An entirely new solution to gun control and crime...

[Freedom First]

"For at least eight decades we have been trying to control crime through the use of police power. Every year or so some evil or crazy individual takes it upon himself to go out and kill as many of his neighbors as he can. Immediately there is an outcry for “something to be done!” The general theme of the actions sought is “getting rid of the guns” through the passage of yet another law.

We have now restricted the Right to Carry in every state in the Union to one degree or another, some to the point of making the carry of a firearm nearly impossible. For whatever reasons, these efforts have been a miserable failure."

My simple solution to crime and gun control is at Freedom First 1775, please read and comment. Thanks!

 

[Cracker06]

WOW that was incrediable! I am going to spread that on FB if you dont mind?

 

[PFC HALE]

this is how it should be. Arm everybody that is legal to be armed and there wont be many victims to be taken advantage of.

 

[Freedom First]

WOW that was incrediable! I am going to spread that on FB if you dont mind?

You go right ahead.

 

[Gil223]

this is how it should be. Arm everybody that is legal to be armed and there wont be many victims to be taken advantage of.

This is how it's done in Kennesaw, Georgia. See post:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?105133-Making-The-Case-For-INCREASED-Gun-Ownership&p=1794088#post1794088
Pax...

 

[SouthernBoy]

The funny is this. Let's take Chicago as an example.

If enough people decided to say to hell with the law and what the idiots in Chicago say, and armed themselves, I'm talking in the tens of thousands or over 100,000 honest folks, what could or would the police do about it? Small numbers, yes... they could face problems. But a large number of people doing this? Chicago wouldn't have the will or the manpower to handle it.

Could be an interesting scenario.

 

[PFC HALE]

This is how it's done in Kennesaw, Georgia. See post:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?105133-Making-The-Case-For-INCREASED-Gun-Ownership&p=1794088#post1794088
Pax...

i love it!!!

 

[skidmark]

While the idea has its merits (and there are many) I need only to look at my ex and at the guy two doors down the street from me. Both are folks that probably should not be allowed out unaccompanied but are. Give either of them a gun? No way!

I'm all for almost-universal keeping and bearing or arms, and really believe that if We the People had as many tanks and thermonuclear devices as our government they might actually listen to us instead of telling us they "know what is best for us". I honestly believe that there should be no restriction such as a specified course of training in order to be allowed to purchase a firearm. Heck, I'm rather ticked off that it is, for all practical purposes, being "allowed" to posses firearms as opposed to being totally free to have and to hold one or not as you personally see fit. I also believe that each person should be judged by their behavior as opposed to having hunks of steel and polymer blamed for everything from illiteracy to dandruff.

But there are certain people (my ex and the guy two doors down the street from me, for instance) who have already demonstrated by their behavior that they cannot control their own behavior - to the extent they will more likely than not screw up and intentionally violate all five of the Four Rules.:uhoh:

Then there are the vast number of folks who just do not want to take personal responsibility for their safety, let alone the security of their world. I do not think they should be forced to do what they do not want to do.

If you read the complete history of the Kennesaw ordinance you will see that it really did not mandate that every adult in town arm themselves. It did encourage those that wanted to to do so and removed a number of impediments that had previously made doing so burdensome. I'd go along with that on a universal basis.

stay safe.

 

[ldsgeek]

I wouldn't mandate everyone carry, but removing all restrictions on who can would be a good start. Even if only 5% of the population carried, the criminals (official and unofficial) would really have to think twice about pursuing their chosen career, or at least make sure their life and health insurance was paid up each day.

 

[bigdaddy1]

Hmmm, that word "mandate" has a fowl ring to it. Rather Obamacare-ish eh?

I agree that there are many people that should not have access to firearms, automobiles, sharp objects or duct tape. I don't want to make this a "who decides" thread so I will leave that part as it is.

On the subject of nearly everyone carrying a weapon, If I were a criminal and knew that you (my intended victim) was most likely armed I may choose to ambush you. Drop you and pull your valuables off your unconscious or dead body. Crime would simply adapt and change their methods. The surprise method in my opinion is still going to be the best deterrent.

Crocodile Dundee; "Thats not a knife, THIS is a knife"

 

[Maine Expat]

I'm reminded of that SW Airlines ad.

You are now free to arm yourself and roam about your cities.

The Kennesaw "mandate" did include a number of exceptions giving virtually anyone who chooses not to arm a legal out.

 

[Freedom First]

Folks,

Let me assure you that I am not truly supportive of mandating carry for all Americans. I am simply putting the other end of the spectrum of Gun Control out there for discussion.

As a Liberty minded man, I would never support forcing any behavior on a free willed person. On the other hand, I would gladly eject someone from the gene pool if they decide to act on their wicked impulses in my direction.

A customer read this and we had a good talk about it. We used his office as an example of what could happen if everyone was actually armed. I saw the wheels grinding in his head as we spoke. Interesting. "Normal" people don't think this way so when someone dares to speak forth an idea outside of the "acceptable" norms, they have to stop and actually think about it.

Thanks for reading and talking about this idea.

Carry on!

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

But there are certain people (my ex and the guy two doors down the street from me, for instance) who have already demonstrated by their behavior that they cannot control their own behavior - to the extent they will more likely than not screw up and intentionally violate all five of the Four Rules.:uhoh:



stay safe.

Five of the Four, Huh? They must REALLY be idjiots!

 

[Gil223]

Five of the Four, Huh? They must REALLY be idjiots!

Maybe they're just related to Obama... who campaigned in 57 of the 58 states last election. Pax...

 

[Freedom1Man]

Maybe they're just related to Obama... who campaigned in 57 of the 58 states last election. Pax...

We are part of China now right? So how many Chinese states did he campaign in?


I am sure he was campaigning in other countries...

 

[since9]

Well said! Nice article. The bottom line is that when it comes to firearms, size does not matter - any size victim is no longer a victim when they're armed.