Why does anybody think concealed carry is a good idea?

[FA_Q2]

Guns, especially handguns, are suicide machines and the most likely person to die by your gun, is you, 6 out of 10 times not including accidents.

If you have suicide tendencies then that may be true. If you are irresponsible you may have an accident. It is called the Darwin Effect. A stupid person with a gun (just like one without a gun) is still, well stupid.

None of that is justification for taking away the Constitutional rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.

Don't you have anything better to do than scheme ways to take Constitutional rights away from Americans? Why is it that you Libtards hate freedom so much?

There are about 300,000,000 firearms in the US. If you subtract the suicides and the number of shooting due to drug and gang violence (that won't change with any law) the actual number of firearms related deaths is not that high. Certainly not high enough to warrant the abolishment of a Constitutional right for public safety reasons.

If you were concerned about unnecessary deaths then why do you support infanticide on demand that kills about a million American children each year? Are you a hypocrite or just simply confused?

There are under 1000 accidental deaths a year...under 100 of them are children....again in a country of over 310 million people.......I don't even know if that number shows up on a calculator.....

And around a million uses of a gun defensively a year. No one advocating against gun ownership never really wants to look at the fact they are used far more often in defensive situations then not (and usually no one ends up injured at all).
'

 

[turtledude]

Impotent little Mighty Mouse wannabes who don't have the balls to open carry and just aching for the excuse to blast the life outta some uppity darkie in a hoodie.

All looking to earn their Mighty Mouse patch.

Libtards are so stupid.

Luddite is probably engaged in behavior that makes it more likely to be shot by honest people

 

[turtledude]

Yeah it's usually people who live in fear of everyone that own a ton of guns and insist on carrying one around at all times.

Also it's to make them feel like "badasses". They think by having a gun, they can be in charge and have it all. They may not be in charge at work or in anything in life, but with that gun, they believe they can make a person listen to them and obey them because what is the greatest motivator of all? Fear.

I have lived in a city all my life, I have never felt the need for a gun ever. I don't fear my world.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I dunno. Instead of Lefties screaming at Righties and Righties screaming at Lefties, I have an idea.

Let's talk about the actual topic.

Is concealed carry necessary? Why do some states have it?

That could be a good starting point.

Think about it.

I'm always tickled by this. Wouldn't you want to brandish your weapon in public so the "bad guys" know that you're there to start with? This will prevent them from pulling the trigger (theoretically). Once the bad guy starts shooting, it's just a matter of what comes first, something ending it or his running out of bullets.

As with the case with some random killers these days, there doesn't seem to be any need for armed response, these cowards usually ice themselves so there isn't a need for concealed weaponry there either.

It's an issue that will never be solved. We'll still have thousands of gun deaths a year and other developed nations will not and we will swear that there is nothing we can do about it while the rest of the world shakes it's head in pity.

And I repeat for the millionth time, if you do not like the second amendment work to change it, because nothing else will get rid of the fact we are ENTITLED to be armed as we chose.

 

[turtledude]

hmmm..in Japan their suicide machine Is the train......they also use common household chemicals...and kill themselves at twice our rate...

don't subject the moon bats to facts. the poor little dears tend to start foaming furiously and voiding in their panties when you do that

 

[Flash]

About a thousand Americans a year commit suicide by jumping of bridges. I wonder if the Moon Bats will want to ban bridges next.

 

[turtledude]

About a thousand Americans a year commit suicide by jumping of bridges. I wonder if the Moon Bats will want to ban bridges next.

only if conservatives owned most of the bridges

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah it's usually people who live in fear of everyone that own a ton of guns and insist on carrying one around at all times.

Also it's to make them feel like "badasses". They think by having a gun, they can be in charge and have it all. They may not be in charge at work or in anything in life, but with that gun, they believe they can make a person listen to them and obey them because what is the greatest motivator of all? Fear.

I have lived in a city all my life, I have never felt the need for a gun ever. I don't fear my world.

Do you wear a seat belt? Does that also mean you are a little man that lives in constant fear of crashing?
No, it doesn't. Instead, you utilize the tool that you believe is going to protect you should the rare event occur that you need it.

I find it very odd that so many people want to demand that concealed carry holders are somehow 'afraid' or compensating. People that are ninnies and afraid tend to avoid carrying as weapons themselves can be very intimidating. I have met many CC holders and I wouldn't classify a single one as fearful. Making such asinine claims about an entire group of people simply because you don't like the idea is asinine at it best and makes your arguments look childish. Assuming you know what they are thinking (its bad ass) is another folly.

Why so much ire for people that are simply exercising their rights?

I don't actually have a problem with "afraid" or "compensating". I'm a woman living in a high-crime city in the United States. I'd be a frigging moron if I WASN'T afraid; and I'm 100 percent "compensating" . . . for the fact that I'm not a male, and am thus physically weaker than virtually anyone who decides to attack me.

I do resent the idea that I'm trying to be a "big man", though. I'm not trying to be any sort of man at all; just a live, unraped woman, thanks so very much.

The question is, why do liberals have such a problem with this, and demand that I walk around like a mooncalf, happily believing (incorrectly) that I'm completely safe and have no need for personal protection? Why do you leftists hate women so much?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's a thought for you left-wing nutters... if you don't like concealed carry, then don't do concealed carry.

Easy as that!

You're welcome!

Yeah, the problem is that when a 2 year old can get to his mom's gun in a crowded store, it becomes everyone's problem.

Funny, I'd have said the problem is when a criminal/lunatic decides to commit mass murder, and no one is armed to stop him, it becomes everyone's problem. Can't imagine why I think that should have a bigger priority in public policy, but I do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's a thought for you left-wing nutters... if you don't like concealed carry, then don't do concealed carry.

Easy as that!

You're welcome!

Yeah, the problem is that when a 2 year old can get to his mom's gun in a crowded store, it becomes everyone's problem.

That must have been some scene alright. Four kids all under 11 and she was dead before she hit the ground apparently. Welcome to therapy kids, for the rest of your lives.

And the ironic thing, the one who probably won't remember a thing is the one who pulled the trigger and gets to live with that knowledge until the day he dies. The answer to the question, And where is your mommy is going to be a real conversation starter.

That is the hard truth to the tragedy. An entire family (at least one) will be changed for generations because some lady felt the paranoid need to carry a gun to a grocery store.

Remember last week when it was suggested that whomever backed the supporters of the demonstrators of the Ferguson shootings have blood on their hands when the two cops were killed? Does the NRA have blood on it's hands in this case for convincing the now deceased that she needed to carry the artillery around with her?

By what standard was she "paranoid"? By the "Candycorn doesn't think anyone needs guns, so how dare you disagree?" standard?

The hard truths in this tragedy are as follows:

1) An entire family will be changed because someone did something stupid. Happens a lot, in a lot of different ways. Always has, always will, doesn't necessarily have implications for public policy.

2) No matter how you twist and turn and strain, nothing is going to make this the knockout punch, slam-dunk for your agenda that you want it to be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If concealed carry was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother. But a few would.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If concealed carry is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of concealed carry.

That's my position. I don't want to carry a gun, but I don't want a potential assailant to know that.

I don't understand. Help me out here.

Person A is intent on doing you bodily harm
You have a concealed gun.
Person A pulls out a gun and shoots you unexpectedly.
You're partially incapacitated and can't respond quickly.

vs.

Person A is intent on doing you bodily harm
Your pistol is on your hip within arms reach
Person A sees you have a gun and thinks twice.
You've prevented the actions by Person A.

Wouldn't the second scenario be preferable? It's not really an argument against the first scenario but I think we can all agree that if you see a few squad cars outside of Denny's at midnight, you don't rob that restaurant...you move over to another Waffle House where there may be some unmarked units but usually you only find out once you start the violence.

You don't understand virtually everything you encounter, so why should this be different?

I'm feeling generous, seeing as it's the end of the year. So I'm going to explain, despite my complete lack of expectation that anything lies between your ears to actually catch the words as they sail through your head.

Scenario 1:

Person A is intent on doing someone bodily harm.
He sees you have a gun on your hip and in plain view.
He knows that it's illegal in your state for people to have guns on their person unless they're in plain view.
He knows that law-abiding citizens, aka his potential victims, will therefore be unarmed if he cannot see the weapon.
He bypasses you and goes and does bodily harm to someone else.
His actions have not been "prevented". They've only been deflected.

vs.

Scenario 2:

Person A is intent on doing someone bodily harm.
He knows that it's legal in your state for people to carry concealed weapons, and therefore any potential victim might, in fact, be armed.
He sees you, but cannot tell if you're armed or not.
He sees your neighbors, but cannot tell if they are armed, either.
He decides that confronting his victims directly is too much risk to his own safety, and doesn't commit bodily harm to anyone.

Now, odds are good that he will probably still commit some other sort of crime, because that's what people like that do. But odds are also good that his crime will be against property, rather than other human beings. It's still a deflection, I suppose, but one I am a lot more willing to accept than the first one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Huh? Was that supposed to make sense?

It was supposed to and did.

Break out your crayon and follow along. If the shooter kills himself, the other "good guy" with the gun becomes a moot point.

But they don't right away, so it doesn't make sense. You broke your crayon. You can stand there and pee if it happens to you but not everyone wants to be put in that position. And fortunately have the Constitution on our side.

And response doesn't happen right away either regardless of the John Wayne fantasies you guys have.

Yes the Constitution is on "your" side. That is why this will never be resolved. A zillion decades from now, we'll still have thousands of needless deaths that no other developed nation has and you guys will still be claiming it's not because of guns when the access to guns is the ONLY difference in the nations.

Until you account for differences in cultural mixes, you can't make that statement honestly.

London doesn't have cultural mixes?

London's population is 60% white, 7% Indian, and 7% black. Every other group is less than that.

Sydney doesn't have cultural mixes?

Sydney's biggest non-white demographic group is Chinese, at about 5%.

Tokyo doesn't have cultural mixes?

Tokyo's ethnic makeup is 98% Japanese, 2% everyone else.

Paris doesn't have cultural mixes?

It's difficult to be sure about ethnic demographics in France, since it's illegal for their census to actually compile such statistics. It's estimated, though, that the population of Paris is 85% white.

Egypt doesn't have cultural mixes?

Egypt isn't a city, dumbass. It's a country. Nevertheless, their population is 99% Egyptian by ethnic descent.

Helsinki doesn't have cultural mixes?

Helsinki's population is not only 99% white, it's 99% Scandinavian.

Madrid doesn't have cultural mixes?

Spain, like France, refuses to track race and ethnicity as we understand them, preferring to work with nationality of origin. None of the numbers they do provide, though, gives any reason to believe that their Caucasian population is less than 85%, or than any racial or ethnic group other than that makes up more than 4 or 5% of the population by itself.

Lisbon doesn't have cultural mixes?

Portugal is incredibly homogenous, with ethnic minorities making up less than 1% of the population.

Berlin doesn't have cultural mixes?

Germany is another one that's very touchy about race and ethnicity counting, preferring instead to dwell on nationality. Judging from the numbers they do release, their population is about 90% white.

In case you didn't get it, that means the answer to each of these question is "No, they don't have 'cultural mixes'."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lots of things in life are dangerous, and smart people attempt to make them safer. When a thing exist only for one reason, and that reason is not something any normal person would ever have need of, smart people try to fix that as well.

Smart people learn how to be safe with tools before they use them. It's what smart people do instead of refusing to allow others to use tools.

It's true you may never need a gun. But if you ever do you need it REALLY BAD.

No matter how smart you are.

So tell us, did this woman in the Wal-Mart with four small children need a gun?

Who knows? That's not the point. The point is, she had the freedom to decide she did, and she made that choice. Many single mothers have abusive ex husbands and do need some kind of protection. Whether she made the right choice or not is basically none of your, or the government's business.

Who knows? Oh no, we know very well, and the results speak for themselves. I'm not giving you a choice about where you store toxic waste or whether you can strap a bomb to your car in case someone wants to steal it, and I have no problems with that idea. We have freedom here, not anarchy.

Come on. Do you have Clorox under your kitchen sink? Do you think all hazardous cleaning materials should be banned?

Well, as it happens, my Clorox is on a shelf so high even I have to stand on a stool to reach it, precisely because I have a small child in the house. That's kind of the point: intelligent adults know to be careful around children, and intelligent adults don't expect to make public policy for everyone based on the actions of retards.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, the problem is that when a 2 year old can get to his mom's gun in a crowded store, it becomes everyone's problem.

No, you have it wrong.

The problem is that a stupid mother doesn't practice common sense gun safety. You never allow a child to have access to a loaded weapon. She is the one responsible for the consequences, not the gun or the gun laws. You can't fix being stupid with a new law.

You Libtards really have problems with the concept of personal responsibility, don't you?

Do you want to ban swimming pools because sometimes an irresponsible parent leaves the patio door open and a toddler drowns?

By the way, don't tell me that you Libtards give a shit about children because you advocate the slaughter of about a million American children each year on demand.

Yep... that was piss poor management of her weapon. Wholly unsat and as a result, she suffered the second most severe consequence, for her failure to bear her responsibilities as an armed American.

And as bad as that sucked, THAT was HER problem and bears no further responsibility on the part of ANYONE else.

Of course, if the child had gunned down the cashier....what is the cashier's family supposed to do?

Press charges against and sue the careless retard mother.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The comical veiled threats of gun owners always make me laugh....

Then, why are you wetting your pants over a 2 year old with a gun?

I could have been standing next to the lady and if junior decides to aim mom's gun at me instead...boom.
That would be bad. If it happened to someone I love it would be worse.

Oooh, noes! Something bad might possibly happen to Cornball at some point in time, so we must pass laws against everything she is remotely afraid might possibly happen to her someday.

Or not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When "shit" is expected to happen even in the most unusual circumstances, we force those ... .

Ahh... and there ya have it.

Your tendency toward 'force' is why the ownership and use of firearms is essential to the state of freedom.

Great point!

And with that said, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Its what a responsible society does...provide for the general welfare of its citizens. Sorry you disagree with this bedrock American principle. But then again, you're veiled threat at armed overthrow of the sitting government isn't very patriotic anyway so we shouldn't be surprised.

Yes, the "general welfare". That means more people than just you and your paranoid fear that somewhere, someday, you might be the victim of a random anomaly. The government has to weigh the welfare of EVERYONE. Which means the thousands of women who are raped, or stalked, or abused or for some other reason need the ability to personally defend their own safety count for more than your terror of one incident that happened nowhere near you. And that's just women. That doesn't even address the safety of the men in the population.

 

[2aguy]

Well...the democrats worship bill clinton ....a man with at least 3 credible rape allegations and many more allegations of sexual assault of one level or another...there are even allegations from Britain when he was at Oxford that warrented police intervention.....

So perhaps rape isn't a big no no for these democrats.....

 

[2aguy]

Conservatives generally have this idea that they're secretly action heroes and could totally stop a crime they happen to see by themselves with one well placed bullet. That we have trained professionals for that, it's illegal for a regular citizen to do what they have in mind, almost all crime situations don't require deadly force to be resolved, the carrier is most likely utterly untrained for that kind of thing, and the carrier is almost guaranteed to be in public with lots of innocent bystanders around don't really seem to factor in.

sorry you are wrong...it actually happens 1.6 million times a year...violent criminal attacks are stopped and lives saved. And according to anti gunners on this site, only 200 criminals have to be killed, the rest run away, are held for police or are wounded an captured...

You should really research these actual events...they are inspiring in the way they show average people demonstrating remarkable calm in violent encounters....

 

[2aguy]

Impotent little Mighty Mouse wannabes who don't have the balls to open carry and just aching for the excuse to blast the life outta some uppity darkie in a hoodie.

All looking to earn their Mighty Mouse patch.

why is it you anti gunner nuts are obsessed with killing minorities....and yet you project those feelings on innocent, law abiding people....

As a thought...do you go to black gangsta sites and complain that they can't wait to rape and kill whitey.....

 

[2aguy]

Sydney's biggest non-white demographic group is Chinese, at about 5%.

Keep in mind, one of the potential mass shootings that occurred after the gun buy back was commtted by a Chinese immigrant....who couldn't operate his rifle during the attack....but as an immigrant...he still got a gun...

Just like the immigrant in the coffee shop...

and the bikey gangs...

and the other immigrant shooters that occur in Australia....