Concealed Carriers More Law Abiding Than General Public

[vmsfreaky1 0]

guns are stoopid.

and so are gun owners, just plain freakin weird.

guns are made to kill ppl, why cant you see this?

just stop killing ppl.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Kinda makes you wonder why the anti-gun folks are so hell-bent against law-abiding citizens being licensed to carry guns, don't it?

It's kind of like saying; "I'm against people driving cars, even if they are trained, tested and licensed!"

But where's the test for firearms possession in the US?

If you plan to use something as potentially lethal as a car - you have to be trained, take a test & be licensed.

If you plan to use something as potentially lethal as an aircraft - you have to be trained, take a test & be licensed.

If you plan to use something as potentially lethal as a PARACHUTE!! - you have to be trained, take a test & be licensed.

THese are all examples of "positive vetting". You have to be seen to be a suitable person before they'll let you use some items.

Yet... If you plan to use (possess surely suggests an intent to use) a firearm in the US, then all you have to do is pop into your local gun shop, hand over your money, wait a few days (is it still 5?) and then collect your patentially lethal item!!

From there, isn't it self-evident that potential gun owners should be positively vetted & licensed? The overwhelming majority of gun owners & users surely have nothing to fear. Those who object to such vetting perhaps have doubts that they would pass the vetting - are they people you want to have guns?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If you plan to use something as potentially lethal as a car - you have to be trained, take a test & be licensed.

Only if you want to use it on public roads. It is perfectly legal to collect cars without having a license. You can transport them from one spot to another with a wrecker. You can even drive it as long as you stay on private property.

It's the same with guns. You can buy them, use them on private land, transport them unloaded, and collect them. If you want to carry them in public, then you need a license.
(in most places).

Same thing with an aircraft, I don't need a license to own one.

With a parachute, you don't need a license to own it or use it. It's just hard finding someplace to jump when you don't have a license. You can legally do it without the license.

Quote

(possess surely suggests an intent to use)

"Posses" and "use in public" are two very different things, actually.

Quote

all you have to do is pop into your local gun shop, hand over your money, wait a few days (is it still 5?) and then collect your patentially lethal item!!

Actually, that idiotic 5 day waiting period has been scrapped in most places. Now they run your name through the NICS and you can walk out that very day.

Why should there be a five day wait? I can tell you why there shouldn't. Ask a female staff sergeant who used to live in South Carolina.

Also, do you want this so called vetting before you buy any "potentially lethal item?"

Quote

From there, isn't it self-evident that potential gun owners should be positively vetted & licensed?

Well, since I've blown your story out of the water, from there nothing much is self-evident, other than that private property and civil rights are still somewhat in existence.

Quote

The overwhelming majority of fill-in-the-blank owners and users surely have nothing to fear. Those who object to such vetting perhaps have doubts that they would pass the vetting - are they people you want to have fill-in-the-blanks?

So you want a Police State, then?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

guns are stoopid.

and so are gun owners, just plain freakin weird.

guns are made to kill ppl, why cant you see this?

just stop killing ppl.

Is this post supposed to be funny? I'm just curious because I don't see the humor otherwise. What makes you think gun owners are "just plain freakin weird"? Yes, guns were initally produced to kill people, however, they have evolved into various sports. Let's take archery as an example...The bow and arrow were essentially used to kill people along with animals for food. So, do you think that people who used these items were all killers instead of trying to defend their family? I don't think guns are "stoopid." At least no more so than people who don't understand them or what they are used for.


~R+R...Pick up a gun, learn to use it...LEARN TO USE ONE SAFELY!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[Kennedy 0]

Everytime I hear that "guns are made for killing people" line, I just htink to myself "Really? Wow, then they're doing a very poor job of it."

Sometimes it's "Really? So what am I doing wrong with mine?"

Some people just can't understand that guns are tools like any other. Their purpose is defined only by the user.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The SF Supervisor, Chris Daly, behind the vote to ban guns in the city lost his temper yesterday and went into a rampage... If you had as little control over yourself as he does, you'd probably be afraid of the armed public too.

That gets into the whole psychology of an anti-gun person, which can be interesting. One theory is that, like Chris Daly, they don't trust themself to control their own emotions and actions, and therefore are afraid to own a gun. Furthermore, they presume that everyone else must be just like them, because they don't want to admit that they are more out of control than everyone else in society. So, given all that, their decision to distrust people with guns is logical. The only problem is, their presumption is wrong about most other people.

Clicky

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Ron 10]

Quote

guns are stoopid.

and so are gun owners, just plain freakin weird.

guns are made to kill ppl, why cant you see this?

just stop killing ppl.

Thanks for your well thought out post

Guns are stupid. Actually guns are not stupid, they are also not smart. They are tools just like hammers. They can neither be smart or stupid. They are not alive.

Quote

and so are gun owners, just plain freakin weird

Tell that to the gun owners that have provided you freedom to say that.

You just lost points for attacking the people, not debating the topic...That is a typical tactic.

Quote

guns are made to kill ppl, why cant you see this?

Not true. Guns are made to send a projectile in a direction by using the controled expansion of gases.

You can use a gun to kill...You can also use them to hunt for food, for sport. And you can use them to protect your family.

Quote

just stop killing ppl.

Now this I agree with. But its people who kill people, not a gun. I have several guns at my house...Not one has been used to kill anyone. Not one has gotten up in the middle on the night, snuck past me and went out on the town looking to kill.

Nope, they just lay there doing nothing, thinking nothing. They can't do or think...they are tools like a hammer.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[penniless 0]

Quote

Same thing with an aircraft, I don't need a license to own one.

You sure need a license to be in command of one, and a medical exam too.

[Ron 10]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Same thing with an aircraft, I don't need a license to own one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You sure need a license to be in command of one, and a medical exam too.

Yes, but he can own one all day long.

The better comparison was cars. You can own them without a license. You can legally drive them on your property (Some places however you can't own a gun even in your own home), Some people follow the rules and get a license to drive them on the street and meet all other reguirements (Insurance, tag ect). And others don't.

Making a law that says you must have those things will only affect those that would anyway.

Making a law that makes owning a car illegal will only hurt those that follow it. Those that don't will not suddenly start to obey the law.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Same thing with an aircraft, I don't need a license to own one.

You sure need a license to be in command of one, and a medical exam too.

And I'm sure those regulations exist specifically to prevent murders committed with airplanes.

That just shows how ridiculous that particular analogy was. Or do you think people should need a license and medical exam to purchase anything that is potentially lethal?

The plain truth is Mike had it backwards. Guns are not easier to get and less restricted. They are harder to get than anything else and more restricted (even though those restrictions haven't been shown to reduce crime).

Do you have anything to say about the general truth that one can own just about anything he wants, and do as he pleases on his own property? Do you have a reason why guns should be different from everything else?

Any comments on the other analogies he offered up that I answered?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Funny thing is, enforcing a law against car ownership would be a lot easier.

First, it's kind of hard to use a car and not seen. They're not exactly inconspicuous when in use.

Second, they need work a ot more often than a firearm. Cars break down and wear out on a regular basis. Guns can last hundred of years.

Third, just about everyone has registered their car, so confiscating them and destroying them would be a great deal easier than going after everyone's guns.


Hey, there's a law that they might actually be able to enforce. Maybe they should pass that law. After all, if it saves just one child....



edit: spelling

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The first is the "CCW are more law abiding" thing. This isn't that suprising; it's like saying "drivers with driver's licenses obey more traffic laws than drivers who are unlicensed." Well, duh.

The second is that "easy access to guns promotes criminal use of them." While you may agree or disagree with that statement, it has nothing to do with the first one. It's like saying "when will people admit that cars make people safer, if it's a given that licensed drivers are more law abiding than people who aren't licensed?" A non sequitur.

I tried to say that a couple of times, but most are not willing to see...brady on the other side I guess....

[Kennedy 0]

You know, when even you, Bill, and I can agree on something, it should be obvious to jus about anyone.

Too bad politicians don't get it.

An example from yesterday's news.

Quote

Anti-gun plan for Capitol under fire
Permit or not, bill would ban firearms

By KYLE ARNOLD
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Despite new security measures at the state Capitol, including metal detectors and X-ray machines, it isn't difficult for someone with a firearm to legally get within feet of the governor and 147 legislators.

Visitors with a concealed-weapon permit are allowed to enter the Legislative Building, firearms in tow, and some lawmakers are up in arms.

Capitol employees, lawmakers and gun-rights activists faced off Tuesday at a hearing on Senate Bill 5344, which would ban firearms in the Legislative Building.

Bill sponsor Sen. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park, said the Capitol should be protected just like courts.

"Emotions run high, and those who carry permits can certainly put their guns in a lock box and come see the process," she said.

National Rifle Association spokesman Brian Judy objected to the legislation, saying people who legally carry concealed weapons use them for personal protection, not acts of aggression.

Under Fairley's proposal, concealed weapons would still be permitted elsewhere on the Capitol campus, including buildings that house hearing rooms and legislators' offices.

Through Monday, 26 guns had been detected at the entrances to the Capitol since the building started using metal detectors and X-ray machines Nov. 13. Twenty-four of those firearms were allowed inside the Legislative Building after owners showed concealed-weapon permits.

Added security has also detected 20 knives more than 3 inches long, seven cans of mace and a sledgehammer.

The state is spending about $270,000 a year on the added security measures.

"It's not as tight as courts or airport security, but it's what we have to do in an environment where we can keep things moving quickly," said Dan Eikum, Legislative Building chief of security.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which held Tuesday's hearing, hasn't scheduled a vote on the bill.

So since we all agree CCW permit holders are not dangerous folks, why is this politician flipping out?

I don't remember which state it was, but after some lunatic attacked the state legislature's securty folks, one senator proposed allowing guns in the building to prevent another attack. It's the Reagan vs Brady mindset.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Kinda makes you wonder why the anti-gun folks are so hell-bent against law-abiding citizens being licensed to carry guns, don't it? It's kind of like saying; "I'm against people driving cars, even if they are trained, tested and licensed!"

But where's the test for firearms possession in the US?

Bait and switch. We were talking about people licensed to carry concealed firearms, not simple "possession" or ownership.

Quote

If you plan to use something as potentially lethal as a PARACHUTE!! - you have to be trained, take a test & be licensed.

Incorrect, in the U.S.

Quote

These are all examples of "positive vetting". You have to be seen to be a suitable person before they'll let you use some items.

Every firearm purchase through a gun dealer is done with the personal approval of the FBI, through a background check. Unsuitable people quickly develop an unsuitable criminal record, which prohibits them from legally purchasing a gun.

Quote

From there, isn't it self-evident that potential gun owners should be positively vetted & licensed?

No. The extremely low gun accident rate shows that the large majority of people handle guns correctly. Then there is the whole Constitutional thing - if you give the government the ability to choose who qualifies for a right, then they have the power to deny the right... This is why qualification tests for voting were ruled unconstitutional.