NationStates Jolt Archive

Do laws permitting law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons make you feel more or less safe?

It seems, on the surface, that CCW laws clearly make society safer - the 'good guys' are armed against the 'bad guys' and can act to defend against crime.

Any compelling counterargument to this?

It seems, on the surface, that CCW laws clearly make society safer - the 'good guys' are armed against the 'bad guys' and can act to defend against crime.

This point of view does make sense, at least to me. But it also reminds me of an opinion of a stand-up comedian I heard. He said that airports should stop worrying about people bringing weapons onto planes. Instead, they should give people weapons. That way, nobody would hijack airplanes.

Sorry for rambling about something off topic, but I just wanted to make that connection.

I believe that if everyone is allowed to carry weapons, then there will be significantly less crime. They've already shown that owning guns period cuts down on crime. There was a county in Georgia where crime was at some of the worst levels in the country. They installed a law that everyone was required to own and register a gun, and crime rates went down 50-75%. Concealed weapons would take it a step further, since there would be much less muggings or rapings, as the criminals would likely be concerned that their target might be "Packing".


Those who still tried it would be shot, and then there'd be one less criminal to contaminate the world.

This point of view does make sense, at least to me. But it also reminds me of an opinion of a stand-up comedian I heard. He said that airports should stop worrying about people bringing weapons onto planes. Instead, they should give people weapons. That way, nobody would hijack airplanes.

Sorry for rambling about something off topic, but I just wanted to make that connection.


Problem with guns on aircraft:

What if you start popping off rounds and hit hydrolics or other critical systems? You're screwed! No guns on planes except trained Sky Marshals.

Problem with guns on aircraft:

What if you start popping off rounds and hit hydrolics or other critical systems? You're screwed! No guns on planes except trained Sky Marshals.

Or you could avoid the problem by loading the guns with subsonic hollowpoints. Cuts the likelihood of a dangerous hit astronomically.

Or you could avoid the problem by loading the guns with subsonic hollowpoints. Cuts the likelihood of a dangerous hit astronomically.



Good point.

I don't think about it on a regular basis.

I far prefer open carry. That means the criminals know that someone's packin' heat and they ain't going to try anything.

Not practical, airplane hijacking is extraordinarily rare. 200 armed people crammed into a sardine-can airplane is not a good reciple.

Good point.

I'm chock full of 'em. ;) ;) ;);)

But I'm sad to say that both concealed and open carry were illegal in my town until recently. Until a clause in the state constitution came up in state supreme court that struck down all municipal firearm laws.

I don't think about it on a regular basis.

I far prefer open carry. That means the criminals know that someone's packin' heat and they ain't going to try anything.

But then they also know who's NOT packin'. Plus, some people take open carry as a challenge, and in America that creates legal problems.

I don't think about it on a regular basis.

I far prefer open carry. That means the criminals know that someone's packin' heat and they ain't going to try anything.


Or, as the old argument goes, they know who to shoot first.

I think people who open-carry are just after attention, and I think that is unsavory.

Not practical, airplane hijacking is extraordinarily rare. 200 armed people crammed into a sardine-can airplane is not a good reciple.

On second thought, thats very true. It's better to just give the crew guns and add more air marshals.

Or, as the old argument goes, they know who to shoot first.

I think people who open-carry are just after attention, and I think that is unsavory.



I agree. I'm all for Concealed weapons, but strongly against open carry. I don't need to see you're weapons, just like you wouldn't want to see mine.

On second thought, thats very true. It's better to just give the crew guns and add more air marshals.


Flight crew- yes, stewardesses- no.

On second thought, thats very true. It's better to just give the crew guns and add more air marshals.


I'm glad you see things my way ;)

Just have pillboxes on the streets with machineguns!

Just have pillboxes on the streets with machineguns!


No, tesla coils!! I love tesla coils :D

No, tesla coils!! I love tesla coils :D

Real Tesla coils= teh boring.

Just have more police and an Iron Curtain on every street corner. :D

Real Tesla coils= teh boring.

Just have more police and an Iron Curtain on every street corner. :D


What about the massive one that shocked the shit out of Criss Angel? 3,000,000 volts man! THREE MILLION VOLTS!

Massive Tesla Coil + badguy = PWND!

Real Tesla coils= teh boring.

Just have more police and an Iron Curtain on every street corner. :D
How bout Laz0R Can0ns?

How bout Laz0R Can0ns?

definitely not teh cheap. in an already authoritarian country, i'd favor the pillboxes thing, but in america i think universal concealed carry for anyone who can own a pistol is a better idea. muggers are a lot less likely to mug when almost all their marks are packin' heat.

Concealed carry is kind of a gutless thing to do. If you need a gun to protect yourself strap one on where everyone can see it. If you want to stop crime, have it in the open so anyone wanting to do bad things knows you have it. That would do everything CC is supposed to do and more. The only reason for CC is because people don't want anyone to know they carry. WHY? The only thing I can think of is they don't have the guts to put up with comments from people around them.

Concealed carry is kind of a gutless thing to do. If you need a gun to protect yourself strap one on where everyone can see it. If you want to stop crime, have it in the open so anyone wanting to do bad things knows you have it. That would do everything CC is supposed to do and more. The only reason for CC is because people don't want anyone to know they carry. WHY? The only thing I can think of is they don't have the guts to put up with comments from people around them.


If I get held up I want the bad guy to think I'm getting my wallet for him.

Not out to prove anything by carrying a gun, nor out to 'make a statement.'

It is there in case I ever need to use it, and I hope and believe that I never shall.

I would be happy to smile and say "to shoot muggers" if asked why I had a gun, but see no reason to advertise.

I'd think it would make me feel less safe, but that is mostly because I am a bit paranoid. I'd probably just keep on thinking of some random dude popping out of nowhere and shooting me... though of course it would be sort of mild in the scheme of things and more of an odd irrationality than a driving force. Sort of like how I feel less safe at night when things are dark indoors, sure it is extremely unlikely things would happen and when it comes down to it my feelings won't affect me too much, it just still inspires some irrational feeling.

If I get held up I want the bad guy to think I'm getting my wallet for him.

Not out to prove anything by carrying a gun, nor out to 'make a statement.'

It is there in case I ever need to use it, and I hope and believe that I never shall.

I would be happy to smile and say "to shoot muggers" if asked why I had a gun, but see no reason to advertise.
Don't know of a bad guy stupid enough to steal your wallet with a weapon on your hip although they might try if you have it hidden. Or the wallet of anyone around you. It is there if you need it though I hope you never will. So say "to shoot muggers" and have the guts to openly show your position. Why hide unless you don't have the guts to carry openly?

Wouldn't more muggings be aimed at people who generally don't carry weapons like women, young people and the elderley?

What about the massive one that shocked the shit out of Criss Angel? 3,000,000 volts man! THREE MILLION VOLTS!

Massive Tesla Coil + badguy = PWND!

Last time I checked, amperes were more important to electrify someone than volts...You need more amperes and not more volts to fry something in a more intense way. With 3 million volts you are just getting that anything nearby in a 30 meters radius of the tesla device gets trapped and electrified.

Tesla coils generate a high frequecy alternating voltage that stops your heart verry effectivly. This is in contradiction to the "volts that jolts - current that kills" mantra.

Don't know of a bad guy stupid enough to steal your wallet with a weapon on your hip although they might try if you have it hidden. Or the wallet of anyone around you. It is there if you need it though I hope you never will. So say "to shoot muggers" and have the guts to openly show your position. Why hide unless you don't have the guts to carry openly?


This is game theory.

A small percentage of people will actually be interested enough to go through the process to obtain a concealed carry permit, obtain a suitable pistol, and be interested enough to carry it concealed all the time. It's more of a pain in the ass than you know.

Therefore, when a felon goes into a situation to rob a store or an individual, and statistics in the US show that 94 percent of violent crime is committed WITHOUT ANY WEAPON AT ALL, they now have to guess "is someone here armed?" and if so, "who is armed?"

It makes for a very spooky situation.

Most US states now have "shall issue" concealed carry permits. That is, if you are a law-abiding citizen who has never committed domestic violence or any felony, and you take a class on how and when to use your weapon, and you register for the permit, they have to give you the permit.

Of the people with permits, most do not carry their pistol all the time.

But, as fate would have it, firearm murder rates in the US have plummeted by over 60 percent in the past 10 years. Despite the radical increase in the number of guns. Despite the radical increase in the number of issued concealed carry permits.

Something must be causing people to settle down, eh?

Most US states now have "shall issue" concealed carry permits. That is, if you are a law-abiding citizen who has never committed domestic violence or any felony, and you take a class on how and when to use your weapon, and you register for the permit, they have to give you the permit.

Of the people with permits, most do not carry their pistol all the time.
I'm glad you brought up this point. (Forgive the cuts, this was the only part I needed.

In my area at least, the system isn't set up very well. Opinion only. I think concealed carry is a good thing to reduce crime and whatnot, but it's bad at the same time. Too many people get a weapon in their hands and lose all common sense. My sensei has a concealed carry permit and he told us a story one time of when he went down to get it. I guess you have to bring like three forms of ID or something (I'll admit I'm no expert on the details), and a bunch of paperwork that everyone forgets. He was smart enough to look this up online before he went. Apparantly most people don't, and they throw childish tempertantrums when they can't get their permit because they forgot a secondary ID. He witnessed two of these while waiting in the police station.

It's right here that the system is vulnerable. If you're going to carry a weapon, you should reasonably be expected to be more calm and stable than the people around you. If you're going to easily fly off the handle, I really don't want you carrying, concealed or otherwise.

It's right here that the system is vulnerable. If you're going to carry a weapon, you should reasonably be expected to be more calm and stable than the people around you. If you're going to easily fly off the handle, I really don't want you carrying, concealed or otherwise.
In most "shall issue" jurisdictions, you have to pass a class.

There, you will not only be taught that being a jackass is a one-way ticket to jail, but also that you can lose your entire life in a civil suit if you screw up. If you don't pass the class, you don't get the permit. And I've seen people who don't pass the class because they are jackasses.

Here's a good idea of what a course is like:

(Sorry I didn't link to the New York Times, but some may not want to register to see the link)

Bull’s-Eyes of Texas: Getting a Gun License
Michael Stravato for The New York Times

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: July 14, 2006
THE snap-snap-snap of small-arms fire was echoing around the Hot Wells Shooting Range in Cypress, Tex., as Jim Pruett set up a wall of humanoid targets against an earthen berm.

“Is the line ready?” shouted Mr. Pruett, an affable guns and ammo dealer, pausing to marvel at the golden glow from the dust of expended brass cartridges ashimmer in the setting sun. “Anyone forget which end the bullet comes out?”

Moments later we were blasting away, trying to put down an imaginary assailant just three yards from us.

It was the final exercise in a daylong course for a coveted Texas certification — the license to carry a concealed handgun. “In Texas, we don’t carry guns because we have to,” Mr. Pruett told me later. “We carry them because we get to.”

There’s no telling how many Texans actually walk around armed, but by Department of Public Safety figures, 247,345 men and women, more than 1 percent of the population, may legally carry a handgun provided it is truly concealed and not out in mischievous view.

A majority of states — 36, including Texas — require the authorities to issue a concealed-handgun license to anyone who meets certification and is not ineligible, like felons. Two others, Vermont and Alaska, do not require a license to carry a concealed weapon. Ten states, including New York, are “may issue” states, where applicants must demonstrate a special need. Two — Wisconsin and Illinois — prohibit concealed weapons altogether. Local laws also vary.

Nationwide, for better or worse, Americans own some 220 million guns, and half the households in the country are believed to be armed.

“You’re not going to be the victims of chaos,” Mr. Pruett had earlier promised the class of 50 — a cross-section of Texas society who gathered over coffee, doughnuts and the filled Czech pastries called kolaches not long after sunup on a Sunday in a makeshift classroom in a strip mall near his gun shop in the northwest Houston suburbs. “You’re going to be the solution to chaos.”

I didn’t know about that. I had decided several months earlier to learn how to shoot a gun not out of any vigilante complex or illusion that the Texas Rangers could now stand down because I was on the job. Rather and quite simply, without any political statement for or against gun control — in Texas, they say, gun control means using both hands — or any desire to shoot defenseless animals, I wanted to learn how to handle a gun and see what it took to be licensed to carry one.

In the end, and to my surprise, I learned about more than shooting. I learned about not shooting.

My schooling had begun at Top Gun, a Houston training center, where I started with the popular Glock 19, the simple Austrian 9-millimeter semiautomatic favored by many police departments.

The orientation was clearly defensive. “We’re not looking to kill anybody, just to stop them,” explained my tattooed instructor, Rico Mastroianni, fiercely clad in combat black and armed with an array of pistols, knives and pepper spray. That meant, he said, exerting only enough force to stave off an immediate and unavoidable deadly threat — an armed attacker in the home, say. But if the intruder was just carrying out booty or fleeing, he could not be legally shot. Property was not worth killing, or dying, for.

He led me through the three cardinal rules of gun-handling: 1) there is no such thing as an unloaded gun — it is always assumed to be loaded; 2) never point the muzzle at anything you don’t wish to destroy; 3) keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to destroy it.

After removing the 15-round magazine and verifying that the chamber was empty, he handed me the gun. I immediately curled my finger around the trigger.

Mr. Mastroianni shook his head. “Even though I just told you,” he said, “instinctively you put your finger inside the trigger guard.”

I berated myself. Dumb and dumberer. But it wasn’t just me, he said — every beginner did it.

He said TV and the movies were to blame. “If you see a cop show,” he said, “it’s the worst handling of guns you’ll ever see.” People who know not to reach out and grab a knife by the blade think nothing of picking up a stray gun and waving it around.

After demonstrating how to “tap” the magazine into place in the handle and “rack” a round into the chamber with a quick pinch-pull on the back of the sliding frame, Mr. Mastroianni showed me how to clasp the gun in my right hand (finger along the barrel off the trigger), filling in space on the handle with my left hand, meshing the fingers in a steadying grip.

“We don’t do any ‘Charlie’s Angels’ where the gun comes up and down,” he said, sweeping the gun in a theatrical arc. “We don’t do any bowling either — the gun doesn’t come up.”

He showed me how to present the gun forward, align the front and back sights and center the luminescent dot on the front sight on the target. And how to take up the slack and squeeze the trigger slowly with just the tip of the finger.

“The trick is to let the bang surprise you,” Mr. Mastroianni said. “How in the world do you let the bang surprise you? I got a gun in my hand full with bullets. I’m going to fire this thing and I know it’s going to go bang. That’s where the discipline comes in. I have to be completely focused on this front sight and I have to be so subtle on the trigger that I’m not thinking about the trigger. Front sight, front sight, front sight, squeeze subtly not pull, front sight, front sight — oooo, it went off!”

ON the Top Gun range, with the target three yards away — most gunfights occur at close quarters in conditions of darkness and confusion — I kept hitting low and to the left. I was flinching, not letting the bang surprise me. But over a few months of practice trying out different weapons — a Sig Sauer P226, a Springfield 1911, a Smith & Wesson 686 and an FN Herstal, among others — I improved my scores. The weapons were not cheap: the Glock went for about $530, the Sig for around $780 and the Herstal for around $900.

Flushed with pride at having mastered a new skill, I was ready to go for a concealed-handgun license.

The 10-hour course certified by the Department of Public Safety convened promptly at 8 on an already sweltering Sunday morning in the storefront classroom near the Pruett gun shop. “How many people here have an F.B.I. number?” asked Jim Pruett’s son, Sam, who was leading the class and also wore all black with two pistols and a knife — it had to be the standard instructor’s uniform, I decided. No hands went up. “Good,” he said, “that’s an eligibility test right there.” But he was not going to take our word that we weren’t felons. Among the reams of forms we filled out were fingerprint cards.

We each got a 63-page book on the Texas concealed-handgun laws and selected statutes, information we would be tested on in a final exam. But it was not a tactics or shooting course. It was assumed everyone there already knew how to use a gun. Rather, it was about when not to.

“Shooting is always the last resort,” the younger Mr. Pruett cautioned, and quoted a famous maxim of Clint Smith of the gun-training mecca Thunder Ranch in Lakeview, Ore.: “Every bullet has a lawyer attached to it.” Figure on paying $25,000 to $150,000 in legal fees for even a defensible shooting, he said.

It was never permissible to wave a weapon in warning, if, say, someone cut you off on the highway, he said. And the only permissible blood-alcohol level for anyone carrying a gun is zero.

What if we were armed and got stopped for speeding? One thing not to blurt out to a cop (or anyone else, for that matter) is: “I’ve got a gun.” Rather, he said, hand over the gun permit with the driver’s license and say, “Officer, how can I safely give you my gun?”

“The No. 1 circumstance preceding a homicide is an argument,” he said, segueing into a lesson on conflict-resolution under the heading “Some People Are Just Plain Crazy.”

To defuse a tense situation, he told us to remember the acronym Leaps: Listen to what others are saying, Empathize, Ask questions, Paraphrase the situation and Summarize.

“We’re only able to control ourselves,” he said. “Start with that. Trust your already keen ability to predict violence.”

And when force became unavoidable, he said, it had to be minimal. “The object is to stop, to control or neutralize,” he said. “The objective is not to kill. I shoot someone. He’s down. I put my foot on his throat and give him one more. Is that justified?”

He answered his own question: “No.”

From the back came a voice: “You should not have used your foot.” (There’s always a wiseguy.)

A veteran from the nearby Jersey Village Police Department, Sgt. H. B. Norris, arrived to take our fingerprints. He looked at us sadly. The “hit rate” for police in gunfights is 14 percent — meaning that 86 percent of the time officers miss their targets — he said. “I really worry about you people because I’ve been doing this all my life,” Sergeant Norris said. “It goes down very fast.”

We filled out all the forms and took the final exam, 50 questions that ranged from slam dunks (“True or false: the best way to neutralize negative behavior in another person is with physical force”) to more thoughtful conundrums: “There are four elements to a conversation: sender, message, receiver and feedback. Which of these is the most important to make sure the message was received or delivered correctly?” (Feedback.) I aced it.

Then it was off to the range to prove that we could, after all, safely handle a gun. My score wasn’t perfect, but it was respectable enough.

In two months, he said, the license should be in the mail from Austin. And then what? I wondered. Would I really go around armed? I thought not.

But it’s good — and a little scary — to know I could.

Do laws permitting law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons make you feel more or less safe?

It seems, on the surface, that CCW laws clearly make society safer - the 'good guys' are armed against the 'bad guys' and can act to defend against crime.

Any compelling counterargument to this?

Yep. Zero Arms.

And anyone who owns a weapon, other than assigned to him by the State ( police, Army, etc ) chucked into the binn on first offense.

Yep. Zero Arms.

And anyone who owns a weapon, other than assigned to him by the State ( police, Army, etc ) chucked into the binn on first offense.

So absolute trust in the Gov't who has no responsibility to protect you and disarmed against criminals who will get them illegally anyway. Good plan.

Yep. Zero Arms.

And anyone who owns a weapon, other than assigned to him by the State ( police, Army, etc ) chucked into the binn on first offense.

So, how does that address 94 percent of the violent felonies in the US, that are committed with no weapon at all?

You're sure it's ok then for a woman being beaten to death by her husband to call 911 and then wait for the police to arrive?

Consider that the national average response time is 45 minutes. You have better odds of getting a pizza before getting a policeman if you call for both at the same time.

I can't remember now if he said there was a class for his or not. But it is somewhat comforting to know they're at least trying to reduce liabilities. I just wonder at some of the individuals who want to get a permit. Some of them out there are just not people I want carrying around a gun.

Do laws permitting law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons make you feel more or less safe?

It seems, on the surface, that CCW laws clearly make society safer - the 'good guys' are armed against the 'bad guys' and can act to defend against crime.

Any compelling counterargument to this?
When the concealed carry law was passed in North Carolina, crime dropped apporximately 10% in less than a year. Does it "feel" safer here to me now? Fukin' "A" right it does!

Yep. Zero Arms.

And anyone who owns a weapon, other than assigned to him by the State ( police, Army, etc ) chucked into the binn on first offense.
Thank God that's not constitutional, nor the majority opinion!

This is game theory.

A small percentage of people will actually be interested enough to go through the process to obtain a concealed carry permit, obtain a suitable pistol, and be interested enough to carry it concealed all the time. It's more of a pain in the ass than you know.

Therefore, when a felon goes into a situation to rob a store or an individual, and statistics in the US show that 94 percent of violent crime is committed WITHOUT ANY WEAPON AT ALL, they now have to guess "is someone here armed?" and if so, "who is armed?"

So the bad guy plays the odds that no one is carrying. Since by your admission few are.

Have the guts to carry a weapon on your hip and see how many will commit a crime KNOWING someone is carrying.

So, how does that address 94 percent of the violent felonies in the US, that are committed with no weapon at all?

You're sure it's ok then for a woman being beaten to death by her husband to call 911 and then wait for the police to arrive?

Consider that the national average response time is 45 minutes. You have better odds of getting a pizza before getting a policeman if you call for both at the same time.


See, we'll tackle that too.

Each and every incident involving violence WILL be rewarded by indefinite incarceration on first offense.

Perfect and submissive obedience to Law - or slambam into the jailhouse.

In most "shall issue" jurisdictions, you have to pass a class.

Fortunately, those of us in Georgia don't have to meet any other requirement than to be a law-abiding citizen for a CCW permit. That's all that should ever be _required_. What should be recommended is an entirely different matter.

I can't remember now if he said there was a class for his or not. But it is somewhat comforting to know they're at least trying to reduce liabilities. I just wonder at some of the individuals who want to get a permit. Some of them out there are just not people I want carrying around a gun.

A lot of people who want a permit are wannabes. They rarely carry the weapon regularly.

It's difficult to carry a small pistol all the time, and be careful enough not to show it.

In most states, if you are carrying concealed, and you accidentally "flash" the weapon (say, the edge of your jacket lifts up and shows the holstered weapon), you can be arrested if someone calls and complains.

So the idea is, "yes, you can carry concealed" but that means "concealed dammit". Here in Virginia (and in Arizona) it does not need to remain concealed, but most other states are really strict on "concealed".

A stupid idiot is very likely to "flash", and thus very quickly lose the permit permanently.

Long before any real trouble takes place.

So far, people who go to the trouble to obtain the permit are less likely to be involved in actual crime or commit crime than unarmed people. So maybe whatever system people have is working.

See, we'll tackle that too.

Each and every incident involving violence WILL be rewarded by indefinite incarceration on first offense.

Perfect and submissive obedience to Law - or slambam into the jailhouse.

That says alot.


Now who's going to follow the law? Not the criminals. You've just disarmed the people against all criminals .

You also haven't "tackled" the fact that the police cannot be everywhere and have no legal responsibility to protect you.

This is game theory.

A small percentage of people will actually be interested enough to go through the process to obtain a concealed carry permit, obtain a suitable pistol, and be interested enough to carry it concealed all the time. It's more of a pain in the ass than you know.

Therefore, when a felon goes into a situation to rob a store or an individual, and statistics in the US show that 94 percent of violent crime is committed WITHOUT ANY WEAPON AT ALL, they now have to guess "is someone here armed?" and if so, "who is armed?"

It makes for a very spooky situation.

Most US states now have "shall issue" concealed carry permits. That is, if you are a law-abiding citizen who has never committed domestic violence or any felony, and you take a class on how and when to use your weapon, and you register for the permit, they have to give you the permit.

Of the people with permits, most do not carry their pistol all the time.

But, as fate would have it, firearm murder rates in the US have plummeted by over 60 percent in the past 10 years. Despite the radical increase in the number of guns. Despite the radical increase in the number of issued concealed carry permits.

Something must be causing people to settle down, eh?


I carry all the time...except if I am going into a bar for some drinking and pool shooting...Its like putting on my shoes before I leave the house.
And as far as a pain ..the pain is ALWAYS having to be aware of everything around you..you wouldnt want to be robbed and have your gun taken ..and you want to avoid any type of confrontation because of the chance it will become deadly . I cant speak for everyone else who carries ..but I am far less likely to get in an argument over ANYTHING with anyone when I am carrying , Its not worth it . same with driving...I cured myself of road rage the last time I had an idiot chase me...play the cut off and slam brakes on game..then follow me around screaming and giving fingers etc. etc....I pulled onto a gas station in front of the entrance where the camera's are and got out my vehicle..no sense getting others killed on a busy highway because of aa moron with an anger management problem...BUT the moron just HAD to follow me into the station ...and the dumb ass just HAD to take his steering wheel club out of the car and approach me ...I pointed to the camera's over the entrance and pulled up my shirt....moron stopped dead in his tracks and did reverse thrusters at full speed...I called 9/ 11 and gave out the plate and the description of idiot boy ...


Is it worth getting killed for a percieved slight on a highway while driving ?
mr club must be thinking about that now .

If everyone carried openly I guess the asshole would have just started shooting at my car... Then what ?

Problem with guns on aircraft:

What if you start popping off rounds and hit hydrolics or other critical systems? You're screwed! No guns on planes except trained Sky Marshals.
Use magsafe ammo. It fragments on impact.

See, we'll tackle that too.

Each and every incident involving violence WILL be rewarded by indefinite incarceration on first offense.

Perfect and submissive obedience to Law - or slambam into the jailhouse.

Sorry, you can't even catch, let alone convict, a significant number of offenders.

Try again.

I believe that if everyone is allowed to carry weapons, then there will be significantly less crime. They've already shown that owning guns period cuts down on crime. There was a county in Georgia where crime was at some of the worst levels in the country. They installed a law that everyone was required to own and register a gun, and crime rates went down 50-75%. Concealed weapons would take it a step further, since there would be much less muggings or rapings, as the criminals would likely be concerned that their target might be "Packing".


Those who still tried it would be shot, and then there'd be one less criminal to contaminate the world.

REQUIRED? That is ridiculous!

REQUIRED? That is ridiculous!
May sound that way, but it worked.

Yep. Zero Arms.

And anyone who owns a weapon, other than assigned to him by the State ( police, Army, etc ) chucked into the binn on first offense.
Sure. It works so well with drugs that it's bound to work with guns. Plus, when the population is all nice and disarmed a big strong guy can go out and rape and rob at will.

Sure. It works so well with drugs that it's bound to work with guns.

The best and funniest DCD line I've heard.

See, we'll tackle that too.

Each and every incident involving violence WILL be rewarded by indefinite incarceration on first offense.

Perfect and submissive obedience to Law - or slambam into the jailhouse.
Most criminals don't think they'll get caught. Some criminals don't care. Either way how do you guarantee every incident involving violence WILL be rewarded by indefinite incarceration? Seriously now, if we eliminate the "crimes of passion" and focus only on premeditated violence, the cops have a hell of a hard time catching those guys. Also you said each and every incident involving violence will be rewarded by indefinite incarceration. So you'd put a guy in prison for life over a simple bar brawl? I don't think most people would go along with that.

I'd think it would make me feel less safe, but that is mostly because I am a bit paranoid. I'd probably just keep on thinking of some random dude popping out of nowhere and shooting me... though of course it would be sort of mild in the scheme of things and more of an odd irrationality than a driving force. Sort of like how I feel less safe at night when things are dark indoors, sure it is extremely unlikely things would happen and when it comes down to it my feelings won't affect me too much, it just still inspires some irrational feeling.

That random guy shooting you does not even have a permit to CCW. I would doubt that his gun would even be legally obtained.

Do laws permitting law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons make you feel more or less safe?

It seems, on the surface, that CCW laws clearly make society safer - the 'good guys' are armed against the 'bad guys' and can act to defend against crime.

Any compelling counterargument to this?
A 'counterargument' requires an 'argument'. You have instead presented what can only be described as, to give it its technical term, 'complete rubbish'.

Giving someone a gun makes no one safer. Guns are dangerous, and the more of them in circulation the more likely you are to face that danger.

Person A gets into a fight without a gun. Gets a punch and a broken nose.
Person B gets into a fight with a gun. Gets shot and killed.

It takes a special kind of stupidity to actually encourage option B.

Giving someone a gun makes no one safer. Guns are dangerous, and the more of them in circulation the more likely you are to face that danger.


False in the US.

We went from 200 million guns to 300 million guns in active use in the US in 10 years.

Over that time, firearm murder dropped 64 percent - overall violent crime plummeted 65 percent.

By your logic, we should have seen a 50 percent increase in firearm murder at the very least. And we saw the opposite.

Where's your logic now?

False in the US.

We went from 200 million guns to 300 million guns in active use in the US in 10 years.

Over that time, firearm murder dropped 64 percent - overall violent crime plummeted 65 percent.

By your logic, we should have seen a 50 percent increase in firearm murder at the very least. And we saw the opposite.

Where's your logic now?

The logic is that people are finally (at last) coming to terms with responsible gun ownership. And it only took 200 years and several hundred thousand deaths. I'd rather not have to start in the first place thanks.

False in the US.

We went from 200 million guns to 300 million guns in active use in the US in 10 years.

Over that time, firearm murder dropped 64 percent - overall violent crime plummeted 65 percent.

By your logic, we should have seen a 50 percent increase in firearm murder at the very least. And we saw the opposite.

Where's your logic now?
Figures show that the number of thongs sold in the United States increased in the same period. Therefore, violent crime is clearly related to thong sales.

Where's your logic now? Oh wait, there wasn't any.

A 'counterargument' requires an 'argument'. You have instead presented what can only be described as, to give it its technical term, 'complete rubbish'.

Giving someone a gun makes no one safer. Guns are dangerous, and the more of them in circulation the more likely you are to face that danger.

Person A gets into a fight without a gun. Gets a punch and a broken nose.
Person B gets into a fight with a gun. Gets shot and killed.

It takes a special kind of stupidity to actually encourage option B.
The point is that people don't get into as many fights with guns. When I'm carrying a gun I tend to think more about my actions because I can deal with a few months in county jail for beating someone down, but I'd rather not do a few years in prison for shooting someone dead. Also many criminals weigh risks and benefits when commiting crimes. When the risk of being shot becomes high enough it outweighs the benefits of mugging someone.

Figures show that the number of thongs sold in the United States increased in the same period. Therefore, violent crime is clearly related to thong sales.

Where's your logic now? Oh wait, there wasn't any.

You're the one who said that more guns increases the danger.

I showed that we have more guns over time, and less danger over time.

I see you lack a counterargument.

At least with concealed guns some of the more stupid gun owners may forget where they have hidden them.

The point is that people don't get into as many fights with guns. When I'm carrying a gun I tend to think more about my actions because I can deal with a few months in county jail for beating someone down, but I'd rather not do a few years in prison for shooting someone dead. Also many criminals weigh risks and benefits when commiting crimes. When the risk of being shot becomes high enough it outweighs the benefits of mugging someone.


Most felons I know say that not only do they want low risk, they want low effort.

It doesn't take much effort to make money selling marijuana, for instance. Pretty easy work, the pay is ok, and the risk is very low.

Even people doing strongarm robbery don't actually want to work hard - it's easier to look and sound very threatening, and make a few bucks, as opposed to actually having to beat someone up for a few bucks - that would be real work, instead of easy money.

The truly violent felons (those who are violent merely for their own amusement) are fairly rare.

You're the one who said that more guns increases the danger.

I showed that we have more guns over time, and less danger over time.

I see you lack a counterargument.
Interesting, because according to The Department of Justice, 2004 was the first year that saw a (slight) reduction in the murder rate.

An examination of these data indicated that most violent crime (30.7 percent) involved the use of personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. Firearms were used in 26.4 percent and knives or cutting instruments were used in 15.5 percent of violent crime. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.3 percent of violent offenses.
26.4% of violent crime involved firearms. That's 26.4% of violent crime that ends not in a bloody nose, but a corpse on the floor.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Incidents involving a firearm represented 6% of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2004.

So, if there were no guns, the violent crime would continue.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

For nonfatal violent crimes, offenders were more likely to
have a firearm than a knife or club. From 1993 to 2001 the
rate of firearm violence fell 63%

We can see this started long before 2004.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm

Interesting, because according to The Department of Justice, 2004 was the first year that saw a (slight) reduction in the murder rate.

Um, no, murder rates have been dropping since '94. Try again.


[QUOTE=Philosopy]26.4% of violent crime involved firearms. That's 26.4% of violent crime that ends not in a bloody nose, but a corpse on the floor.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

Um, no, it being involved in a violent crime /= a murder.

Try again.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt
Kimchi...what are you talking about? This site backs up my argument.

* Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of
all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual
assaults involved an armed assailant. About 90% of
homicide victims were killed with a weapon.
* The likelihood of an injury was the same for victims
facing armed and unarmed offenders (26%); serious injury
was more likely from armed offenders (7% versus 2%).
* From 1994 through 1999, the years for which data are
available, about 7 in 10 murders at school involved some
type of firearm, and approximately 1 in 2 murders at
school involved a handgun.

I did not read the thread, so I am not here to argue with anyone else's views.

I happen to live in one of the few states with no CCW. It infuriates me.

We have criminals running around with no permits. "Hi, I'm a convicted bank robber and I want to buy this .45 ." *rolls eyes*

I have a pistol, belong to a sportsman's club, have taken numerous classes to learn safe handling and I cannot carry a pistol. Being a woman, driving on a hwy at night, what do you think?

How many registered CCWders are caught committing crimes? Not many. It's the others. Those of us who follow the law are at a disadvantage to those who don't. Those who can't get a CCW permit and are intent on carrying wil do so anyway. (Responding to Gaeltach's comment re: not wanting some people to have a CCW permit. They will probably carry anyway if denied.)

Our 2nd amendment rights are slowly being taken away from us. And it isn't just our 2nd amendment rights.

Yes, I think CCW is a wonderful thing, as if some rapist approaches you, a woman has at least some defense. Not many women can overpower a man. (Unless it's a hideous amazon woman or a skeleton wimpy guy. :P )

Anyway, what they did in N.O. was unforgiveable. This is the issue that swings my senatorial vote.

If I had access to CCW, I may still be at a disadvantage of a criminal with a gun. CCW does not guarantee safety, however, it puts you at a better advantage than no CCW.

The taking away of our RIGHTS is also a huge part of the issue.

I am not going to get into the politics of this, as I'll probably smash my computer, but we were GUARANTEED certain freedoms when the constitution was signed. Not any more.

Anyway, as usual, I digress.

I would feel much safer if the CCW law would pass in this state. I am a responsible gunowner and with gangsters all around, (and they are... you wouldn't believe what happened across the street and in the street and in our yard two weeks ago, and we live in a suburban neighborhood... looked like CCLA!), I would feel safer. Our state has a disproportionate amount of missing women, dead people strewn off the highways, and college rapes right on campus. These are the nice areas.

*sigh* What do you expect from a state that was home to Gein and Dahmer...

Um, no, murder rates have been dropping since '94. Try again.
It's always fun when someone is presented with a fact and claims it's not true.
The UCR Program’s homicide data for 2004 showed that for the first time in 4 years, the estimated number of murders in the United States decreased. An estimated 16,137 persons were murdered nationwide, a decline of 2.4 percent from the 2003 figure. An analysis of 5- and 10-year trend data showed that the 2004 estimate increased 3.5 percent from the 2000 estimate

Kimchi...what are you talking about? This site backs up my argument.

No, you said murder didn't drop until '94. False.

You stated 26% of violent crimes w/ weapons ended in murder. False.

Offender use of firearms

Of incidents involving offenders with firearms,
victims --
* were shot (3%)
* were shot at but not hit (8%)
* were struck with a firearm (4%)
* were threatened with a firearm (72%)
* did not describe offender's use of firearms
(13%).


Violent victimization rates declined from 1993 to 2001.
Rates for crimes committed with firearms reflected a
larger decrease than did the rates for overall violence
and armed violence in general. Between 1993 and 2001
overall violence decreased 54%, armed violence fell 59%,
and firearm violence declined 63%.

Trends in homicides, 1993-2001

The number of homicides declined 36% between 1993 and
2001. Firearmhomicides decreased 41% during the period.
In 1993, 72% of homicides of persons age 12 or older
were committed with firearms. In 2001, 66% were
committed with firearms.


Try again.

Kimchi...what are you talking about? This site backs up my argument.
We were talking about "violent crime" which you seem to think is only "murder".

It doesn't back your claim up at all on violent crime.

In fact, because you're too ignorant to read the definition of "weapon" (which is not 100% guns), you're reading more into the document than is there.

Point of fact:

Violent crime involving firearms DROPPED 63%.

I'll quote it again, because you're blind.

From 1993 to 2001 the
rate of firearm violence fell 63%

And:

Looking at the 16,000 or so firearm deaths in 2004...

According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2001 about 39% of the deaths that resulted from firearms injuries were homicides, 57% were suicides, 3% were unintentional, and 1% were of undetermined intent.

Gee...


From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined
36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

Gee.. how did this happen... violent crime AND firearm murder DROPPED precipitously

while gun ownership RADICALLY increased...

No, you said murder didn't drop until '94. False.
It's even more fun when the person trying to be clever says things that are so obviously rubbish that even the most dimwitted is able to scroll up and see it's not so.

You stated 26% of violent crimes w/ weapons ended in murder. False.
No, I didn't.

This really is a tactic of desperation; claim I said things I didn't so I have to spend the time going over things so I can't make my arguments. It won't work.

I'll put it in nice simple terms so you can understand.

Option A: Me fight. Me hit. Me hurt. Ouch.
Option B: Me fight. Me shot (big gun go now). Me dead. Bye.

Try again.
It's been scientifically proven that people who put stupid statements like 'try again' at the end of their 'arguments' have the intellectual capacity of a dead slug.

We were talking about "violent crime" which you seem to think is only "murder".
This is because the biggest false argument of the gun lobby is to claim 'but violent crime is dropping!' and ignore murder rates.

Of course robbery/rape/assault rates are dropping if you have more guns. This is because these crimes don't end in robbery/rape/assault, they end in murder.

It's a strange person who claims this as an 'improvement'.

It's even more fun when the person trying to be clever says things that are so obviously rubbish that even the most dimwitted is able to scroll up and see it's not so.

What the hell are you talking about. So I mistyped a number. I guess that makes you the Master Debater.

Interesting, because according to The Department of Justice, 2004 was the first year that saw a (slight) reduction in the murder rate.

So you didn't say 2004 was the first year it dropped?




No, I didn't.

Really?

26.4% of violent crime involved firearms. That's 26.4% of violent crime that ends not in a bloody nose, but a corpse on the floor.

This really is a tactic of desperation; claim I said things I didn't so I have to spend the time going over things so I can't make my arguments. It won't work.

I'll put it in nice simple terms so you can understand.

Option A: Me fight. Me hit. Me hurt. Ouch.
Option B: Me fight. Me shot (big gun go now). Me dead. Bye.


It's been scientifically proven that people who put stupid statements like 'try again' at the end of their 'arguments' have the intellectual capacity of a dead slug.

You: Full of crap, lying about what you said, and making personal attacks.

Me: Calling you on it.

IThis really is a tactic of desperation; claim I said things I didn't so I have to spend the time going over things so I can't make my arguments. It won't work.

Kecibukia QUOTED you.

Here. I'll put it in terms you can understand.

A man is beating his wife to death.

Somehow, she manages to call 911 and ask for the police.

Now. The police will show up in 45 minutes on the average in the US.

The chances are quite good that she'll either be dead when they get there, or severely injured. Unless she's dead, it's quite unlikely that he'll face serious charges, especially if this is the first time that he's been caught (a lot of "first timers" don't even get arrested).

If he gets away with it, and she's still alive, and she moves out, she's just doubled her chances of being killed - simply by leaving.

If she's attacked again, in your system, she has the option to call 911. The state has NO obligation to send police, nor do the police have any obligation to show up (and many police will avoid domestic violence calls).

If she had a gun and training, she could defend herself. And I've trained women to do that. They live, unharmed and unhurt, without having to shoot anyone. The gun is a visible and credible deterrent.

In your system, you're content for women to be beaten to death at will. Nice sentiment.

And:

Looking at the 16,000 or so firearm deaths in 2004..
According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2001 about 39% of the deaths that resulted from firearms injuries were homicides, 57% were suicides, 3% were unintentional, and 1% were of undetermined intent.
It's a strange person who would defend a 39% usage rate resulting in murder. Or a 3% 'unintentional' death rate.

Kecibukia QUOTED you.

Here. I'll put it in terms you can understand.

A man is beating his wife to death.

Somehow, she manages to call 911 and ask for the police.

Now. The police will show up in 45 minutes on the average in the US.

The chances are quite good that she'll either be dead when they get there, or severely injured. Unless she's dead, it's quite unlikely that he'll face serious charges, especially if this is the first time that he's been caught (a lot of "first timers" don't even get arrested).

If he gets away with it, and she's still alive, and she moves out, she's just doubled her chances of being killed - simply by leaving.

If she's attacked again, in your system, she has the option to call 911. The state has NO obligation to send police, nor do the police have any obligation to show up (and many police will avoid domestic violence calls).

If she had a gun and training, she could defend herself. And I've trained women to do that. They live, unharmed and unhurt, without having to shoot anyone. The gun is a visible and credible deterrent.

In your system, you're content for women to be beaten to death at will. Nice sentiment.
Or the woman panics and shoots the man.

Or the man grabs the gun and shoots her.

Or a child finds the gun in a draw and shoots everything.

See, the great thing about anecdotes is that anyone can make them up.

This is because the biggest false argument of the gun lobby is to claim 'but violent crime is dropping!' and ignore murder rates.

Of course robbery/rape/assault rates are dropping if you have more guns. This is because these crimes don't end in robbery/rape/assault, they end in murder.

It's a strange person who claims this as an 'improvement'.

And yet murder rates were dropping as well.

Trends in homicides, 1993-2001

The number of homicides declined 36% between 1993 and
2001. Firearmhomicides decreased 41% during the period.
In 1993, 72% of homicides of persons age 12 or older
were committed with firearms. In 2001, 66% were
committed with firearms.

So you're now saying a drop of 36% from peak of '93 is less than a 6% drop from valler?

Yep. Zero Arms.

And anyone who owns a weapon, other than assigned to him by the State ( police, Army, etc ) chucked into the binn on first offense.

That is logistically IMPOSSIBLE in the U.S.! Criminals will get them anyway...

No way to get rid of ALL GUNS! It's absolutely impossible.

You want to take away my katana too? My Henkel's butcher knife?

I have to say that Archie Bunker said it best when rebutting his daughter for wanting guns banned due to gun murder: "So would you be happier, little girl, if they was all pushed outta windows?"

Or the woman panics and shoots the man.

Or the man grabs the gun and shoots her.

Or a child finds the gun in a draw and shoots everything.

See, the great thing about anecdotes is that anyone can make them up.

And yet the statistics back ours up.

Are you still denying you made your statements?

What the hell are you talking about. So I mistyped a number. I guess that makes you the Master Debater.

So you didn't say 2004 was the first year it dropped?
Hilarious. You admit you accused me of something I didn't say, and then continue as if I'd denied something else.

I’ve decided I don’t give a shit about gun laws. If I want a gun, I can get one, whether they’re legal or not.

And yet the statistics back ours up.

Are you still denying you made your statements?
Sorry? Made them?

I control the US Department of Justice?

I should use this power to better effect.

Or the woman panics and shoots the man.

Or the man grabs the gun and shoots her.

Or a child finds the gun in a draw and shoots everything.

See, the great thing about anecdotes is that anyone can make them up.

I actually have trained over 200 women. I also shelter them in my home.

None of them have had anyone grab their gun. Nor have children grabbed the gun.

You still haven't said how in the normal scenario (with no gun), the woman is going to survive.

And you can't, because odds are, she won't.

And yet murder rates were dropping as well.

Trends in homicides, 1993-2001

The number of homicides declined 36% between 1993 and
2001. Firearmhomicides decreased 41% during the period.
In 1993, 72% of homicides of persons age 12 or older
were committed with firearms. In 2001, 66% were
committed with firearms.

So you're now saying a drop of 36% from peak of '93 is less than a 6% drop from valler?
I've already pointed out the rising thong sales. It's the thongs, I tells ya.

I've already pointed out the rising thong sales. It's the thongs, I tells ya.
And you were the one who said that more guns means more violence.

Are you going to retract that?

I actually have trained over 200 women. I also shelter them in my home.

None of them have had anyone grab their gun. Nor have children grabbed the gun.

You still haven't said how in the normal scenario (with no gun), the woman is going to survive.

And you can't, because odds are, she won't.
You still haven't told me how the woman survives when the husband shoots her.

You've just said 'it wouldn't happen'. I've said it will, so explain how she survives.

Aren't anecdotes fun?

Hilarious. You admit you accused me of something I didn't say, and then continue as if I'd denied something else.

I quoted you.

Me: You stated 26% of violent crimes w/ weapons ended in murder. False.

You: No I didn't

You before: 26.4% of violent crime involved firearms. That's 26.4% of violent crime that ends not in a bloody nose, but a corpse on the floor.


Again.
You:Interesting, because according to The Department of Justice, 2004 was the first year that saw a (slight) reduction in the murder rate.

You:This is because the biggest false argument of the gun lobby is to claim 'but violent crime is dropping!' and ignore murder rates.

Of course robbery/rape/assault rates are dropping if you have more guns. This is because these crimes don't end in robbery/rape/assault, they end in murder.

Facts: From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined
36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

And you were the one who said that more guns means more violence.
Nope. I've said more guns equals more murders. If all crimes result in death, then the other crime rate will obviously decline.

Sorry? Made them?

I control the US Department of Justice?

I should use this power to better effect.

Ah, and now come the red-herrings.

You still haven't told me how the woman survives when the husband shoots her.

In the scenario I gave you, where the woman is unarmed, it's not an anecdote.

It's what happens every day in the US.

Nope. I've said more guns equals more murders. If all crimes result in death, then the other crime rate will obviously decline.

And it hasn't happened. Murder rates dropped over a ten year period. The DOJ shows it, the FBI shows it. You deny it.

Yep. Zero Arms.

And anyone who owns a weapon, other than assigned to him by the State ( police, Army, etc ) chucked into the binn on first offense.
So then all owned guns would be illegally owned guns.

How many illegally owned guns are there now? Is law enforcement somehow going to become vastly more effective at finding those owners? Or are we just guaranteeing that only criminals have guns?

Don't know of a bad guy stupid enough to steal your wallet with a weapon on your hip although they might try if you have it hidden. Or the wallet of anyone around you. It is there if you need it though I hope you never will. So say "to shoot muggers" and have the guts to openly show your position. Why hide unless you don't have the guts to carry openly?


Read my post again, I explained it there.

Yep. Zero Arms.

And anyone who owns a weapon, other than assigned to him by the State ( police, Army, etc ) chucked into the binn on first offense.


Lets try and divorce ourselves from the realm of fantasy for one thread, shall we?

No reply has been made to this argument:

Because (as we can all agree on) criminals have a penchant for arming themselves to commit crimes:

It is advantageous for law-abiding citizens to be able to arm themselves in public, for the purpose of defending against criminals.

Nope. I've said more guns equals more murders. If all crimes result in death, then the other crime rate will obviously decline.

Yep. Becuase things like this never happen:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/5243990.stm

'Nightmare killer' gets life term
A rapist convicted of the "callous and brutal" murder of a woman on her way home from church has been told he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
The trial judge said Trevor Hamilton's killing of retired librarian Attracta Harron was "the stuff of nightmares".

Mrs Harron, 65, from Strabane, County Tyrone, vanished on her way home from Lifford, Donegal, in December 2003.

Hamilton, 24, who was on probation, bludgeoned her to death and then buried her naked body near his home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/5246618.stm
Robbers threaten woman with poker
A woman in her 90s has been left badly shaken after a man threatened to hit her with a poker during a robbery at her house in Ballymena, County Antrim.
The man forced his way into the woman's home in the Galgorm area at about 1800 BST on Thursday after calling at her door pretending to look for a dog.

He then let a second man into the house before demanding her purse and threatening her with the poker.

The robbers made off with an undisclosed sum of money.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5241180.stm
Life sentence for Toni-Ann killer
A man has been told he will spend at least 40 years in prison after murdering schoolgirl Toni-Ann Byfield and a man she regarded as her father.
Joel Smith shot the seven-year-old and drug dealer Bertram Byfield at a bedsit in Kensal Green, London, in 2003.

Toni-Ann, who was under the care of Birmingham Social Services, was hit in the back after she saw Mr Byfield, 41, shot by rival drug dealer Smith, 33.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/5244892.stm
Stabbed officer speaks to family
A police officer who was critically injured when he was stabbed with a crowbar has regained consciousness.
Pc Peter Doherty had emergency surgery to remove his spleen on Thursday after he was attacked while responding to a burglary in Bedworth, Warwickshire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/5245496.stm
Woman suffers kitchen sex attack
A woman has been sexually assaulted in her own home by a man who let himself in through an unlocked front door.
The attack happened in the kitchen of the house on Burnage Lane in Burnage, Manchester, on Thursday night.


...police may respond in 15 minutes to a call. I don't think any of these people had than much time. Violence is MORE common without guns than with. Criminals can and do get illegal guns. Taking them away from a law abiding populace is an exercise in stupidity.

Here’s my happy little tale:

last Saturday morning I was taking part in my usual Jog down the old train tracks near my house I always brought this huge ass knife from the kitchen with me just to make me feel safer jogging down the train tracks at 3:30 in the morning (yeah if the police would of searched me I would be in allot of trouble)

well about half an hour down the line a saw some huge ass boulder pass my head and out came running some dude with a knife now I’ve made sure I know how to use a knife and how to fight and such but I know that in a struggle its usually the attacked persons weapon that gets used against them so I did the first thing that came to my mind….run like bats shit on fire I easily outran the guy after the first mile but kept running (okay going as fast as I could) for about 4 hours afterwards now telling my old friend this he was “like yeah well if I were you I would of kicked his ass” now his understanding of a knife is that you poke things with it so had he the knife he would have been disarmed easy and buried six feet under by now.

So now you have to think how many people would actually stick around and die using a weapon they can’t use in a situation they can get out of easily it and assuming this person was just after my MP3 would it be worth risking your life for any amount of property

well it has vaguely something to do with the topic anyway (oh and don’t worry about my friend he’s one of them “if there’s another war I’ll join strait away” types

Yep. Becuase things like this never happen

HS that’s 5 cases in 3 years we must be in a crime epidemic!

and in one case the woman just got robbed her life wasn't in any sort of danger had she had a weapon the criminal would of panicked and probably killed her also I don’t think even the criminals life is worth a few pounds to the woman

I cant believe ONE person who is legal ....doesnt remember a highway asshole -road rage -dickhead......In this day and age its a sympton and a disease,,and common..I have had a nitwit kick my car and throw puncehes at my window.....imaginee that armed...Can you say you chilled...............



:p

As soon as I'm financially back on my feet, I'm going to send in my paperwork for my CCW permit. I've already taken the course, so all I need to do is get my 3 letters of recommendation and the 3 money orders that are needed ($24 to the Commisioner of Public Safety, $35 to the local police, and $35 to the Department of Public Safety). After I send all that in, it should (according to state law) take no more than 60 days to get my temporary state permit. Then I stop by the state police barracks near my house and get my permanent permit (which I have to renew every 5 years, so it's not THAT permanent).

Then I'll be able to purchase a handgun, to teach those unruly bowling pins and paper targets a lesson.

Yep. Becuase things like this never happen:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/5243990.stm

'Nightmare killer' gets life term
A rapist convicted of the "callous and brutal" murder of a woman on her way home from church has been told he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
The trial judge said Trevor Hamilton's killing of retired librarian Attracta Harron was "the stuff of nightmares".

Mrs Harron, 65, from Strabane, County Tyrone, vanished on her way home from Lifford, Donegal, in December 2003.

Hamilton, 24, who was on probation, bludgeoned her to death and then buried her naked body near his home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/5246618.stm
Robbers threaten woman with poker
A woman in her 90s has been left badly shaken after a man threatened to hit her with a poker during a robbery at her house in Ballymena, County Antrim.
The man forced his way into the woman's home in the Galgorm area at about 1800 BST on Thursday after calling at her door pretending to look for a dog.

He then let a second man into the house before demanding her purse and threatening her with the poker.

The robbers made off with an undisclosed sum of money.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5241180.stm
Life sentence for Toni-Ann killer
A man has been told he will spend at least 40 years in prison after murdering schoolgirl Toni-Ann Byfield and a man she regarded as her father.
Joel Smith shot the seven-year-old and drug dealer Bertram Byfield at a bedsit in Kensal Green, London, in 2003.

Toni-Ann, who was under the care of Birmingham Social Services, was hit in the back after she saw Mr Byfield, 41, shot by rival drug dealer Smith, 33.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/5244892.stm
Stabbed officer speaks to family
A police officer who was critically injured when he was stabbed with a crowbar has regained consciousness.
Pc Peter Doherty had emergency surgery to remove his spleen on Thursday after he was attacked while responding to a burglary in Bedworth, Warwickshire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/5245496.stm
Woman suffers kitchen sex attack
A woman has been sexually assaulted in her own home by a man who let himself in through an unlocked front door.
The attack happened in the kitchen of the house on Burnage Lane in Burnage, Manchester, on Thursday night.


...police may respond in 15 minutes to a call. I don't think any of these people had than much time. Violence is MORE common without guns than with. Criminals can and do get illegal guns. Taking them away from a law abiding populace is an exercise in stupidity.


You do realize that some are going to say something to the effect of, "Then the criminal could have lost their life, if the victim had a firearm!"

For some reason, there are those out there that believe that someone who assaults another (for things such as robbery, assault, murder, etc.) gets to cheat the system and then get to go along their merry way, maybe even have a bunch of other people provide for them.

HS that’s 5 cases in 3 years we must be in a crime epidemic!

and in one case the woman just got robbed her life wasn't in any sort of danger had she had a weapon the criminal would of panicked and probably killed her also I don’t think even the criminals life is worth a few pounds to the woman

That was just today's posts on BBC. Do you want me to pull up EVERY ONE? They're examples which PROVE that getting rid of guns does not lessen violence. Or is London suddenly safe? :rolleyes:

You call getting robbed not a trauma? Go walk alone on the bad side of town sometime. :p

You still haven't told me how the woman survives when the husband shoots her.

You've just said 'it wouldn't happen'. I've said it will, so explain how she survives.

Aren't anecdotes fun?

she doesnt die ...just like most people who are shot .

So, how does that address 94 percent of the violent felonies in the US, that are committed with no weapon at all?

You're sure it's ok then for a woman being beaten to death by her husband to call 911 and then wait for the police to arrive?

Consider that the national average response time is 45 minutes. You have better odds of getting a pizza before getting a policeman if you call for both at the same time.


call Domino's pizza if you are attacked they have a guarantee !

I think making everyone carry weapons will be taking it to the extreme a little bit.

I.E. If you step out of line a little, I'll shoot you.

But then, if you ban weapons, only the criminals will have weapons, because they don't follow the rules.

I.E. Everyone is defenseless.

I guess you could make gun registration avaliable only for those who don't have criminal records, or past psychopathic problems. Also charge a bit more tax on weapons and ammunition, so then not everyone has a gun.

I think making everyone carry weapons will be taking it to the extreme a little bit.

I.E. If you step out of line a little, I'll shoot you.


It doesn't mean that. Most folks who carry concealed LEGALLY (had to toss that in--there are quite a few people that break laws out there, but more that follow them) are MORE aware at how they need to avoid confrontation and escalation. However, forcing someone to carry who won't use the tool is foolish--I agree on that point.


But then, if you ban weapons, only the criminals will have weapons, because they don't follow the rules.

I.E. Everyone is defenseless.


I heartily agree with this supposition.


I guess you could make gun registration avaliable only for those who don't have criminal records, or past psychopathic problems. Also charge a bit more tax on weapons and ammunition, so then not everyone has a gun.

We're pretty much there--in the US most have to go through a federal insta-check on a record. And due to the 20,000+ firearms laws on the books, firearms and ammunition are already expensive enough.

However, like with the patriot act, I cannot condone limiting 99.99% of the population's freedoms to MAYBE catch a criminal trying to get a hold of a weapon. There are just too many ways around the system, and the system WILL be used to attack and monitor the general public (the laws have already been abused). The ends don't justify the means.

My sate ( Pennsylvania) is ready to pass a new " stand your ground law "

I concur completely . They did not get so radical as some other states ..but with less police on the streets and those that are on the streets basicaly limited to cleaning up the mess after the fact , the reality is if you do not protect yourself you are toast.

They need to pass a non concealed carry law ...criminals wont carry openly and the police can question anyone who isn't seen carrying ..:D Then shoot them .