late to get rid of them now that so many people have them. You'd really stuggle and in your case it might well end up with just the criminals having them. It's different here in the UK. We don't have them in large numbers so the average man doesn't need them. But if I lived in some parts of the USA I might well come to the opinion that if everyone has a gun then I ought to have one too.

 

[ConozoComputers]

I carry a 9mm Phillips screwdriver.

If I see trouble I just open my bag to show it off and they usually get really apologetic and back away slowly.

 

[Tekko]

I don't get your example. If you're free to do whatever unless it infringes another's rights then why can't you drive at 76mph. How is that infringing when 75 apparently isn't?

You do trade freedom for security in all sorts of areas if you think about it, even when it doesn't deliberately infringe on another's human rights.

You don't have the right to possess heroin or crack even as a single adult with no children - how does that deliberately infringe on another's human rights?

Many (most?) states fine you for not wearing a seatbelt despite nobody being involved in that at all - how does that deliberately infringe on another's human rights?

You are not allowed to even carry alcohol in the main part of a car in some parts - how does that deliberately infringe on another's human rights?

Most democracies base their legal system on the basic premise that you you can roughly do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt other people. The USA is not special like that. Older democracies than yours have been like this for 100's of years.

Most of the examples you listed are of legislation I oppose, especially our senseless drug legislation. Lots of our laws don't make sense, I'm not required to wear a helmet while riding my bike, but I am required to wear a seat belt in a car. In what world would that legislation be consistent?

Just because our freedom has been infringed in other areas, doesn't mean I want to happen again, that's not how this country was designed.

I've been held at gunpoint, I know what a bullet sounds like as it moves through the air nearly missing me. This is a topic I don't take lightly, and as I've already pointed out, according to FBI statistics less than 8% of gun crime is committed by legal, registered gun owners. Our laws are fine, we just haven't found a way to enforce them. Anyone who supports more gun control is missing the point because how would we enforce stricter laws when we can't even handle the laws we have now?

Everyone needs to stop being distracted and realize what the core issues are.

 

[Tekko]

Really? Who is showing lack of respect here? I thought it was just an interesting debate with surprisingly little rudeness for an internet forum - a credit to the forum members if anything.

I'm not anti-gun for the sake of it. If the people of America democratically vote to own guns then they should have guns. I'm not ideologically opposed to them just pragmatic about the effects they have.
I'm really responding to comments from pro-gun posters who "feel sorry" for us in non-gun countries on the basis we are being "oppressed" despite the fact that we are also democratic but happen to choose NOT to vote to own guns.

What I'm interested in is the arguments as to why it's such a necessary or good thing in general. The arguments put forward about government tyranny or fairness and human rights don't seem to stand up to much logical scrutiny to me.

However I think these is one good reason why you might want a gun in the USA - I suspect it's far too late to get rid of them now that so many people have them. You'd really stuggle and in your case it might well end up with just the criminals having them. It's different here in the UK. We don't have them in large numbers so the average man doesn't need them. But if I lived in some parts of the USA I might well come to the opinion that if everyone has a gun then I ought to have one too.

Very well said.

I don't think the UK is oppressed without guns, its a completely different situation. People want it there, and it works there. Win win.

 

[MobileTechie]

Most of the examples you listed are of legislation I oppose, especially our senseless drug legislation. Lots of our laws don't make sense, I'm not required to wear a helmet while riding my bike, but I am required to wear a seat belt in a car. In what world would that legislation be consistent?

Just because our freedom has been infringed in other areas, doesn't mean I want to happen again, that's not how this country was designed.

I've been held at gunpoint, I know what a bullet sounds like as it moves through the air nearly missing me. This is a topic I don't take lightly, and as I've already pointed out, according to FBI statistics less than 8% of gun crime is committed by legal, registered gun owners. Our laws are fine, we just haven't found a way to enforce them. Anyone who supports more gun control is missing the point because how would we enforce stricter laws when we can't even handle the laws we have now?

Everyone needs to stop being distracted and realize what the core issues are.

You made the point that your country didn't infringe upon (what you personally consider) freedoms. I was pointing out that is incorrect and that like every other country, they do. I think with good reason personally but you disagree. But I take your point that were you in charge, you wouldn't.

Where do you get this 8% figure from? I'd like to examine those stats.

Out of interest, how do you explain why the US has 40 times more gun murders, per capita, than the UK if it's not down to widespread gun ownership and the subsequent easy access to firearms?