Poll about Guns

[DukeNukeEm]

Guns do not make you more safe. If you want to collect an arsenal because it makes you feel cool that's your right, but once you bring them in public it infringes on my rights. It should be legal to own a gun, but not legal to bring it anywhere. I dont care how much of a vigilante hero you might invision yourself being.

[StrangeSox]

Guns do not make you more safe. If you want to collect an arsenal because it makes you feel cool that's your right, but once you bring them in public it infringes on my rights. It should be legal to own a gun, but not legal to bring it anywhere. I dont care how much of a vigilante hero you might invision yourself being.

 

Please cite any relevant data supporting your positions here. Empirical data shows almost universally that places with incredibly strict gun controls are much more dangerous than places with concealed or open carry. It's the "speak softly and carry a big stick" idea; criminals are less likely to mug you if there's a good chance you're carrying a gun.

 

Carrying a weapon isn't about being a "vigilante hero." That's just a typical straw man thrown about by the anti-gun crowd. Carrying a weapon is about being responsible for your own protection and well-being and having the proper tool available when needed. The police cannot always be around and are not there to protect you personally.

 

I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen -- its not because I dream of being a firefighting hero, but because I want to be prepared in case my frying pan bursts into flames. Carrying a weapon is no different, and empirical evidence clearly shows that you don't get rampant vigilantism or Wild West-style shootouts.

 

Could you also please explain how it infringes on your rights?

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen -- its not because I dream of being a firefighting hero, but because I want to be prepared in case my frying pan bursts into flames. Carrying a weapon is no different, and empirical evidence clearly shows that you don't get rampant vigilantism or Wild West-style shootouts.

Fire extinguishers rarely kill you. Or other people.

[BigSqwert]

Carrying a weapon is about being responsible for your own protection and well-being and having the proper tool available when needed. The police cannot always be around and are not there to protect you personally.

Do you live in the Congo?

[StrangeSox]

Fire extinguishers rarely kill you. Or other people.

 

Irrelevant. That analogy was about the "vigilante hero fantasy" strawman argument, not about the relative safety of guns. Yes, you occasionally get people like the guy in Texas who shot two criminals who were robbing his neighbor's house, but that's an extreme example, not the norm.

 

You know what also routinely kills people? Not being able to defend themselves.

[StrangeSox]

Do you live in the Congo?

 

No, I live in a decent suburban area and I don't have a gun.

 

Is there no threat of crime in the United States, or are police omnipotent?

[BigSqwert]

No, I live in a decent suburban area and I don't have a gun.

 

Is there no threat of crime in the United States, or are police omnipotent?

So you'd prefer everyone walk around with a gun on them?

 

And what would really happen if a guy came up to you and put a gun to your head? Would you really have time to pull your gun out and defend yourself?

[lostfan]

So you'd prefer everyone walk around with a gun on them?

 

And what would really happen if a guy came up to you and put a gun to your head? Would you really have time to pull your gun out and defend yourself?

These examples are ridiculous and extreme.

[StrangeSox]

So you'd prefer everyone walk around with a gun on them?

 

I'd prefer to allow law-abiding citizens who wish to carry, carry. This has been shown empirically to reduce crime. At the very least, it does not raise crime. So what is the problem?

 

I would disagree with forcibly arming every person (as would just about everyone else), so your question is just another straw man.

 

And what would really happen if a guy came up to you and put a gun to your head? Would you really have time to pull your gun out and defend yourself?

 

I would not try to pull my weapon in that position. You've proposed one no-win hypothetical position. Either way, gun or no gun, you're dead in that situation if the mugger chooses. Now, what if that mugger thinks twice about robbing someone because they might be carrying and the mugger might get shot, even if they do kill or wound the victim?

 

And of course this ignores countless other situations where guns are in fact used to prevent or stop crimes.

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

These examples are ridiculous and extreme.

And those are the 2 words I'd used to describe the idea of letting more people walk around carrying guns.

[StrangeSox]

And those are the 2 words I'd used to describe the idea of letting more people walk around carrying guns.

 

Please cite statistics or provide a logical argument against. Personal incredulity is not a logical argument.

 

What do you do to defend yourself if a mugger pulls a knife and the police are nowhere to be found? If someone breaks into your home while you're there?

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

And those are the 2 words I'd used to describe the idea of letting more people walk around carrying guns.

Either way, that particular argument doesn't do anything to make your point. It's like saying "you got a cat to help with your mouse problem but what are you going to do if the cat gives you rabies?"

[NorthSideSox72]

Admittedly my info comes from wikipedia (I have not read the sourced decisions), but their article clearly states that the 2nd hasn't been held as incorporated.

 

It does seem like they're saying "We haven't made it official ever, but if and when it comes down to it, we probably will."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation...s)#Amendment_II

Legal incorporation for the states means constitutional incorporation. That is to say, if its incorporated, that means that the states implicitly have to treat it as if it were constitutionally protected in its own. But, a lack of incorporation definitely does not mean the states can choose to ignore 2A. As 2A and parts of 1A represent individual rights, by nature, the states cannot specifically act in contravention of those protections without being at odds with the overarching US constitution. It is a subtle but important differentiation.

 

In other words, if the US Constitution specifies a right to individuals (not states), then the states cannot remove that right, and any restriction they place on it will be bound by federal constraints.

 

So again, the question isn't about the right applying to the states and their citizens. The question is, to what extent can the states or localities limit that right without standing athwart the legal boundary set at the federal level. Where that line is, is not black and white, and hasn't been set very clearly by legal precedent at the national level.

 

[BigSqwert]

Please cite statistics or provide a logical argument against. Personal incredulity is not a logical argument.

 

What do you do to defend yourself if a mugger pulls a knife and the police are nowhere to be found? If someone breaks into your home while you're there?

 

Those things have never happened to me at this stage of my life and I won't add extra layers of stress to my life thinking about it. I also haven't bought duct tape and saran wrap in case there's a terrorist attack but maybe I should consider it. Heck, might as well buy a parachute too in case my next flight is involved in a bird strike.

[StrangeSox]

I see, thanks for the clarification NSS. I thought I understood the incorporation business but I'm not quite there yet.

[NorthSideSox72]

I see, thanks for the clarification NSS. I thought I understood the incorporation business but I'm not quite there yet.

I probably wasn't clear with my original, overall statement. I have done some research on this, years ago, in college, but I am not truly an expert either.

 

[StrangeSox]

Those things have never happened to me at this stage of my life and I won't add extra layers of stress to my life thinking about it. I also haven't bought duct tape and saran wrap in case there's a terrorist attack but maybe I should consider it. Heck, might as well buy a parachute too in case my next flight is involved in a bird strike.

More strawmen, and I know you've made this argument in the past.

 

Gun owners do not sit about fretting over potential crimes. They aren't action-hero wannabes with itchy trigger fingers and a gun tapped under the table. These are strawmen caricatures painted by the anti-gun side. Do you take no preventative or preparatory measures in your life? Do you have life insurance, or do you not want the extra stress of worrying about your death? Do you have health insurance, or do you not want to be bothered by the stress of possibly being sick? Do you keep a fire extinguisher or smoke detectors in your house? Why so paranoid about fire?!!?!!?!

 

I'll take the lack of any relevant statistics about the dangers of concealed carry as conceding the point.

 

edit:

lostfan brings up the best point of all. I don't advocate giving everyone a gun or making everyone carry. I don't own one myself and have only ever fired a small-caliber rifle over ten years ago in Boy Scouts. My grandfather had a shotgun for hunting, but my parents have never owned a weapon. But I strongly support our ability to exercise our Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights to protect ourselves. If you choose not to, no problem!

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

Those things have never happened to me at this stage of my life and I won't add extra layers of stress to my life thinking about it. I also haven't bought duct tape and saran wrap in case there's a terrorist attack but maybe I should consider it. Heck, might as well buy a parachute too in case my next flight is involved in a bird strike.

So then don't buy a gun. Your choice. No big deal.

[BigSqwert]

More strawmen, and I know you've made this argument in the past.

 

Gun owners do not sit about fretting over potential crimes. They aren't action-hero wannabes with itchy trigger fingers and a gun tapped under the table. These are strawmen caricatures painted by the anti-gun side. Do you take no preventative or preparatory measures in your life? Do you have life insurance, or do you not want the extra stress of worrying about your death? Do you have health insurance, or do you not want to be bothered by the stress of possibly being sick? Do you keep a fire extinguisher or smoke detectors in your house? Why so paranoid about fire?!!?!!?!

 

You do not prepare for things that have already happened to you; that defeats the purpose, and even more so when the stakes can be as high as life or death.

 

I'll take the lack of any relevant statistics about the dangers of concealed carry as conceit.

I guess I don't understand what you're preparing for by carrying a gun. Do random people in your area who are not affiliated with gangs get mugged and shot at on a daily basis? Is there a very high risk that you will be mugged or shot at? Getting a gun in case one of those things were to happen to you seems like overkill.

[NorthSideSox72]

Guns do not make you more safe. If you want to collect an arsenal because it makes you feel cool that's your right, but once you bring them in public it infringes on my rights. It should be legal to own a gun, but not legal to bring it anywhere. I dont care how much of a vigilante hero you might invision yourself being.

Tell me what "right" of yours is infringed upon by the fact that someone else has a gun in public.

 

[StrangeSox]

I guess I don't understand what you're preparing for by carrying a gun. Do random people in your area who are not affiliated with gangs get mugged and shot at on a daily basis? Is there a very high risk that you will be mugged or shot at? Getting a gun in case one of those things were to happen to you seems like overkill.

 

No, I'm pretty sure the murder and crime rates in Logan Square are higher than where I live.

 

You're preparing for a worst-case scenario, and hopefully the increased likelihood of a victim carrying a weapon reduces the likelihood of an attack in the first place. How many times has my kitchen caught in fire in my entire life? Zero, but I still have a fire extinguisher, smoke alarms and home insurance in case something bad were to happen.

[lostfan]

My house got broken into a year ago and you had best believe if I had been present and armed that there would've been a couple rounds expended. I've got kids. I don't f*** around with that.

[southsider2k5]

Tell me what "right" of yours is infringed upon by the fact that someone else has a gun in public.

 

To me its like saying your right to pollute is impinged by my right to clean air.

[clyons]

I'm curious as to why you think concealed carry (or even open carry) should be totally illegal. It doesn't lead to higher gun crimes or accidents.

 

I've never been persuaded by statistical arguments in gun debates, whether used by either side. I don't think an assertion like yours can be conclusively proven or disproven.

 

My thoughts are based on a certain logic, which I freely admit is overly simplistic. If I go to a party attended by 100 people, none of whom has a gun, my chances of being shot at that party are virtually zero. I think that my chances of getting shot increase if even one person at the party has a gun, regardless of whether that person is a trained and responsible off-duty cop, or a crazed, murderous thug. My chances likely go up even more if both a cop AND a murderous thug are there and both armed. Gun supporters like to believe that the cop and the thug cancel each other out; or that if everyone of the 100 people at the party was armed, everyone would be equally safe. I personally think it would be lot more dangerous. Statistics will never convince me otherwise.

 

I realize, of course, that if society at large is the "party," I have no chance of ever attending a party without guns. I would just prefer to attend a party where there are fewer guns, not more.

[StrangeSox]

My house got broken into a year ago and you had best believe if I had been present and armed that there would've been a couple rounds expended. I've got kids. I don't f*** around with that.

 

The last thing I'd ever want to do is shoot someone. As just about anyone who's ever had to do it can tell you, it sticks with you for a long, long time. However, I hope I wouldn't hesitate for a second if they posed a threat to my loved ones or myself.