Concealed weapons. Yes or No ???

[Stearns]

It just amazes me when people blame and worry about innocent, law-abiding U.S. citizens having guns. In my opinion, THAT'S what's wrong - misplaced responsibility. Let the predatory criminals do whatever they want, and god forbid someone try to stop them?

You cannot wipe out generations who used and viewed guns as a means of survival - for food and safety. Try stabbing a poisonous snake, go ahead. Those of us who grew up around guns were taught to use them only for defense (excluding target-shooting and hunting). It is those who misuse guns - i.e., for offensive purposes - who are to blame, are they not?

Should we have a society where there is no need for citizens to have handguns? That would be wonderful, and I challenge you to find one person in the U.S. who wouldn't want to live in such a manner. The reality is, unfortunately, very different. We absolutely do live in a culture of fear of violence. It is not without reason and evidence as some suggest, however. Rather than condemnation, is there compassion? Compassion for those who don't contribute to such an environment; for those who would like nothing better than to be able to leave their windows open and doors unlocked at night; for those who don't molest; for those who don't prey upon others.

I'd like to know, from those of you who do not believe innocent, law-abiding citizens should own guns, what your suggestion is. What would you do, if you could, to end the culture of violence in the U.S.? This is a serious question; I'm truly interested in your proposed solutions.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Stearns

It just amazes me when people blame and worry about innocent, law-abiding U.S. citizens having guns. In my opinion, THAT'S what's wrong - misplaced responsibility. Let the predatory criminals do whatever they want, and god forbid someone try to stop them?

You cannot wipe out generations who used and viewed guns as a means of survival - for food and safety. Try stabbing a poisonous snake, go ahead. Those of us who grew up around guns were taught to use them only for defense (excluding target-shooting and hunting). It is those who misuse guns - i.e., for offensive purposes - who are to blame, are they not?

Should we have a society where there is no need for citizens to have handguns? That would be wonderful, and I challenge you to find one person in the U.S. who wouldn't want to live in such a manner. The reality is, unfortunately, very different. We absolutely do live in a culture of fear of violence. It is not without reason and evidence as some suggest, however. Rather than condemnation, is there compassion? Compassion for those who don't contribute to such an environment; for those who would like nothing better than to be able to leave their windows open and doors unlocked at night; for those who don't molest; for those who don't prey upon others.

I'd like to know, from those of you who do not believe innocent, law-abiding citizens should own guns, what your suggestion is. What would you do, if you could, to end the culture of violence in the U.S.? This is a serious question; I'm truly interested in your proposed solutions.

Saying that those opposed to citizens arming themselves with either concealed or not concealed weapons is not saying this: " Let the predatory criminals do whatever they want, and god forbid someone try to stop them." That's a false argument.

Having ordinary citizens (many of whom are not "innocent" and most of whom are not sharp shooters) will not decrease crime or violence in any way, shape or form.

This reminds me of the argument of trying to say that having nuclear weapons that can blow the world up to smithereens somehow makes the world safer. More guns just increases the odds more violence is going to happen- simple math.

Having more people with guns- do you really think the "predatory" criminals are going to be deterred by ordinary citizens carrying guns? Personally I think they will be rolling in the aisles at the thought of Sam and Sally Sharpshooter trying to take them down.

It's always quite telling the international response to the gun issue versus Americans (USA variety). People in other countries are just as concerned about crime and protecting their loved ones as we are. They don't see guns as the answer.

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Saying that those opposed to citizens arming themselves with either concealed or not concealed weapons is not saying this: " Let the predatory criminals do whatever they want, and god forbid someone try to stop them." That's a false argument.

Having ordinary citizens (many of whom are not "innocent" and most of whom are not sharp shooters) will not decrease crime or violence in any way, shape or form.

This reminds me of the argument of trying to say that having nuclear weapons that can blow the world up to smithereens somehow makes the world safer. More guns just increases the odds more violence is going to happen- simple math.

Having more people with guns- do you really think the "predatory" criminals are going to be deterred by ordinary citizens carrying guns? Personally I think they will be rolling in the aisles at the thought of Sam and Sally Sharpshooter trying to take them down.

It's always quite telling the international response to the gun issue versus Americans (USA variety). People in other countries are just as concerned about crime and protecting their loved ones as we are. They don't see guns as the answer.

Good points, Bully, but I don't think citizens who arm themselves for protection have any expectations or intentions to deter and affect the overall crime rate. They just want to protect themselves and their loved ones should the need arise. Deterrence connotes proactivity. Guns for self-defense are RE-active; reacting to a situation one is dealt through no fault of their own.

I'm curious, why did you put predator in quotes?

Still waiting to hear WHAT to do, not what NOT to do.

[Toughy]

If I walked in a Starbucks and saw a bunch of folks with weapons I would RUN out the door..........scares the bejesus out of me.........I would also be willing to bet a year's pay that those folks were white in that Starbucks......and I would bet a year's pay that if all those folks armed in Starbucks were black no one would feel safe..........

more to say later............

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Stearns

Good points, Bully, but I don't think citizens who arm themselves for protection have any expectations or intentions to deter and affect the overall crime rate. They just want to protect themselves and their loved ones should the need arise. Deterrence connotes proactivity. Guns for self-defense are RE-active; reacting to a situation one is dealt through no fault of their own.

I'm curious, why did you put predator in quotes?

Still waiting to hear WHAT to do, not what NOT to do.

Well I agree with you that guns for self-defense is re-active not proactive and will not result in deterrence. I have heard many gun proponents say that gun ownership by ordinary citizens will lead to a decrease in crime, and I find that idea to be ludicrous.

I have also read several times that many (perhaps a majority but I am not sure) of crimes committed where a gun was involved that the gun was stolen. So again, having more guns in circulation is going to help how?

Certainly there are some responsible people such as yourself who would only use a gun if really, really you felt it necessary to protect yourself, wife or other loved ones. I am sure you would use good judgment and if you were to have a gun I would assume you would make sure you knew how to use it.

Do I think the majority of ordinary citizens if they were to have guns would operate in this manner? No I do not. Look at how people use their cell phones while driving (hello a moving vehicle can kill people, I don't think chatting to your friends while driving is a real responsible thing to do).

Even if used responsibly, what are the chances of an ordinary citizen armed with a gun being really able to effectively protect themselves against an armed criminal who knows going in what they are doing and the ordinary citizen is caught off guard? Also, don't armed criminals often work in groups, rather than as one person? I think people watch way too many violent cops and robbers shows and think they can be a hero. I am sure there are some wonderful exceptions to this.

As to putting quotes around predatory, I think I was off put by the whole innocent citizen thing so probably that was just unnecessary of me. There are armed violent criminals who are predatory. I think having more and more people armed with guns and more guns in circulation will just produce more of them.

My first step is make guns really, really, really, really hard to get. As hard to get as possible. Give armed police officers and any other security or what have you armed personnel lots and lots of training of when they should and shouldn't shoot off their guns (which of course is going to require more than just technical training).

Is this going to wipe out all crime as we know it? No. But I sure as hell think it beats putting more guns into circulation, especially in the hands of people who can't even drive their shopping carts through the grocery store properly.

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Well I agree with you that guns for self-defense is re-active not proactive and will not result in deterrence. I have heard many gun proponents say that gun ownership by ordinary citizens will lead to a decrease in crime, and I find that idea to be ludicrous.

I have also read several times that many (perhaps a majority but I am not sure) of crimes committed where a gun was involved that the gun was stolen. So again, having more guns in circulation is going to help how?

Certainly there are some responsible people such as yourself who would only use a gun if really, really you felt it necessary to protect yourself, wife or other loved ones. I am sure you would use good judgment and if you were to have a gun I would assume you would make sure you knew how to use it.

Do I think the majority of ordinary citizens if they were to have guns would operate in this manner? No I do not. Look at how people use their cell phones while driving (hello a moving vehicle can kill people, I don't think chatting to your friends while driving is a real responsible thing to do).

Even if used responsibly, what are the chances of an ordinary citizen armed with a gun being really able to effectively protect themselves against an armed criminal who knows going in what they are doing and the ordinary citizen is caught off guard? Also, don't armed criminals often work in groups, rather than as one person? I think people watch way too many violent cops and robbers shows and think they can be a hero. I am sure there are some wonderful exceptions to this.

As to putting quotes around predatory, I think I was off put by the whole innocent citizen thing so probably that was just unnecessary of me. There are armed violent criminals who are predatory. I think having more and more people armed with guns and more guns in circulation will just produce more of them.

My first step is make guns really, really, really, really hard to get. As hard to get as possible. Give armed police officers and any other security or what have you armed personnel lots and lots of training of when they should and shouldn't shoot off their guns (which of course is going to require more than just technical training).

Is this going to wipe out all crime as we know it? No. But I sure as hell think it beats putting more guns into circulation, especially in the hands of people who can't even drive their shopping carts through the grocery store properly.

Your last point was hilarious, and so true. I, too, agree that there are many people who have no business owning a gun, and they scare me often more than armed predators do. When I policed, I was filled with trepidation more when I got a violent crime in progress, "citizen armed" call than just a violent crime in progress. We would have the dispatcher tell the citizen to put their gun down and away as soon as we pulled into the driveway or parking lot. I had a citizen one time holding his handgun and use it as a pointer to show me the direction in which his house burglar had run. You can bet I had a few choice words and actions for him.

I seriously think on one point someone made that most people have enough common sense to know that you have no hope of drawing your gun if you're already drawn upon. If I were armed and got caught with a gun in my face demanding my wallet, you best believe I'd hand my wallet over. No mention of nor movement toward my gun would I make, because I have no chance of prevailing. After the gun is out of my face, I can decide then what I'm going to do. And, you're so right, that predators more often than not are not acting alone. They have at least one and sometimes more compatriots in the near vicinity watching it all go down, ready to react if something goes wrong.

If we can't rid our culture of predatory gun violence, and people continue to be allowed to arm themselves with handguns, they should absolutely have to go through extensive training and safety courses that involve multiple simulated encounters.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Stearns

Your last point was hilarious, and so true. I, too, agree that there are many people who have no business owning a gun, and they scare me often more than armed predators do. When I policed, I was filled with trepidation more when I got a violent crime in progress, "citizen armed" call than just a violent crime in progress. We would have the dispatcher tell the citizen to put their gun down and away as soon as we pulled into the driveway or parking lot. I had a citizen one time holding his handgun and use it as a pointer to show me the direction in which his house burglar had run. You can bet I had a few choice words and actions for him.

I seriously think on one point someone made that most people have enough common sense to know that you have no hope of drawing your gun if you're already drawn upon. If I were armed and got caught with a gun in my face demanding my wallet, you best believe I'd hand my wallet over. No mention of nor movement toward my gun would I make, because I have no chance of prevailing. After the gun is out of my face, I can decide then what I'm going to do. And, you're so right, that predators more often than not are not acting alone. They have at least one and sometimes more compatriots in the near vicinity watching it all go down, ready to react if something goes wrong.

If we can't rid our culture of predatory gun violence, and people continue to be allowed to arm themselves with handguns, they should absolutely have to go through extensive training and safety courses that involve multiple simulated encounters.

Well it seems we mostly agree! I am just wondering under what scenarios you do think it's a good idea. I guess ordinary citizens who are put through the rigors to really prove they know what they are doing? I am honestly not sure how this helps us overall, perhaps a lucky few who are willing to really hone their skills? Even then the gun will almost always be pulled on them first and there is a good chance they will be outnumbered. I am honestly not seeing many scenarios where a citizen being armed (even those who really know what they are doing and are ultra responsible) is going to actually help.

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Well it seems we mostly agree! I am just wondering under what scenarios you do think it's a good idea. I guess ordinary citizens who are put through the rigors to really prove they know what they are doing? I am honestly not sure how this helps us overall, perhaps a lucky few who are willing to really hone their skills? Even then the gun will almost always be pulled on them first and there is a good chance they will be outnumbered. I am honestly not seeing many scenarios where a citizen being armed (even those who really know what they are doing and are ultra responsible) is going to actually help.

Yes, we do agree more than we disagree. The scenarios I have in my head have more to do with homeowners protecting themselves than with carry and carry concealed, actually. The carry scenarios are along the lines of if I knew Soon or I was being targeted, such as a stalker, I would want a firearm to have some chance at leveling the playing field, and armed citizens being able to intervene in protecting someone else who is being attacked. I think there are very few incidences of armed citizens out in public being able to successfully defend themselves against an armed perp for the very reasons you mentioned. But, I still wouldn't want people to not be able to arm themselves. I see much more value in having them pass an extensive training course than to just wait 3 days and pass a background check.

[Cowboi]

Just because someone has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, does not mean thay have a "get out of jail free" card. You can't just shoot someone for stealing, or trespassing. Your life has to be endanger.

[Bard]

As a Law enforcement officer and a supervisor I know very well the responsiblity that comes with having my weapon on me on or off duty. I tae it very seriously and yes there are some cops that are Abusing the responsinblity they are trusted with there are bad in all professions and to be honest you will hear more of the bad apples then the good ones. No I have not drawen my weapon and my father who is a retired cop once told me there are many that have never had to draw thier weapon. I do remember well the feeling I had having that weapon pointed at me even if it was only in training and I knew it was clear and safe I was chilled. I just would ask that you not judge us all in law enforcement by those who DISGRACE the uniform and the oath we take.. It my sound simplistc but I became a cop to make a diffrence and my carrying a firearm and knowing full well how to use it is part of that duty I wish it was not how it had to be but..I am glad to see all sides of this issue well spoken and that we all can respect each others opnions