Trinitas wrote:Trinitas--OK.. so guns... I'm not a huge fan of just letting people carry. I think that people do have a right to guns.. i think that people have a right to hunt and to protect themselves. However, letting the widespread populace carry guys on them at all times is just a bad idea for a number of reasons.
1) Accidents - hello plaxico burress... yes i know.. teach people safety but really we teach people how to drive and look at the number of incidentsBy this logic, anything that could potentially have accidentally fatal consequences should be outlawed. Accidents involving aircraft almost never end well for the passengers. We don't outlaw air travel because the benefits far outweigh the potentially negative consequences. Of course firearm accidents can be deadly, but it is those potentially deadly capabilities that make a firearm the most useful and effective tool of self defense.Those who seek to blame the object rather than the user use irrational logic. Cars are not to blame for DUI's. The sun is not to blame when you carelessly venture into the desert with no water. So why is a gun to blame when a person handles one carelessly?
2) Rage - so many times people get into fights.. if guns were around.. ummm bad idea...Road rage happens every day with potentially deadly consequences. Lots of people carry matches or lighters, which can be used to set a person or building on fire in a fit of rage. Heck, in a fit of rage, a person could push another person off a third floor balcony. Should we try to outlaw gravity?I contend that it is because of potential rage exhibited by others that citizens should protect themselves with the most competent tool available: a firearm. You never know when someone might just snap. Perhaps the presence of a firearm, especially an openly carried firearm might be enough of a visual deterrent that prevents another from becoming enraged.Finally, firearms have a very sobering effect upon people because they are a reminder that life is fragile and seeing the light of day tomorrow is a guarantee unfortunately none of us live with. Isn't it more likely that a person carrying a firearm is unlikely to get into a fight for this very reason? First, others will be hesitant to pick a fight with an armed individual. Second, many armed citizens will remove themselves from an escalating situation because they know just how quickly a situation can turn deadly.
3) Use if for defense? Really? If you think your gun will protect you then you must be joking. IF you really think about it why would u need a gun to protect u at a distance? Just run. Up close.. i can take your gun without even trying.. especially if the situation that causes violence isn't a situation that would instantly cause you to fear for your life. I've seen bouncers carry.. what a dumb ass idea...First, what kind of distance are we talking about? You are right that shooting at a distance of 100+ yards is a sport, but has little defensive value. But what about 10 yards? Defensive experts suggest an assailant can cover that distance before most people can even draw their weapons.This seems to validate your second point that you could take my gun without even trying. Maybe. But at least I have a chance. If you are so intent on doing me harm that the presence of my loaded gun doesn't compel you to find an easier target, than my life is already in serious danger. And if that's the case, I'm sure glad I at least have a chance to defend myself in that situation.
Its really a question about the "why" and the risk analysis. There is no reasonable social arguement as to why people should be able to carry in public especially in crowded areas. I have no problem with ownership.. but the carry laws someplaces are just dumb.There is no reasonable argument for carrying in public? You need only turn on your local news station tonight and you'll hear several reasonable arguments why a person should be armed in this society.If you have no problem with gun ownership than what do you propose are reasonable laws regarding when/where a gun may be carried? Remember, my gun is for self-defense. I'm not going to draw or fire my weapon unless my life is in danger.A criminal who intends to victimize me is already going to break the law prohibiting him from victimizing me, so why should I believe he will respect the law forbidding him from carrying a firearm? Risk analysis would therefore dictate that we should eliminate any laws restricting carry, since those forbidden areas are the most dangerous for a law abiding citizen. A criminal can find his victim anywhere, but in legislated gun-free zones, the citizen unfortunately can't fight back.
Welcome to the forum!! Glad you've joined us.