Concealed carry weapon discussion

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Tom
I lived in Utah before and after the liberalized CCW law; as a practical matter it made absolutely no difference in crime.

Utah has low crime rates because it is more homogeneous than most places in the USA, has a strong tradition of family structure, a very well organized dominant church that is very involved in all aspects of society, restricts alcohol to a great degree, has only two cities, one of which is barely big enough to be called a city, and mostly is rural and small communities, which have low rates of crime almost everywhere.

And Vermont also has no large cities, I no less about it but I suspect it also has less diversity in population, which means one less thing to fight about, is fairly rural, has a lower rate of poverty than most states.

So saying CCW has much if anything to do with crime in those states is a stretch.

No state saw a rise in crime following the liberalization of CCW laws. In fact, all saw marked drops in violent crime. The cries from the gun grabbers that we would return to the "wild west" with CCW permit holders "shooting it out on the streets" never materialized. And it's obvious why we never saw that: Crime isn't committed by law abiding gun owners. A simple logic gun grabbers just cannot seem to grasp.

Conversely, all cities who banned guns in one way or another saw no correlative drop in violent crimes.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: randay

its quite obvious from the replies in this thread. its thier constitutional right to kill you if you threaten thier life or the life of someone else, apparently.

You're damn right it is. The right to self defense is essential to liberty.

I will not simply lay down and die, or stand idly by as others get killed. Anyone who would is a disgusting coward.

Lets forget that self defense is a basic human right. I also probably wouldn't just sit there, even if I wasn't armed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Amused
Don't like feeling safe? Utah has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. (5th from the lowest)

Wanna know the only state in the nation where CCW is allowed without permit by any law abiding citizen? Vermont. Now guess which state has the lowest violent crime rate in the nation? Vermont.

In fact, ALL of the lowest five states in violent crime have very liberal CCW laws. The top 5 all are extremely restrictive.

What does this mean to you?

Text

Am I really safer when violent crime is reduced but death by firearms is increased? Would I rather be threatened with death, or shot to death? I don't know.

If you are less likely to be a victim of a VIOLENT crime, you are less likely to be shot.

And note those are death rates, not murder rates... so they include suicide. Why not dig up the murder by firearm rate so you can at least be relevant?

I dont see how its any less relevant than your figures. Violent crime is not the only type of crime, it also doesnt always end in death. Violent crime also includes crimes commited with or without weapons. And I don't see how suicide by firearm is not relevant, a gun is a gun, and the point here is that the more guns there are, the more gun related deaths there will be, period.

Also would you mind providing some linkage for your numbers? I live in Hawaii and firearms are very restricted here, and I am pretty sure Hawaii is not in the top 5.

Using suicide statistics is absurd. Suicide will occur no matter what tool they have available to commit it. Some of the countries with the highest suicide rates have nearly complete bans on guns. All a gun ban will do is make a suicidal person find another way. Finally, suicide is not a "violent crime" that threatens you, or others. Using accidental deaths is also absurd.

You need to use violent crime rates. Very easy to find on the web if you have any ability to find relevant, valid stats.

Google (and a little logic) is your friend.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You're a limpwristed socialist.

Wrong on both counts, but I suppose anyone with an opposing viewpoint on guns falls into this category for you?

This is what is so beautiful about ATOT... quite simply you get flamed for voicing your opinion on something. IMHO the "limpwristed" guy is the one packing heat, not the 6'2" 220 lb. hockey player, but I could be wrong.

I'm not trolling - I stated my viewpoint, plain and simple. Guns are retarded and carrying a concealed weapon doubly so unless you're a cop or soldier or what-have-you. I know you guys can't handle hearing an opposing point of view without taking a personal shot at me (none of you know me - not even in the e-sense - which is the beauty of that), so go ahead, flame away. I won't be posting in here for at least a few days, so you have time to think up some real entertaining ones 🙂 Enjoy!

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You're a limpwristed socialist.

Wrong on both counts, but I suppose anyone with an opposing viewpoint on guns falls into this category for you?

This is what is so beautiful about ATOT... quite simply you get flamed for voicing your opinion on something. IMHO the "limpwristed" guy is the one packing heat, not the 6'2" 220 lb. hockey player, but I could be wrong.

I'm not trolling - I stated my viewpoint, plain and simple. Guns are retarded and carrying a concealed weapon doubly so unless you're a cop or soldier or what-have-you. I know you guys can't handle hearing an opposing point of view without taking a personal shot at me (none of you know me - not even in the e-sense - which is the beauty of that), so go ahead, flame away. I won't be posting in here for at least a few days, so you have time to think up some real entertaining ones 🙂 Enjoy!

I'm just curious, why should only cops and soldiers carry guns? And "guns are retarded" is a fairly generic statement. When in history haven't ordinary people carried modern weapons?

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You're a limpwristed socialist.

Wrong on both counts, but I suppose anyone with an opposing viewpoint on guns falls into this category for you?

This is what is so beautiful about ATOT... quite simply you get flamed for voicing your opinion on something. IMHO the "limpwristed" guy is the one packing heat, not the 6'2" 220 lb. hockey player, but I could be wrong.

I'm not trolling - I stated my viewpoint, plain and simple. Guns are retarded and carrying a concealed weapon doubly so unless you're a cop or soldier or what-have-you. I know you guys can't handle hearing an opposing point of view without taking a personal shot at me (none of you know me - not even in the e-sense - which is the beauty of that), so go ahead, flame away. I won't be posting in here for at least a few days, so you have time to think up some real entertaining ones 🙂 Enjoy!

I'm just curious, why should only cops and soldiers carry guns? And "guns are retarded" is a fairly generic statement. When in history haven't ordinary people carried modern weapons?

You know - it might be a little too idealistic to think about a time in the future when no one will need to carry weapons, but I do hope that time does come. The fact that some segments of authority still carry guns is simply a sign of the times. The fact that civilians carry weapons is also a sign of the times and IMHO not a good one. Insofar as history goes, if we are to use history as a template for the future than not only are we in trouble but we are showing our inability to evolve and learn from past mistakes. By this I mean, sure - people have carried weapons - but does that mean it is right to always have to do so on a go-forward basis? Surely we can envision a time in the future where technology allows us the option to subdue perpetrators and criminals without killing or maiming them. The caveman carried a big club, the modern man carries a gun. The question is - has modern man developed a different state of mind? I would propose that their intents are one and the same. I see no evolution having taken place except in the tools which they carry.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You're a limpwristed socialist.

Wrong on both counts, but I suppose anyone with an opposing viewpoint on guns falls into this category for you?

This is what is so beautiful about ATOT... quite simply you get flamed for voicing your opinion on something. IMHO the "limpwristed" guy is the one packing heat, not the 6'2" 220 lb. hockey player, but I could be wrong.

I'm not trolling - I stated my viewpoint, plain and simple. Guns are retarded and carrying a concealed weapon doubly so unless you're a cop or soldier or what-have-you. I know you guys can't handle hearing an opposing point of view without taking a personal shot at me (none of you know me - not even in the e-sense - which is the beauty of that), so go ahead, flame away. I won't be posting in here for at least a few days, so you have time to think up some real entertaining ones 🙂 Enjoy!

Maybe it you would have just said this the first time instead of "guns are gay" you would have gotten a little more respect.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You're a limpwristed socialist.

Wrong on both counts, but I suppose anyone with an opposing viewpoint on guns falls into this category for you?

This is what is so beautiful about ATOT... quite simply you get flamed for voicing your opinion on something. IMHO the "limpwristed" guy is the one packing heat, not the 6'2" 220 lb. hockey player, but I could be wrong.

I'm not trolling - I stated my viewpoint, plain and simple. Guns are retarded and carrying a concealed weapon doubly so unless you're a cop or soldier or what-have-you. I know you guys can't handle hearing an opposing point of view without taking a personal shot at me (none of you know me - not even in the e-sense - which is the beauty of that), so go ahead, flame away. I won't be posting in here for at least a few days, so you have time to think up some real entertaining ones 🙂 Enjoy!

I'm just curious, why should only cops and soldiers carry guns? And "guns are retarded" is a fairly generic statement. When in history haven't ordinary people carried modern weapons?

You know - it might be a little too idealistic to think about a time in the future when no one will need to carry weapons, but I do hope that time does come. The fact that some segments of authority still carry guns is simply a sign of the times. The fact that civilians carry weapons is also a sign of the times and IMHO not a good one. Insofar as history goes, if we are to use history as a template for the future than not only are we in trouble but we are showing our inability to evolve and learn from past mistakes. By this I mean, sure - people have carried weapons - but does that mean it is right to always have to do so on a go-forward basis? Surely we can envision a time in the future where technology allows us the option to subdue perpetrators and criminals without killing or maiming them. The caveman carried a big club, the modern man carries a gun. The question is - has modern man developed a different state of mind? I would propose that their intents are one and the same. I see no evolution having taken place except in the tools which they carry.

There are idealists, and there are realists.

Time to deal with reality, Meltdown. The world is not a Carebear movie. The world is a harsh, cold place and there are people in it who are perfectly willing to kill you for little more than a couple dollars or even as little as looking at them the wrong way.

You can "envision" anything you want. I'll deal with the reality of the world I live in.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You're a limpwristed socialist.

Wrong on both counts, but I suppose anyone with an opposing viewpoint on guns falls into this category for you?

This is what is so beautiful about ATOT... quite simply you get flamed for voicing your opinion on something. IMHO the "limpwristed" guy is the one packing heat, not the 6'2" 220 lb. hockey player, but I could be wrong.

I'm not trolling - I stated my viewpoint, plain and simple. Guns are retarded and carrying a concealed weapon doubly so unless you're a cop or soldier or what-have-you. I know you guys can't handle hearing an opposing point of view without taking a personal shot at me (none of you know me - not even in the e-sense - which is the beauty of that), so go ahead, flame away. I won't be posting in here for at least a few days, so you have time to think up some real entertaining ones 🙂 Enjoy!

I'm just curious, why should only cops and soldiers carry guns? And "guns are retarded" is a fairly generic statement. When in history haven't ordinary people carried modern weapons?

You know - it might be a little too idealistic to think about a time in the future when no one will need to carry weapons, but I do hope that time does come. The fact that some segments of authority still carry guns is simply a sign of the times. The fact that civilians carry weapons is also a sign of the times and IMHO not a good one. Insofar as history goes, if we are to use history as a template for the future than not only are we in trouble but we are showing our inability to evolve and learn from past mistakes. By this I mean, sure - people have carried weapons - but does that mean it is right to always have to do so on a go-forward basis? Surely we can envision a time in the future where technology allows us the option to subdue perpetrators and criminals without killing or maiming them. The caveman carried a big club, the modern man carries a gun. The question is - has modern man developed a different state of mind? I would propose that their intents are one and the same. I see no evolution having taken place except in the tools which they carry.

There are idealists, and there are realists.

Time to deal with reality, Meltdown. The world is not a Carebear movie. The world is a harsh, cold place and there are people in it who are perfectly willing to kill you for little more than a couple dollars or even as little as looking at them the wrong way.

You can "envision" anything you want. I'll deal with the reality of the world I live in.

So Canada is a Carebear movie? Don't run to Google now - just tell me why the average person needs a handgun down there and doesn't need one up here. In your own words. I seriously have to leave for some family Christmas gatherings although there will be an internet connection and certainly some downtime there so I look forward to reading your response.

For the record, history is full of idealists and 99% of them are persecuted just for their ideas. You really didn't have to resort to the Carebear statement but I accept that it is the ATOT way to belittle and talk down to me because I don't carry the "elite" title.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You're a limpwristed socialist.

Wrong on both counts, but I suppose anyone with an opposing viewpoint on guns falls into this category for you?

This is what is so beautiful about ATOT... quite simply you get flamed for voicing your opinion on something. IMHO the "limpwristed" guy is the one packing heat, not the 6'2" 220 lb. hockey player, but I could be wrong.

I'm not trolling - I stated my viewpoint, plain and simple. Guns are retarded and carrying a concealed weapon doubly so unless you're a cop or soldier or what-have-you. I know you guys can't handle hearing an opposing point of view without taking a personal shot at me (none of you know me - not even in the e-sense - which is the beauty of that), so go ahead, flame away. I won't be posting in here for at least a few days, so you have time to think up some real entertaining ones 🙂 Enjoy!

People are mad at you because you're shortsighted and are suggesting that one of their Constitutional rights be taken away from them. People feel that their rights have been encroached upon enough already, and to take away the rights that enables them to confront their government if need would be even worse.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

You know - it might be a little too idealistic to think about a time in the future when no one will need to carry weapons, but I do hope that time does come. The fact that some segments of authority still carry guns is simply a sign of the times. The fact that civilians carry weapons is also a sign of the times and IMHO not a good one. Insofar as history goes, if we are to use history as a template for the future than not only are we in trouble but we are showing our inability to evolve and learn from past mistakes. By this I mean, sure - people have carried weapons - but does that mean it is right to always have to do so on a go-forward basis? Surely we can envision a time in the future where technology allows us the option to subdue perpetrators and criminals without killing or maiming them. The caveman carried a big club, the modern man carries a gun. The question is - has modern man developed a different state of mind? I would propose that their intents are one and the same. I see no evolution having taken place except in the tools which they carry.

You're right that your viewpoint is too idealistic. It's also myopic.

You're suggesting that guns be taken away in the hope that a human's propensity for violence is gone. It's not, however.

Some people will always be aggressive, and without any means to defend onesself, the most aggressive and strongest guy will always get his way. At least with the ability to defend yourself with a gun, the playing field is leveled. It's not guns that are causing the problem, it's a person's aggressiveness.

Also, your viewpoint is too idealistic in another way. You're assuming that if guns are banned, nobody's going to be carrying them after the ban. That's not the case, either. You're always going to be able to get what you want.

Drugs are banned, but does that mean they're not readily available?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Amused
Using suicide statistics is absurd. Suicide will occur no matter what tool they have available to commit it. Some of the countries with the highest suicide rates have nearly complete bans on guns. All a gun ban will do is make a suicidal person find another way. Finally, suicide is not a "violent crime" that threatens you, or others. Using accidental deaths is also absurd.

So you're saying that I'm wrong? more guns in the population does not equal more gun related deaths? You're saying that gun related suicides don't count? that gun laws have no effect on it? You don't care that there are suicidal people out there with access to guns because of relaxed gun laws?

You need to use violent crime rates. Very easy to find on the web if you have any ability to find relevant, valid stats.

I am not arguing that point, Of course there will be less crime because everyone is afraid of being SHOT and DYING because anyone could have a gun hidden in thier coat. What I am pointing out is that there are more firearm DEATHS in states where its easy to get a gun. Violent crime stats are completely irrelevant when you have firearm death rate stats. death from a firearm is death from a firearm, period.

Google (and a little logic) is your friend.

Yes I know, but apparently not yours.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You're a limpwristed socialist.

Wrong on both counts, but I suppose anyone with an opposing viewpoint on guns falls into this category for you?

This is what is so beautiful about ATOT... quite simply you get flamed for voicing your opinion on something. IMHO the "limpwristed" guy is the one packing heat, not the 6'2" 220 lb. hockey player, but I could be wrong.

I'm not trolling - I stated my viewpoint, plain and simple. Guns are retarded and carrying a concealed weapon doubly so unless you're a cop or soldier or what-have-you. I know you guys can't handle hearing an opposing point of view without taking a personal shot at me (none of you know me - not even in the e-sense - which is the beauty of that), so go ahead, flame away. I won't be posting in here for at least a few days, so you have time to think up some real entertaining ones 🙂 Enjoy!

I'm just curious, why should only cops and soldiers carry guns? And "guns are retarded" is a fairly generic statement. When in history haven't ordinary people carried modern weapons?

You know - it might be a little too idealistic to think about a time in the future when no one will need to carry weapons, but I do hope that time does come. The fact that some segments of authority still carry guns is simply a sign of the times. The fact that civilians carry weapons is also a sign of the times and IMHO not a good one. Insofar as history goes, if we are to use history as a template for the future than not only are we in trouble but we are showing our inability to evolve and learn from past mistakes. By this I mean, sure - people have carried weapons - but does that mean it is right to always have to do so on a go-forward basis? Surely we can envision a time in the future where technology allows us the option to subdue perpetrators and criminals without killing or maiming them. The caveman carried a big club, the modern man carries a gun. The question is - has modern man developed a different state of mind? I would propose that their intents are one and the same. I see no evolution having taken place except in the tools which they carry.

There are idealists, and there are realists.

Time to deal with reality, Meltdown. The world is not a Carebear movie. The world is a harsh, cold place and there are people in it who are perfectly willing to kill you for little more than a couple dollars or even as little as looking at them the wrong way.

You can "envision" anything you want. I'll deal with the reality of the world I live in.

So Canada is a Carebear movie? Don't run to Google now - just tell me why the average person needs a handgun down there and doesn't need one up here. In your own words. I seriously have to leave for some family Christmas gatherings although there will be an internet connection and certainly some downtime there so I look forward to reading your response.

For the record, history is full of idealists and 99% of them are persecuted just for their ideas. You really didn't have to resort to the Carebear statement but I accept that it is the ATOT way to belittle and talk down to me because I don't carry the "elite" title.

Because unlike Canada, most of us in the US get to be on an even level with the criminals. Criminals will get guns whether you ban them or not. I simply demand the right to defend myself... a right that is seriously being erroded in many European countries and the UK.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Amused
Using suicide statistics is absurd. Suicide will occur no matter what tool they have available to commit it. Some of the countries with the highest suicide rates have nearly complete bans on guns. All a gun ban will do is make a suicidal person find another way. Finally, suicide is not a "violent crime" that threatens you, or others. Using accidental deaths is also absurd.

So you're saying that I'm wrong? more guns in the population does not equal more gun related deaths? You're saying that gun related suicides don't count? that gun laws have no effect on it? You don't care that there are suicidal people out there with access to guns because of relaxed gun laws?

You need to use violent crime rates. Very easy to find on the web if you have any ability to find relevant, valid stats.

I am not arguing that point, Of course there will be less crime because everyone is afraid of being SHOT and DYING because anyone could have a gun hidden in thier coat. What I am pointing out is that there are more firearm DEATHS in states where its easy to get a gun. Violent crime stats are completely irrelevant when you have firearm death rate stats. death from a firearm is death from a firearm, period.

Google (and a little logic) is your friend.

Yes I know, but apparently not yours.

Your post doesn't make much sense. It seems that you're arguing that guns should be banned because there are some idiots out there who kill themselves with a gun. Who cares? If they're just killing themself and not murdering someone else, what does it matter to you?

Then you go on to admit that "Of course there will be less crime because everyone is afraid of being SHOT and DYING because anyone could have a gun hidden in thier coat.". That's the entire point of this topic. We want to reduce violent crime.

If I had to make a choice between reducing violent crime and reducing the suicide rate, I'm going to choose reducing violent crime.

Who really needs nanny laws that stop people from hurting THEMSELVES, anyway? If you want to overdose on crack, chop off your own penis, and then shoot yourself in the head with a 9mm, be my guest! As long as you're not directly injuring other human beings, I have no business telling you what to do with your own body.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Amused
Using suicide statistics is absurd. Suicide will occur no matter what tool they have available to commit it. Some of the countries with the highest suicide rates have nearly complete bans on guns. All a gun ban will do is make a suicidal person find another way. Finally, suicide is not a "violent crime" that threatens you, or others. Using accidental deaths is also absurd.

So you're saying that I'm wrong? more guns in the population does not equal more gun related deaths? You're saying that gun related suicides don't count? that gun laws have no effect on it? You don't care that there are suicidal people out there with access to guns because of relaxed gun laws?

Back up there.

Here was the quote of yours I orginally responded to and what started this debate you and I are having:

Not to self: dont go to Utah.

You said this in response to hearing about liberal CCW laws in Utah.

I asked why you were afraid. YOU do not need to fear gun accidents or suicides.

Nice way to twist the argument, though. To be relevant to your initial claim of fearing people with guns, you must ONLY focus on violent crime.

Unless you're a suicidal idiot who plans on buying a gun and accidentally committing suicide. If that is the case, stay away from a state where you can own a gun.

 

[Soybomb]

And what if during the robbery 2 space aliens come in and use their slow motion baby maker ray on half the people, one being an off duty cop. he shoots but it gets stuck in a ray gun malfuction vortex and it actually travels back in time and is the bullet that kills kennedy. Seriously what sort of situations are you guys concocting here and why? Everything you want to say about concealed carry can be seen in revocation statistics, its safe. In the first example I can't imagine the shooter would be charged in any state for killing someone pointing a gun at another person.

Only 2 states don't allow concealed carry and sadly I live in one of them. When I travel to states that allow it though I do carry there. Yay guns.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Amused
You said this in response to hearing about liberal CCW laws in Utah.

I asked why you were afraid. YOU do not need to fear gun accidents or suicides.

Nice way to twist the argument, though. To be relevant to your initial claim of fearing people with guns, you must ONLY focus on violent crime.

Unless you're a suicidal idiot who plans on buying a gun and accidentally committing suicide. If that is the case, stay away from a state where you can own a gun.

I still think that is wrong, I'd rather be beaten to an inch of my life and live instead of being shot to death. I have not twisted the arguement, you are simply arguing the wrong argument. I dont care that gun laws lower crime, and I actually dont really care that there are people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons in public. I DO care about the fact that in Utah(according to that guy who i responded to when i said "note to self") you cannot kick someone off your property for carrying a gun. I dont want the tv repair guy to come into my house carrying, and me not be able to do anything about it, or any other situation like that where there would be a gun, when there is no need for it. firearm death rates are the only thing relevant to my fear of being shot.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You're a limpwristed socialist.

Wrong on both counts, but I suppose anyone with an opposing viewpoint on guns falls into this category for you?

This is what is so beautiful about ATOT... quite simply you get flamed for voicing your opinion on something. IMHO the "limpwristed" guy is the one packing heat, not the 6'2" 220 lb. hockey player, but I could be wrong.

I'm not trolling - I stated my viewpoint, plain and simple. Guns are retarded and carrying a concealed weapon doubly so unless you're a cop or soldier or what-have-you. I know you guys can't handle hearing an opposing point of view without taking a personal shot at me (none of you know me - not even in the e-sense - which is the beauty of that), so go ahead, flame away. I won't be posting in here for at least a few days, so you have time to think up some real entertaining ones 🙂 Enjoy!

I'm just curious, why should only cops and soldiers carry guns? And "guns are retarded" is a fairly generic statement. When in history haven't ordinary people carried modern weapons?

You know - it might be a little too idealistic to think about a time in the future when no one will need to carry weapons, but I do hope that time does come. The fact that some segments of authority still carry guns is simply a sign of the times. The fact that civilians carry weapons is also a sign of the times and IMHO not a good one. Insofar as history goes, if we are to use history as a template for the future than not only are we in trouble but we are showing our inability to evolve and learn from past mistakes. By this I mean, sure - people have carried weapons - but does that mean it is right to always have to do so on a go-forward basis? Surely we can envision a time in the future where technology allows us the option to subdue perpetrators and criminals without killing or maiming them. The caveman carried a big club, the modern man carries a gun. The question is - has modern man developed a different state of mind? I would propose that their intents are one and the same. I see no evolution having taken place except in the tools which they carry.

There are idealists, and there are realists.

Time to deal with reality, Meltdown. The world is not a Carebear movie. The world is a harsh, cold place and there are people in it who are perfectly willing to kill you for little more than a couple dollars or even as little as looking at them the wrong way.

You can "envision" anything you want. I'll deal with the reality of the world I live in.

So Canada is a Carebear movie? Don't run to Google now - just tell me why the average person needs a handgun down there and doesn't need one up here. In your own words. I seriously have to leave for some family Christmas gatherings although there will be an internet connection and certainly some downtime there so I look forward to reading your response.

For the record, history is full of idealists and 99% of them are persecuted just for their ideas. You really didn't have to resort to the Carebear statement but I accept that it is the ATOT way to belittle and talk down to me because I don't carry the "elite" title.

nowhere in that post did he belittle you. you're just falling back on the "you're making fun of me" cry because you don't have anything to say that means anything to this conversation.

 

[Soybomb]

I DO care about the fact that in Utah(according to that guy who i responded to when i said "note to self") you cannot kick someone off your property for carrying a gun.

While I haven't read utah's state laws I would expect you could ask anyone to leave your property for any reason you wanted and have them picked up for trespassing if they refused. Some states take it a step further and make it an additional crime is you carry where signs are posted but I don't see any need for that. Ask a person to leave because they smell, have ugly hair, or have on a scary gun, call the cops if they dont.

 

[stars]

If it took the guy 5 shots to hit the would be robber twice he needs to be better trained with hand guns before carrying them regularly. Our right to carry a concealed weapon is great but I think many people lack good judgement and have a false sense of security about guns in general.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: stars
If it took the guy 5 shots to hit the would be robber twice he needs to be better trained with hand guns before carrying them regularly. Our right to carry a concealed weapon is great but I think many people lack good judgement and have a false sense of security about guns in general.

That's better than the police generally do. IIRC, the accuracy of police on average is less than 20% in real world conditions.

 

[stars]

Originally posted by: K1052
That's better than the police generally do. IIRC, the accuracy of police on average is less than 20% in real world conditions.

I agree with 100%.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Amused
You said this in response to hearing about liberal CCW laws in Utah.

I asked why you were afraid. YOU do not need to fear gun accidents or suicides.

Nice way to twist the argument, though. To be relevant to your initial claim of fearing people with guns, you must ONLY focus on violent crime.

Unless you're a suicidal idiot who plans on buying a gun and accidentally committing suicide. If that is the case, stay away from a state where you can own a gun.

I still think that is wrong, I'd rather be beaten to an inch of my life and live instead of being shot to death. I have not twisted the arguement, you are simply arguing the wrong argument. I dont care that gun laws lower crime, and I actually dont really care that there are people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons in public. I DO care about the fact that in Utah(according to that guy who i responded to when i said "note to self") you cannot kick someone off your property for carrying a gun. I dont want the tv repair guy to come into my house carrying, and me not be able to do anything about it, or any other situation like that where there would be a gun, when there is no need for it. firearm death rates are the only thing relevant to my fear of being shot.

Again, accidents and suicides are NOT relevant to your fear of being shot unless you are a accident prone suicidal idiot who intends on buying a gun.

Why you cannot see this is beyond me. These have NO bearing whatsoever on your irrational fear of being shot by a lawful CCW permit holder.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Amused
You said this in response to hearing about liberal CCW laws in Utah.

I asked why you were afraid. YOU do not need to fear gun accidents or suicides.

Nice way to twist the argument, though. To be relevant to your initial claim of fearing people with guns, you must ONLY focus on violent crime.

Unless you're a suicidal idiot who plans on buying a gun and accidentally committing suicide. If that is the case, stay away from a state where you can own a gun.

I still think that is wrong, I'd rather be beaten to an inch of my life and live instead of being shot to death. I have not twisted the arguement, you are simply arguing the wrong argument. I dont care that gun laws lower crime, and I actually dont really care that there are people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons in public. I DO care about the fact that in Utah(according to that guy who i responded to when i said "note to self") you cannot kick someone off your property for carrying a gun. I dont want the tv repair guy to come into my house carrying, and me not be able to do anything about it, or any other situation like that where there would be a gun, when there is no need for it. firearm death rates are the only thing relevant to my fear of being shot.

Man, your argument is all over the place.

You just said in a previous post, "Of course there will be less crime because everyone is afraid of being SHOT and DYING because anyone could have a gun hidden in thier coat.". Then you state that you don't like guns because the suicide rate adds to gun death totals.

So you're admitting that there's going to be less crime, but you're still afraid that a TV repairman is going to come into your house with a gun? What's he going to do, kill himself in your house?

It's pretty clear that you have an irrational fear of guns.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: randay

I still think that is wrong, I'd rather be beaten to an inch of my life and live instead of being shot to death. I have not twisted the arguement, you are simply arguing the wrong argument. I dont care that gun laws lower crime, and I actually dont really care that there are people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons in public. I DO care about the fact that in Utah(according to that guy who i responded to when i said "note to self") you cannot kick someone off your property for carrying a gun. I dont want the tv repair guy to come into my house carrying, and me not be able to do anything about it, or any other situation like that where there would be a gun, when there is no need for it. firearm death rates are the only thing relevant to my fear of being shot.

Ok, well if the tv repair man has foul intentions, this would pre-dispose him as a criminal. Criminals don't really worry about following the law anyways, so he would be illegaly carrying anyways.

So if someone was going to come to your house to shoot/rob/kill you, legality of carrying weapons wouldn't matter. Hence people carrying legally are typically non-criminals.