Think of it this way. If there’s a gun present, no matter who’s holding it, there’s a chance that it may be discharged accidentally. There’s a chance that the person with the gun, however well-intentioned, may misread a situation, and decide to use it when there’s no need.
With no gun present, neither of these things can happen.
The guns are unnecessary, so why introduce them into the situation?
When was the last time your blanket, water, or first aid kit went off accidentally and injured someone?
I gotta call you on this one, Early Out. Guns never, ever, ever spontaneously discharge*–there is always someone with his booger hook on the bang switch or acting stupid.
*There was an episode of “Dr. G” once where a man was suspected of killing his wife while they were hunting. His story (which was true) was that his rifle hit the ground and discharged. That took a fairly long line of bad things in order to happen – he was carrying a deer rifle with a round chambered (I was always taught to only chamber when I was in the stand), his specific rifle had a defect that allowed the pin to hit the round when dropped upside down, etc.
Many of the cases of hunters shooting themselves can be attributed to piss-poor gun handling: lowering a loaded and cocked rifle from a deer stand, muzzle up…climbing over/through a barbed wire fence with a loaded/cocked gun, etc.
The notion that accidental discharges are common, while widespread, is misguided. It’s almost always someone doing some stupid shit–witness the video of a DEA agent shooting himself in the foot after telling a classroom of students that he was the only one in the room qualified to handle a “Glock fo-ty.”
Now, I get where you’re coming from–having a gun present increases the risk from 0%. But, honestly, it only raises it by maybe a tenth of a percentage. You’re much more likely to be struck by lightning.
FWIW, my Walther P99 has 5 internal safeties, one of which is a drop safety, that do everything humanly possible to minimize an accidental discharge. Most handguns nowadays have similar features.
I think what’s difficult is trying to separate a situation wherein you have 5 angry gang bangers, all of opposing factions, in a room and then introducing a gun versus having 5 regular folks in a room and introducing a gun. I had a friend one time who, after talking about it for a while, took out his pistol, set it on the table, and proceeded to scream at it for 5 minutes to prove that nothing would happen. Made me chuckle, because it seems so obvious, but the visual is needed sometimes.
Or being seven years old.
Some other choice quotes:
“I didn’t think it was loaded.”
“It went off while I was cleaning it.”
But let’s get down to brass tacks. Handguns are designed to do one thing - kill people. They’re lousy for hunting, and are not particularly effective at sinking a nail into a two-by. In short, they have no other use. Guns present = some gun deaths. No guns present = no gun deaths. Bad guy in a park threatening me with a gun = strawman.
Early Out = talking bullshit.
Us = cavemen. Ugh.
Speaking of strawmen… :rolleyes:
How about ‘Bad guy threatening to kill me’ period?
[2 women hikers found slain on Appalachian Trail
The murder occurred on December 12 at Honokohau-National Historical Park.
Serial killer in Yosemite
Eggle was shot and killed in the line of duty at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, while pursuing members of a drug cartel hit squad
This statement reveals that you basically oppose the idea of concealed carry ANYWHERE, and probably oppose the idea of gun ownership period.
Where the gun is carried makes no difference. Why is it any different whether it be in a national park or in a city? Or anywhere else in the United States? Why are you acting like national parks are some holy land where nothing can ever go wrong and where the act of taking a mere tool - which is what a firearm is - somehow sullies this natural paradise? Do you think that 60 years ago anyone would even be debating whether or not you can take a GUN into the WILDERNESS? Fuck no! It would be a given, plain and simple. It’s just that our society has become so pussified, and guns so demonized and made so unfamiliar to the majority of people, that now the left wing has managed to spin this “OMG a GUN in a NATIONAL PARK!” issue into some big scary thing.
Bullshit, pure bullshit.
The gun is only unnecessary until someone tries to attack you.
The links that Johnny L.A. posted make it abundantly clear that there is a very real danger of being attacked in a national park.
First you call those who disagree with you “pussies” and accuse them of being scared.
Then you cite Johnny L.A.'s links to support your own fears over being unarmed!
I don’t get that line of thought.
Where, in any of my posts, did I call anyone who disagreed with me a pussy?
What I said was that society has become “pussified” to the point of people being afraid of an inanimate object (a gun.) Whereas 60 years ago there would never have even been a debate about someone bringing a gun out into the wilderness. It was seen as a necessary survival tool.
There’s nothing wrong with fear. It’s a healthy emotion. There is something wrong with fearing an inanimate object, the gun, instead of fearing the PEOPLE who would do harm to you.
Come on, saying our society is pussified is calling us (in general) pussies.
And your own post put a negative slant on fear (“big scary thing”).
I, for one, am glad that now is not like 60 years ago, and I’m 64. So I remenber.
Early Out isn’t interested in discussion. Clearly, he has another agenda. My own agenda doesn’t sync with his. So I believe I’ll just triptrap triptrap triptrap away. The rest of you can continue playing his game without me.
Well, you’re gonna be missed.
A big manhug to ya.
Most of Kellerman’s work has been thoroughly debunked - I don’t know offhand about the others.
This is a notion I see often crop up that has no logical basis. The assumption is that people feel they need guns to defend themselves specifically against armed intruders. Therefore, if there are no more armed intruders, there’s no need to have guns to defend themselves against armed intruders.
But it’s ridiculous on the face of it. Do you think a 120 pound woman would only own a gun to face down an armed intruder, and not some unarmed 20 year old 200 pound man? If you take the guns out of the situation then it becomes a matter of the bigger, stronger person having control of the situation - and most violent criminals tend to be young males with attitude. Guns are an equalizer in this scenario - they allow the weak to defend themselves against the strong.
Taking your statement to its logical conclusion, do you believe that if we made all guns magically dissapear from the world, there would no longer be a need for anyone to defend themselves?
This is ridiculous. The poster you’re responding to probably gave a bad description of his thought process - but do you really think CHL holders are just looking to shoot anyone that gets within a few feet of them? Do you think they go to the post office, get in line, and then say “OH SHIT THERE ARE 5 PEOPLE WITHIN 10 FEET OF ME!” and start firing away?
You don’t start shooting because someone is close to you.
In post #49 of this thread, you imply that there’s no use for semi-automatics (the majority of all guns) outside of combat. That’s pretty close to saying that guns have no use except to kill people. And then you express annoyance that people are interpreting your stances to be biased against guns.
I’m rather concerned that my firearms might hurt someone - that’s why I use the utmost precautions when carrying them. So far I haven’t caused harm to anyone by excercising my rights, and likely never will.
Are you under the impression that guns randomly wake up sometimes at night and walk up to people and shoot them? What is the scenario here you’re envisioning?
I’m a little torn on this issue because I generally favor greater transparency in government. That said, there are plenty of good reasons to keep this data private. Part of the benefit of concealed carry is that it has a general protective effect on society because it discourages confrontational crime when your victim may be armed. A public database wouldn’t affect this deterrent for some mugger randomly looking for someone on the street - but what about a scenario where some crazy dude decides to stalk a girl and checks and see she doesn’t have a CHL - he could be emboldened by that. Others have brought up that it could make you a target for theft. And there are lots of people who view gun ownership as a serious character flaw - some people might look at that list almost like a sex offender list… like you’re a criminal - so what happens if your boss is staunchly anti-gun and finds out you have a CHL even though you never carry to work and it doesn’t affect him?
They probably won’t randomly do searches, no - but there have been cases where newspapers published the name and address of everyone who applied for a CHL. I assume as a political statement. From there it becomes easy for them to find that data - it’s given to them.
You don’t need to look into a database to find out if someone is a frail old lady or not - you can plainly see it. The point of concealed carry is that you can’t tell whether or not the person has a gun.
You can prohibit weapons on your property, and if the renter disobeyed your wishes they’d be committing criminal tresspassing. Additionally, having a CHL doesn’t necesarily mean anyone is carrying at any given moment. And why would a CHL be particularly relevant here? If he’s going to rent a room and keep his personal guns in his room, it’s more likely than not he’s simply a gun owner and not a CHL holder. It would be more appropriate for you to advocate a publically accessible national registration database if you have these concerns.
I’d have to say that’s true. On balance, I think that handguns in private hands end up doing more harm than good.
This isn’t the frontier in 1870 any longer - that world is gone forever.
There’s little credible evidence that widespread handgun ownership reduces crime. I grew up in an area (far northern 'burbs of NY) in which gun ownership was exceedingly rare. I spent most of my adult life in a similar place (Reston, VA), and now live in yet another area in which the “gun culture” is largely absent (rural NW CT). I don’t think I’ve ever even known anyone who had a handgun, other than one of the local cops who lived in my neighborhood. Some of my neighbors up here in the boonies are hunters, but that’s a different issue. Not my idea of a good time, but I don’t have any problem with it (except when I want to go hiking in the late Fall! I really need to get a blaze orange vest…).
The crime rates in these places was very low, indeed. Personal attacks (murders, rapes, armed robbery) were almost unknown. The town I live in now doesn’t even have a police force - there’s no need for one.
But if the crime rate started to increase (because of changes in demographics, for example), do I think that arming the citizens would help? I don’t believe that. I think it would just make a bad situation worse. Instead, it would be time to create a police force.
Such eloquent discourse. Well, I’m certainly persuaded.
How many people hurt by CHLers either by shear accident or stupidity on the CHLers?
How many people are assaulted, robbed or killed by non-CHLers?
Are national parks some kind of special place where crimes will not take place but CHLers will magically go batshit crazy?
And you talk of being able to “weigh risks” :rolleyes:
What other function does a handgun have? If the answer is “scaring off an attacker,” I’d have to respond that it can perform that function only because it is, in fact, a device that’s intended to kill people. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be of any use in defense (well, I suppose you could throw it at someone, or hit him over the head with it, but there are certainly cheaper and more effective alternatives if that’s all you want to do).
A handgun is truly a single-purpose device. I think it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
I should let that one go, but somehow, I just can’t…
“Paging Dr. Freud.”
Handguns are manly. Yeah. Got it.
Early Out - I think I live a bit more rural than you as you said ‘town that you live in’. In these parts there is also a lack of crime. Though pretty much all of us have a few guns. I’d be stunned if anyone in this valley didn’t have at least a shotgun or rifle.
Sure, most guns are designed to kill. I own eight guns although I have never actually purchased one. I enjoy target shooting. That the guns can be used as a defensive weapon is a bonus.
In a way, I agree with Brown Eyed Girl. But on the other hand, I think that the National Parks should follow the state laws that they are located in. On the Other other hand, I see Brown Eyed Girls rant as not much more than a display of uninformed anti-gun rhetoric that we see again and again.
I’m liberal. And a gun owner. Every time I see rants about guns from people that know nothing about guns, I become a little bit more ‘pro’ gun.
EarlyOut
Are you still on about this? Did you not read my previous post? Personal is carry isn’t intended to reduce crime. It’s intended to meet it head on. An individual can refuse to be a victim and fight back. And survive. And it happens here and now.
Look up Susanna Hupp. In a nutshell, she could have saved lives(including her mom and dad’s) if she had her pistol in her purse when a madman massacered diners at a Luby’s in Kileen, Texas 1991.