A Sensible Question for Gun Owners
- Thread starter Bobcatguy
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Bobcatguy
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/opinio...region&_r=0
Do you think it's hypocritical of your (and my) Senator Schumer to oppose gun rights while having a CC permit. I guess he is more important than you or I?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/opinio...region&_r=0
Do you think it's hypocritical of your (and my) Senator Schumer to oppose gun rights while having a CC permit. I guess he is more important than you or I?
Quote:
The sheriffs properly argued that public safety was ultimately at stak...
Well now isn't that just the definition of neutral!
The sheriffs properly argued that public safety was ultimately at stak...
Well now isn't that just the definition of neutral!
Originally Posted By: buck91
Quote:
The sheriffs properly argued that public safety was ultimately at stak...
Well now isn't that just the definition of neutral!
You understand that was an opinion piece, right?
Quote:
The sheriffs properly argued that public safety was ultimately at stak...
Well now isn't that just the definition of neutral!
You understand that was an opinion piece, right?
Personally, I'm not a fan of guns, I'm a little suspicious of a lot of people who are, and I think the arguments in favor of widespread firearm ownership are weak and getting weaker.
That said, I can tell the difference between my feelings and the law. The Second Amendment is a fact of life, as is the long history of case law based on it that establishes firearm ownership as a fundamental right. As long as that's the reality, it seems absurd to me that any government could impede that right until a citizen can provide a "good cause" to exercise it.
That said, I can tell the difference between my feelings and the law. The Second Amendment is a fact of life, as is the long history of case law based on it that establishes firearm ownership as a fundamental right. As long as that's the reality, it seems absurd to me that any government could impede that right until a citizen can provide a "good cause" to exercise it.
Originally Posted By: ron17571
A good answer is to ask what part of shall not be infringed, don't they understand? People open carry where i live and we have almost no crime.
Arizona's violent crime rate is on the high side, although a look at the FBI crime numbers makes it pretty clear that gun laws have essentially no impact on crime. There is a negative correlation between gun laws and crime rate, i.e. the places with the strictest gun laws also have high crime rates, but that is a correlation only.
A good answer is to ask what part of shall not be infringed, don't they understand? People open carry where i live and we have almost no crime.
Arizona's violent crime rate is on the high side, although a look at the FBI crime numbers makes it pretty clear that gun laws have essentially no impact on crime. There is a negative correlation between gun laws and crime rate, i.e. the places with the strictest gun laws also have high crime rates, but that is a correlation only.
Last edited:
A guy at a gun shop told me this analogy when I was 15 shopping with my father:
Imagine a city, somehow perfectly devided down the center by a perfect set of laws, that were enforced 100%.
One side, Side A, NOBODY HAD A GUN. Not even the police.
The other side, Side B, EVERYONE HAD A GUN WHO WAS AN ADULT. EVERYONE.
Now, you are the very first criminal to decide to break the law and rob someone at gunpoint, and you realize that you can ignore laws, and generally people don't get caught.
Which side of the City would you choose to be a Criminal? Well, no need for you to answer...
The point is, a Criminal depends on you to be UNARMED.
Legal Concealed Carry reduces crime, period.
Imagine a city, somehow perfectly devided down the center by a perfect set of laws, that were enforced 100%.
One side, Side A, NOBODY HAD A GUN. Not even the police.
The other side, Side B, EVERYONE HAD A GUN WHO WAS AN ADULT. EVERYONE.
Now, you are the very first criminal to decide to break the law and rob someone at gunpoint, and you realize that you can ignore laws, and generally people don't get caught.
Which side of the City would you choose to be a Criminal? Well, no need for you to answer...
The point is, a Criminal depends on you to be UNARMED.
Legal Concealed Carry reduces crime, period.
Originally Posted By: Falken
Legal Concealed Carry reduces crime, period.
No. It simply doesn't. Never has.
Legal Concealed Carry reduces crime, period.
No. It simply doesn't. Never has.
Everything discussed here http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...um?#Post3770985 I guess this will never end..........
Alienbug,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...un-pe/?page=all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...de391_blog.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
So there you go, feel safe now, unless you are in a gang.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...un-pe/?page=all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...de391_blog.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
So there you go, feel safe now, unless you are in a gang.
As per a recent thread, this is the wrong sub forum to discuss such a topic.
And as an added warning to anybody who is "anti-gun", there is a member who said he would notify the moderators with a view to getting you banned if you did post anything "anti-gun" in this sub forum.
Good luck!
And as an added warning to anybody who is "anti-gun", there is a member who said he would notify the moderators with a view to getting you banned if you did post anything "anti-gun" in this sub forum.
Good luck!
Originally Posted By: DB_Cooper
The 2nd Amendment was written in case the American citizens needed to protect themselves and their property from a tyrannical, imperial, power crazed government..bandits were an added plus.
That is how the second amendment was 'splained to me when I was in high school.
The 2nd Amendment was written in case the American citizens needed to protect themselves and their property from a tyrannical, imperial, power crazed government..bandits were an added plus.
That is how the second amendment was 'splained to me when I was in high school.
Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: Bobcatguy
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/opinio...region&_r=0
Do you think it's hypocritical of your (and my) Senator Schumer to oppose gun rights while having a CC permit. I guess he is more important than you or I?
He be royalty. The stupid voters like it that way.
Originally Posted By: Bobcatguy
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/opinio...region&_r=0
Do you think it's hypocritical of your (and my) Senator Schumer to oppose gun rights while having a CC permit. I guess he is more important than you or I?
He be royalty. The stupid voters like it that way.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,053
Originally Posted By: AlienBug
Originally Posted By: ron17571
A good answer is to ask what part of shall not be infringed, don't they understand? People open carry where i live and we have almost no crime.
Arizona's violent crime rate is on the high side, although a look at the FBI crime numbers makes it pretty clear that gun laws have essentially no impact on crime. There is a negative correlation between gun laws and crime rate, i.e. the places with the strictest gun laws also have high crime rates, but that is a correlation only.
[censored] of a consistent "correlation" isn't it? Stronger "correlation" than many studies on cancer that have lots of us following their recommendations.
Originally Posted By: ron17571
A good answer is to ask what part of shall not be infringed, don't they understand? People open carry where i live and we have almost no crime.
Arizona's violent crime rate is on the high side, although a look at the FBI crime numbers makes it pretty clear that gun laws have essentially no impact on crime. There is a negative correlation between gun laws and crime rate, i.e. the places with the strictest gun laws also have high crime rates, but that is a correlation only.
[censored] of a consistent "correlation" isn't it? Stronger "correlation" than many studies on cancer that have lots of us following their recommendations.
- Status
Similar threads
