I would like to repeat just how unfortunate an example the Mixon case is, given that the cops had guns, and still died.
A single example does not disprove the utility of a firearm for self-defense. If I can go find one "fortunate" example, do I win?
Regardless, I agree...carrying in public for self-defense is unlikely to have any significant impact (positive or negative, though maybe you disagree on the latter...but note "significant") on your safety. Still, the point is that with it established as an individual right it's on you to prove to me why I shouldn't be allowed to make that choice anyway. Basically you have to show a significant negative impact on public safety, whereas I don't have to show jack shit.
It only takes one case for a law to be disproved. The Mixon case shows that gun=/=shield.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
This isn't meant as a slight to you but against this general paradigm of argument- 'your' ability to defend yourself isn't eponymous with that of the larger public. I'm a physically able, mentally acute young man. When someone asks me to assess my ability to use my gun effectively in an instance of self-defense... studies mean nothing to me. Why should the ability of other Americans reflect on my ability? Old drunk guys might have hunting accidents or crotchety old women might fire their home defense guns in error... but they're not me. Of course, I'm not saying this as a defense of concealed carry- how well I can drive drunk shouldn't exclude me from the law- but just as a general conversation piece. I don't see why people tell me that studies prove I'm less safe if I carry a gun. I'm not necessarily the average American.
I'm still curious to an example from someone.
I think your post opens up a rebuttal along the lines of: Wouldn't you be less safe considering the old drunk guys and crotchety old women walking around with concealed weapons?
I don't see why people being allowed concealed weapons all of the sudden turns into the wild west. Deaths due to firearms in Indiana, a state that allows concealed firearms, has 11 deaths per 100,000 people, most of which are probably due to hunting accidents. It just seems to me the people saying a lot of people will hurry to try to get a gun are the same as people arguing against gay marriage because of the huge influx of gay marriages.
Aren't most of the guns in areas where you're more likely to hit a banjo than a person if you start shooting randomly, though?
I also love how Texas was on a list of states that are supposed to prove that the states that give out these permits aren't hicksville. Florida isn't as bed, but the size of the confederate flag I saw when I was down there should probably also disqualify it.
If you'll read the full meaning of the sentence you can go farther than "Nuh-uh, Texas is too full of hicks!" Texas has many very large metropolitan areas, compared to some other states. Concealed handguns are not problems there.
Honk: Many states with concealed permits do require education, and practice, to receive them. Any new concealed law enacted could do the same, or go even further.
Yeah. Almost everyone I know and myself included(and I don't own any guns) go through hunter education classes, which emphasize to death the importance of gun safety.
Besides, like he said, Texas (and Indiana) have some pretty good sized cities, and even with the incredible amount of guns in the state, still have pretty low gun rates. I mean, I could easily go to a gun show, buy a carbine, load it up, and go shoot down plenty of people in a city. Yet very few people do that.
Having cities does not not preclude a state from being full of hicks. Georgia has Atlanta, Alabama has Birmingham, Mississippi has Jackson, and Penn has Philly and Pittsburgh (in this case I'm talking about the area between those two cities).
In case some people are unfamiliar with current gun laws regarding carry, here's a map (from the NRA):
Gray may be hard to tell from black, but IL and WI are the only two that do not issue permits, period. The other two are gray.
Note that the yellow states vary wildly in difficulty. For instance, HI "issues" permits but IIRC currently has issued either zero or single digits. Some counties in CA, where it is decided at the county (sheriff?) level, are similar. Other counties in CA are essentially shall-issue, and interestingly a permit issued out in the boonies of CA is still absolutely valid in downtown LA or SF.
Also note that while PA is listed as "shall-issue," the state has exempted Philadelphia from that law...the city (county?) can restrict issue of permits, but to my knowledge permits issued from elsewhere in PA are still valid there.
Basically, in most of the country, including a lot of cities, getting a permit is pretty damn easy already.
Having cities does not not preclude a state from being full of hicks. Georgia has Atlanta, Alabama has Birmingham, Mississippi has Jackson, and Penn has Philly and Pittsburgh (in this case I'm talking about the area between those two cities).
There are plenty of poor people, minorities, and poor minorities in Texas though. Which is my point...shall-issue laws are currently in effect in areas that are decidedly urban, and yet nobody seems to have much luck showing that it creates "ZOMG HUGE ISSUES!"
It only takes one case for a law to be disproved. The Mixon case shows that gun=/=shield.
But the Mixon case provides no support whatsoever for allowing you to make that decision for me.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
Not sure if this a good example, but if you think about it: As a mugger are you more likely to try and mug someone if the chances are extremely high they have a gun? I know I sure as shit would rather go to an area that had a high amount of gun control so I can mug people with much lower chance of actually carrying a gun.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
Not sure if this a good example, but if you think about it: As a mugger are you more likely to try and mug someone if the chances are extremely high they have a gun? I know I sure as shit would rather go to an area that had a high amount of gun control so I can mug people with much lower chance of actually carrying a gun.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
Not sure if this a good example, but if you think about it: As a mugger are you more likely to try and mug someone if the chances are extremely high they have a gun? I know I sure as shit would rather go to an area that had a high amount of gun control so I can mug people with much lower chance of actually carrying a gun.
That's how I think of it, though.
Except that it's also arguable that this only makes muggers more likely to carry guns...because if they've drawn first, they're still golden. It may also make it more likely to escalate from robbery to murder.
Basically you'd need to gather a lot of statistics to show the net effect. Because either hypothesis is pretty reasonable.
While gun control isn't a huge issue for me either way, since I usually come down on the side of more (reasonable) gun control laws, what worries me isn't that incorporating the 2nd Amendment will force some states or municipalities to repeal their laws against toting around a legal, licensed handgun in public, but that NRA-funded lawers will use it to overturn laws against background checks or licensing & registration laws.
That and it'll be funny to see the conservative legal scholars with a long-standing hard-on for federalism now do a 180-degree rhetorical spin now that a civil right they actually care about has been incorporated.
It only takes one case for a law to be disproved. The Mixon case shows that gun=/=shield.
Also, some things on this planet are not binary. Obviously gun=shield is a false statement. But gun=/=shield may be as well, if by "shield" you mean "thing that makes you safer" rather than the more literal definition. Really it boils down more to P(gun=shield), which is to say the probability that a gun will function as a shield (again, using non-literal definition) in any given instance.
Which is non-zero.
EDIT: Basically you have to show that a gun never makes anybody safer, or alternately that (legal) gun carry poses a significant enough public risk to take that choice away from the individual. Good luck.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
This isn't meant as a slight to you but against this general paradigm of argument- 'your' ability to defend yourself isn't eponymous with that of the larger public. I'm a physically able, mentally acute young man. When someone asks me to assess my ability to use my gun effectively in an instance of self-defense... studies mean nothing to me. Why should the ability of other Americans reflect on my ability? Old drunk guys might have hunting accidents or crotchety old women might fire their home defense guns in error... but they're not me. Of course, I'm not saying this as a defense of concealed carry- how well I can drive drunk shouldn't exclude me from the law- but just as a general conversation piece. I don't see why people tell me that studies prove I'm less safe if I carry a gun. I'm not necessarily the average American.
I'm still curious to an example from someone.
I think your post opens up a rebuttal along the lines of: Wouldn't you be less safe considering the old drunk guys and crotchety old women walking around with concealed weapons?
An example where I feel safer carrying my gun concealed? Sure. I'm walking along with my aunt and my nephew. A crackhead approaches my family with a knife and acts belligerently. I happily hand over my belongings but the moment that I sense he's going to hurt me or my family I shoot him dead. That's a pretty simple one.
Having cities does not not preclude a state from being full of hicks. Georgia has Atlanta, Alabama has Birmingham, Mississippi has Jackson, and Penn has Philly and Pittsburgh (in this case I'm talking about the area between those two cities).
You're just so insistent on Texas being full of hicks eh? Fully 87% of the state is urban, and probably 65% of that is in the huge metro triangle of San Antonio-DFW-Houston. These are modern metro areas, which despite being conservative, are not remotely resembling of hick areas.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
Not sure if this a good example, but if you think about it: As a mugger are you more likely to try and mug someone if the chances are extremely high they have a gun? I know I sure as shit would rather go to an area that had a high amount of gun control so I can mug people with much lower chance of actually carrying a gun.
That's how I think of it, though.
You're assuming that most muggers are rational enough actors to factor in the local gun control laws before deciding to mug people.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
Not sure if this a good example, but if you think about it: As a mugger are you more likely to try and mug someone if the chances are extremely high they have a gun? I know I sure as shit would rather go to an area that had a high amount of gun control so I can mug people with much lower chance of actually carrying a gun.
That's how I think of it, though.
As a mugger? I'm probably just as likely to mug someone. The odds of them having a gun wouldn't even enter into the equation. If I say "I've got a gun, gimme your wallet" and they quickly reach for their belt or inside their jacket, they get lead for their trouble.
Let me put it this way. If I have a gun aimed at your chest, do you think you can draw, aim, and pull the trigger before I can pull the trigger?
I don't see why people being allowed concealed weapons all of the sudden turns into the wild west. Deaths due to firearms in Indiana, a state that allows concealed firearms, has 11 deaths per 100,000 people, most of which are probably due to hunting accidents. It just seems to me the people saying a lot of people will hurry to try to get a gun are the same as people arguing against gay marriage because of the huge influx of gay marriages.
Aren't most of the guns in areas where you're more likely to hit a banjo than a person if you start shooting randomly, though?
I also love how Texas was on a list of states that are supposed to prove that the states that give out these permits aren't hicksville. Florida isn't as bed, but the size of the confederate flag I saw when I was down there should probably also disqualify it.
If you'll read the full meaning of the sentence you can go farther than "Nuh-uh, Texas is too full of hicks!" Texas has many very large metropolitan areas, compared to some other states. Concealed handguns are not problems there.
Honk: Many states with concealed permits do require education, and practice, to receive them. Any new concealed law enacted could do the same, or go even further.
Yeah. Almost everyone I know and myself included(and I don't own any guns) go through hunter education classes, which emphasize to death the importance of gun safety.
Besides, like he said, Texas (and Indiana) have some pretty good sized cities, and even with the incredible amount of guns in the state, still have pretty low gun rates. I mean, I could easily go to a gun show, buy a carbine, load it up, and go shoot down plenty of people in a city. Yet very few people do that.
Having cities does not not preclude a state from being full of hicks. Georgia has Atlanta, Alabama has Birmingham, Mississippi has Jackson, and Penn has Philly and Pittsburgh (in this case I'm talking about the area between those two cities).
I don't see what you are getting at. These states, full of "hicks", have low firearm death rates. And you know what? Most of them probably own guns. Yet very few of them go fuedin with other people or shoot themselves in the face accidentally.
never die on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
Not sure if this a good example, but if you think about it: As a mugger are you more likely to try and mug someone if the chances are extremely high they have a gun? I know I sure as shit would rather go to an area that had a high amount of gun control so I can mug people with much lower chance of actually carrying a gun.
That's how I think of it, though.
I suppose, though muggers in general don't see mugging as a profession in the sense that they would travel to for example another state with the sole intent of mugging people more easily. I know that back home there's significantly higher rates of knife-mugging in "bad" areas where everyone is more likely to be carrying a knife (knives being more common here due to guns being harder to acquire). That is to say that the muggers victims are more likely to themselves be carrying knives.
I tend to see it from the victims side; you're definitely more likely to live another day if you don't start a gunfight with a mugger.
Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.
More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?
An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...
Check out Switzerland if you want an example of everyone armed. Has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
While gun control isn't a huge issue for me either way, since I usually come down on the side of more (reasonable) gun control laws, what worries me isn't that incorporating the 2nd Amendment will force some states or municipalities to repeal their laws against toting around a legal, licensed handgun in public, but that NRA-funded lawers will use it to overturn laws against background checks or licensing & registration laws.
That and it'll be funny to see the conservative legal scholars with a long-standing hard-on for federalism now do a 180-degree rhetorical spin now that a civil right they actually care about has been incorporated.
I'm pretty sure Heller, for the most part, backed up background checks as legal (since it explicitly affirmed laws keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill). It also affirmed regulation of the commercial sale of arms.
In practice, the fact that private citizens are not protected in the same ways as police officers for liabilities arising from their uses of force probably helps keep every swinging dick from thinking he's Dirty Harry. If you shoot somebody, you will likely be arrested, may be charged, it's not unlikely you'll be sued, and generally you're in for a long series of bad days.
At the risk of being wildly wrong:
Doesn't this vary widely based on what area you're in when you decide to bust a cap in the ass of the punk? I'm sure that if you pull this shit in Elk Grove, California, you will be in for a world of hurt. If you pull this in Sheriff Joe Burg, won't you be patted on the back and sent home with a complimentary beer, provided the folks you done shot up was one a dem lettuce-pickers trespassin on yer rightful land?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.
More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?
An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...
Check out Switzerland if you want an example of everyone armed. Has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Which unfortunately doesn't help us much, because I'd think Switzerland's history, culture, and suite of laws would make the situation quite different for them.
ElJeffe: I'm sure it does differ, but even a place so dreadfully, terribly hickish as Texas had to have castle doctrine, home defense laws passed to protect those citizens.
Septus on
PSN: Kurahoshi1
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
This isn't meant as a slight to you but against this general paradigm of argument- 'your' ability to defend yourself isn't eponymous with that of the larger public. I'm a physically able, mentally acute young man. When someone asks me to assess my ability to use my gun effectively in an instance of self-defense... studies mean nothing to me. Why should the ability of other Americans reflect on my ability? Old drunk guys might have hunting accidents or crotchety old women might fire their home defense guns in error... but they're not me. Of course, I'm not saying this as a defense of concealed carry- how well I can drive drunk shouldn't exclude me from the law- but just as a general conversation piece. I don't see why people tell me that studies prove I'm less safe if I carry a gun. I'm not necessarily the average American.
I'm still curious to an example from someone.
I think your post opens up a rebuttal along the lines of: Wouldn't you be less safe considering the old drunk guys and crotchety old women walking around with concealed weapons?
An example where I feel safer carrying my gun concealed? Sure. I'm walking along with my aunt and my nephew. A crackhead approaches my family with a knife and acts belligerently. I happily hand over my belongings but the moment that I sense he's going to hurt me or my family I shoot him dead. That's a pretty simple one.
If you do face knife-wielder though, he will probably have it out whilst threatening you. A knife would probably be the more effective weapon in that case, if you don't draw your gun really fast.
Though I guess I couldn't say you'd be less safe with a gun in that situation.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
Not sure if this a good example, but if you think about it: As a mugger are you more likely to try and mug someone if the chances are extremely high they have a gun? I know I sure as shit would rather go to an area that had a high amount of gun control so I can mug people with much lower chance of actually carrying a gun.
That's how I think of it, though.
I'd shoot him first.
Exactly. If I'm a desperate criminal, who has clearly already set aside any morality I did have, then rather than simply threatening my victim with a knife if i thought he had a gun I would simply stab him straight away and mug him once he was dead.
Furthermore a gun you own is most likely to kill you or a member of your own family. You'd be safer having a gun, but no bullets.
While gun control isn't a huge issue for me either way, since I usually come down on the side of more (reasonable) gun control laws, what worries me isn't that incorporating the 2nd Amendment will force some states or municipalities to repeal their laws against toting around a legal, licensed handgun in public, but that NRA-funded lawers will use it to overturn laws against background checks or licensing & registration laws.
It's possible they'll be challenged but unlikely they'll be overturned. Even stuff like speech and privacy has limits regardless of incorporation.
That and it'll be funny to see the conservative legal scholars with a long-standing hard-on for federalism now do a 180-degree rhetorical spin now that a civil right they actually care about has been incorporated.
The devout Ron Paul federalists who reject incorporation entirely are a tiny minority, even in libertarian circles. This does pose an interesting argument though.
Most self proclaimed federalists would just prefer funding to stay within the states and not go all the way to washington only to be returned less 30% with strings attached. The incorporation issue isn't often addressed.
Also, Switzerland has seen a considerable rise in violent gun crimes in the last few years, often committed with army weapons - men killing their wives and children or shooting up the local parliament. Switzerland is no longer the poster child for peaceful, happy people bearing arms.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Furthermore a gun you own is most likely to kill you or a member of your own family. You'd be safer having a gun, but no bullets.
Well this is now a gun ownership issue, rather than a concealed carry issue, because people like to buy guns to feel safe in their homes, but have no idea of training gun safety into themselves and their families. And this issue is vastly more protected than concealed carry.
I don't understand what's so weird or controversial about this ruling.
It's just saying that state & local governments cannot violate constitutionally-protected rights... correct?
How is this any different from any other constitutionally-protected right? We don't let state & local governments violate the first or fourteenth amendments either.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
In practice, the fact that private citizens are not protected in the same ways as police officers for liabilities arising from their uses of force probably helps keep every swinging dick from thinking he's Dirty Harry. If you shoot somebody, you will likely be arrested, may be charged, it's not unlikely you'll be sued, and generally you're in for a long series of bad days.
At the risk of being wildly wrong:
Doesn't this vary widely based on what area you're in when you decide to bust a cap in the ass of the punk? I'm sure that if you pull this shit in Elk Grove, California, you will be in for a world of hurt. If you pull this in Sheriff Joe Burg, won't you be patted on the back and sent home with a complimentary beer, provided the folks you done shot up was one a dem lettuce-pickers trespassin on yer rightful land?
God, I'd have to go look up what the end result was, but I remember a man being charged for shooting an intruder on his property in Phoenix many years ago. I believe he was sued as well. This was after Arpaio took office.
In most places that are not Texas*, you will have a long and unpleasant experience if you shoot somebody. Doubly so if you are not absolutely within the confines of your states use-of-force laws. Triply so if that somebody is a bystander, rather than your intended target...to my knowledge, no state shields you from liability in that situation, regardless of whether the use-of-force was lawful.
* - Even in the case of ol' Joe Shoot-em-in-da-Back Horn, Horn was most likely within Texas's use-of-force laws. The issue there is that Texas has ridiculous use-of-force laws, especially as concerns defense of property.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
This isn't meant as a slight to you but against this general paradigm of argument- 'your' ability to defend yourself isn't eponymous with that of the larger public. I'm a physically able, mentally acute young man. When someone asks me to assess my ability to use my gun effectively in an instance of self-defense... studies mean nothing to me. Why should the ability of other Americans reflect on my ability? Old drunk guys might have hunting accidents or crotchety old women might fire their home defense guns in error... but they're not me. Of course, I'm not saying this as a defense of concealed carry- how well I can drive drunk shouldn't exclude me from the law- but just as a general conversation piece. I don't see why people tell me that studies prove I'm less safe if I carry a gun. I'm not necessarily the average American.
I'm still curious to an example from someone.
I think your post opens up a rebuttal along the lines of: Wouldn't you be less safe considering the old drunk guys and crotchety old women walking around with concealed weapons?
An example where I feel safer carrying my gun concealed? Sure. I'm walking along with my aunt and my nephew. A crackhead approaches my family with a knife and acts belligerently. I happily hand over my belongings but the moment that I sense he's going to hurt me or my family I shoot him dead. That's a pretty simple one.
If you do face knife-wielder though, he will probably have it out whilst threatening you. A knife would probably be the more effective weapon in that case, if you don't draw your gun really fast.
Though I guess I couldn't say you'd be less safe with a gun in that situation.
I know how quickly I can draw my pistol and without question I'd feel many measures safer with a gun.
Organichu on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.
More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?
An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...
Check out Switzerland if you want an example of everyone armed. Has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
The wiki does state though that carrying permits are mostly issued to people working with security.
It's just saying that state & local governments cannot violate constitutionally-protected rights... correct?
How is this any different from any other constitutionally-protected right? We don't let state & local governments violate the first or fourteenth amendments either.
Also, Switzerland has seen a considerable rise in violent gun crimes in the last few years, often committed with army weapons - men killing their wives and children or shooting up the local parliament. Switzerland is no longer the poster child for peaceful, happy people bearing arms.
If at any point there was a low crime rate despite a bunch of guns helps make the case that guns aren't a problem.
Violent crime is the issue here, not the guns. Blaming guns is a red herring.
I don't understand what's so weird or controversial about this ruling.
It's just saying that state & local governments cannot violate constitutionally-protected rights... correct?
How is this any different from any other constitutionally-protected right? We don't let state & local governments violate the first or fourteenth amendments either.
The Fourteenth is what let the Supreme Court decide that the other rights were protected at the state level as well.
It's just been a long slog as they widen the definition of "liberty" to include more and more things recognized as rights under the Federal Constitution.
Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.
More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?
An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...
I think it is.
I'll try to adress both you and mcdermott here.
I'll just throw some points out there.
I'd imagine there'd be an increased risk for collateral damage, as in people getting killed. I base this on that cops tend to use guns very restrictively (exceptions have been common though...), something I don't think a regular guy might be when faced with a potential robber for example. Cops are also trained with guns - which as far as I've understood it, a citizen does not have to be to own a gun. Where do the citizens learn proper use of force, marksmanship and so on to use in dangerous situations?
The firearms training that most cops get is sadly rather pitiful.
It's just saying that state & local governments cannot violate constitutionally-protected rights... correct?
How is this any different from any other constitutionally-protected right? We don't let state & local governments violate the first or fourteenth amendments either.
Honk: the way you're positing the question leads to a community action problem. Are, you, yourself, individually any safer carrying a gun? Maybe, maybe not. Is the community at large safer with concealed carry? If the deterrent effect of concealed carry against crime is greater than the risk of accidental or "crime of passion" shootings by otherwise peaceful citizens, then yes.
There are plenty of valid arguments against concealed carry, but asking for a specific acute example is not the way to go about it. You might as well be saying, "I'm an adult and I don't have kids. Give me an example where paying taxes for elementary schools makes me smarter."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
It's just saying that state & local governments cannot violate constitutionally-protected rights... correct?
How is this any different from any other constitutionally-protected right? We don't let state & local governments violate the first or fourteenth amendments either.
The firearms training that most cops get is sadly rather pitiful.
I probably shoot more often than a majority of cops.
And I'm not including for the National Guard, just personally.
I will say that the use-of-force training cops get is probably an order of magnitude better than what anybody gets in "Concealed Carry 101." Especially since most states only require a general "safety" class, which hunter safety can cover, meaning they get no real use-of-force training.
Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.
More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?
An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...
I think it is.
I'll try to adress both you and mcdermott here.
I'll just throw some points out there.
I'd imagine there'd be an increased risk for collateral damage, as in people getting killed. I base this on that cops tend to use guns very restrictively (exceptions have been common though...), something I don't think a regular guy might be when faced with a potential robber for example. Cops are also trained with guns - which as far as I've understood it, a citizen does not have to be to own a gun. Where do the citizens learn proper use of force, marksmanship and so on to use in dangerous situations?
People don't buy guns for self-protection and then not go to the shooting range enough that they are at least basically proficient in it's use because most people are not that stupid.
Legally obtained guns are only rarely used by their owners to commit crimes. Far less than the number of legally obtained cars which are used by their owners to commit crimes, for example.
Citizens have a right to self defense.
The police don't have an obligation to protect you from becoming the victim of a crime.
Gun ownership does not lead to a higher crime rate.
These are just some of the reasons why gun control is dumb.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
There are plenty of valid arguments against concealed carry, but asking for a specific acute example is not the way to go about it. You might as well be saying, "I'm an adult and I don't have kids. Give me an example where paying taxes for elementary schools makes me smarter."
I ought to know this answer, but do you have a right not to be taxed(assuming you have representation which you do)?
People don't buy guns for self-protection and then not go to the shooting range enough that they are at least basically proficient in it's use because most people are not that stupid.
Depends if you're talking home defense or carry. I know plenty of people who buy a gun to keep in their house then never shoot the damn thing. Most people I know that carry practice quite often, though.
Then again, a lot of people who get permits don't even carry routinely. It was either for an isolated issue (for instance, stalking) or just so they could transport a gun in their vehicle to the range and back without worrying about the laws as much.
Legally obtained guns are only rarely used by their owners to commit crimes. Far less than the number of legally obtained cars which are used by their owners to commit crimes, for example.
Cars have utility outside of harming others. A necessary one at that. Please, let's not bring up cars. The first part is absolutely correct, though.
Citizens have a right to self defense.
You'd think so.
The police don't have an obligation to protect you from becoming the victim of a crime.
Very true.
Gun ownership does not lead to a higher crime rate.
[citation needed]
Most of the material I've seen making the link is either biased or obviously flawed, however most of the material I've seen disproving the link (or claiming the opposite) is as well.
Posts
It only takes one case for a law to be disproved. The Mixon case shows that gun=/=shield.
I'm still curious to an example from someone.
I think your post opens up a rebuttal along the lines of: Wouldn't you be less safe considering the old drunk guys and crotchety old women walking around with concealed weapons?
Having cities does not not preclude a state from being full of hicks. Georgia has Atlanta, Alabama has Birmingham, Mississippi has Jackson, and Penn has Philly and Pittsburgh (in this case I'm talking about the area between those two cities).
Gray may be hard to tell from black, but IL and WI are the only two that do not issue permits, period. The other two are gray.
Note that the yellow states vary wildly in difficulty. For instance, HI "issues" permits but IIRC currently has issued either zero or single digits. Some counties in CA, where it is decided at the county (sheriff?) level, are similar. Other counties in CA are essentially shall-issue, and interestingly a permit issued out in the boonies of CA is still absolutely valid in downtown LA or SF.
Also note that while PA is listed as "shall-issue," the state has exempted Philadelphia from that law...the city (county?) can restrict issue of permits, but to my knowledge permits issued from elsewhere in PA are still valid there.
Basically, in most of the country, including a lot of cities, getting a permit is pretty damn easy already.
There are plenty of poor people, minorities, and poor minorities in Texas though. Which is my point...shall-issue laws are currently in effect in areas that are decidedly urban, and yet nobody seems to have much luck showing that it creates "ZOMG HUGE ISSUES!"
But the Mixon case provides no support whatsoever for allowing you to make that decision for me.
Not sure if this a good example, but if you think about it: As a mugger are you more likely to try and mug someone if the chances are extremely high they have a gun? I know I sure as shit would rather go to an area that had a high amount of gun control so I can mug people with much lower chance of actually carrying a gun.
That's how I think of it, though.
I'd shoot him first.
Except that it's also arguable that this only makes muggers more likely to carry guns...because if they've drawn first, they're still golden. It may also make it more likely to escalate from robbery to murder.
Basically you'd need to gather a lot of statistics to show the net effect. Because either hypothesis is pretty reasonable.
That and it'll be funny to see the conservative legal scholars with a long-standing hard-on for federalism now do a 180-degree rhetorical spin now that a civil right they actually care about has been incorporated.
Also, some things on this planet are not binary. Obviously gun=shield is a false statement. But gun=/=shield may be as well, if by "shield" you mean "thing that makes you safer" rather than the more literal definition. Really it boils down more to P(gun=shield), which is to say the probability that a gun will function as a shield (again, using non-literal definition) in any given instance.
Which is non-zero.
EDIT: Basically you have to show that a gun never makes anybody safer, or alternately that (legal) gun carry poses a significant enough public risk to take that choice away from the individual. Good luck.
An example where I feel safer carrying my gun concealed? Sure. I'm walking along with my aunt and my nephew. A crackhead approaches my family with a knife and acts belligerently. I happily hand over my belongings but the moment that I sense he's going to hurt me or my family I shoot him dead. That's a pretty simple one.
You're just so insistent on Texas being full of hicks eh? Fully 87% of the state is urban, and probably 65% of that is in the huge metro triangle of San Antonio-DFW-Houston. These are modern metro areas, which despite being conservative, are not remotely resembling of hick areas.
You're assuming that most muggers are rational enough actors to factor in the local gun control laws before deciding to mug people.
As a mugger? I'm probably just as likely to mug someone. The odds of them having a gun wouldn't even enter into the equation. If I say "I've got a gun, gimme your wallet" and they quickly reach for their belt or inside their jacket, they get lead for their trouble.
Let me put it this way. If I have a gun aimed at your chest, do you think you can draw, aim, and pull the trigger before I can pull the trigger?
I don't see what you are getting at. These states, full of "hicks", have low firearm death rates. And you know what? Most of them probably own guns. Yet very few of them go fuedin with other people or shoot themselves in the face accidentally.
I suppose, though muggers in general don't see mugging as a profession in the sense that they would travel to for example another state with the sole intent of mugging people more easily. I know that back home there's significantly higher rates of knife-mugging in "bad" areas where everyone is more likely to be carrying a knife (knives being more common here due to guns being harder to acquire). That is to say that the muggers victims are more likely to themselves be carrying knives.
I tend to see it from the victims side; you're definitely more likely to live another day if you don't start a gunfight with a mugger.
Check out Switzerland if you want an example of everyone armed. Has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
I'm pretty sure Heller, for the most part, backed up background checks as legal (since it explicitly affirmed laws keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill). It also affirmed regulation of the commercial sale of arms.
At the risk of being wildly wrong:
Doesn't this vary widely based on what area you're in when you decide to bust a cap in the ass of the punk? I'm sure that if you pull this shit in Elk Grove, California, you will be in for a world of hurt. If you pull this in Sheriff Joe Burg, won't you be patted on the back and sent home with a complimentary beer, provided the folks you done shot up was one a dem lettuce-pickers trespassin on yer rightful land?
Which unfortunately doesn't help us much, because I'd think Switzerland's history, culture, and suite of laws would make the situation quite different for them.
ElJeffe: I'm sure it does differ, but even a place so dreadfully, terribly hickish as Texas had to have castle doctrine, home defense laws passed to protect those citizens.
If you do face knife-wielder though, he will probably have it out whilst threatening you. A knife would probably be the more effective weapon in that case, if you don't draw your gun really fast.
Though I guess I couldn't say you'd be less safe with a gun in that situation.
Exactly. If I'm a desperate criminal, who has clearly already set aside any morality I did have, then rather than simply threatening my victim with a knife if i thought he had a gun I would simply stab him straight away and mug him once he was dead.
Furthermore a gun you own is most likely to kill you or a member of your own family. You'd be safer having a gun, but no bullets.
It's possible they'll be challenged but unlikely they'll be overturned. Even stuff like speech and privacy has limits regardless of incorporation.
The devout Ron Paul federalists who reject incorporation entirely are a tiny minority, even in libertarian circles. This does pose an interesting argument though.
Most self proclaimed federalists would just prefer funding to stay within the states and not go all the way to washington only to be returned less 30% with strings attached. The incorporation issue isn't often addressed.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Well this is now a gun ownership issue, rather than a concealed carry issue, because people like to buy guns to feel safe in their homes, but have no idea of training gun safety into themselves and their families. And this issue is vastly more protected than concealed carry.
It's just saying that state & local governments cannot violate constitutionally-protected rights... correct?
How is this any different from any other constitutionally-protected right? We don't let state & local governments violate the first or fourteenth amendments either.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The Fourteenth is pretty clear on the issue.
God, I'd have to go look up what the end result was, but I remember a man being charged for shooting an intruder on his property in Phoenix many years ago. I believe he was sued as well. This was after Arpaio took office.
In most places that are not Texas*, you will have a long and unpleasant experience if you shoot somebody. Doubly so if you are not absolutely within the confines of your states use-of-force laws. Triply so if that somebody is a bystander, rather than your intended target...to my knowledge, no state shields you from liability in that situation, regardless of whether the use-of-force was lawful.
* - Even in the case of ol' Joe Shoot-em-in-da-Back Horn, Horn was most likely within Texas's use-of-force laws. The issue there is that Texas has ridiculous use-of-force laws, especially as concerns defense of property.
I know how quickly I can draw my pistol and without question I'd feel many measures safer with a gun.
The wiki does state though that carrying permits are mostly issued to people working with security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
If at any point there was a low crime rate despite a bunch of guns helps make the case that guns aren't a problem.
Violent crime is the issue here, not the guns. Blaming guns is a red herring.
The Fourteenth is what let the Supreme Court decide that the other rights were protected at the state level as well.
It's just been a long slog as they widen the definition of "liberty" to include more and more things recognized as rights under the Federal Constitution.
The firearms training that most cops get is sadly rather pitiful.
The second amendment has never been considered incorporated.
There are plenty of valid arguments against concealed carry, but asking for a specific acute example is not the way to go about it. You might as well be saying, "I'm an adult and I don't have kids. Give me an example where paying taxes for elementary schools makes me smarter."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Oh okay. That makes sense.
I still don't really see why this is really a matter of debate, but okay.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I probably shoot more often than a majority of cops.
And I'm not including for the National Guard, just personally.
I will say that the use-of-force training cops get is probably an order of magnitude better than what anybody gets in "Concealed Carry 101." Especially since most states only require a general "safety" class, which hunter safety can cover, meaning they get no real use-of-force training.
People don't buy guns for self-protection and then not go to the shooting range enough that they are at least basically proficient in it's use because most people are not that stupid.
Legally obtained guns are only rarely used by their owners to commit crimes. Far less than the number of legally obtained cars which are used by their owners to commit crimes, for example.
Citizens have a right to self defense.
The police don't have an obligation to protect you from becoming the victim of a crime.
Gun ownership does not lead to a higher crime rate.
These are just some of the reasons why gun control is dumb.
I ought to know this answer, but do you have a right not to be taxed(assuming you have representation which you do)?
Depends if you're talking home defense or carry. I know plenty of people who buy a gun to keep in their house then never shoot the damn thing. Most people I know that carry practice quite often, though.
Then again, a lot of people who get permits don't even carry routinely. It was either for an isolated issue (for instance, stalking) or just so they could transport a gun in their vehicle to the range and back without worrying about the laws as much.
Cars have utility outside of harming others. A necessary one at that. Please, let's not bring up cars. The first part is absolutely correct, though.
You'd think so.
Very true.
[citation needed]
Most of the material I've seen making the link is either biased or obviously flawed, however most of the material I've seen disproving the link (or claiming the opposite) is as well.