Concealed weapons: good/bad?

[Sidoh]

A) The topic was "anything else I should point out?"
B) Thanks for the personal attack

Does that mean that you don't care if you point out irrelevant things?  It doesn't matter if my posts didn't answer the question you were asking.  They were very relevant to what you were doing.

It is stupid.  There's no point to it.

[CrAz3D]

But they were off topic (as you're making this thread) which questions their relevance.

[Sidoh]

But they were off topic (as you're making this thread) which questions their relevance.

So you don't care?  If I were writing to my senator to convince him of something, I certainly would want my argument to be cogent.  Like I've told you twice before, I wasn't trying to raise an argument with you.  I was pointing out a truth that was obvious to me.

For an argument to be cogent, each of its premises must be acceptable, relevant and provide good grounds for the conclusion.  The one I was speaking of wasn't relevant therefore didn't provide any grounds for the conclusion.

[CrAz3D]

Pointing out the obvious isn't always bad, some times people don't realize the obvious.




Can I get this split, again?

[Sidoh]

Pointing out the obvious isn't always bad, some times people don't realize the obvious.

Ugh, you don't get it, do you?

It doesn't matter if they didn't realize that.  It does not contribute to your argument at all.  Like I pointed out in one of my posts you deleted, you may as well tell them that grass is usually green or breathing is good for you.

[iago]

There are also hoops to jump through in Illinois.  Some normal people just snap.  So unless there is a way to prevent all gun possession (any gun, any where, by anyone) then preventing law abiding citizens from possessing a firearm makes them sitting ducks.

Guns do, virtually, last forever.  Any gun in existence, if maintained, will last until our grand children our dead.

Also, I believe gun crime goes immediately after gun bans, but goes up once people find new sources for guns.  Guns are ALWAYS going to be available to criminals, there are no two ways about it.

It doesn't work in a single state, obviously, because there are easy sources all around.

Guns can last a long time, but that's not the point. The majority of guns will eventually fall out of circulation, is the point. I doubt that most guns are properly maintained and whatnot, and that's kind of the point.

Your own post proved that gun crime went up immediately after. When you get into trafficking and smuggling, you suddenly exclude the vast majority of people, especially petty criminals and normal people who snap, from the equation. So it depends how you define "criminals" -- yes, organized crime and the like will still have them (and they do in my city), but the average person/criminal doesn't.

[rabbit]

CrAz3D, anywhere you said "should" automatically makes that statement a policy issue.  What you need to do (and by title and general tone of the thread), is first establish that concealed weapons are GOOD (ie: get ANYBODY to agree with you via logic, be that by statistics, research studies, etc...) and THEN to say that they SHOULD be permitted and give what you have researched thoroughly as the most likely outcome of the permittance (word?) of concealed weapons.  You're trying to convince everyone that concealed weapons need to be permitted by saying they should be and saying that they probably could have maybe made a difference, without citing any sources of any kind.  Go take a basic communications course.

[iago]

Incidentally, why do we ban harmful narcotics (heroin, meth), heavy weapons (grenades, rocket launchers), and things like that? Criminals could still get them, and they can cause harm to the general populace.

[CrAz3D]

There are also hoops to jump through in Illinois.  Some normal people just snap.  So unless there is a way to prevent all gun possession (any gun, any where, by anyone) then preventing law abiding citizens from possessing a firearm makes them sitting ducks.

Guns do, virtually, last forever.  Any gun in existence, if maintained, will last until our grand children our dead.

Also, I believe gun crime goes immediately after gun bans, but goes up once people find new sources for guns.  Guns are ALWAYS going to be available to criminals, there are no two ways about it.

It doesn't work in a single state, obviously, because there are easy sources all around.

Guns can last a long time, but that's not the point. The majority of guns will eventually fall out of circulation, is the point. I doubt that most guns are properly maintained and whatnot, and that's kind of the point.

Your own post proved that gun crime went up immediately after. When you get into trafficking and smuggling, you suddenly exclude the vast majority of people, especially petty criminals and normal people who snap, from the equation. So it depends how you define "criminals" -- yes, organized crime and the like will still have them (and they do in my city), but the average person/criminal doesn't.

You can't get any or all states to completely ban guns, so, moot point.

Well, I suppose I should've said violent street crime w/guns.  Once guns are banned gun crime is going to go up consistently every year because more and more people are going to have to turn to the black market for weapons.

[iago]

You can't get any or all states to completely ban guns, so, moot point.

Not moot point when you're talking about the morality/ethics of banning guns (which this thread is). Being difficult doesn't make it ok to not ban guns.

Well, I suppose I should've said violent street crime w/guns.  Once guns are banned gun crime is going to go up consistently every year because more and more people are going to have to turn to the black market for weapons.

Citation needed. In the only graph I've seen (the one you posted earlier), only 6 years were shown, and even before guns were banned crime had been going up. In any case, I don't think you'd be able to get a reasonable estimate without a graph of at least 20 - 50 years. As I said, it's a long-term thing, not a short term.

[CrAz3D]

It is so difficult that it as close to impossible as you can get without being impossible.  It will never ever happen and is irrelevant to any reasonable gun debate.

Indication about crimes using guns since the banning of handguns.

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

Indication that when British citizens were mostly armed, that crimes with guns were much lower than current times.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece


While this image is comedic, it is completely true.  Why doesn't person A shoot at person B?  Because person B has a gun!
Guns are NOT the problem, people are the problem, and you can't ban them (well, you could ... )

[CrAz3D]

Also, Gandhi supports arming society.
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1913

[Explicit]

1) and 3) you're missing my point. It's beginning to sound like you want to have a gun just for the reason of shooting someone rather than for said safety and protection of others. I think that for the same reasons I outlined in my previous post.

4) Shouldn't a sign prohibiting guns throw up a red flag in the individual's mind that what they are doing is wrong? How are they different from any other citizen, then, if they continue their course of action and fire at someone? You mentioned before that someone wielding a concealed weapons permit is an "above-average citizen," so provided that they received proper training, shouldn't they realize that what they are doing is wrong and against the terms of the permit, and immediately give in?

5) No one wants to be helpless, especially in a situation like that, but that's why we run should another shooting like Virginia Tech ever take place (which I pray doesn't).

1) Of course guns can cause harm.  Of course people can misuse them.  But they can also prevent harm and be used correctly.  That's why they should be allowed on campus

4) I was talking about the current situation.  There are laws against bringing guns on campuses, it hasn't stopped people.  Preventing gun possession makes sure that the innocent are the only ones unarmed.

5) In some cases you can't run.  I'm not say "go look for the guy if you're on campus with your weapon" ... it's just that there are cases, especially in the VA Tech case, where someone with a concealed weapon could've prevented/lessened the damages that the VA Tech gunman inflicted.

CrAz3D, you're bringing policy statements into what appears to be a proposition of fact.  You can't do that.

Such as?

So is it actually necessary to go all or nothing? What about a compromise?

In Canada, for example, guns aren't illegal, but they're strictly controlled. It's difficult to get a gun here, but not impossible.

From personal experience, I can say that there is very little gun crime here. I've lived in two major Canadian cities, and I can say that I've never seen a gun (although I do know people who collect them). Nor do I know anybody whose life has been affected by a gun, one way or the other. I think that what we're doing here is working, whether or not you believe it.

Also, here's some thoughts on banning guns:
1) Banning guns doesn't work so well when other countries, especially neighbouring ones, make it fairly easy to get a gun.
2) When guns are initially banned, even if there is an amnesty on turning them in, there will almost certainly be a rise in gun crimes in the short term, for the reasons that you said. However, if it's difficult to obtain them for a long period of time, I think that crime will fall. Guns don't last forever. Is a short period of more pain worth a long period of less pain? Dunno.

And incidentally, why could CrAz3d even delete posts from General? SMF permissions are so flaky..

There are also hoops to jump through in Illinois.  Some normal people just snap.  So unless there is a way to prevent all gun possession (any gun, any where, by anyone) then preventing law abiding citizens from possessing a firearm makes them sitting ducks.

Guns do, virtually, last forever.  Any gun in existence, if maintained, will last until our grand children our dead.

Also, I believe gun crime goes immediately after gun bans, but goes up once people find new sources for guns.  Guns are ALWAYS going to be available to criminals, there are no two ways about it.

Even if they were, It's rude and stupid to DELETE posts, especially when they have a good deal of meaning.

A) The topic was "anything else I should point out?"
B) Thanks for the personal attack

I'm dismissing your efforts at persuasion; you haven't constructed any logical arguments to give your side leverage, and it's clear that you are extremely biased in the matter.

I stand by my statement when I say that I think I've said enough. As of now, I do encourage you to write that letter to whoever it was that you're trying to persuade, because I know for a fact that it's going to get shot down.

My reasoning: These forums are a collective conscience, and you have yet to sway people onto your side of the case. If you can't even make your case to the people here on the forums, then I believe you stand very little chance in making your case to the person you're writing to.

I'm done with this, but I genuinely do wish you luck on your endeavor.

[CrAz3D]

That's because you aren't thinking it through.

It's not my fault your a moron

[Newby]

It's not my fault your a moron

lol @ that statement as a whole.

Way to argue like a decent person. -_-