I’m not sure I understand your question. May issue or shall issue refer to public carry permits, since most US jurisdictions don’t question at all the right of someone to keep a firearm within the confines of their private property. Are you saying that concealed (i.e., clandestine) carry is an issue when openly carrying wouldn’t be?
By that standard, how are even police officers considered trustworthy enough to carry firearms?
As an advocate for relaxing concealed carry laws since the 1980s, I can tell you I’ve seen this argument from the other side literally hundreds of times.
“Wild west”, “Dodge City” and “shoot-outs over parking lot disagreements” were commonly used arguments against relaxed gun laws in newspaper editorials, town hall meetings, and television debates. I also heard it in person many, many times. A lot of this was in pre-internet days, though, when we still wrote letters to the editor. Beginning with Florida in 1987, as more and more states relaxed their weapons laws and the predicted carnage failed to materialize, the argument was heard less and less.
You do still hear it. In recent years Florida implemented a “stand your ground” law and Virginia legalized carry in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Again, against all past evidence, a hue and cry went up about the coming bloodbath. Again, no bloodbath materialized (bar shootings in Virginia have actually gone down!) Again, no shame from the gun confiscators–no apology for being utterly wrong 100% of the time, no change in the nonsense they’ll be predicting the next time a similar bill is proposed.
I guess it proves what the NRA has been saying all along:
-the USA has PLENTY of gun laws-we do not need more (enforce the ones we have)
-people who take firearms courses and are responsible gun owners(NRA members) do not commit crimes
-criminals who obtain guns illegally will continue to do so, in spite of all the laws passed
-criminals are not deterrred by law enforcement, they are deterred by people prepared to defend themselves
-passing more laws does nothing, if judges are not prepared to enforce them (like Massachusetts’ “Bartley-Fox” Law (mandatory 1 year in jail if a gun is in the posession of a criminal who commits a crime)-MA judges ignore it
The “fantasy” here is yours. You so desperately want you gun-control beliefs to be vindicated that you hope that something like this happens. It won’t, but but that fact that you posted this speaks volumes.
Man up, admit you were wrong, and we can get past this. Otherwise we’re going to continue to laugh at you as we have for years. You have never been right on this subject. Oh, you may have posted an occasional fact or two by accident, but your history here vis a vis gun control is one long, uninterrupted string of nonsense that could have been written by the Brady Campaign.
Still, I have to give you credit for one thing. If Dio were still here we’d be on page 10 by now.
10 minutes of Googling turned up zero sources for the claim that Massachusetts judges ignore the Bartley-Fox Law. In fact, it turned up dozens of sources suggesting that the law reduced gun crimes.
Wouldn’t you have to check a lot of data? “Shall Issue” vs. “non-Shall Issue”? Geographical locations, gun crimes before and after for both states, types of guns purchased before and after, existing ownership of guns? I don’t think you can just say “Oh well it hasn’t killed everyone so its fine”.
Do you have any evidence, local, regional, national that indicates that gun violence has risen in the US (not even ‘due to the passage of laws allowing for more citizens to be able to carry firearms’…just period)? If so, then by all means present it so we can judge any causal relations that might exist. I’ve seen no indications that gun violence in the US has gone up…in fact, from what I recall it’s been on the decline for years, despite the rising population, the passage of such laws, and the rising number of guns in private hands (I seem to recall that there are several guns for every person in the US, man, woman and alien at Area 51).
-XT
That proves nothing though. Making guns legal could have the effect of simply turning the violence from coming from illegal guns into coming from legal ones.
By the way, these types of topics always turn from a specific discussion into one of extremism, one side favoring banning and the other favoring no laws. Just the talk of relaxing concealed carry or allowed Shall Issue highlights the divide. For a bunch of people who are, and yes I’m going to stereotype but in this case its correct, conservative and small government and for states rights, you guys have a lot of problems with states trying to restrict, not ban, gun rights.
As a person who is for gun control, I can say that while I don’t like the 2nd Amendment, I can accept that its there and states like Texas will have looser laws than here in California. But if California or New York wants to make it difficult and expensive to own a gun, I think you conservatives should be fine with it.
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
That proves nothing though. Making guns legal could have the effect of simply turning the violence from coming from illegal guns into coming from legal ones.
[/QUOTE]
Which would be quantifiable and measurable. Do you have any data indicating that gun violence in the US has shifted from illegally owned guns to legally owned ones? That violence has shifted from gang violence, say, to domestic violence either at home or, say, at strip malls over parking?
That’s the thing. I’ve not seen any actual data backing up the rise in ANY gun violence in the US, let alone some indication that domestic gun violence is on the rise. Despite either the USSC rulings or shifting laws such as discussed in the OP. It might take a few years for the rising tide of ordinary citizens gunning down fellow citizens at the OK corral over a parking space or Walmart sale, to be sure, so I’m willing to wait for that data to be presented by the anti-gun advocates.
-XT
I don’t care what other states choose to do. That is for their citizens to hash out. What I do care about is a Constitutional right, the same as I do about all the other ones. The reason this issue is so prominent is that it’s the last major issue in the Bill of Rights to be fought over.
What California does is their affair. Same with New York. That doesn’t mean that I can’t call some of their terms and conditions asinine when the majority of the states in the Union have no such terms or restrictions. 1st Amendment, right?
Why are people so determined to get this discussion sidetracked? Can’t you guys just argue its merits without switching it to something else? Oh, wait, arguing the point on its merits is a loser, so in order to “win” you have to get off on sidetracks. I knew that. Silly me.
No; the reason it’s so prominent is because it’s a useful distraction from rights that actually matter. Millions of gun lovers will hand away all of their other rights, betray any other person or principle they claim to care about as long as you promise them they can keep their guns. They’ll hold onto those chunks of metal with the absolute conviction that guns and only guns are what matters, that they alone safeguard freedom.
Nonsense. Until the recent SCOTUS decisions it was the only provision in the Bill of Rights that people like you could take away because you felt like it. Try doing that with any provision of the 1st Amendment and the courts will eat your lunch. But the 2nd? Fair game. To this day the ACLU refuses to concede that the 2nd means what it means even in light of Heller and McDonald but they will go to the mat for every other part of the Bill of Rights.
The bottom line is this: you and your fellow gun-control advocates lost. Quit trying to spin it, quit trying to distract from it with posts like the one I quoted above (and while you’re at it, prove that I ever did anything like you claim, since I’m apparently willing to do so), and deal with it.
Show me a fucking contrary argument, then. Displaying your fetish does not constitute participating in a debate, great or otherwise.
You’re better than this. I’ve seen it before.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Show me a fucking contrary argument, then.
[/QUOTE]
Does the fact that you have no data (or at least that you’ve presented none) to support your position count?
-XT
Only the fact that they are heavily trained, more aware than most of the power and responsibility they hold, and they are under close control.
Or was that a simple strawman?
And you’re not better than this. I’ve made the arguments, and my side won. You’re forced to resorting to insults like “fetishes” and “fantasies”.
Who do you say is fantasizing? 
Oh well, if you *could *summarize your “factual” arguments here at all, you’d no doubt have done it instead of that little display.
*Do *try to read. :rolleyes: