Brand Spankin' New Glock 19

[renodoc]

DJJ, sometimes I tend to just "agree to disagree" with people on issues. Abortion and the Death Penalty are examples.

On this one, you just seem to have a real lack of understanding of our constitution, natural law, and the role of guns in our society.

[ QUOTE ]
The second ammendment didn't give people the right to carry arms. The concealed carry laws did, and they are state laws. This is what we were discussing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, actually you are correct. Sort of. As other posters have pointed out, the right to self defense is not something that any government can grant or remove. It is one of those rights that have been "endowed by our creator" etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Times also change and so can the constition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the constitution can and has been amended many times in the past. This is how it can change. I get the feeling that you are more of the "judicial activist" kind of guy.



[ QUOTE ]
In addition to that, giving people the right to carry guns without any sort of training is not the way to form a well regulated militia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most states with shall issue laws require some training.

Are you in agreement that the militia consists of all able-bodied who can defend the country (i.e., not just the "naitonal guard"?)


Finally, the number of incidents where the mere presence of a gun by the defender thwarted an attack is huge but not easily documented. Statistics abound showing that the number of CCW permit holders who commit a crime involving a gun are miniscule. FBI interviews of convicted felons suggest that criminals do indeed think about whether their potential victims are armed and they may change their criminal behavior accordingly. States with concealed carry laws continue to show a decrease in the rate of violent crime.

All of this information has been presented to you throughout this thread yet you continue to live in a state of denial or ignorance. I don't see why.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, the number of incidents where the mere presence of a gun by the defender thwarted an attack is huge but not easily documented. Statistics abound showing that the number of CCW permit holders who commit a crime involving a gun are miniscule. FBI interviews of convicted felons suggest that criminals do indeed think about whether their potential victims are armed and they may change their criminal behavior accordingly. States with concealed carry laws continue to show a decrease in the rate of violent crime.

All of this information has been presented to you throughout this thread yet you continue to live in a state of denial or ignorance. I don't see why.

Post Extras:


[/ QUOTE ]

I have explained my reasonong many times. It is everyone else that isn't listening. I don't consider a thwarted robbery a saved life. This is the basis of my stance. In the majority of cases where an attacker is deterred, it can't be proven that a life was safed as a result of the conclead weapon law. On the flip side, it can definitely be proven any time a concealed carrier is directly or indirectly responsible for an innocent death. I just don't see the reasoning behind turning every single robbery,mugging, etc. into a fire fight.

I also agreed that there is a chance that carrying a gun could make you safer. I'm not yet convinced of this however. I just think it makes everyone around you more unsafe. Considering I will never carry I gun, you can see why I have a problem with this.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
I agreed that there is a chance that carrying a gun could make you safer. I'm not yet convinced of this however. I just think it makes everyone around you more unsafe. Considering I will never carry I gun, you can see why I have a problem with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you ponder the possibility that a high number of CCW permit holders might provide you with a higher level of safety in your city or town? You "think" it makes everyone around you more unsafe. Many here, including myself, think we are safer.

If you also consider the difference between those who carry a gun without a permit and those that do, certainly you would rather have a higher percentage of legal, responsible gun owners out there rather than untrained, unlicensed individuals with unknown motives-- wouldn't you?

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
untrained, unlicensed individuals with unknown motives

[/ QUOTE ]

take out the unlicensed part and you could be talking about either a criminal or a person with a CCW permit.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

untrained, unlicensed individuals with unknown motives


take out the unlicensed part and you could be talking about either a criminal or a person with a CCW permit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This point you keep coming back to and I don't get it. Do you have experience with CCW holders who obtained their permit in order to do harm to another person or to commit a crime or some other "unknown" motive?

You keep harping on how a thwarted robbery isn't a good use of a firearm. How on earth do you know the robber's intentions? How do you know the armed "robber" will be content with your wallet and not want to ravage you wife and daughter and then kill you all? Again, again, again, others have posted that deadly force can't just be dealt out vigilante style which appears to be one of your main concerns. A CCW holder who uses deadly force in an inappropriate situation should be held fully accountable and punished accordingly. That said, most of us who have responded to you would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, again, again, others have posted that deadly force can't just be dealt out vigilante style which appears to be one of your main concerns

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean it won't happen. Ace posted ten examples of people using their guns, two of which were people acting as vigilantes. My main problem with every single person on this forum that is pro CCW is that you all seem way to trusting of other gun owners. You assume becuase you are responsible, other will also be just as responsible. This is a very dangerous assumption in my opinion. The fact still remains that we are putting guns in the hand of untrained citizens. Regardless of what you think, you can't say for sure what you or any of the other gun owner will actually do in the heat of the moment. I would assume not take the chance and just let the trained professionals handle this.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
My main problem with every single person on this forum that is pro CCW is that you all seem way to trusting of other gun owners.

[/ QUOTE ]
My main problem with you (and others may share it) is you have this inherent distrust of your fellow law-abiding citizen and feel that the gov't should strip them of a natural right of theirs.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact still remains that we are putting guns in the hand of untrained citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]
And most statistics of CCW permit holders show that they're about as law-abiding as you can be. And many of those people who get those permits do become trained. Your criticisms are not founded upon reality, but your own biased (and false) opinions.

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume not take the chance and just let the trained professionals handle this.

[/ QUOTE ]
What professionals? You think a police officer's gonna be right there when you're attacked? If you don't want to take a "chance" and hope a "professional" is right there when you or your family is attacked, that's your right. But who are you to tell people they can't defend themselves? What right do you have to strip people of their natural rights in the name of some demonstrably false goal of protecting the innocents from those wild CCW permit holders?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. My right to self-defense is severly infringed upon if the state bans me from using an effective method of self-defense. How would you feel if the state said "From now on, the only condoms you can use will have holes in them."



[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible analogy. Is there some inherent harm from using condoms without holes that isn't present in condoms with holes. If not, then this analogy doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing the point. What right does the state have to tell you what type of protection you can use, be it a gun or a condom? Especially when your life can depend on it.

Myth: Private ownership of guns
is not effective in preventing crime.

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.2 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.

Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.3

Fact: For every accidental death, suicide or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.

Fact: When using guns in self-defense4:
- 83% of robbery victims were not injured
- 88% of assault victims were not hurt
- 76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot

Fact: After the implementation of Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the "breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.5


Myth: Only police should have guns.

Fact: "...most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."6

Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.7

Fact: Seems the police have trouble keeping them. Hundreds of firearms are missing from the FBI and 449 of them have been involved in crimes.8

Fact: Anyone who saw the helplessness of the L.A. Police Department during the 1992 King Riots knows that they need guns to defend themselves.





Myth: You are more likely to be injured or killed
using a gun for self-defense.

Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:9
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

Fact: In 1966, the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms training classes to women. The number of rapes dropped by nearly 90%.

Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.33

Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.34

Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries."35 By contrast, the U.S., with laxer restrictions, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%.36

Fact: Washington D.C., has banned gun ownership and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is not regulated, and the murder rate is a mere 1.6 per 100,000.37

Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime control.38

Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.39

Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following40:

- 74% of felons agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

- 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."