Then he shouldn’t attack me, and I won’t shoot him.
Right. Of course, all gun owners are the responsible kind, just like you, so nobody ever gets shot except in self defense.
I don’t think that there is a “need” to carry a gun anymore than a need to wear a seat belt or lock your front door. The odds of you being in a traffic accident or being the victim of a home invasion on any one particular day are very remote, but you take these precautions just in case. Carrying a gun is no different in my opinion.
Sure, but people who shoot people in situations other than self defense are criminals, why do they care if you tell them not to carry a gun, they’re already killing people?
They also don’t get permits to carry firearms, the rates of crime by licensed concealed firearms carriers is negligible compared to the general population, or even adjusted for socio-economic status.
[spark240]Being armed makes me more dangerous to those who threaten me. Not to everyone. Not to anyone who means me no harm. Given that those who would do me harm are likely willing to do others harm as well, my being armed may well increase the safety of some of the latter.
[/QUOTE]
And I thought I’d have to prove gun-carriers sometimes overestimate their senses and abilities – thanks, ducati and spark240. I hope you two never meet under stressful circumstances.
While I recognize the futility of having a rational discussion about gun control, I’m willing to try. I’ll be nice and not sarcastic if you will agree to do the same.
What evidence do you have that indicates that I or any responsible gun-owner have over-estimated our abilities?
I hope I never have to shoot a person for any reason. I hope I never hit a truck head-on. However, I buckle my seatbelt and pay attention to traffic, and I go to the range at least once a month and am proficient with many types of firearm. I’m not Superman.
I’m 47, overweight, have plates and screws in my back from back surgery, and my best fighting days are well behind me. I’m not looking for a fair fight should I encounter one.
I’m looking to go home to my wife and children, even if someone tries to take that away from me.
Every gun-owner I know is the same. We’re just average people with a healthy respect for self-preservation, and we know that there may come a time when we’ll encounter a person or situation that is dangerous, and there’s no cop in sight.
You say that you hope we (me & spark240) never meet under stressful circumstances.
Really? Do you honestly believe that permit-carrying gun-owners shoot first and ask questions later? Do you really think we just throw shots out the back door when the dog starts barking? No. I don’t think you do. You’re just being disingenous.
CCW permit holders are the most law-abiding sub-group of any group of individuals in this country, and that includes cops. To suspend the law allowing them to carry a firearm in a SOE is sense-less, stupid, and just what I expect from a liberal, Marxist group that values government control over individual liberties. That is particulary scary to me.
Jumping down from my political soap-box and back on the gun-totin one for a moment, I found a quote a while back that I think makes sense, and reflects the simple views of most people I know. Sorry for the length.
I don’t carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
If all hell broke loose in your neighborhood during an emergency, and you saw a dude standing in the back of a pickup truck with a gun, and the truck was headed your way, would that make you feel more or less like something might be about to go badly than if he wasn’t holding a gun?
Hey ducati. As you describe yourself, you’re a hell of a guy, and I’m sure you are. There are lots and lots and lots of guys like you, and all of you seem to know exactly what would happen in a situation you’ve never met, and that’s just super. Nonetheless, in a state of emergency, I and most other public safety officers wish the hell you’d either evacuate the area or stay close to home with your guns, and if you don’t and get into trouble, I hope at least you won’t have hurt anyone else first. Yup, I know: it’s physically impossible for someone fearful enough to need a firearm to deal with normal modern society to ever misperceive dangers during a real disaster. Even so, defend yourself with your guns at home, and let the imaginary armed Marxist thugs over yonder alone. Please.
It’s not an issue of being fearful. I don’t carry a gun right now because I’m not legally allowed, but if I was legally allowed, I would carry (and I will be allowed, shortly).
And it’s not an issue of fear, it’s an issue of preparedness. I have an emergency kit in my car. Food bars, water, blankets, kitty litter, a fire starting packet, etc. Why? Because I’m prepared. I don’t think it’s likely that I’m going to crash off of a mountain in the middle of nowhere, but it’s possible. Hell, it’s less likely than me being assaulted/robbed/etc, considering I don’t usually drive through the middle of nowhere with little-notice.
Am I “fearful” for having that in my car? What if it has a gun in it, does that make me fearful then?
I’m going to need more specifics. Are we talking “I’m alone on a road” or “I’m in the middle of a busy highway,” or what? Is there a reason for him to be brandishing a firearm?
For that matter, is he brandishing the firearm, or is simply holding it? What’s he doing in the back of the truck, aiming at me? etc. Your scenario is far, far too vague for me to respond to reasonably. Why is someone in the back of a pickup truck riding with a gun exposed in an emergency anyway?
The people we’re talking about aren’t walking around with AK-47’s on their shoulders, they’re leaving their house with a concealed pistol, just like they do every day of their lives, or many days of their lives.
Keep in mind, it was illegal to brandish a firearm in public, or carry a firearm in public without a permit before this legislation. What about a SOE changes things?
Gun rights supporters will win in the courts and the anti gun folks will pay attorney’s fees, again. Perhaps constantly paying the bills of their opponents will change their support of unconstitutional laws - reason surely will not.
If he’s decided to hold a gun whether it’s legal or not, then the question becomes whether I’m holding one too.
Couldn’t do it, could you?
You avoided the question, and instead of trying to form a cogent, thoughtful, and honest answer, you come back with sarcasm and a thinly-veiled personal insult.
I was hoping for honest dialogue from an opposing position. Instead, I get third-grade snark.
How typical.
That’s not a true statement.
Certain North Carolina localities may have prohibited it, but there is no blanket statewide prohibition against openly carrying a firearm without a permit.
Both Heller and MacDonald affirm the power of the state to make reasonable regulations. There is no caselaw that suggests “no carry during emergency” is unreasonable.
The courts have upheld curfews durng emergencies - this impacts the general right of travel, surely as strong or stronger right than firearms. If a curfew is constitutional, why do you imagine a firearm restriction would not be?
It is about gun carrying not about having a gun in your home to defend your family. Those are different.
I stand corrected.
That say concealed carry a firearm without a license, anyway.
The law prohibiting open carry I am fine with – in or out of an emergency. But concealed carry, by licensed individuals is a bit silly.
I completely agree. For now. Do you think the SAF lawsuit against NC will prevail? I do.
Is the right of travel stronger than an enumerated fundamental right? I don’t think so. Replace the right to keep and bear arms with free speech being suspended in case of a declared state of emergency. I agree that there is no caselaw to support this equivocation - yet. Even still, am I remembering correctly that the courts have upheld curfews in blanket state of emergencies, or was it more for specific circumstance that curfews were trying to address?
If the state of emergency was due to riots, then curfews seems on point. Curfews due to inclement weather? I dont know of that being upheld. Either way, Gura and the SAF will bring this to trial and hopefully NC will be forced to abandon their asinine law.
Ooh, reasoning by emotion is your only defense? Really? Why the hell should I care whether you feel safe that I have a gun?
And I’m a guy who acknowledges that he’s too much of a scaredy cat to own a gun, and feel a bit scared around people who carry. But I’d never suggest that my fear should count as a reason for someone to stop carrying, any more than I’d allow homophobes to prevent gay people from getting married.
The King of Soup
::: snip ::::
There are lots and lots and lots of guys like you, and all of you seem to know exactly what would happen in a situation you’ve never met, and that’s just super.
::: snip :::
***:: Can you say “Broad Brush”, I knew you could. :: ***
Nonetheless, in a state of emergency, I and most other public safety officers
::: snip:::
*** :::::: I have asked at least 25 Highway patrol and 10 city police officers and 3 AR Game & Fish enforcement officers and 6-7 State Park Rangers and 3 Enforcement State Park officers who carry and do 911 responding here on this mountain and other LEO’s in AR, OK, TX. And not ONE has been against CCW and several were the ones who taught CCW classes.***
::: snip ::::
wish the hell you’d either evacuate the area or stay close to home with your guns, and if you don’t and get into trouble, I hope at least you won’t have hurt anyone else first. Yup, I know: it’s physically impossible for someone fearful enough to need a firearm to deal with normal modern society to ever misperceive dangers during a real disaster.
::: snip :::
*** :: It is not the normal people of modern society that loot, assault, and generally threaten innocent people during an emergency. :::: ***
Even so, defend yourself with your guns at home, and let the imaginary armed Marxist thugs over yonder alone. Please.
::: snip ::::
*** ::: We would have loved to but Uncle Sam said we must not do that but go and maybe die to help ensure your right to be as you are. Really glad no fool stood up and said those kinds of things during a fire fight with bad guys inside the perimeter. Damn glad we did not kill our own guys being so rattled and all… ** <---- Now that is being sarcastic & snarky… ::: *
So, what state you in? I know folks all over who could ask some of the LEO’s in your area what they think. I would like to see what others in your area say. …
Just to expand on this a bit further - Curfews, restricting the right to assemble, falls under strict scrutiny correct? I think the times where the right to travel has been before the SCOTUS have been few. Zemel v. Rusk (1965) talks about:
*
“The right to travel within the United States is of course also constitutionally protected, cf. Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160. But that freedom does not mean that areas ravaged by flood, fire or pestilence cannot be quarantined when it can be demonstrated that unlimited travel to the area would directly and materially interfere with the safety and welfare of the area or the Nation as a whole.”*
Is it your belief that the NC restrictions on possession and purchase of firearms and ammunition during states of emergency would survive strict scrutiny? Do you think strict scrutiny is the appropriate level of scrutiny here?
Like I said before, the court will eventually decide since the SAF is pretty much on a suing rampage in several separate federal districts.