Concealed weapons: good/bad?

[Explicit]

Since you deleted my post in the topic you created (which I can understand why), I might as well raise this up here (again):

http://dailycrazed.net/personal/saxd45.jpg

CrAz3D, why is it that you post all these links of shootings, and then go out and get a gun?

I understand that it's a right to be able to own firearms, but I don't see why the articles you've posted on in the past hasn't deterred you from getting one.

Well, aside from it being fun and me wanting to get my CHL (concealed handgun license) ... those articles only encourage me in being proactive about being safe.

Fun? I'll let that one slide.

Wouldn't not owning a gun _at all_ be an even more practical approach to being proactive about safety?

For one, you wouldn't have access to it, and neither would anyone else. Second, you wouldn't have to be proactive about safety to begin with, as the object of said activity is removed; you can't practice being safe with something you don't have access to!

Or does this just come down to you wanting to have a weapon accessible at all times, if not for safety, then at the very least, for what you said: "... fun."

You've already acknowledged this:

Someone else pointed one out to me.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

So?

[Sidoh]

Since you deleted my post in the topic you created (which I can understand why), I might as well raise this up here (again):

*sigh*.  I wish he wouldn't have deleted my posts either.  Those were good points, I thought.

[CrAz3D]

If it goes off topic again I'll just move it ... but I just wanted that thread to be on topic

[Explicit]

Since you deleted my post in the topic you created (which I can understand why), I might as well raise this up here (again):

*sigh*.  I wish he wouldn't have deleted my posts either.  Those were good points, I thought.

If it goes off topic again I'll just move it ... but I just wanted that thread to be on topic

Then do so, as it is your thread, and I can respect that. But it doesn't change the fact that I'm still waiting for your response to my post above.

How do you expect people to take you seriously when you don't even respond to valid points that are raised? I'm treating you as an equal as much as I possibly can, but you're making the process more difficult than it needs to be.

[CrAz3D]

Guns aren't dangerous, it's a tool.  That's my point, people are dangerous.  And when you limit the use of that tool to only one side of the "fight" the other side is helpless.

[Warrior]

Guns aren't dangerous, it's a tool.  That's my point, people are dangerous.  And when you limit the use of that tool to only one side of the "fight" the other side is helpless.

This is why we have law enforcement (who are armed), and the federal government providing support via things like the National Guard.

Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people. So take the fucking guns away from the people. Enough said.

[Sidoh]

Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people. So take the fucking guns away from the people. Enough said.

Hahahaha.  I was going to try to say that in a more uh... academic way, but I don't think I've seen a more eloquent wording for that statement.

[CrAz3D]

Then you only have criminals with guns.  The Brits banned handguns, what did they get?  WAY more gun crimes.  You can't prevent EVERYONE from having guns.  You can only make it more illegal for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Police can't respond as fast as an armed citizen.  An armed student could've saved lives at VA Tech or NIU.

[Sidoh]

WAY more gun crimes. 

Evidence.  The numbers I've seen suggest the opposite by a huge margin.

[Warrior]

Then you only have criminals with guns.  The Brits banned handguns, what did they get?  WAY more gun crimes.  You can't prevent EVERYONE from having guns.  You can only make it more illegal for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Police can't respond as fast as an armed citizen.  An armed student could've saved lives at VA Tech or NIU.

Same "Armed" citizen could also have been the Virginia Tech shooter.
You seem to think that upon seeing an armed man everyone will run to the closet, grab their double barreled shot gun, and blow his shit apart. Do you think people will carry it on them at all times, do you think the amount of good it may potentially do will outweigh the bad that it's doing?

It's the insane fucks who buy the guns who commit the atrocities. Look at a lot of murders, where did the shooter get the gun? They on more than a handful of occasions have traced it back to the gun store which he bought the gun in.

It's barbaric to expect citizens to arm themselves and form into an angry mob every time something happens. We have competant law enforcements, there's no need to be a call to arms.

[CrAz3D]

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page66.asp
The blue line is since they instituted a gun ban in 97

The experiences in the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers some pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet, since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp

Then you only have criminals with guns.  The Brits banned handguns, what did they get?  WAY more gun crimes.  You can't prevent EVERYONE from having guns.  You can only make it more illegal for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Police can't respond as fast as an armed citizen.  An armed student could've saved lives at VA Tech or NIU.

Same "Armed" citizen could also have been the Virginia Tech shooter.
You seem to think that upon seeing an armed man everyone will run to the closet, grab their double barreled shot gun, and blow his shit apart. Do you think people will carry it on them at all times, do you think the amount of good it may potentially do will outweigh the bad that it's doing?

It's the insane fucks who buy the guns who commit the atrocities. Look at a lot of murders, where did the shooter get the gun? They on more than a handful of occasions have traced it back to the gun store which he bought the gun in.

It's barbaric to expect citizens to arm themselves and form into an angry mob every time something happens. We have competant law enforcements, there's no need to be a call to arms.

Well, if the armed guy at VA Tech was the only guy on campus w/a concealed license and with a concealed weapon then the results wouldn't have been any different now would they?  Now if there were others with their weapon it very well could've ended better.

I'm not talking about arming MORE people, I'm talking about allowing students who are already armed to stay armed while on campus.  That is a common misconception about the SCCC movement, that we're for everyone being armed when that is simply not the case.

[Explicit]

Guns aren't dangerous, it's a tool.  That's my point, people are dangerous.  And when you limit the use of that tool to only one side of the "fight" the other side is helpless.

If you honestly believe you can divide the general populace into "good" and "bad" guys, then I think you have another thing coming.

There are serious repercussions to be considered when trying to introduce, let alone even think about allowing students to carry firearms in an academic environment. I don't feel the need to really mention the details, but one thing I'm certain of is that parents wouldn't want to entrust their children to schools where people walk around freely wielding a weapon.

Things can go wrong. What if one misfires? The safety can click out of place just as easily as it can into place. With the hustle-and-bustle of students shuffling past one another, there's bound to be accidents. You can't deny the possibility of it happening.

If you want to own and carry a firearm at your leisure, then that's fine. School is an environment for developing minds, not an environment where one should have to be paranoid all the time.

[edit] fixed typo.

[Explicit]

Coincidentally, saws and hammers are tools. People can (and do) injure themselves with those tools. If a gun is a tool, then logically, it follows that people can and probably will injure themselves with one.

Saws and hammers are really simple, too.

[CrAz3D]

Guns aren't dangerous, it's a tool.  That's my point, people are dangerous.  And when you limit the use of that tool to only one side of the "fight" the other side is helpless.

If you honestly believe you can divide the general populace into "good" and "bad" guys, then I think you have another thing coming.

There are serious repercussions to be considered when trying to introduce, let alone even think about allowing students to carry firearms in an academic environment. I don't feel the need to really mention the details, but one thing I'm certain of is that parents wouldn't want to trust their children to schools where people walk around freely wielding a weapon.

Things can go wrong. What if one misfires? The safety can click out of place just as easily as it can into place. With the hustle-and-bustle of students shuffling past one another, there's bound to be accidents. You can't deny the possibility of it happening.

If you want to own and carry a firearm at your leisure, then that's fine. School is an environment for developing minds, not an environment where one should have to be paranoid all the time.

1) We're talking good & bad people as bad-are going to murder people and good-aren't going to commit murder.  That's black and white

2) These "children" can already carry the same weapon to grocery stores, the mall, gas stations, public sidewalks, etc.  SCCC is just pushing for campus carry now, too.

3) What if a gun misfires?  Then nothing happens.  What happens if the safety is disengaged?  Then you reengage it ... there is no reason to have a round already chambered and be walking around with the weapon cocked.  The only chance of an accident like that is an EXTREMELY irresponsible person, which CHL people are not when compared to the average citizen.  CHL people are much more responsible, as Sidoh agreed (before I deleted his post in another thread )

4) What about those of us who are paranoid about being helpless because the government prevents us from protecting ourselves?

5) People with saws and hammers and guns that injure themselves/others have to be held responsible for that.  And since CHLers are less likely than the average citizen, I can see it happening much less.






Can I get this split, please?

[CrAz3D]