OC by the bad guys?

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

imported post

Alwayspacking wrote:

...SNIP...
I don’t really think too many BG will be Ocing.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I had to laugh at usSiR's post, "I just hope I'm prepared..." :lol:

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.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Some law abiding people alsodon't want to attract attention (including from police and others).


I think Lott raised the point that one benefit to society of CC is that if CC was common a criminal might think twice about someone whoappears unarmed (and maybe is) on the chance that he may be surprised if the person is better armed than he had thought. In certain rare scenarios there is the possibility of any advantage being useful.

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

marshaul wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Some law abiding people also don't want to attract attention (including from police and others).


I think Lott raised the point that one benefit to society of CC is that if CC was common a criminal might think twice about someone who appears unarmed (and maybe is) on the chance that he may be surprised if the person is better armed than he had thought.  In certain rare scenarios there is the possibility of any advantage being useful. 

Click to expand...

The advantage I was referring to when I said "less than useless" was specifically the element of surprise. If a law-abiding citizen simply doesn't wish to draw attention, CC provides a valid advantage to that end.

People CCing in great numbers *might* have such a deterrent effect on a large scale, but then you don't actually need to be armed to take advantage of that effect, do you? To put it another way, CC may be a potential deterrent on a large scale, but in your individual case there is no additional benefit when compared to OC. In fact, when considering a criminal who may be deterred by the mere possibility of a gun, the manifest presence of one is almost certain to discourage any action.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Felid`Maximus wrote:

marshaul wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Some law abiding people alsodon't want to attract attention (including from police and others).


I think Lott raised the point that one benefit to society of CC is that if CC was common a criminal might think twice about someone whoappears unarmed (and maybe is) on the chance that he may be surprised if the person is better armed than he had thought. In certain rare scenarios there is the possibility of any advantage being useful.

Click to expand...

The advantage I was referring to when I said "less than useless" was specifically the element of surprise. If a law-abiding citizen simply doesn't wish to draw attention, CC provides a valid advantage to that end.

People CCing in great numbers *might* have such a deterrent effect on a large scale, but then you don't actually need to be armed to take advantage of that effect, do you? To put it another way, CC may be a potential deterrent on a large scale, but in your individual case there is no additional benefit when compared to OC. In fact, when considering a criminal who may be deterred by the mere possibility of a gun, the manifest presence of one is almost certain to discourage any action.

Click to expand...

I think there may be an additional benefit of OC for CCer's and the general public, if I may continue the above thought processes:

Criminals know that a certain percentage of citizen CC, however, they also know taht percentage is pretty low so they play the odds. But let's think about the common scenario of a Starbuck's or quick shop. BG is staking out the establishment and not even thinking about customers CC. The percentage is so small that it is just off his radar. When all of a sudden in walks someone OC. He is all:what: don't want to rob that guy/gal. OC'er finishes the transaction and leaves. But now the BG is thinking, hey, where there is one gun there may be more so maybe I'll just go on home.

Now that may not happen very often, however, for many people, when the potential consequences for their planned prohibitedact is suddenly in front of them just before they commit the acts, it is a deterrent. In other words, even the temporary or passing presence of an OCer may make a BG more mindful of the possibility of CCers being present as well which may cause the BG to abort a planned illegal activity.

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

You're citing examples of stupid laws. That's a law that needs to be fixed. In that case the issue isn't the person, but I covered that already:

AWDstylez wrote:

I also don't buy the 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?

Click to expand...

There are "felons" due to stupid laws and there are innocent people in jail due to stupid juries. Neither is sufficient cause for overlooking the real felons and guilty people by nullifying current laws.

imported post

Gangadopted OC not lilky in our modern day society. Theyare branded with enough tatto's to give them away. They like to hide there weapons, the feel of a machine gun in there pants turn them on.They have illegal access to enough fire power to hold off a swat team. If you think your OC weapon scares them... lol, not a chance.

As for the post about convicted felons allowed to OC and inpossesion of fire-arm, get real.... the statistics wayto high they will become arepeat offender. Seems ther'es always a gun envolved when they repeat crimes, thus they lose status of citizen and have chosen to becomea criminal instead.

Difficult as it is to maitain/obtain rights to OC, we dare not insistthat criminals be allowedto OC.... Law abiding citizens have chosen tolivedecent lifestyle,& set moral standards that make them acceptable within society.


Captain Jack,retired military

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

marshaul, I got tears in my eyes when I read this.

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."

Click to expand...

The part that I quoted from you is SOO true. Well written (applause)

TJ

imported post

Caption Jack wrote:

Gangadopted OC not lilky in our modern day society. Theyare branded with enough tatto's to give them away. They like to hide there weapons, the feel of a machine gun in there pants turn them on.They have illegal access to enough fire power to hold off a swat team. If you think your OC weapon scares them... lol, not a chance.

As for the post about convicted felons allowed to OC and inpossesion of fire-arm, get real.... the statistics wayto high they will become arepeat offender. Seems ther'es always a gun envolved when they repeat crimes, thus they lose status of citizen and have chosen to becomea criminal instead.

Difficult as it is to maitain/obtain rights to OC, we dare not insistthat criminals be allowedto OC.... Law abiding citizens have chosen tolivedecent lifestyle,& set moral standards that make them acceptable within society.


Captain Jack,retired military

Click to expand...

I would have no problem with gangs OCing. Rather that, than CCing.

They still have the HUMAN RIGHT to self-defense/protection as marshaulstated.

TJ

imported post

Many of the "ban guys" are known to police to be prohibited persons. If they OCed it would increase the likelyhood of an arrest for possession.

imported post

The "possession of weapons by previous offenders" statutes are not generally prosecuted in the absence of evidence of coinciding criminal conduct.

The reason is the affirmative defenseof protecting one's home, property, or person can be asserted (in the absence of other criminal conduct) making a conviction "iffy".

Weapons possession by convicted offender prosecutionis used primarily to enhance the sentence received for thecollateral offense conviction.

In principle, the only previous offenders that absolutely respect and obey the possession of a firearm "prohibition" - are , by definition, LAW-ABIDING citizens.

That's why the prohibited possession laws need to be repealed , and the career, habitual violent offenders need to"enjoy" their rights in prison -life without parole.

imported post

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.

Click to expand...

I largely disagree... far too many crimes are classified as felonies simply because of an excessive law-and-order mentality and desire on the part of legislators and prosecutors to appear that they're doing something about crime.

Is someone who holds up their cell phone to "record" a motion picture really deserving of a loss of rights and respect? It is, after all, a felony to do this.

How about someone that violates no other laws, but is caught smoking a joint a few times on the street? One of the dirty secrets of "decriminalization" is that if you re-offend at the same low level a few times, you become guilty of a misdemeanor, then a felony. Is someone caught up in this legal web now "antisocial" and deserving of a stripping of rights?