Americans Packing In Record Numbers
- Thread starter The_Shootist
- Start date
- Status
rainbowbob
Member
Sleazyrider: This quote from your first (locked) thread seems to completely contradict everything you wrote in this thread.
oldfool
Member
paradox
I "agree" with both Sam911 and Sleazy
"shall not infringe" means "shall not infringe"
I do not think felons convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to own guns, I don't think mental patients under physical restraints in institutions should be allowed to own guns; "there oughta' be a law", but I do not think that makes me "anti"
paradox
I think all law abiding citizens of a free republic have natural rights of self defense, and those ought be guaranteed by law
Yet, I think most civilians ought not actually own guns
(just us good guys, you know)
purchasing a weapon does not turn a foolish, irresponsible person into a wise, responsible person
people motivated by hate and fear often do foolish things, sometimes "a danger to themselves and others"
far too many people are far too motivated by hate and fear, too easily swayed by talking heads on TV
far too many first time gun buyers, buy a gun and a box of ammo, and that's it, maybe never shoot more than 50 rounds
paradox
it is very easy for almost anyone not convicted of a crime to get a permit (here)
that's the good news
that's the bad news
paradox
there are six members of close family, all of whom I love dearly, all of whom I would trust with my life,who have CCW, but two of which very rarely ever shoot. I am glad they own guns, glad they have CCW permit, but also glad they mostly do not carry or feel the need to, but I wish they would practice a whole lot more (and then carry a whole lot more)
"there ought NOT be a law", but exercising rights does not guarantee all will exercise them responsibly
answers to such things are not all that simple, except for simple minded folk
restrictive gun laws are not the answer
I "agree" with both Sam911 and Sleazy
"shall not infringe" means "shall not infringe"
I do not think felons convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to own guns, I don't think mental patients under physical restraints in institutions should be allowed to own guns; "there oughta' be a law", but I do not think that makes me "anti"
paradox
I think all law abiding citizens of a free republic have natural rights of self defense, and those ought be guaranteed by law
Yet, I think most civilians ought not actually own guns
(just us good guys, you know)
purchasing a weapon does not turn a foolish, irresponsible person into a wise, responsible person
people motivated by hate and fear often do foolish things, sometimes "a danger to themselves and others"
far too many people are far too motivated by hate and fear, too easily swayed by talking heads on TV
far too many first time gun buyers, buy a gun and a box of ammo, and that's it, maybe never shoot more than 50 rounds
paradox
it is very easy for almost anyone not convicted of a crime to get a permit (here)
that's the good news
that's the bad news
paradox
there are six members of close family, all of whom I love dearly, all of whom I would trust with my life,who have CCW, but two of which very rarely ever shoot. I am glad they own guns, glad they have CCW permit, but also glad they mostly do not carry or feel the need to, but I wish they would practice a whole lot more (and then carry a whole lot more)
"there ought NOT be a law", but exercising rights does not guarantee all will exercise them responsibly
answers to such things are not all that simple, except for simple minded folk
restrictive gun laws are not the answer
DHJenkins
Member
An increase in CCW permits isn't an indicator of a "sick society".
What it does indicate is that many members of our society are assuming that otherwise law abiding citizens will become so desperate in these economic times that they will be 'forced' to commit criminal acts.
What it does indicate is that many members of our society are assuming that otherwise law abiding citizens will become so desperate in these economic times that they will be 'forced' to commit criminal acts.
SHOTGUNJOE
Member
Coincidentally/ironically, decreasing crime rates follow these increasing CCW #'s.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Are you making the determination of who's a good guy? Heavens, we can't simply allow folks' good conduct and clean record be enough to allow them access to weapons! Maybe we could have a test to see just how "good" they are.
Most civilians don't own guns -- so rest easy. Those that want to, generally go about their business without ever harming anyone. They could, sure. And you can get worked up about that if you want. But they don't so the Constitutional attitude towards civilan ownership of weapons seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Nor does it turn a responsible, wise person into an irresponsible fool. We hear horror stories about the unusual few folks who really muck things up. The other 99.9% of folks get along just fine -- why burden them for the sake of the scant few?
And that's no different than it's been in every society in every land, for ever. "Far too many," is still a scant percentage of the population. You would accept onerous restrictions yourself because of what those scant few might do?
Uhhhh... so what? Who does that hurt? There doesn't seem to be a rash of accidental killings that we've got to stop by controlling these lacadasical semi-involved gun owners. In fact, gun accidents still appear to be falling.
Yes!
No!
You're advocating restrictions on the law-abiding to try and control the non-law abiding. That just doesn't make any sense.
If folks are willing to break the serious social mores against violence and the significant, often CAPTIOL, penalties for violating them, why would anyone expect them to respect the minor burecratic strictures against the ownership or carrying of arms? That's like a rapist who won't litter!
There are no guaranties about anything.
Not all drivers on the road will be attentive enough. Not all builders will build safe structures. Not all gun owners will be perfectly responsible. But there are laws in place to encourage good behavior and punish bad. I'm not willing to accept further restrictions on myself or others simply to make an ineffectual attempt to "do something" about the scant few who make the headlines with dangerous behavior.
-Sam
Last edited:
bennadatto
Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 133
I like this thread! A lot of posts I see on here consist of an original post quoting the latest anti-gun filth, and a handful of subsequent posts confirming the quotes "filth" status, but on this thread, I see a plethora of well thought out and well researched arguments. Whether or not you agree with what SleazyRider posted, I think it's a valuable exercise to have a post with a somewhat contradictory opinion so we can all take a step back and evaluate why we believe what we believe.
rainbowbob
Member
I don't think sleazyrider even agrees with what sleazyrider posted.
But the responses have been well-measured and reasoned and that's a good thing.
oldfool
Member
hi Sam1911,
(have enjoyed your posts for a long time, now)
guess I missed the part in my own post where I implied...
"You're advocating restrictions on the law-abiding to try and control the non-law abiding"
I thunk that at least this much was pretty clear...
"shall not infringe" means "shall not infringe"
I think all law abiding citizens of a free republic have natural rights of self defense, and those ought be guaranteed by law
"there ought NOT be a law"
restrictive gun laws are not the answer
and somehow or other I missed the part where I was advocating any law-abiding citizen be denied anything BY LAW
big difference between what's legal and what's right
big difference between what is illegal and what's wrong
we, all of us, who live still in a free republic, must suffer both kinds of fools
I only own ~40, just trying to do my small part to make up for those many who own none, you know
and I would be willing to own a few more, to make up for those who are (and should be allowed by law) to own some, but don't. I think you should, too
but I am not all that fond of sharing my range time with some, who obviously do not know their b*** from apple-butter, and show no inclination to learn responsibly, but bought a new/1st gun because of "politics" and talking TV heads. Not real crazy about sharing street time with them, either, but don't deny their right to walk the same street as me. That not being a good thing doesn't make it anything to celebrate.
Can't legislate responsibility, but that's no reason to admire a lack of it.
I woulda' thunk though, that you already knew who the "good guys" are...
"ain't but two, you and me, and to tell you the truth, I ain't all that sure about me"..
I thought that old joke was even older than me, go figger
irreconcilable differences, who woulda' thunk it ?
PS
anybody who wants to "parse" anything can do it
no shortage of fools and idiots who try to do that to the 2nd Amendment
"shall not infringe" means "shall not infringe"
the meaning of the word "is" is.... "is"
(have enjoyed your posts for a long time, now)
guess I missed the part in my own post where I implied...
"You're advocating restrictions on the law-abiding to try and control the non-law abiding"
I thunk that at least this much was pretty clear...
"shall not infringe" means "shall not infringe"
I think all law abiding citizens of a free republic have natural rights of self defense, and those ought be guaranteed by law
"there ought NOT be a law"
restrictive gun laws are not the answer
and somehow or other I missed the part where I was advocating any law-abiding citizen be denied anything BY LAW
big difference between what's legal and what's right
big difference between what is illegal and what's wrong
we, all of us, who live still in a free republic, must suffer both kinds of fools
I only own ~40, just trying to do my small part to make up for those many who own none, you know
and I would be willing to own a few more, to make up for those who are (and should be allowed by law) to own some, but don't. I think you should, too
but I am not all that fond of sharing my range time with some, who obviously do not know their b*** from apple-butter, and show no inclination to learn responsibly, but bought a new/1st gun because of "politics" and talking TV heads. Not real crazy about sharing street time with them, either, but don't deny their right to walk the same street as me. That not being a good thing doesn't make it anything to celebrate.
Can't legislate responsibility, but that's no reason to admire a lack of it.
I woulda' thunk though, that you already knew who the "good guys" are...
"ain't but two, you and me, and to tell you the truth, I ain't all that sure about me"..
I thought that old joke was even older than me, go figger
irreconcilable differences, who woulda' thunk it ?
PS
anybody who wants to "parse" anything can do it
no shortage of fools and idiots who try to do that to the 2nd Amendment
"shall not infringe" means "shall not infringe"
the meaning of the word "is" is.... "is"
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I didn't exactly miss it, but I did sidestep it to speak to the other points you made.
As it happens, I feel the spirit of what you were saying, I think. I see lots of folks who do not pass my test for responsibility and safety. I've seen many who I worry a bit may be heading for trouble if they don't learn good gunhandling skills and/or take this as seriously as it must be.
I get it! Really, I do.
But, like you said, "shall not infringe" means "shall not infringe," and that's what we have to stick to or we won't have anything.
And the good news is that all of your and my worrying seems to be a bit premature. Very few of those goofballs really do end up harming anyone else. And in the mean time, we try to keep on preaching safe and responsible gun-handling and ownership.
It's funny, but I really think gun safety in general has improved quite a bit even since I was a kid. Yeah, there's lots of folks who act like fools, but serious shooters no longer tolerate the safety lapses and lackadaisical attitudes towards muzzle discipline and such things that I can remember being common just a few decades ago.
You know, it's funny. I just got a copy of the "Fast and Fancy Shooters" movie compiled back in the '80s by Col. Applegate from old movies of exhibition shooters from mid-century. These guys were consummate pros and SUPERHUMAN shots. And watching them sweep crowds of up to 1000 people at once makes my skin CRAWL! There's no way that would fly these days.
All that to say, I think folks are generally safer than they were, even though there's so many more and our "community" is growing so fast.
No irreconcilable differences -- no worries!
-Sam
rainbowbob
Member
Actually, I think it goes...
"Ain't but two, you and me, and to tell you the truth, I ain't all that sure about you."
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
And yet the two cannot be shown to be correlated, except maybe from the standpoint that CCW laws get passed predominately during times when the crime rate is already falling.
rainbowbob
Member
No, but it clearly disproves the well established and widely believed myth (reiterated here by sleazyrider) that more guns = more violent crime.
SleazyRider
Member
The rooster crows, the sun rises. The rooster has caused the sun to rise.
mljdeckard
Member
Staggering philosophical acumen.
wally
Member
Certainly some training should be required before being allowed near a voting booth!
--wally.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Reel it back in, gang, or this one's heading for the bit bucket....
Erik M
Member
Since there is no way of polling malcontents there is no way to know if the number of crimanals carrying concealed illegally has increased along with the amount of legally licensed ccw holders.
There is no way you can correlate the crime rate to the number of CCW licenses issued. Statistics show that an overwhelmingly low number of permit holders commit crimes, no matter what your perception of thier level of training is.
I suspect there is a troll in this thread.
There is no way you can correlate the crime rate to the number of CCW licenses issued. Statistics show that an overwhelmingly low number of permit holders commit crimes, no matter what your perception of thier level of training is.
I suspect there is a troll in this thread.
rainbowbob
Member
sleaztrider:
Baloney.
If more guns = more violent crime as you suggest - the rate of violent crime would have increased as the number of guns in society increased. We've had several decades of increasing gun ownership in this country...and it hasn't happened.
Conversely, cities in which gun ownership is banned have experienced ever-increasing violent crime.
OK...too many variables to make a correlation (i.e., more guns = less crime) - fine.
But clearly, more guns do NOT = more violent crime.
And seriously, why would you call for more guns in your first thread - and subsequently argue against it in this thread?
rbernie
Contributing Member
Upon review of the play, the ruling on the field to keep the thread open is reversed.
No further good can come from this, and we've likely already said what can be said.
No further good can come from this, and we've likely already said what can be said.
- Status
