# Toss up your reasons NOT to allow concealed carry, and I\`ll (heh) shoot them down. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2004, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437 "2004-02-04T04:02:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/201 "2004-02-18T17:18:10Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > O.K., do you have a right to murder? Do you have a right to rape? Do you have a right to steal? Do you have a right to run red lights whenever you feel like it? Do you have a right to fix yourself a bald eagle sandwich with spotted owl sauce? Why not? Does the Bill of Rights _specifically_ say you can’t do those things? No, it doesn’t. You can’t do those things because there are LAWS passed by the LEGISLATURE against doing those things. Legislatures can pass laws, and they do not have to have your personal permission to enforce those laws. Here’s what you fail to comprehend. If there were an Amendment to the Constitution that read, > [@](#): > > A well regulated food industry, being necessary to the health of the populace, the right to eat fowl shall not be infringed. then one could pretty much eat Bald Eagle sandwiches if he or she pleased, and the government would be prohibited from enacting legislation that would deny one that pleasure. ---
**Author:** ![monterey86](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@monterey86](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monterey86)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/202 "2004-02-18T17:55:35Z")
Why do people want to carry concealed weapons? 1. They like the feeling of power and control it gives them. (not a legitimate reason) 2. They fear someone will try to kill them or their loved ones and want to defend themselves. The second reason may be valid for a tiny number of people for fixed amount of time (eg. serial killer on campus, psycho killer ex-spouse escapes prison) but for most people it is paranoia and deadly force is far more likely to used in an unnecessary way (road rage, misunderstanding, cheating husband/wife, perceived insults, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/203 "2004-02-18T18:05:36Z")
**montery86** wrote: > [@](#): > > The second reason may be valid for a tiny number of people for fixed amount of time (eg. serial killer on campus, psycho killer ex-spouse escapes prison) but for most people it is paranoia and deadly force is far more likely to used in an unnecessary way (road rage, misunderstanding, cheating husband/wife, perceived insults, etc.) Pardon me for asking, but could you link to the sites or provide cites supporting your assertion? Especially the road rage ones, that should be very interesting data. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/204 "2004-02-18T18:12:30Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > But you took my quote out of context. I know. I did not mean to mischaracterize your arguments. I only used that quote to get back into the discussion on a point I am interested in. > [@](#): > > The militia is NOT dependent on people providing their own guns. Right. I’m not entirely sure it ever was. I think that it was more important to have a population familiar with the operation of arms than for them to provide their own arms. In an emergency when they were called up, they might provide their own arms for a short time, but in any conflict lasting more than a few skirmishes they would have to be provided with weapons and ammunition. In addition, however, an unarmed population would need to be trained in how to use guns from the basic principles to the skills needed to safely operate them. Including some principles of marksmanship. \ I saw a history channel special yesterday which suggested that the Revolutionary Army was the first to add the word “aim” to the “ready, aim, fire” command sequence. Before that armies would simply “present locks” which meant point your gun in the general direction of the opposing force.\ I guess all I am suggesting is that the existence of a citizen militia is not entirely gone from our modern society. It may not have the prominence it once did. It may not be used as it once was, but it is not necessarily an artifact of colonial times with no bearing whatsoever to modern life. > [@](#): > > In fact, the militias that existed in colonial times are no more, so really, the 2nd Amendment is an artifact of a time long since passed, and really shouldn’t be given any more thought than the 3rd Amendment, which nobody even talks about anymore. Well, now lets not go too far. Nobody talks about it because nobody even thinks about violatine it. Go to congress and propose removing it and see how far you get. > [@](#): > > So the question is, if we agree that we’re talking about a kind of militia that doesn’t exist anymore, why is it justified to just substitute “personal self-defense” for militia, when that’s not what they were talking about? You object to “substituting new words for old concepts”, yet that’s precisely what you are doing. I’m not sure personal self-defense is different from what the founding fathers would have envisioned as part of a citizen militia. Specifically, they would have envisioned small groups of militia resisting invasion even before a national body like the congress was aware of it. I think they would have included the concept of “self” preservation as part an parcel of this concept of “minute man” militia. In other words, I’m not substituting self defence for militia. At least not in the way that your argument _seems_ to substitute National Guard for militia. One more point I’d like to make. I’m not sure that either of your arguments (yours or Razor’s) takes the entire ammendment into account. For Razor to postulate an unlimited (or virtually so) right to bear arms he has to ignore the first clause. But for you to postulate an unlimited (or virtually so) power to ban ownership of arms you have to ignore the second clause. I believe a more careful reading of the history of this issue may lead to a definition of “militia” which is compatible with _both_ a right to own arms _and_ the State’s power to impose safety and security limitations on those rights. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/205 "2004-02-18T18:18:21Z")
**Razorsharp** I suppose in the interest of fariness, I should ask you a similar question. What do you think the first clause of the ammendment means? Does the state have no power whatsoever to regulate the ownership and use of firearms? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/206 "2004-02-18T19:12:33Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > Here’s what you fail to comprehend. If there were an Amendment to the Constitution that read, then one could pretty much eat Bald Eagle sandwiches if he or she pleased, and the government would be prohibited from enacting legislation that would deny one that pleasure. I do not fail to comprehend that at all. In fact, that is _precisely my point_. _If_ something is constitutionally protected, then the government can’t infringe. You’re engaging in your “moving target” debating style again. In your usual style you took my post out of context, pretending that FuzzyWuzzy’s prior comment did not exist: > [@](#): > > Fuzzy: > The Constitution does not give the people rights. The Constitution gives the government certain powers… certain LIMITED powers. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the people GIVE the government power to take their weapons away. You are engaging in circular reasoning, along the lines of: Blowero: “The right to own a gun for personal self-defense is not constitutionally protected.” FuzzyWuzzy: “Even if it’s not, I have the right to own a gun as long as it’s not specifically taken away by the Constitution.” Blowero: “If that’s true, then you would also have the right to murder, etc., since those are not _specifically_ taken away.” Razor: “But if all those things were Constitutionally protected, you could do them.” Razor, that rates a big, fat, DUH! We weren’t TALKING about things that are constitutionally protected at that moment. FuzzyWuzzy was suggesting that rights exist unless they are _specifically taken away_ by the Constitution, and I disagreed with him. _Your_ comment just demonstrates your continuing inability to follow a simple train of thought. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/207 "2004-02-18T19:42:53Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I know. I did not mean to mischaracterize your arguments. I only used that quote to get back into the discussion on a point I am interested in. Please don’t do that. > [@](#): > > Right. I’m not entirely sure it ever was. I think that it was more important to have a population familiar with the operation of arms than for them to provide their own arms. In an emergency when they were called up, they might provide their own arms for a short time, but in any conflict lasting more than a few skirmishes they would have to be provided with weapons and ammunition. Why is it necessary for people to “practice at home”? If a state were to form a militia, could the state not provide training? Even if you _had_ a handgun at home and were familiar with it, you’d _still_ need to have training in operating military weapons, so I don’t see the advantage. You’ll need training either way. > [@](#): > > Well, now lets not go too far. Nobody talks about it because nobody even thinks about violatine it. Go to congress and propose removing it and see how far you get. I never suggested removing _anything_. I just don’t see that the huge importance the NRA attaches to the Second Amendment is warranted. The Electoral College is an artifact, too, but nobody’s going to get it removed. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure personal self-defense is different from what the founding fathers would have envisioned as part of a citizen militia. Specifically, they would have envisioned small groups of militia resisting invasion even before a national body like the congress was aware of it. It’s _very_ different. You’re talking about repelling an _invasion_. That’s not what people are doing with their guns today. The founding fathers were thinking about England trying to get their colonies back, or the newly formed U.S. federal government going mad with power. But is that what we’re thinking about today? No. You want your guns because you’re afraid that Joe Thug is going to come into your house and steal your stuff. > [@](#): > > I think they would have included the concept of “self” preservation as part an parcel of this concept of “minute man” militia. Well “I think” isn’t really enough to go on, though. > [@](#): > > In other words, I’m not substituting self defence for militia. At least not in the way that your argument _seems_ to substitute National Guard for militia. Just to be clear, we already established that I do not equate the National Guard with the Colonial militias. What I wrote only “seemed” that way when you took it out of context. > [@](#): > > One more point I’d like to make. I’m not sure that either of your arguments (yours or Razor’s) takes the entire ammendment into account. For Razor to postulate an unlimited (or virtually so) right to bear arms he has to ignore the first clause. But for you to postulate an unlimited (or virtually so) power to ban ownership of arms you have to ignore the second clause. I believe a more careful reading of the history of this issue may lead to a definition of “militia” which is compatible with _both_ a right to own arms _and_ the State’s power to impose safety and security limitations on those rights. But where does one draw the line? I’m pretty sure you’d agree that ordinary citizens ought not to have nuclear bombs, or bazookas, or napalm, or flame-throwers, right? Well, if states can regulate _these_ things, then who decides what they _can’t_ regulate? You? ---
**Author:** ![monterey86](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@monterey86](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monterey86)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/208 "2004-02-18T20:13:52Z")
> [@BF](#): > > **montery86** wrote: > Pardon me for asking, but could you link to the sites or provide cites supporting your assertion? Especially the road rage ones, that should be very interesting data. Thank you. I was just listing examples of guns used in an emotionally charged way. But here are a few interesting reports/studies: On any given day, 1,100,000 Americans carry concealed weapons on them outside the workplace, and 2,100,000 in their vehicles. The rate is twice as high in the South as the rest of the nation. FBI data show that just 0.6% of violent-crime victims used a firearm in an attempt to defend themselves. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Crime Utilization Survey, 29% of violent-crime victims faced an offender with a gun. Of those, three percent suffered gunshot wounds. In other words, even if you are unfortunate enough to face an assailant with a firearm, there is a 97% chance that you will not be shot. BJS surveys from a number of years consistently indicate that about 85,000 crime victims use guns in an attempt to protect themselves or their property out of a total of 13,000,000 reported crimes (FBI) or 40,000,000 crimes, including unreported ones (Justice Department). Either way, guns are used in defense in less than one percent of crimes committed. regardless of gun ownership laws. FBI crime data indicates that, in the seven states that the NRA identifies as having the most-restrictive concealed weapons laws on the books, homicides/non-negligent manslaughter declined in six of them between 1993 and 1999–Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The 11 states identified as having moderately restrictive concealed weapons laws all experienced homicide declines. For example, per 100,000 inhabitants, Missouri declined from 11.3 to 6.6; Ohio, from six to 3.5; and California and New York both experienced dramatic declines from approximately 13 to six and five, respectively. USA Today (Magazine), March, 2001, by Steven Riczo Of firearm-related unintentional fatalities, 71% involve handguns. Source: Accidental Shootings: Many Deaths and Injuries Caused by Firearms Could be Prevented. GAO Report. 1991. Having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of a domestic homicide. Source: Bailey, J. Risk factors for violence death of women in the home. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1997; 157(7): 777-782. There’s also the suicide angle: [Study: Handgun Ownership Raises Risk of Suicide](http://http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/suicide/risks.htm) ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/209 "2004-02-18T20:54:12Z")
Thanks for the prompt reply **monterey86** (I spelled it right this time). Unfortunately your link doesn’t work for me. I understand your premise, however, your arguement (road rage, et al) is not supported by your cites. I’ll delve into some of your stat’s later, I’m off to the range! ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/210 "2004-02-18T21:02:37Z")
> [@robby](#): > > Millions of people in the U.S. have guns. Very few of them are using them to “threaten and murder” others. I made no argument as to the _percentage_ of gun owners who threaten and/or murder. Even fewer of them are being used to repel armed invasions threatening the liberty of the state. In fact, I’d say ZERO of them are being used for that purpose. > [@](#): > > Indeed, it is illegal to “threaten and murder” others except in limited circumstances, such as legitimate self-defense. A.) I made no claim as to whether these things were done legally or illegally, and B.) the fact that a given activity is illegal does not mean people don’t do it. > [@](#): > > And nobody that I’m aware of, not even the NRA, is defending the right of felons to possess firearms. That’s sort of a “no true Scotsman” argument. The NRA says that only felons are committing the crimes, not the law-abiding gun owners. But of course, as soon as a gun owner commits a felony, then he’s a felon, and not one of the “law-abiding” gun-owners. Rather convenient, that. Besides which, the NRA consistenty lobbies for _fewer and fewer_ restrictions on gun ownership, and _never_ supports any kind of restriction on gun ownership. In addition, they consistently support relaxing the standards for background checks. So in fact, they support measures that would result in more felons getting guns. > [@](#): > > As for myself, I own guns. I have never threatened anyone in my life, and certainly not with a firearm. It goes without saying that I have never murdered anybody. > > I own guns because I feel that it is my right as a citizen to be able to defend myself and my family without being dependent on the police or the government. I have never been threatened or been in fear for my life, but should the situation ever arise, I will not be told by my government that I have no right to protect myself or my family. And that’s _exactly_ my point. Why do you want the gun? So you can “protect yourself or your family”. How would you do that? If the situation arose, you would use the gun to _threaten_ someone who you thought posed a hazard to yourself or your family, correct? What’s more, you want to do so without “being dependent on the police or the government”. Quite simply, you’re saying you wish to take the law into your own hands. I don’t think that’s what the Second Amendment is addressing. So in fact, you have just proven my point. You don’t want a gun to fight oppression, you want it in order to intimidate others, or at least have the potential to do so. > [@](#): > > As far as “fight[ing] oppression” goes, simply because people with guns are not currently using them for this purpose does not mean that the need will never arise. I have several fire extinguishers, too, which have never been used. Does this mean I should get rid of them? You just told us why you have a gun, and you didn’t mention fighting oppression at all. I think that’s just a false justification that people use so they can claim to be invoking the Second Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/211 "2004-02-18T21:24:47Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > That’s right, ‘cause if ya do, there’s a good chance that you wind up gettin’ cut. Dude, you ain’t cutting shit. > [@](#): > > Horseshit, you said that the National Guard is the militia to give substance to an outright lie. In your dreams. I said it because you appear to suffer from the delusion that people today are providing their own weapons when they join up. But people _don’t_ provide their own weapons. That’s not a lie. The fact that you think it’s a lie shows that you are woefully ignorant. > [@](#): > > Equally egregious is your refusal to admit that the only right mentioned in the Second Amendment is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”. The Amendment further states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To then claim that the right to bear arms only exists when in service of a militia, is an admission of an outright infringement of said right. Wow, you’re really gonna go with that theory? Just take whatever words out of the sentence you like and read them without context? O.K., here’s my interpretation of the 4th Amendment: > [@](#): > > Amendment IV > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall … be violated. 😃 > [@](#): > > Another damnable lie. Firearms are used many more times annually to protect lives and property, than to threaten and murder. Huh? Think about how one would “protect lives and property” with a gun. Does the gun send out magical rays that make criminals say “Gee, guess I’ll stop taking lives and property”? Nope - you would use the gun to _threaten_ the criminal, correct? > [@](#): > > No one is substituting “personal self-defense” for militia. The right to self-defense is an unalienable right. That’s one of those rights that go along with the right to “Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness”. No, it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/212 "2004-02-18T21:42:46Z")
By the way, has anyone else noticed the irony here? Those who support gun ownership are for the most part those on the right end of the political spectrum, usually Republicans. They justify their position as being necessary to defend liberty. Yet it’s the _same_ people who fail to oppose the erosion of those liberties that they claim to defend. Republicans invariably favor _more_ FEDERAL MILITARY SPENDING, in fact supporting the very “standing army” that is supposedly the bane of existence. They favor the Patriot Act, which gives the Federal government _more_ power to infringe on our liberties. Democrats, who tend to favor gun control, also oppose laws that infringe on due process, imprisonment without trial, and unreasonable search and seizure. But the current Republican administration has taken measures to _curtail_ these things, and received overwhelming support from Republican voters. Democrats tend to favor unlimited free speech, while Republicans want to control the content of media. The same right-wingers who claim they need guns to “defend liberty”, for the most part actually have little interest in liberty. ---
**Author:** ![monterey86](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@monterey86](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monterey86)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/213 "2004-02-18T21:55:19Z")
> [@BF](#): > > Thanks for the prompt reply **monterey86** (I spelled it right this time). Unfortunately your link doesn’t work for me. I understand your premise, however, your arguement (road rage, et al) is not supported by your cites. I’ll delve into some of your stat’s later, I’m off to the range! I didn’t claim they did support it, only that they were interesting. But if you want road-rage & guns (what a great combo), here’s another one: When it comes to the weapons used during outbursts of “road rage,” our study identified drivers’ vehicles and firearms as the principal weapons of choice. In 35 percent of the 10,037 incidents reviewed for our study, a vehicle was used as a weapon. In 37 percent a firearm was used. This high rate of use of firearms is especially alarming given the proliferation of “concealed carry” gun permit laws in this country. A motorist may have a legal handgun near at hand, never intending to use it for anything except self-defense. Yet a provoking incident occurs, and there the gun is, available for use – and, in a moment of madness, it gets used. Research on the Problem of Violent Aggressive Driving David K. Willis President and Chief Executive Officer of AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/214 "2004-02-18T23:30:42Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > By the way, has anyone else noticed the irony here? Those who support gun ownership are for the most part those on the right end of the political spectrum, usually Republicans. They justify their position as being necessary to defend liberty. Yet it’s the _same_ people who fail to oppose the erosion of those liberties that they claim to defend. Republicans invariably favor _more_ FEDERAL MILITARY SPENDING, in fact supporting the very “standing army” that is supposedly the bane of existence. They favor the Patriot Act, which gives the Federal government _more_ power to infringe on our liberties. Democrats, who tend to favor gun control, also oppose laws that infringe on due process, imprisonment without trial, and unreasonable search and seizure. But the current Republican administration has taken measures to _curtail_ these things, and received overwhelming support from Republican voters. Democrats tend to favor unlimited free speech, while Republicans want to control the content of media. The same right-wingers who claim they need guns to “defend liberty”, for the most part actually have little interest in liberty. I have noticed the irony. But would point out that it runs both ways with Democrats not supporting the civil liberty of being armed. Not that either party is much on liberty. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/215 "2004-02-19T01:16:33Z")
**monterey86** wrote: > [@](#): > > When it comes to the weapons used during outbursts of “road rage,” our study identified drivers’ vehicles and firearms as the principal weapons of choice. In 35 percent of the 10,037 incidents reviewed for our study, a vehicle was used as a weapon. **In 37 percent a firearm was used**. This high rate of use of firearms is especially alarming given the proliferation of “concealed carry” gun permit laws in this country Emphasis mine. So does this study support your contention that “road rage” incidents with a firearm are committed by licensed CCW holders? And BTW, how come Japan has as many or more suicides per capita compared to the US, and guns are banned period? What does this have to do with CCW holders in the US? **blowero** wrote: > [@](#): > > They favor the Patriot Act, which gives the Federal government more power to infringe on our liberties. Although building up your forearms with that big-ass brush you’re swinging, you may want to see what other organizations (that vote Republican) have to say about the Patriot Act (just a couple I googled). [ul] [li][Gunowners.com](http://www.gunowners.org/patriotii.htm)[/li][Quoted by the ACLU?] ([http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12634&c=206](http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12634&c=206))[/ul] > [@](#): > > Besides which, the NRA consistenty lobbies for fewer and fewer restrictions on gun ownership, and never supports any kind of restriction on gun ownership. Sorry, not true. The NRA was key in the passage of the Brady Bill, calling specifically for the NCIS vice a 5-day waiting period, and they have been a major player in the Project Exile initiative. And to go back to one of my earlier posts, the NRA is all for crime control when it involves guns, however, they will not support restrictions of gun ownership when it cannot be shown that this or that particular law will reduce criminal use of a firearm. I think you need to spend some more time on the NRA’s web page. ---
**Author:** ![Berkut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@Berkut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Berkut)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/216 "2004-02-19T01:51:57Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Why do you want the gun? So you can “protect yourself or your family”. How would you do that? If the situation arose, you would use the gun to _threaten_ someone who you thought posed a hazard to yourself or your family, correct? No, not correct, no way. I don’t want to answer for the other poster, but I have to say something about this, as I have a CC permit. You never use a firearm to threaten or intimidate someone. You use it to eliminate a threat. If you or someone else is at an immediate risk of death or severe bodily harm, you pull your weapon and fire until the threat is eliminated. Don’t pull that gun unless your next action is to pull the trigger. > [@blowero](#): > > What’s more, you want to do so without “being dependent on the police or the government”. Quite simply, you’re saying you wish to take the law into your own hands. No, you are quite simply doing what you have to do to save your life, or someone elses. What the heck are you supposed to do, stand there and get beaten, robbed, stabbed, or murdered and hope the cops call an ambulance when they get there? By using a firearm to eliminate a threat, you aren’t taking the law into your own hands, you are saving your own ass. You are not judging your attacker and then executing them > [@blowero](#): > > So in fact, you have just proven my point. You don’t want a gun to fight oppression, you want it in order to intimidate others, or at least have the potential to do so. No one has proven your point, not even you. You just put your own ignorant words in his mouth and then blamed him for it. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/217 "2004-02-19T02:35:03Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Please don’t do that. I’m sorry, do what? > [@](#): > > Why is it necessary for people to “practice at home”? If a state were to form a militia, could the state not provide training? Even if you _had_ a handgun at home and were familiar with it, you’d _still_ need to have training in operating military weapons, so I don’t see the advantage. You’ll need training either way. ?Sure, but the question is how much and from what starting point. Shooting is a skill. Like most skills it takes training _and_ practice to become proficient in it. similarly a raw beginner who has never seen a gun before will require more training (on average) than someone who has handled guns all his life. Whether or not either of them has ever seen the guns used by the military. > [@](#): > > I never suggested removing _anything_. I just don’t see that the huge importance the NRA attaches to the Second Amendment is warranted. That’s because you have decided on how may guns should be allowed and don’t mind that forces inside washington are acting to bring about your agenda. The NRA, on the other hand is quite worried that their agenda (which they view as protected by the amendment in question) is begin thwarted. So, they attach a large importance to the amendment. As someone else suggested, if some group or other tried to suggest billeting troops in private homes we would all start talking about the 3rd amendment and why it was put there, and the dangers of ignoring it. Perhaps more so than we do the second. > [@](#): > > It’s _very_ different. No, not really. I’m talking about using force to defend oneself and the country against others who are using force against it. The principle is exactly the same. Only the numbers of people involved are different. > [@](#): > > Well “I think” isn’t really enough to go on, though. Right. Which is why I asked if you had any good cites indicating that the founding fathers saw the militia as something other than every able bodied citizen. It seems to me that the collective rights argument relies to some degree on this premise. If not in the minds of the founding fathers, at least in the minds of the current “anti gun” lobbiests. > [@](#): > > Just to be clear, we already established that I do not equate the National Guard with the Colonial militias. What I wrote only “seemed” that way when you took it out of context. Fair enough. But you still have not defined, then, what the militia is. What is the difference, IOW, between the militia and the National Guard? > [@](#): > > But where does one draw the line? I’m pretty sure you’d agree that ordinary citizens ought not to have nuclear bombs, or bazookas, or napalm, or flame-throwers, right? Well, if states can regulate _these_ things, then who decides what they _can’t_ regulate? You? Well, if I have the deciding vote in the supreme court, then yes me. 🙂 Seriously, though, the legislative process is quite capable of drawing these lines. I think we have pretty good lines right now. It does not seem to me that CCW moves the line very far in either direction. ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/218 "2004-02-19T13:41:27Z")
> [@](#): > > No one is substituting “personal self-defense” for militia. The right to self-defense is an unalienable right. That’s one of those rights that go along with the right to “Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness”. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. That really makes no sense blowero. What use if the right to life if you have no right to defend your life? It makes no sense. Here in Canada our Charter of Rights reads: > [@](#): > > 1. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice which makes the issue somewhat clearer. But still, doesn’t the establishment of a right give you some degree to defend that right within the law? Otherwise what use is it if it can be taken away on a whim with the possessor of the right having no recourse to its defense? Note, that I state “within the law”. I’m certainly not saying that if somebody were to try to deprive somebody of my freedom of religion that anybody should respond violently, legal action could and should be sought. However, in the case of depriving somebody of their immediate loss of life what would you recommend? Note, that in most states the law allows for some means of violent self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/219 "2004-02-19T14:26:53Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Dude, you ain’t cutting shit. Oh yes, I most certainly have cut “shit”. I’ve put you in check to the point that you are basically shuttin’ your eyes, covering your ears, and stompin’ your feet like a child who has just been told that Santa is not real. That is what you are doing in your child-like refusal to admit that “the right to keep and bear arms” is the only “right” mentioned in the Amendment. > [@](#): > > In your dreams. I said it because you appear to suffer from the delusion that people today are providing their own weapons when they join up. Join what? Not the militia. See, you are still attempting to maintain that bit of nonsense you spouted about the National Guard being the militia. > [@](#): > > But people _don’t_ provide their own weapons. That’s not a lie. The fact that you think it’s a lie shows that you are woefully ignorant. Pssst… Blow, other people can see these words that you write, of course it’s already been pointed out to you that others recognize your shallow tactic of putting your words in other people’s mouths to give excuse to your lies. [quote] Wow, you’re really gonna go with that theory? Just take whatever words out of the sentence you like and read them without context? O.K., here’s my interpretation of the 4th Amendment: > [@](#): > > Amendment IV > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall … be violated. Yes, I can see how you interpret the Amendment as such, seeing that you interpret the Second Amendment as: > [@](#): > > A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall … be infringed. 😛 yourself. > [@](#): > > Huh? Think about how one would “protect lives and property” with a gun. Does the gun send out magical rays that make criminals say “Gee, guess I’ll stop taking lives and property”? Nope - you would use the gun to _threaten_ the criminal, correct? Now you have to resort to semantics in your desperate struggle for creedence. See, you were using _threaten and murder_ in the context of a gun owner acting in an irresponsible manner, when threatening a criminal bent on doing you harm is a justifiable use of a firearm. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. Okay, rather than just making one of your baseless proclaimations, explain why “self-defense” not an unalienable right? ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/220 "2004-02-19T14:29:05Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Dude, you ain’t cutting shit. Oh yes, I most certainly have cut “shit”. I’ve put you in check to the point that you are basically shuttin’ your eyes, covering your ears, and stompin’ your feet like a child who has just been told that Santa is not real. That is what you are doing in your child-like refusal to admit that “the right to keep and bear arms” is the only “right” mentioned in the Amendment. > [@](#): > > In your dreams. I said it because you appear to suffer from the delusion that people today are providing their own weapons when they join up. Join what? Not the militia. See, you are still attempting to maintain that bit of nonsense you spouted about the National Guard being the militia. > [@](#): > > But people _don’t_ provide their own weapons. That’s not a lie. The fact that you think it’s a lie shows that you are woefully ignorant. Pssst… Blow, other people can see these words that you write, of course it’s already been pointed out to you that others recognize your shallow tactic of putting your words in other people’s mouths to give excuse to your lies. [quote] Wow, you’re really gonna go with that theory? Just take whatever words out of the sentence you like and read them without context? O.K., here’s my interpretation of the 4th Amendment: > [@](#): > > Amendment IV > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall … be violated. Yes, I can see how you interpret the Amendment as such, seeing that you interpret the Second Amendment as: > [@](#): > > A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall … be infringed. 😛 yourself. > [@](#): > > Huh? Think about how one would “protect lives and property” with a gun. Does the gun send out magical rays that make criminals say “Gee, guess I’ll stop taking lives and property”? Nope - you would use the gun to _threaten_ the criminal, correct? Now you have to resort to semantics in your desperate struggle for creedence. See, you were using _threaten and murder_ in the context of a gun owner acting in an irresponsible manner, when threatening a criminal bent on doing you harm is a justifiable use of a firearm. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. Okay, rather than just making one of your baseless proclaimations, explain why “self-defense” is not an unalienable right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437.md?page=12)