M
MaryT777
Guest
I think a little bit of vigilante is in a lot of people with a permit.
- Status
S
SamH
Guest
Because everyone knows that all murders and suicides are committed with gun from CCW holders… Except they aren’t.
The fact is that guns are more likely to be used against oneself or a loved one. For example, a suicidal person, perhaps within one’s own family, will seek out the opportunity to gain access to the weapon.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
In due time, the truth will emerge.
And today people everywhere feel that the universe revolves around them, so what does that say about your analogy?
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
How many additional decades and how many million more CCW holders will constitute ‘due time’ for the truth to emerge? Why isn’t the past 3 decades sufficient?
M
MaryT777
Guest
I agree with you ;If we have citizens armed and ready to go let’s put them to use in valid positions in NW programs where they can also enforce the law like a police officer;
No one wants to do that for it does lead to vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Yes, there are always far too many accidents. Be it pools, cars, firearms, whatever and we should always attempt to reduce loss of life.
However, even the study by the ant-gun researchers Ludwig/Cook under the Clinton Justice department (which was trying to disprove the Kleck/Gertz study estimating ~2.5 million defensive gun uses/year) determined the estimate, by their methodology to be closer to 3 million defensive gun uses/year.
Considering that the number of crimes with guns was 500,000 per year at the time, that means firearms were used far more often to stop/prevent crimes than to commit them. Think of the number of lives saved, and injuries prevented.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
There’s some with a bit too much zeal, others we come to find out shouldn’t have the right, majority though are exercising their right and more than likely it will never be an issue. And deep down most I really don’t believe want any issues.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Here is an analysis of Zimmerman’s phone calls.
Few of the phone calls mentioned race; for example, some were about potholes or open garage doors. Of those few which referenced race, the ones which mentioned balcks all occurred after the entry of burglars into an occupied home a few months before the Martin shooting.
Thus, the phone calls do not indicate racism on Zimmerman’s part.
There’s a fair amount of introduction to this, so you have to go down about 1/4th of the way before you get to the analysis.
S
SamH
Guest
Is that a claim based on personal feelings?
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
You’re setting up contradictory statements. The current CCW system has nothing to do with taking the law into their own hands, it does not provide powers of arrest, or even detainment. It provides no law enforcement authority whatsoever, just as NW positions have no law enforcement authority.
If you propose doing so, than you are proposing deputizing them and changing the laws to provide them that authority. Which would not be taking the law into their own hands but simply exercising lawful duties under their authority as a deputy in accordance with the system you propose.
Similar in most aspects to volunteer reserve police officers. Folks who’ve been through the relevant LEO training and can be called upon to augment the paid police force. (I have a friend who does this)
S
SamH
Guest
The states that don’t allow or seriously limit CCW present the truth of the opposite?
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
No, personal observations.
S
SamH
Guest
So how can you say “all”?
S
SamH
Guest
Sounds like a band of George Zimmermans.
S
SamH
Guest
How do you observe a feeling?
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
My using the word ‘feel’ was not meant to infer feelings per se, but a ‘belief.’ Excuse me for choosing the wrong word.
S
SamH
Guest
How do you observe “beliefs”?
N
NeuroTypical
Guest
Wait - your “common sense” is telling you that the only people who can carry a gun, have a permit? That common sense doesn’t make much sense.
Here’s some reasoning to the contrary for you:
Definition of a law-abiding person: Someone who obeys the law.
Definition of a lawbreaker: Someone who breaks laws.
Therefore, a lawbreaking vigilante won’t care much about a permit to carry a gun. They’re going to carry anyway. Because lawbreakers break laws. Because that’s what the word ‘lawbreaker’ means.
Robert - why do you assume that a bad guy needs a permit to carry a gun?
As others have mentioned, the conceal carry laws began changing in the mid-'80’s. We’ve had thirty years to gather data and produce studies. Thirty years, folks from your side of the fence have been looking as closely as my side. Thirty years - every study I’ve read says the same thing - permit holders, no matter which demographic group they’re in, are less likely to commit crime than nonpermit holders in the same group.
Truth has emerged my friend. The jury’s out, the verdict has rendered. Your fears, no matter how rooted in common sense you believe them to be, have not played out. There are 35,000 conceal carry permit holders in California according to a Govt Accountability Office study published in July 2012. Where are all your reports of armed California vigilantees?
Robert - at what point do you need to reexamine your common sense?
M
maryjk
Guest
I have not.
But my father has. My mom was with him, and he was at a local diner.
It wasn’t robbed, because he was there.
And MaryT, this statement explains a lot about what you have posted about guns and concealed carry.
I don’t know that you understand why concealed carry permits are used. A concealed permit allows me to leave my property, with a weapon (concealed.)
If someone is IN my home, I don’t need a concealed carry license.
There is no reason to carry concealed while IN your own home. And as long as you weapon is legally owned, no law officer will ever question you about carrying concealed, IN your home.So, your question? It doesn’t make any sense. And I wonder if it because you don’t understand concealed carry.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
You ask and listen to their response.
- Status