In addition, here is a link to an intresting article by a Rabbi explaining the difference between "kill" and "murder," regarding the Ten Commandants.
http://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/Dead-or-alive-a-thief-is-a-loser,13159
L.W.
Among the reasons for no concealed carry in areas?
- Thread starter peacebutready
- Start date
- Status
In addition, here is a link to an intresting article by a Rabbi explaining the difference between "kill" and "murder," regarding the Ten Commandants.
http://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/Dead-or-alive-a-thief-is-a-loser,13159
L.W.
DMK
Member
DMK
Member
No.
They simply don’t buy into the ‘good guy with a gun’ myth.
And it is indeed a myth.
There is no objective, documented evidence from a reliable source that citizens carrying concealed firearms facilitate a ‘decrease’ in gun and/or violence crimes.
Citizens have the fundamental right to carry concealed firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ or eliminate from society ‘bad guys.’
Moreover, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right such as lawful self-defense as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.
The mistake most Second Amendment advocates make is to attempt to ‘justify’ carrying a concealed firearm by propagating the myth that doing so ‘reduces crime,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Ed Ames
Member
This is an extremely important point. The Culture War factor is huge in much of this. The gun issue is the political equivalent of running over the neighbor's dog because the she plays her music too loud late at night. It is a deniable ("it was an accident, honest") way to hurt people in revenge for a perceived attack on issues they care about.
It is perceived as a targeted attack because of Balkanization/echo chamber blinding. Just like many so-called conservatives "don't know anyone who is gay", many so-called liberals "don't know anyone who owns guns." In both cases the reality is that each group has made it very clear that they will penalize anyone who is honest with them about those things, so people who don't want to deal with negative repercussions simply aren't open about themselves. That reinforces a perception that attacking those things will cause no harm to your group, only to outsiders. The sort of person who would never set fire to a neighbor's house because it might spread and burn down their own, wouldn't see a problem with attacking something like gun ownership that nobody in their perceived universe wants to do.
As it's just one of many factors affecting the probability of violent crime against population in general it's difficult if not impossible to conclusively prove or disprove anything, but cases like a substantial reduction in violent crime occurring in Estonia following the implementation of CCW might suggest causality. Especially because in culturally and politically similar neighboring countries where CCW has remained prohibited violent crime hasn't reduced at all.
I certainly wouldn't go to the lengths of calling it a myth, but as I mentioned, making a case for or against it is impossible due to sheer number of other factors. Evidence however proves that there's no positive correlation between legal gun ownership and violent crime; in majority of cases it's actually negative. If you're interested, I can dig into my old archives for reference. I used to do publishing for NRA Finland for several years as executive vice president and there's an exorbitant motherload of unsorted statistical data on one of my hard drives.
splattergun
Member
Pure and simple; It is now, has always been and shall always be, about control. It was that way with clubs and stones, swords and shields, guns and ammo. Whether village chief, warlord, king, emperor, or elected governors; Control the weapons, control the people. All throughout history, free people have always been armed.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
History is the greatest teacher.
.308 Norma
Member
True. It's too bad so many people refuse to learn.
jhb
Member
yep pretty much.
although how many voters actually know their elected officials voting records or even understand the bills they voted on. maybe its all of them.....i dont know as i never have seen an accurate survey. my opinion and that is all it is.....is that not many , not enough of the voters put in the time to understand what the person they vote for has done or is doing. they stick to simple party line format and that is one of the reasons we are were we are today........so be it.
Vern Humphrey
Member
“To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?”
Marcus Tullius Cicero
I also think it stems from the value systems of the politicians pushing gun control and that of their constituents.
It's a faith in collectivism and a distrust and dislike of individualism. You see the same attitude displayed toward home schooling. They have the attitude that "It takes a village to raise a child". Well they have an attitude that it takes the entire village to do everything, everything should be done by the collective, by society, by consensus.
The flip side is true for holding criminals responsible for their own actions. Many of them do feel that society is responsible for everything, so if some young man decides to hold up a jewelry store - it's because society let him down. Society failed to educate him, Society failed to provide a job for him.
The progressive politicians focus more on trying to change society in such a way that it becomes almost impossible for criminals to commit crimes. They don't devote any energy to punishing criminals, that energy goes into the monumental task of creating a Utopian society that doesn't have criminals. A wonderful civilization where all human being are nurtured and cared for from birth and because everyone's needs are met, society doesn't give rise to criminals.
And many of them believe that mankind's highest purpose is to bring about equality for everyone. The greatest moral outrage is that some live in luxury while others live in squalor. This influences how they see everything. Inequality has become for them, the root of all evil.
As much of a pipe dream all this is, I really get the sense that every time some criminal commits a brutal atrocity, the progressive politicians just grieve that fact that society let that young man down - that he was the victim of the cycle of poverty, the victim of social and economic injustice and an inadequate educational system. In short, the real root cause is inequality. They get angry at the conservative politicians who have impeded progress toward the perfect society and in the mind of the progressive politicians - perpetuate the societal problems by blocking progressive legislation.
When a "victim" of social and economic injustice and a failed educational system gets killed by a gun-wielding recipient of privilege, well to them, that is the ultimate injustice.
This mindset seeks to shift responsibility away from the criminal and pin it on inequality and the resultant social problems, and they consider guns a social problem. They want to both demonize and blame corporations like S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Glock and other gun manufacturers. One part of it is that they view guns the way that they view lead paint. It's a social ill that can be cured with the right government program aimed at it. But they view gun manufacturers like they would view paint manufacturers who would refuse to start making paint with no lead in it... Therefore the real problem to them becomes anyone who would oppose their agenda
The people who support the Brady Campaign are people who believe that if enlightened people are elected to office and given enough power, they will be able to change society in such a way that no one but the military will need guns - with the hope that someday other societies become similarly enlightened and humanity as a whole will no longer need weapons.
I think this gets at this other issue of why it is that gun control politicians absolutely hate 2A activists and anyone who promotes personal empowerment and responsibility and why gun control politicians don't seem to mind actual criminals so much.
People who advocate personal rights and personal responsibility and fight against increased government power and huge sweeping social programs as the solution to crime - are in direct opposition to anti-gun politicians. We're preventing them from solving all those problems they so arrogantly believe they could solve if it wasn't for us!
RTKBA advocates are a direct threat to everything socialists are trying to accomplish. We vote, we protest, we work to convince other people of the rightness of our position and we make campaign contributions. We're a direct threat to them.
No government can solve any problem unless it has power and money to enact and implement solutions. Anti-gun politicians really are naive enough to believe that if they could take ALL guns except those in use by the police and military - crime would basically go away.
They see us as narrow-minded, intellectually unsophisticated rubes who are impediments to them building the perfect society.
That's why when they pick up a gangbanger with a 10 page rap sheet on a UUW charge, he gets a 25K bond, and the charge gets plea-bargained down, or he gets sentenced to 3 or 4 years.
Conversely a law abiding citizen gets arrested for transporting their firearm via Greyhound in Chicago and they get a 50K bond and the book thrown at them as prosecutors do everything they can to put the person in jail forever even though the person didn't even break any laws.
The people who agree with the Brady Campaign are people who would rather trust "society" to take care of them than take care of themselves, and they fear people who demand the power and the right to take care of themselves.
They're more than willing to elevate their trusted politicians to near godhood status, but if their neighbor shoots an attacker in self defense they rail against them for "playing God".
It's a faith in collectivism and a distrust and dislike of individualism. You see the same attitude displayed toward home schooling. They have the attitude that "It takes a village to raise a child". Well they have an attitude that it takes the entire village to do everything, everything should be done by the collective, by society, by consensus.
The flip side is true for holding criminals responsible for their own actions. Many of them do feel that society is responsible for everything, so if some young man decides to hold up a jewelry store - it's because society let him down. Society failed to educate him, Society failed to provide a job for him.
The progressive politicians focus more on trying to change society in such a way that it becomes almost impossible for criminals to commit crimes. They don't devote any energy to punishing criminals, that energy goes into the monumental task of creating a Utopian society that doesn't have criminals. A wonderful civilization where all human being are nurtured and cared for from birth and because everyone's needs are met, society doesn't give rise to criminals.
And many of them believe that mankind's highest purpose is to bring about equality for everyone. The greatest moral outrage is that some live in luxury while others live in squalor. This influences how they see everything. Inequality has become for them, the root of all evil.
As much of a pipe dream all this is, I really get the sense that every time some criminal commits a brutal atrocity, the progressive politicians just grieve that fact that society let that young man down - that he was the victim of the cycle of poverty, the victim of social and economic injustice and an inadequate educational system. In short, the real root cause is inequality. They get angry at the conservative politicians who have impeded progress toward the perfect society and in the mind of the progressive politicians - perpetuate the societal problems by blocking progressive legislation.
When a "victim" of social and economic injustice and a failed educational system gets killed by a gun-wielding recipient of privilege, well to them, that is the ultimate injustice.
This mindset seeks to shift responsibility away from the criminal and pin it on inequality and the resultant social problems, and they consider guns a social problem. They want to both demonize and blame corporations like S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Glock and other gun manufacturers. One part of it is that they view guns the way that they view lead paint. It's a social ill that can be cured with the right government program aimed at it. But they view gun manufacturers like they would view paint manufacturers who would refuse to start making paint with no lead in it... Therefore the real problem to them becomes anyone who would oppose their agenda
The people who support the Brady Campaign are people who believe that if enlightened people are elected to office and given enough power, they will be able to change society in such a way that no one but the military will need guns - with the hope that someday other societies become similarly enlightened and humanity as a whole will no longer need weapons.
I think this gets at this other issue of why it is that gun control politicians absolutely hate 2A activists and anyone who promotes personal empowerment and responsibility and why gun control politicians don't seem to mind actual criminals so much.
People who advocate personal rights and personal responsibility and fight against increased government power and huge sweeping social programs as the solution to crime - are in direct opposition to anti-gun politicians. We're preventing them from solving all those problems they so arrogantly believe they could solve if it wasn't for us!
RTKBA advocates are a direct threat to everything socialists are trying to accomplish. We vote, we protest, we work to convince other people of the rightness of our position and we make campaign contributions. We're a direct threat to them.
No government can solve any problem unless it has power and money to enact and implement solutions. Anti-gun politicians really are naive enough to believe that if they could take ALL guns except those in use by the police and military - crime would basically go away.
They see us as narrow-minded, intellectually unsophisticated rubes who are impediments to them building the perfect society.
That's why when they pick up a gangbanger with a 10 page rap sheet on a UUW charge, he gets a 25K bond, and the charge gets plea-bargained down, or he gets sentenced to 3 or 4 years.
Conversely a law abiding citizen gets arrested for transporting their firearm via Greyhound in Chicago and they get a 50K bond and the book thrown at them as prosecutors do everything they can to put the person in jail forever even though the person didn't even break any laws.
The people who agree with the Brady Campaign are people who would rather trust "society" to take care of them than take care of themselves, and they fear people who demand the power and the right to take care of themselves.
They're more than willing to elevate their trusted politicians to near godhood status, but if their neighbor shoots an attacker in self defense they rail against them for "playing God".
Vern Humphrey
Member
And it takes a village idiot to buy into that crap.
The key tennent of modern liberalism is that they know more than the rest of us. They must control every aspect of our lives, and we must obey and pay them.
harrygunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,045
Of course, there's Dr. Lott's widely published "More Guns, Less Crime" and several other papers and lectures by him.
An open minded, initially skeptical, professor, reanalyzed the data and came to the same conclusion as Dr. Lott: http://discovere.binghamton.edu/new...andguns-deter-criminals-bu-prof-says-444.html
Hokkmike
Member
Gun free zones are a result of passing laws to avoid problems resulting from the action of the "least common denominators" in our society. In PA a girl playing softball on a HS team once ran into a coach holding a clip-board and was hurt, hence the PIAA (PA HS sports governing authority) banned all coaches at every game from holding clip boards. If one bad guy misused a gun liberal thinking is that nobody should have one.
entropy
Member
We're stuck in the middle between the Pollyanna-ish fatalists who believe it is morally superior to die at the hands of a criminal, and the slime that use said people's views as a way to disarm all who would oppose them. We in between are those who are capable of logical, moral, thought.
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
I think you have two general camps in the anti-gun community concerning this issue:
1) The folks who want to make a difference, but haven't thought things through very well. These types want to stop gun violence, but don't really have a clue how to do so. They do what they can, which is enacting legislation aimed at the only people they can influence - the law abiding. Unfortunately, they never stop to realize the very simple fact of which we are all acutely aware: It's the people that don't abide by the laws that you need to worry about.
2) Camp 2 appears to be just like camp 1, only they're not so naïve. They too want to target the law abiding. But they know that as long as guns are available - through any channel - they'll end up in the hands of criminals. So their ultimate goal is the only one that can truly make a difference in gun crime rates: getting rid of them all. So they act like group 1 while they scheme to undermine & ultimately abolish the 2A.
I just wish there was a camp 3: People that realize that gun violence is a symptom of our nation's problems, and not the problem itself.
1) The folks who want to make a difference, but haven't thought things through very well. These types want to stop gun violence, but don't really have a clue how to do so. They do what they can, which is enacting legislation aimed at the only people they can influence - the law abiding. Unfortunately, they never stop to realize the very simple fact of which we are all acutely aware: It's the people that don't abide by the laws that you need to worry about.
2) Camp 2 appears to be just like camp 1, only they're not so naïve. They too want to target the law abiding. But they know that as long as guns are available - through any channel - they'll end up in the hands of criminals. So their ultimate goal is the only one that can truly make a difference in gun crime rates: getting rid of them all. So they act like group 1 while they scheme to undermine & ultimately abolish the 2A.
I just wish there was a camp 3: People that realize that gun violence is a symptom of our nation's problems, and not the problem itself.
.308 Norma
Member
You and I both wish that, azrocks.
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
A right is a right, everywhere. That is what "unalienable" means.
However, rights can be lawfully repressed, but there are legal ramifications for that.
For example, people have tried to sue the police for failure to protect them. The courts have consistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect anyone. Their job is to enforce the law. This is a de facto argument that it is the citizen's responsibility to protect themselves.
Now someone cannot carry a weapon in court of law. This means that the police must *assume the responsibly* to protect you. So, if you are assaulted in a court of law you *can* sue for the police failing to protect you.
My argument is that if a state or town prevents you from carrying a weapon then the police/government should be sued for every crime that is committed.
QED.
However, rights can be lawfully repressed, but there are legal ramifications for that.
For example, people have tried to sue the police for failure to protect them. The courts have consistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect anyone. Their job is to enforce the law. This is a de facto argument that it is the citizen's responsibility to protect themselves.
Now someone cannot carry a weapon in court of law. This means that the police must *assume the responsibly* to protect you. So, if you are assaulted in a court of law you *can* sue for the police failing to protect you.
My argument is that if a state or town prevents you from carrying a weapon then the police/government should be sued for every crime that is committed.
QED.
That's why there is a growing movement of Constitutional Carry, so we don't have to ask permission before exercising our unalienable Rights to defend ourselves. Twelve States so far and growing.
The wikipedia link has a neat map that shows over time the evolution of Right to Carry in the States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
The wikipedia link has a neat map that shows over time the evolution of Right to Carry in the States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
Vern Humphrey
Member
I'd go beyond that -- people that realize that liberalism is the cause of violence. I cite the recent rise in homicides linked to liberal attacks on the police as proof.
- Status
Similar threads
