Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: OC by the bad guys?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    This is just a point for discussion. Let's assume that OC becomes more popular and the movement grows across the nation where it is legal to carry openly. Let's say that it becomes fairly common so that both the police and citizens see it often enough that they are no longer surprised when they see someone carrying in public.

    Then, the bloods, crips and others of their kind realize that they too are covered by the same laws and can also openly carry. And, they realize that simply carrying openly is not probable cause for an officer to id them and run them to see if they have a record. And, I would assume many of them may not have a record anyway. Not all the bad guys have been convicted of crime even though they may be guilty.

    Could it be possible that groups (gangs) of the irresponsible may sometime in the future be openly carrying in our streets because the rest of us educated them that OC is generally legal?

    Don't misunderstand me. I am not some antigunner who just sneeked into this forum. I am probably one of the most at pro second amendment among us. I take a very, very literal view of the wording of our constitution. However, I do like to think of the "What if" questions.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Yes, it's entirely possible. It also wouldn't make a bit of difference. They all carry concealed now just like the majority of good guys do, sowhat difference does it make if they carry openly like all the good guys will (hopefully) in the future?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    SDguy wrote:
    This is just a point for discussion. Let's assume that OC becomes more popular and the movement grows across the nation where it is legal to carry openly. Let's say that it becomes fairly common so that both the police and citizens see it often enough that they are no longer surprised when they see someone carrying in public.

    Then, the bloods, crips and others of their kind realize that they too are covered by the same laws and can also openly carry. And, they realize that simply carrying openly is not probable cause for an officer to id them and run them to see if they have a record. And, I would assume many of them may not have a record anyway. Not all the bad guys have been convicted of crime even though they may be guilty.

    Could it be possible that groups (gangs) of the irresponsible may sometime in the future be openly carrying in our streets because the rest of us educated them that OC is generally legal?

    Don't misunderstand me. I am not some antigunner who just sneeked into this forum. I am probably one of the most at pro second amendment among us. I take a very, very literal view of the wording of our constitution. However, I do like to think of the "What if" questions.
    does it matter? it seems like in the world you're talking about those thugs would be quickly shot down if they tried to commit a crime.

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Yeah I've thought that could occur too, but as the gangs are already concealing it doesn't matter too much. In the days of the wild west criminals probably open carried quite a bit.

    In modern society criminals usually want to attract as little attention to themselves as possible so open carry would have to be extremely common I would think beforeany would. If they are already a convictedfelon howeverthey would likely still conceal as it is currently illegal for felons to possess firearms.

    Just because a guy has a gun doesn't make them a good guy. But it certainly doesn't make them a bad guy either.

    In any case it doesn't matter much. They already have the guns it doesn't matter how they carry them. If more good people started carrying guns, criminals would be less able to use them because their victims would shoot back.The net result is in favor of the good guys no matter how you look at it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    If a criminal wants a gun, and has the cash to buy one, or means to steal one, the criminal is going to have a gun no matter what our laws are.

    So, whether the criminal is carrying openly, or concealed, really is irrelevant. Even if they did start carrying openly, so what? It's not the fact that a personhas a gun that's the problem, it's what the person DOES with the gun that makes it bad.

    I, personally, do not feel that convicted felons should be denied posession of firearms. We already attempt to prevent them from having them, and it doesn't work. If someone is convicted of a crime, and pays their debt to society, they should be allowed to have a firearm for self-defense. Repeat violent offenders,maybe theyshould be denied legally having guns, but it won't stop them, so why are we even trying? How many criminals DO we arrest and charge ONLY for being felon in possession? Isn't it usually a tacked on charge to an existing crime?

    If someone's convicted of a NON-VIOLENT crime (fraud, drug possession, embezzelment), I don't think it's right to deny them the right to firearms whatsoever.

    If our society and government have allowed someone the right to their life after conviction of a crime, and they have paid their debt, why should we deny them the right to defend that life?

    ...Orygunner...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    You all make good points. I also think that we deny the right to own or carry to people who have done nothing worthy of losing that right or have served their time so should have that right restored.

    The initial question I posted is one that we may face from the opposition if OC becomes more commonplace.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    SDguy wrote:
    The initial question I posted is one that we may face from the opposition if OC becomes more commonplace.
    It's a good question.

    I'd reply that if gang members openly carry guns... so what? Are they committing any real (mala in se) crimes just by being armed? Nope.

    We need to get this country away from the thought that a gun is an animate object. A gun is a tool. Even if one has the intent to commit a crime with it... it's not a crime until it has been committed (generally, in order to avoid a discussion of attempted crimes). Carrying a gun does not mean someone will commit a murder anymore than having a penis means someone will commit a rape.

    Like I said, it would require a huge change in the line of thinking. Especially for those from political persuasions advocating people as being either "good" or "evil"...

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    Well that is a good question SDguy. I would say it's very little concern... If anything it might cut down on inter-gang violence (being that OC is a crime deterrent)



  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Now they have guns concealed so if I see a gangbanger type I have to wonder if they are armed or not. If they were OC at least I would know at a glance that they are armed and what they are armed with.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    SDguy wrote:
    You all make good points. I also think that we deny the right to own or carry to people who have done nothing worthy of losing that right or have served their time so should have that right restored.

    The initial question I posted is one that we may face from the opposition if OC becomes more commonplace.
    Hehe, yeah, guess I got off on a tangent, huh? :quirky

    To answer the initial question in the OP, No.

    Even if open carry becomes commonplace, I think it would be very rare for the "bad guys" to start OCing. Simply because, if they are legally denied access to a firearm, and a LEO SEES someone he KNOWS is a convicted criminal in posession of a firearm, he'll be arrested because the officer sees he is committing a crime. I don't think the criminal would want to take that chance of being recognized.

    As far as bad guys without criminal records, or unknown to the local police, Yes, I think at least some of them would start OCing.

    ...Orygunner...

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    It has been said, but I will put mine in.

    If they do then we have a better argument for easier access to legal CCW!!

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    I, personally, do not feel that convicted felons should be denied posession of firearms. We already attempt to prevent them from having them, and it doesn't work. If someone is convicted of a crime, and pays their debt to society, they should be allowed to have a firearm for self-defense. Repeat violent offenders,maybe theyshould be denied legally having guns, but it won't stop them, so why are we even trying? How many criminals DO we arrest and charge ONLY for being felon in possession? Isn't it usually a tacked on charge to an existing crime?

    If someone's convicted of a NON-VIOLENT crime (fraud, drug possession, embezzelment), I don't think it's right to deny them the right to firearms whatsoever.

    If our society and government have allowed someone the right to their life after conviction of a crime, and they have paid their debt, why should we deny them the right to defend that life?

    ...Orygunner...



    I think that goes a little over the top. The idea of, "Hey the current laws don't completely stop it, so why have them?" makes no sense because it can be applied to anything. The current laws don't stop murder, drug use, stealing, etc etc etc. Does that mean we should just stop trying and legalize those things? That is the one point on whichI disagree with the majority opinion of this board. I agree with the current laws, convicted felons should not be allowed to possess firearms, be it violent or not it shows a lack of self-control and judgment. I don't want a person like that carrying a gun. Everyone here complains about a lack of harshness in sentencing and blames it for the proliferation of crimeand yet now you're trying to say thata murderer that served hisshortened-for-good-behaviorten year sentence is good to own a firearm because he "paid his debt to society"? No thanks.:?


    I have no qualms about denying rights to a person that has been convicted as a criminal (violent or not) through due process of thejustice system.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Carrying a gun does not mean someone will commit a murder anymore than having a penis means someone will commit a rape.
    True, but OCing a penis WILL get you arrested. :what:



    As to the OP question, I think that the gang-bangers would be too afraid of attracting unwanted LEO attention. Even if OC becomes commonplace, no LEO is going to ignore someone walking around with a weapon. Street gangs don't like that kind of scrutiny.

  14. #14
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    My dad had an interesting story regarding OCing a penis.

    A man walked into a convenience store/gas station, wearing a long trench coat.

    The man walked back to a shelf and picked up a can of pork and beans, then walked back up to the counter.

    He placed the can of pork and beans on the counter, then opened his trench coat and flopped his penis on the counter.

    Well the female clerk, without missing a beat, picked up the can and slammed it down on the man's penis.

    The man passed out from the pain. When my dad arrived on scene, the man was still unconcious, lying on his back with the trench coat wide open.

    His member was swollen to the size of a grapefruit. The man then woke up, with police officers standing over him.

    Bad night eh?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Orygunner wrote:
    I, personally, do not feel that convicted felons should be denied posession of firearms. We already attempt to prevent them from having them, and it doesn't work. If someone is convicted of a crime, and pays their debt to society, they should be allowed to have a firearm for self-defense. Repeat violent offenders,maybe theyshould be denied legally having guns, but it won't stop them, so why are we even trying? How many criminals DO we arrest and charge ONLY for being felon in possession? Isn't it usually a tacked on charge to an existing crime?

    If someone's convicted of a NON-VIOLENT crime (fraud, drug possession, embezzelment), I don't think it's right to deny them the right to firearms whatsoever.

    If our society and government have allowed someone the right to their life after conviction of a crime, and they have paid their debt, why should we deny them the right to defend that life?

    ...Orygunner...



    I think that goes a little over the top. The idea of, "Hey the current laws don't completely stop it, so why have them?" makes no sense because it can be applied to anything. The current laws don't stop murder, drug use, stealing, etc etc etc. Does that mean we should just stop trying and legalize those things? That is the one point on whichI disagree with the majority opinion of this board. I agree with the current laws, convicted felons should not be allowed to possess firearms, be it violent or not it shows a lack of self-control and judgment. I don't want a person like that carrying a gun. Everyone here complains about a lack of harshness in sentencing and blames it for the proliferation of crimeand yet now you're trying to say thata murderer that served hisshortened-for-good-behaviorten year sentence is good to own a firearm because he "paid his debt to society"? No thanks.:?


    I have no qualms about denying rights to a person that has been convicted as a criminal (violent or not) through due process of thejustice system.
    I think this has been fleshed out already in various threads, but I'll repeat...

    One aspect I believe you're missing is that most of us advocates of allowing felons to possess and carry guns also advocate harsher sentences for violent crimes. It's a two-part proposition. No, murderers would not be getting out of prison. In fact, the only people getting out of prison would be those who are reasonably believed to no longer be a danger to society. So no, we don't believe that someone with a first-degree murder conviction and who showed violent behavior in prison should be allowed to have guns when he gets out... but that's because he shouldn't get out.

    Which leads to a second aspect, that of dangerousness in general. We all know that people can be killed with a variety of instruments, and that the killing depends on motive and not the tool. I believe you're missing the point that a gun is just a tool. Deny access to that tool, and a determined individual will improvise. Gun or no gun, if a felon decides he wants to kill his girlfriend who cheated on him in prison, I doubt he'll go, "Oh no! I can't legally buy a gun! Guess I won't kill her now..." Perhaps an illegal gun will be used, or perhaps a knife, shovel, brick, or bare hands. A gun is a tool.

    It's not a defeatist attitude, but rather one that recognizes the fact that felons not being allowed to legally have guns does nothing to prevent felons from committing further violent crimes, but does disarm those who want to reform and try to go about their lives as normal American citizens. By allowing felons to have guns (along with the provision for proper sentencing), we lose nothing for society overall, as the felons who have a desire to violently assault others will continue to do so, and the felons who don't have such a desire probably won't be influenced by a gun whispering in their ear to commit a crime. In fact, the latter group will benefit by being able to defend themselves... so overall, it's a net gain. By continuing to bar felons from legally owning guns, you have no influence on the former group, but harm the latter group.

    If you want to feel safe, then carry a gun for your own protection, and/or wear Kevlar and a riot helmet.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Yes, it's entirely possible.* It also wouldn't make a bit of difference.* They all carry concealed now just like the majority of good guys do, so*what difference does it make if they carry openly like all the good guys will (hopefully) in the future?
    This. At least if they're doing so openly, they lose the "tactical advantage" of the "element of surprise" (which is only valuable in an offensive scenario anyway).

    To the OP: Remember, prohibition doesn't work because criminals don't follow the law. To even recognize your question's validity I would have to agree that regulation has any effect on criminals' behavior. Which I don't.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    I, personally, do not feel that convicted felons should be denied posession of firearms.* We already attempt to prevent them from having them, and it doesn't work.* If someone is convicted of a crime, and pays their debt to society, they should be allowed to have a firearm for self-defense.** Repeat violent offenders,*maybe they*should be denied legally having guns, but it won't stop them, so why are we even trying?* How many criminals DO we arrest and charge ONLY for being felon in possession?* Isn't it usually a tacked on charge to an existing crime?

    If someone's convicted of a NON-VIOLENT crime (fraud, drug possession, embezzelment), I don't think it's right to deny them the right to firearms whatsoever.

    If our society and government have allowed someone the right to their life after conviction of a crime, and they have paid their debt, why should we deny them the right to defend that life?

    ...Orygunner...
    This, too. Human rights (guaranteed by, among other things, the Constitution) do not belong to citizens, or any other special class of people. They belong to all people. One does not simply lose one's human rights simply because the government has declared one a "felon."

    AWDstylez: I would hate to see you inadvertently find yourself declared a felon for some non-violent action that the government has decided is illegal, and thus no longer be able to exercise your human right to self-defense. I need only to point out to the numerous gun-related felonies one can commit without actually violating another's rights to underline that violence should be the criteria for forfeiting the right to possess the means of self-defense, not arbitrary violation of statute.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Orygunner wrote:
    I, personally, do not feel that convicted felons should be denied posession of firearms. We already attempt to prevent them from having them, and it doesn't work. If someone is convicted of a crime, and pays their debt to society, they should be allowed to have a firearm for self-defense. Repeat violent offenders,maybe theyshould be denied legally having guns, but it won't stop them, so why are we even trying? How many criminals DO we arrest and charge ONLY for being felon in possession? Isn't it usually a tacked on charge to an existing crime?

    If someone's convicted of a NON-VIOLENT crime (fraud, drug possession, embezzelment), I don't think it's right to deny them the right to firearms whatsoever.

    If our society and government have allowed someone the right to their life after conviction of a crime, and they have paid their debt, why should we deny them the right to defend that life?

    ...Orygunner...
    AWDstylez: I would hate to see you inadvertently find yourself declared a felon for some non-violent action that the government has decided is illegal, and thus no longer be able to exercise your human right to self-defense. I need only to point out to the numerous gun-related felonies one can commit without actually violating another's rights to underline that violence should be the criteria for forfeiting the right to possess the means of self-defense, not arbitrary violation of statute.


    I agree that violent and non-violent should be differentiated, but my post was mainly in relation to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Orygunner
    If someone is convicted of a crime, and pays their debt to society, they should be allowed to have a firearm for self-defense. Repeat violent offenders,maybe theyshould be denied legally having guns, but it won't stop them, so why are we even trying?
    I disagree. Whether a violent criminal pays their debt or not does not change the fact that theyare a violent criminal. The only option I think we would both agree to be the ideal is reviewing these people on a case-by-case basis, however, thereis currentlyneither the time, man-power, nor willingness to do it.

    Even non-violent felonies like fraud and embezzelment show a complete lack of self-control and respect for other people as well as an anti-social personality, all attributes of someone I would NOT want to see with firearms.



    Quote Originally Posted by imperialism2024
    Which leads to a second aspect, that of dangerousness in general. We all know that people can be killed with a variety of instruments, and that the killing depends on motive and not the tool. I believe you're missing the point that a gun is just a tool. Deny access to that tool, and a determined individual will improvise. Gun or no gun, if a felon decides he wants to kill his girlfriend who cheated on him in prison, I doubt he'll go, "Oh no! I can't legally buy a gun! Guess I won't kill her now..." Perhaps an illegal gun will be used, or perhaps a knife, shovel, brick, or bare hands. A gun is a tool.
    I agree that a gun is a tool and not what causes the crime, but to deny that a gun is a far superior tool to a knife or a bat is either naive or intentionally overlooking the facts. I shouldn't even have to give the possible ex-girlfriend killing senarios thatwould have drasitically different outcomeswith a gun over a knife or bat, they're blatantly obvious. You say it isn't a defeatist attitude and yet that's what your position boils down to: it won't stop them anyway so why not just let them have it? I'm all for keeping the guns in the hands of good guys, but I'm also for keeping the guns out of the hands of bad guys. Blanket gun control doesn't do that and we all know it. However, specific gun control might and if nothing else then maybe it's the thought that counts. Just because the current laws don't stop it completely (no current law stops anything completely) isn't enough reason to can them.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    I agree that violent and non-violent should be differentiated, but my post was mainly in relation to this:

    Orygunner wrote:
    If someone is convicted of a crime, and pays their debt to society, they should be allowed to have a firearm for self-defense. Repeat violent offenders,maybe theyshould be denied legally having guns, but it won't stop them, so why are we even trying?
    I disagree. Whether a violent criminal pays their debt or not does not change the fact that theyare a violent criminal. The only option I think we would both agree to be the ideal is reviewing these people on a case-by-case basis, however, thereis currentlyneither the time, man-power, nor willingness to do it.

    Even non-violent felonies like fraud and embezzelment show a complete lack of self-control and respect for other people as well as an anti-social personality, all attributes of someone I would NOT want to see with firearms.
    It could also be argued, then, that inappropriate speeders and other aggressive drivers should lose the right to possess firearms, as they clearly demonstrate a lack of self-control as well. Hell, the soccer moms who systematically race past playgrounds at 45 in a 25 because they can't manage their time are, IMHO, lacking even more self-control than most of your violent offenders. But that's another topic...


    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Which leads to a second aspect, that of dangerousness in general. We all know that people can be killed with a variety of instruments, and that the killing depends on motive and not the tool. I believe you're missing the point that a gun is just a tool. Deny access to that tool, and a determined individual will improvise. Gun or no gun, if a felon decides he wants to kill his girlfriend who cheated on him in prison, I doubt he'll go, "Oh no! I can't legally buy a gun! Guess I won't kill her now..." Perhaps an illegal gun will be used, or perhaps a knife, shovel, brick, or bare hands. A gun is a tool.
    I agree that a gun is a tool and not what causes the crime, but to deny that a gun is a far superior tool to a knife or a bat is either naive or intentionally overlooking the facts. I shouldn't even have to give the possible ex-girlfriend killing senarios thatwould have drasitically different outcomeswith a gun over a knife or bat, they're blatantly obvious. You say it isn't a defeatist attitude and yet that's what your position boils down to: it won't stop them anyway so why not just let them have it? I'm all for keeping the guns in the hands of good guys, but I'm also for keeping the guns out of the hands of bad guys. Blanket gun control doesn't do that and we all know it. However, specific gun control might and if nothing else then maybe it's the thought that counts. Just because the current laws don't stop it completely (no current law stops anything completely) isn't enough reason to can them.
    Actually, putting the paragraph you quoted in context with the paragraph I wrote after it, I explained this. I'm saying that banning felons from possessing and carrying firearms has no effect on the ability* to commit violent acts of those felons who want to do so. While taken by itself, this would be a wash, I also brought up how felon gun bans hurt those who don't want to commit violent acts. So... if it were so simple that all felons went on to violently assault other people, then I could see a case to ban them from owning guns, as a matter of damage control (not to mention, oh yeah, harsher sentencing). But it's not that simple, and the benefits of delaying a potential re-offender a few minutes or hours in his commission of a violent attack do not outweigh the deleterious effect of preventing a felon from effectively protecting himself and his family.

    It's still a sticky area, obviously. The solution, really, is two-fold. First, stop making crimes felonies that do not directly and seriously injure another party. Second, since the only crimes that remain as felonies are presumably very serious, life sentences should be the norm for such crimes, with special exceptions made for those truly showing a rehabilitation. I believe that would alleviate the fears of most people who oppose allowing felons to possess and carry firearms... not to mention that it would have a decent impact on the crime rate in general.




    *Let's look at the gun's effectiveness. In most domestic violence situations, there is a passion aspect that grants a good deal of determination to the attacker(s). If one is raging against another person in a violent manner, the use of a gun will just exhaust the first option for inflicting harm on the victim. No gun? Grab a knife. A pen. A chair. A book. Whatever happens to be laying around. Maybe the victim will survive the first attack without a gun. Will he/she be so lucky at the second attack? Third attack? The point is, guns are at the top of the list for weapons in a domestic violence situation, but there is more than one tool on that list. As for the more methodical criminals, who will give some thought to their intended attack, they have the benefit of time to improvise a weapon, or illegally acquire a gun. The only time that a gun provides a significant advantage in killing power is for defensive use, because a peaceable citizen is generally not expecting such an attack, and can't be expected to improvise while defending himself. But in offensive situations, I'd have to say that a gun is only marginally more useful.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    I've thought about this too.

    For the most part in my opinion the bad guys will still conceal just for the surprise of an attack, but after a long while the mentality of seeing everyone OC like they did back in the day will probably take quite sometimebefore the good guy and BG OC.

    I also think LEO's will be stopping the people OC'n that look suspicious, i.e. gang colors, or a person that looks up to no good. LEO's would be making up some kind of suspicion to make a stop and ask questions. Now there are some of us on here that may fit a description of a person the LEO's think are up to "no good" and may get more attention than a person that looks "professional". I guess we'll have to see...

    Most criminal people dont know the law that well and spend the time to educate them self's with it like we do, mainly because they dont care about laws . I'm sure there will be some that will try OC and some that will take the time to know the law.

    I just hope I'm prepared if the time comes.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    It could also be argued, then, that inappropriate speeders and other aggressive drivers should lose the right to possess firearms, as they clearly demonstrate a lack of self-control as well. Hell, the soccer moms who systematically race past playgrounds at 45 in a 25 because they can't manage their time are, IMHO, lacking even more self-control than most of your violent offenders. But that's another topic...


    Speeding is a minor, risk vs. rewards judgment call; 45 in a 25 down an empty road has a slim (if any) chance of hurting someone and that's why everyone does. I don't know anyone that would go 45 in a 25 full ofbabies crawling in the road though. If you're so blatantly stupid that yougo blasting through a road full of babies, now you're looking at a felony. It wouldn't even be a"violent crime" because you weren'ttrying to kill babies, you were just so concerned with nothing but yourselfand how late you were that you had no regard for the safety of the kids. And that's the problem with "non-violent" felons.

    Commiting a felony of any kind indicates an anti-social personality. Contrary to what you said, violent crimes aren't the only felonies that directly and seriously effect other people. The Enron boys (and I HATE using that example for many reasons that are far OT, but it's the one most people can easilyassociate with so we'll roll with it and all its commonassumptions) screwing thousands of employees out of their retirements takes the same type of dangerous, anti-social personality that is required to murder, assault, rape, etc. It is characterized bya totaldisregard for other people and a complete lack of a conscience. The crime doesn't have to be violent, the mindset is still there.

    Consider the loss of firearm self-defense privileges an extension of the harsher sentencing. Because what you're suggesting is that non-violent serious criminals should be receiving slaps on the wrist simply because they didn't hurt anyone physically. Apparently victims that suffer financially or mentally aren't real victims and their aggressors aren't real criminals. I don't believe in any god, let alone the Christian god, but if you want to argue based on the idea that self-defense is a god-given right, then I'll give you that one. Self-defense might be a god given right, but the ability to own firearms is a government granted privilege that should applyonly to those that can obey the laws of the land. If youprove an inabilityto "play nice" with society and it's rules, you have no business owning a firearm.


    I also don't buy argument of it hurting the half-handful of felons that really want to reform and make a better life. Too bad for them. I could use the same logic and say that there is a measurable (possibly even significant, I don't know the exact figures) amount of wrongly convicted people serving jail time.So, hey, why don't we just let everyone out of a jail for the sake of those few?

    And that last paragraph? Come on, man. That's stretching it too far. I have a knife, you have a gun. Who wins? It's as simple as that. Gun superiority proved. The difference between a gun and any other weapon in a domestic violence (or really any) situation is the ability to run away. I can run from a knife, a bat, your fist, etc. No one can run from a bullet so that eliminates one of your two courses of action: fight or flight. I don't know about you, but I don't think the outlook on the "fight" option is any better.

  22. #22
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:

    I agree with the current laws, convicted felons should not be allowed to possess firearms, be it violent or not it shows a lack of self-control and judgment.

    Why should people who lack self-control and judgement andthus pose a danger to everyone else in society be allowed to mingle with the rest of society at all?



  23. #23
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Speeding is a minor, risk vs. rewards judgment call; 45 in a 25 down an empty road has a slim (if any) chance of hurting someone and that's why everyone does.
    What if someone didn't know that it was a felony to put a buttstock on a pistol? Who sits and thinks, "if I attached a piece of wood to the grip on my revolver, I wonder if it would be a felony?" Since an antique handgun can legally have a buttstock but not a modern gun, I could easily see someone who owned an antique handgun with a buttstockaccidentally violating this law by attaching a buttstock to a modern handgun.

    I wouldn't say that makessuch a person anti-social as well as lacking in sound judgement and self-control.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    599

    Post imported post

    This has crossed my mind also.. But for a short answer. They will do something stupid before long and be killed or arrested, Plus, how many GBers read the laws that they may obey them? I assume some could start to OC, if they are allowed to carry a firearm. But when they hang out with the other Gbers who have a criminal history, or who are guilty of a crime but not ye caught, that guy would not let them carry around them in fear of drawing attention of the cops. With that being said, I don’t really think too many BG will be Ocing.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Alwayspacking wrote:
    ...SNIP...
    I don’t really think too many BG will be Ocing.
    Exactly. I had to laugh at usSiR's post, "I just hope I'm prepared..."

    What's the benefit to a bad guy OCing? Most criminals know the best way not to get caught with a gun is to keep it hidden. I don't see how OC changes that.

    Furthermore, CC does provide real benefits to the criminal. Criminals utilize CC not because they have failed to realized OC is legal; in fact, they don't consider the law one bit when they make their decisions. After all, they are criminals. They CC because it doesn't draw (police) attention, and they can maintain the element of surprise. While this "advantage" is less than useless for a law-abiding person, it will provide a great benefit to a criminal looking to use his weapon outside the functions of self-defense.

    Besides, bad guys carry guns anyway. Just because a bad guy might choose to OC doesn't mean you all of a sudden have to be "prepared" for things to be somehow different from when the same bad guy was carrying the same gun, but concealed. Worst case scenario: at least you know he has the gun ahead of time. Which is precisely why a bad guy would never OC.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •