In a place like Utah, knowing that almost anyone might have a gun is a deterrent. If you are in a place like NYC where virtually noone has a concealed firearm makes criminals feel a little safer.
Have I told you about the LA riots? I never felt the need for a right for the people to keep and bear arms before that. I figured cops could handle it but sometimes they can’t or won’t.
In what way is the NRA giving this guy an A+? I don’t see where the NRA endorses murder suicide involving 2 year old babies. Do you have a cite or are you just full of shit.
Not all of the,but the ones that can’t be prevented by the four rules are vanishingly small.
Well, regulated in this context means well trained.
Drop safety technology is fairly cheap and has been off patent for perhaps a hundred years so I don’t see why not. It doesn’t interfere with any intended use of a gun.
Well, you got me there, pard. Only difference between Utah and New York City is the concealed carry policy. Been racking my brain, trying to think of some way in which they are not nearly identical, and it is too many for me, I fold. I mean, its like they are twins separated at birth!
Yes, of course. The well regulated militia. Appointed by you, armed by you, regulated by you. What could possibly go wrong if millions of other people do likewise? Surely many more people would be free of the nightmare of savage plunder that is everyday life for our citizens. That aren’t in Utah.
You think you might ever again feel like you felt before? Think maybe that would be a good thing, something to strive for? Just a thought.
You’re apparently thinking that allowing the legal carry of guns would change absolutely nothing except that violent encounters would be more deadly. I’ve heard this before in several previous gun threads- the claim that if their victims were armed, criminals would simply escalate to whatever degree of force they needed and carry on as before. At least to me that simply isn’t plausible. Most criminals who aren’t stupid enough to immediately get caught follow a pretty straightforward risk-benefit strategy. Theft carries less risk if caught than armed robbery, armed robbery carries less risk than murder. Damn few criminals are going to want to bet their lives for a few bucks and the ones who would would be culled in short order, either by the police or by their intended victims. Burglaries while the inhabitants are at home are statistically much more common in the UK than in the US; in the USA interviews with caught burglars reveal that their #1 fear was confronting an armed resident.
In other words, NYC wouldn’t be the place it is now if carry by the law-abiding was legal. Effectively, everyone who wants to have an illegal gun in NYC already has one; legal carry couldn’t make things any worse.
20 robberies with illegal guns.
18 people lose their wallets
1 person shot after a struggle for the gun
1 person shoots back at the mugger, someone is hit.
vs:
20 robberies with illegal guns
20 people with legal carry permits
20 shootouts, robbers and victims and bystanders dead
5 other people with legal carry permits go off the rails and shoot up a neighborhood
5 other people with legal carry permits shoot a family member in a fit of rage
5 other people with legal carry permits shoot themselves in a moment of depression
5 other people with legal carry permits shoot someone in a road rage incident or bar fight
And how many times would this occur, after armed robbers got the message that the sheep are shooting back? Again, the false presumption that the number of attempted robberies would be absolutely unaffected.
Completely disproven by the actual experience with Shall Issue carry. No, the streets did not run red with blood.
Of course. Of course the NRA is lying yet again about guns. This article debunks the insidious myth being perpetuated recently about how 80% of police thinks that background checks would have no effect on crime.
First, it wasn’t a random sampling poll. They might as well have asked current NRA board members for all the validity this “poll” represents. Second, background checks were mentioned only in 2 of the questions, and their efficacy ranged from 31% Yes vs. 44% No in one question to 14% (4th most popular answer out of 8) in another question. The 80% number comes from an unrelated question asking about a prohibition of private sales, not background checks.
So in order to promote their gun heaven utopian version of America, they couldn’t even find 80% of a random sample of people to agree with them. They had to cite a non-random survey, misrepresent the answers, and lie about the questions in order to manipulate the results in their favor
It goes to show that the NRA and their supports are consistently full of shit. No, both sides are not doing it, its only the conservative side. Next time someone cites something, make sure its from someplace reliable like the Obama Administration or the New York Times. All conservative sources, as its been proven time and time again, most recently in the last election, are absolute crap. 90% of people support background checks, it WILL reduce violent crime, and that’s all there is to it.
I’m not saying that is the only difference but are you arguing that the knowledge that CCW are relatively common in Utah has no effect on the background crime rate?
How many times are you willing to have your livelihood burned to the ground? Why would you insist that law abiding citizens take that chance.
I don’t think it would be a good thing to be ignorant of the flaws in society, do you. I don’t think I am in much danger of a home invasion or rioters burning down my livelihood. But I saw how firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens helped maintain law and order when the police, national guard and army could not (or would not) do so. If my community had woken up to this fact the night before the riots started instead of the night after the riots started, half of that community would not have been burned to the ground.
Not all guns have drop safeties (I have no idea why not, its just a peice of metal that disengages when the trigger is pulled). If you want to pass a law about it, I would be OK with that. At the very least, I would be OK with labelling requirements warning gun purchasers that they are about to buy a gun that can fire if dropped.
I don’t know if you’re being serious or not but by that rationale, the federal government could censor the internet, TV, radio, commercial email, etc.
I don’t know. But I don’t really believe that you do either. You offer nothing but witnessing and anecdotal evidence.
Before I’d kill somebody? Lots. And don’t kid yourself, if you take on the responsibility to carry lethal force, you are preparing yourself to do exactly that. And please note: you didn’t offer me defending yourself, or defending your family, you offered defending money. Never. Period, full stop, never.
Witnessing. Can’t prove a word of it, but offer it as Gospel. You hold these truths to be self-evident, but challenged, all you can do is repeat yourself. You offer me your fear like I should respect fear like I respect compassion or courage.
I’m not familiar with Police One, in what way is it just like the NRA board members? Does Police one cater to gun nut cops? Why isn’t the Police one membership a representative samplpe of cops? Did they ask only the gun nut cops to respond?
You do realize how a universal background check system would be implemented right? It would prohibit the private non-dealer transfer of firearms. The way you implement a universal background check system is to force everyone to use an FFL as an intermediary in every gun transfer. The question is relevant to the debate on background checks.
On almost any other issue I would agree with you but on this issue, it is the opposite. The gun control side of the debate is preying on the ignorance of people like you and your kneejerk reaction to anything having to do with guns.
How do you explain all the repeated attempts to try to get people to think assault weapons are machine guns?
When they were exposed as being full of shit, they went withn “military style assault weapons”
When that didn’t get any traction, they went with “rapid fire assault weapons”
They are effectively engaging in the same sort of word engineering that produced phrases like the “death tax” and “job creators”
What does that have to do with Obama using dated and almost certainly incorrect statistics on the frequency of background checks?
You don’t know? Well, I guess you couldn’t know for a fact? Sure places with high concentrations of CCW tend to have lower levels of property crime. But, there are all sorts of confounding factors that would disconnect the fact that places with high CCW tend to have less robberies but do you have no idea whether CCWs deter crime?
Yes, I am talking about property. I am talking about the means by which you feed, clothe and house your family. I have every right to be standing in front of my store armed with a rifle. If you present a threat to my physical safety while I am there, I think I would probably shoot you dead. I think defense of life is much more compelling but I think you have the right to stand on your own property without having to make way for arsonists who want to burn it down. Don’t you?
So, the first night of rioting resulted in a significant portion of the stores in my community burning to the ground and you think that it is just coincidence that the second night when the storeowners were armed, the burnings stopped in that community? Maybe its just an opinion but I am pretty sure that having armed men on the rooftops of the stores prevented more arson and looting that second night.
What fear are you talking about? I am saying that you don’t have the right of it when you try and tell people like those storeowners that they must make way for arsonists and looters rather than stand in their doorway with a gun. A gun that the state of california subsequently confiscated because they were considered assault weapons.
You are the one that seems to be repeating himself. You simply stick your fingers in your ears and repeat taht the only reason anyone would want a gun is because of irrational fear. I think you are the one who is so irrationally afraid of guns that you would deny people the ability to defend themselves.
Just to be clear, when you say “Stand on your own property without making way for arsonists,” what you’re saying is that you’d kill someone to avoid having to file an insurance claim. And you’re surprised that not everyone shares your bloodlust?
In unrelated stupid gun news, I love these open-carry advocates. They’re the best providers of stupid gun news, I think. Dude admits to being the sort of person who regularly drives to Austin just so he can stand around with his AR-15 proving some kind of point, but then says that he brought it on his little jaunt because he’s afraid of cougars and pigs. What a pussy.
It’s hard to tell from the video if the vet from Iraq and Afghanistan is a pussy or not but he didn’t appear to be breaking any law. If he actually resisted arrest, it must have been before the camera was filming. IANAL but he didn’t seem to resist “arrest”. He may not have cooperated with the policeman earlier but I don’t know what the legal requirements for him to do so are. I’m sure he’ll sue for something and he may very well have a case.
I go for walks around 5:00 in the morning and worry about feral hogs and coyotes. Open carry is illegal here (so far) and I don’t have a concealed carry permit so I take my dog with me and hope to god that she’ll be able to scare off any wild animals.