Force everyone that can legally+financially afford a gun to get one for concealed?

[Capt Caveman]

Yajt

 

[BoomerD]

yes it would initially.

but after darwin has their way w/them, things should calm down as people get used to the idea.

and it should be better for future generations as they grow up in the environment of everyone having concealed carry. (think kids growing up in the environment of the Internet vs their grandparents.)

I think American history has already proved you wrong. Look at the gun violence that made up the American West during the 1800's...While most of those guns weren't worn concealed, they were worn...and a visible gun SHOULD be a greater deterrent than a hidden gun.

 

[Darwin333]

And by financially, i mean $75k gross household income.

We've had decades of gun control.

What do you think will happen if the govt forces you to own a gun for concealed carry?
(plus gun classes, plus annual refresher courses/range time)

And why do you think that?


I think less home robberies and violent crimes. After all, is $20 worth the work/risk to rob someone with a >50% chance of carrying a gun?

I think we would have lost even more freedom in this country. Any positive impact that it might have would pale in comparison.

 

[Darwin333]

I think American history has already proved you wrong. Look at the gun violence that made up the American West during the 1800's...While most of those guns weren't worn concealed, they were worn...and a visible gun SHOULD be a greater deterrent than a hidden gun.

Don't you find it rather difficult to honestly compare a relatively lawless period/place to our current society (banksters excluded)? Sure we have pockets of very high crime areas but nothing that even compares to the "wild west".

Not sure if you remember this from your American History class but way back when (relatively the same time period even) the .gov used guns to damn near exterminate an entire race of people to steal their land. Would you use that as an argument to completely disarm the US military?

 

[Darwin333]

yes it would initially.

but after darwin has their way w/them, things should calm down as people get used to the idea.

and it should be better for future generations as they grow up in the environment of everyone having concealed carry. (think kids growing up in the environment of the Internet vs their grandparents.)

I disagree. A large percentage of people simply aren't capable of pulling the trigger for whatever reason. Arming them and forcing them to carry a weapon puts them in a worse position not a better one for various reasons.

Instead we should make it as easy as possible for law abiding citizens to get training and permits. If they choose to carry a gun they should be able to do so without having to spend a fortune on the permit or jump through 20 layers of .gov bullshit. Throw in legal protections for people that use their weapons for self defense like castle laws and perhaps some protections from civil suits as well and I am fairly happy. Getting rid of bullshit laws that ban cosmetics and crap like that would be a good thing as well.


At the end of the day though, having a right means you have the right NOT do it too. Forcing everyone to belong to a religion is NOT freedom of religion just as forcing everyone to own and carry a gun is NOT a freedom. I like our rights and freedoms thank you very much, the politicians are already eroding the fuck out of them as it is, no need to give them new ideas.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Heh, consider it mandatory insurance. I suppose it could be made a requirement but it's hardly likely.

I'd find it entirely entertaining.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At the end of the day though, having a right means you have the right NOT do it too.

Actually as I've seen it used recently it could be forced under the interstate commerce law, just like forcing people to buy health care. In essence anything which has value and can be sold or transported across state lines can be mandated.

 

[Darwin333]

Actually as I've seen it used recently it could be forced under the interstate commerce law, just like forcing people to buy health care. In essence anything which has value and can be sold or transported across state lines can be mandated.

Sorry, I was using the term in the correct way and not whatever way happens to fit some political agenda.

Otherwise, thank you for helping me prove one of my points.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Prince - I agree with everything you said, and know about your background

but you really have to be kidding me with one thing you said

"We're also getting crime under control finally, again without your extraordinary measures"

How exactly are we getting crime under control here in the US?

Crime has been in decline for quite a while (nearly two decades now). In most areas and categories we're back to 1960s level crime. That's AMAZING considering that crime ALWAYS goes up during severe economic downturns. Check the FBI UCR, or any table compiling the results (like http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778268.html ).

Of course, we've also changed thresholds, reporting methods and requirements, etc...so it's hard to make direct comparisons.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sorry, I was using the term in the correct way and not whatever way happens to fit some political agenda.

Otherwise, thank you for helping me prove one of my points.

It's more than a little spooky when the government can force you to buy something because it's subject to the commerce law. At this point what can't they do? Not much I think.