Revolvers for Everyone!

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TinaG

Guest
This is a premise that I heard and I thought worthy of debate. I tend to lean against it because it sounds absurd.

The premise is that we would have a much safer country and a much more polite society if everyone was required to wear a loaded sidearm at all times.

One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

What do you think? Why?

-Tina “Presently Unarmed” G:)
 
It woud make my job as a customer service phone representative easier, even though my phone would have to be replaced a lot. I’ve had guns ever since I was little, and my shot is deadly. In fact, I’m going to a shooting range later, it is a stress reliever. Sex and shooting are the only two things that relieve stress for me. And since I’m single, I can’t engage in one of activities.

On the serious note, a person with a gun who doesn’t know how to use it is VERY dangerous. My uncle taught me from a young age to respect guns, and how to properly use and care for them. I do have a concealed handgun permit, and I have used my gun in self defense before. I think everyone should know how to protect themselves.
 
I guess they could teach “Shooter’s Ed,” like Driver’s Ed. A fool with a car can kill many more people than an idiot with a gun. Most of the time, anyway.

-Tina “Support Your 2nd Amendment Rights” G:)
 
**

Most gun owners would prefer not to wear a sidearm.Even at a time were this would have been accepted behavior(the wild west)most citizens did not wear guns or carry rifles.

Gun advocates(like myself) only want to wear a gun to protect themselves or for target practice.

Would you want to wear a sidearm at all times.I would not.Just give me the right to carry when I feel its necessary.

Ger **
 
Well, two U.S. congressmen want dissenters and critics to be prosecuted and sent to concentration camps. [There’s a thread on this with documentation.]

[The thread was taken down. but google HR 645 and Alcee Hastings (D- Fla)

So: are they going to come for us with local police? With state police? With U.S. military? With the Obama domestic security forces? Or with foreign troops?

And at what point do we shoot back?

[Here is one of the news stories:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ne...ts-to-send-critic-to-jail-for-five-years.html
 
An armed citizen is a responsible citizen, supporting the 2nd Amendment. However, a “requirement” for “all” citizens to be armed at all times would be an incredibly irresponsible, and unacceptable policy for this country.
Not all of our citizens are firearm proponents, and we have many anti-gun activists, lawyers, and government officials who are doing everything in their power to limit citizens access to firearms, and destroy the 2nd Amendment. I suspect the source of this philosophy would be from one of the latter.

However, I would like to make one comment, in that it is every firearms owners responsibility to be aware of firearm safety, and obey the local, federal, and state laws concerning your right to bear arms.
 
TinaG said:
This is a premise that I heard and I thought worthy of debate. I tend to lean against it because it sounds absurd.

The premise is that we would have a much safer country and a much more polite society if everyone was required to wear a loaded sidearm at all times.

One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

What do you think? Why?

-Tina “Presently Unarmed” G:)
Click to expand...
It’s been amply proven that an armed populace is a sicietal good, and that laws which disarm civilians lead to increased crime rates.
 
TinaG said:
This is a premise that I heard and I thought worthy of debate. I tend to lean against it because it sounds absurd.

The premise is that we would have a much safer country and a much more polite society if everyone was required to wear a loaded sidearm at all times.

One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

What do you think? Why?

-Tina “Presently Unarmed” G:)
Click to expand...
It’s absurd because of the word “required.”

Personally, I can’t imagine Jesus walking around with a loaded pistol and He was in some pretty tough neighborhoods, but that’s just me.
 
Having seen for decades how thoughtlessy some people drive, there’s no way I want everyone carrying heat!

DaveBj
 
neophyte said:
It’s been amply proven that an armed populace is a sicietal good, and that laws which disarm civilians lead to increased crime rates.
Click to expand...
That is absolute rubbish! Please provide your evidence to support such a claim.
 
I was thinking about this and I am not convinced that we have yet to identify the root issue. Is it “what do we mean by having a civil society, and how do we ensure civil order? What is the role of the state in maintaining order in contrast to citizen involvement”? I don’t know. This calls for some Deep Thinking but my diving board is only so high.

-Tina “In over my head anyway” G
 
Here’s the problem, as I see it: there are tons and tons of assaults and batteries in this country. Adding guns to the equation is a terrible idea–I doubt that someone who, in a drunken rage, will crash a bottle over another’s head would have a strong reservation about using his sidearm to continue the fight. And, while we could make carrying handguns illegal for anyone convicted of hurting another, what about all those who were not convicted or who have violent proclivities but have not yet acted upon them? And even if,

Its all well and good to talk about whether a gun would be a good idea for balanced, calm, relatively successful adults who pretty much keep to themselves and their families. Gun ownership is another matter entirely for people with bad tempers, tendency to violence, who are put in explosive social situations, etc. And even if the “good guys” prevailed in each situation, shooting the guy who lost his temper, then we are talking about a pretty significant body count.

Owning guns may make people in some situations marginally safer by making them better prepared to ward of a mugging, rape or robbery, but for many people, adding guns makes things much, much worse. And it is impossible for the state to discern between these people.
 
camerong said:
Here’s the problem, as I see it: there are tons and tons of assaults and batteries in this country. Adding guns to the equation is a terrible idea–I doubt that someone who, in a drunken rage, will crash a bottle over another’s head would have a strong reservation about using his sidearm to continue the fight. And, while we could make carrying handguns illegal for anyone convicted of hurting another, what about all those who were not convicted or who have violent proclivities but have not yet acted upon them? And even if,

Its all well and good to talk about whether a gun would be a good idea for balanced, calm, relatively successful adults who pretty much keep to themselves and their families. Gun ownership is another matter entirely for people with bad tempers, tendency to violence, who are put in explosive social situations, etc. And even if the “good guys” prevailed in each situation, shooting the guy who lost his temper, then we are talking about a pretty significant body count.

Owning guns may make people in some situations marginally safer by making them better prepared to ward of a mugging, rape or robbery, but for many people, adding guns makes things much, much worse. And it is impossible for the state to discern between these people.
Click to expand...
The bad and irresponsible all have access to guns now, don’t have training and don’t care about the law. Making it difficult for law abiding and responsible people to get guns or carry permits simply doesn’t make sense.

Best,

Iowa Mike
 
Iowa_Mike said:
The bad and irresponsible all have access to guns now, don’t have training and don’t care about the law. Making it difficult for law abiding and responsible people to get guns or carry permits simply doesn’t make sense.

Best,

Iowa Mike
Click to expand...
The original post said everyone should wear a sidearm which has nothing to do with a ban on weapons for responsible owners.

I deal with mentally ill people every week many of whom have never been diagnosed or treated and many of whom have had or continue to have problems with drugs and/or alcohol. The percentage of people walking around with some serious mental issues including very poor judgment and paranoia is higher than most citizens realize.

When I was a police officer I had to assume that everyone I met was possibly armed. I also had to be well-trained in weapon retention and very fit because every time I arrived I brought a gun to a situation. Most gun owners will say that they know how to properly fire and store their weapon, but how many are trained in and regularly practice weapon retention? How many use a security holster that would aid in weapon retention? How many regularly do strength training to keep their upper body and grip strength strong? Probably none except law enforcement and possibly some military. I had to fight off someone with superhuman strength who was high on PCP and tried to take my gun. This didn’t happen in some “bad” area or even on a call where violence might be likely just a medical response. How many people are prepared to fight hand-to-hand using any means necessary to retain their handgun? How long would most people last even if they tried to fight? It sounds very easy to shoot a bad guy who wants to harm you, but it is another thing to have the stomach for eye gouging, crushing a windpipe or breaking a knee in order to disable someone who is drunk/high and does not feel pain but wants your gun to kill you or someone else.

Every armed citizen who carries their loaded gun somewhere bears the responsibility of maintaining control of that weapon at all times. Before proposing that everyone strap on some heat for running errands or for no reason at all, how about we weed out those physically incapable of retaining their gun and those with substance abuse problems and those with mental disorders. . .
 
TinaG said:
This is a premise that I heard and I thought worthy of debate. I tend to lean against it because it sounds absurd.

The premise is that we would have a much safer country and a much more polite society if everyone was required to wear a loaded sidearm at all times.

One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

What do you think? Why?

-Tina “Presently Unarmed” G:)
Click to expand...
I think requiring everyone to be armed is foolish. I think gun safety should be mandatory in school to remove the curiousity from children and instill in them that you don’t touvh a firearm unless you are supervised by an adult. Personally, I think the gun laws in this country should be loosened. I think open carry should be perfectly legal if someone wants to, though I have no desire to do so myself.
 
thistle said:
That is absolute rubbish! Please provide your evidence to support such a claim.
Click to expand...
Since it is “rubbish,” you should be able to provide ample proof; but you can’t since what you are saying is “rubbish.” Don’t worry, i’ll tell you where to look.

John Lott has done the best research about firearm use in America. Also look at the crime rate in states before and after concealed carry laws went into affect. FLorida and Texas are great examples. Look into Alaska: they have a very high % of gun ownership but yet they have extremely low violent crime rates per capita.
 
Look at Kennesaw Georgia and Switzerland for examples of where people have more access to fire arms. Then compare to Chicago and DC where there are draconian gun controls.

Of course a parrellel step would be to actually lock up criminals for the length of their sentances.

Shouldn’t honnorably discharged, retired, and off duty military be able able to carry at will?

Why not everyone with a security clearance?

Also When cars kill more than guns, why is it so easy for people to get cars?
 
In most all states over the last 10 years Conceal carry laws have been loosened to where one can legally carry a firearm on one’s person.

It is interesting that yesterday it was announced by the FBI that the U.S. crime rate fell 4.4 percent in the first half this year with the murder rate dropping 10 percent, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or FBI, said on Monday.

The bureau said in a report that the decline in murders is one of the significant one-time decreases in recent memory while the drop in all crimes continued a trend during past two years.

Experts said one reason for the decline may be a drop in crime in major cities,

In Washington, D.C., for example, the murder rate fell to its lowest in the last two decades during the first 6 months this year.
This coincides with that city’s citizens regaining their right to own a hand gun in their homes.-* D.C. vs Heller*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top