Uncle Punk

I will be more than happy to get into why and how the cold war played out including why some countries would willingly jump into a fight with equal firepower to ours but that wouldn't be addressing where I was going with my point. Our superior arsenal of ordinance compared to that of Japan is not relevant to an armed society with all being equal. When faced with similar firepower and rules of engagement if someone has an agenda to push they are not withering away from a fight, their tactics might change but they will still bring the fight. (Vietnam, Al-qaeda.) Arm every citizen in our country and crime would not go away, how it is implemented might change but murders and robberies would still happen. There is a vast difference in our populace and regardless of being armed or not there will still be victims. If you are one who believes that you won’t be a victim then the saying is probably true for you but it doesn’t make it so for everyone. I would never advocate not allowing anyone the right to carry, I advocate taking away the stupid license requirement. Yes, I think you should say fuck off it's my right to defend myself just as much as if someone would question my right to breathe. It isn't anyone else’s place to restrict or question my ability to do either. Defending either position with flawed arguments isn't going to change anyone’s mind. I was disappointed with most of the replies to the extent that if someone had the opinion that concealed carry was wrong there isn't a compelling argument to defend the other side to change their opinion. Either someone gets it or they don't, if they think that they have the right to restrict your liberty your not going to change their mind with wishy washy repeated drivel.

^This I was trolling because I was bored and can't believe some of the regulars didn't call me out. I don't like most of the arguments people use for defending concealed carry or gun ownership in general because I find them to be unnecessary and usually full of holes. The trend in crime statistics is one of them, it went down because of it or we need it because it has gone up, lame. The whole “an armed society is a polite one” is also one based on nothing but a pipe dream. The states that don’t have overly restrictive gun laws still have plenty crime committed against their society. Maybe they aren’t armed well enough yet. People still go to war with each other even though both sides are armed why doesn’t this theory apply here? We have a god given right to defend ourselves and begging a master for the privilege to do so rubs me the wrong way. I didn't see an argument here that would have changed an antis mind so I find that fight futile. Currently there are three states that allow for concealed carry without a permit and I don't understand why all of the states aren't that way. The statistics on crimes committed by permit holder’s means nothing, just as statistics for police officers who commit crimes means nothing; we aren't going to take away firearms away from either group because of a minority of idiots.

It is only a state felony. There are three states that allow you to carry concealed without a license and more on the way. No felony in these states for being a free man.

Read my replies here to figure out what you think my answer would be. http://www.ohio-riders.com/showthread.php?t=61990

I voted for Kasich but didn't like it. When the chief justice died he was replaced by an appointed judge until this election. I will not through away a vote when it has long term consequences like a Supreme Court ruling. That is why McCain got my vote as well. DeWine didn't get my vote though and I still haven't voted for a Democrat in my lifetime.

Who you want as Governor or who you voted for?

So you want a firearm regardless of crime rates going up or down. I wouldn't use those statistics anymore if you are going to change your argument no matter which way the trend is. An armed society is a polite society is a load of bunk. A polite society is a polite society. More guns do not keep people under control, see my argument earlier. We have armed conflicts which by that standard shouldn't happen because everyone has firepower. Evil intentions are going to be served no matter the obstacles. You getting a license hasn't made you safer and it has not made me safer from you. It is a false sense of security that has made little to no difference in crimes related to handguns except to make a new category of licensed handgun crime.

I stated that I wasn't advocating banning firearms. Something tells me that you gun nuts would have not cared if the trend in crime rates had gone up, you still would have wanted to keep your license. Tying your argument to those statistics means you are willing to give them up if the trends in crime rates rise. Are you guys willing to give up your license if the trends don't support your reasoning?

The point of a LCCH is to do what? Make sure people don't do stupid stuff with guns, generate revenue, add more guns the street? How has a licensing system improved anything pertaining to gun related deaths?

You already know the answer to that based on your actions at the time. It doesn't matter what we think and you did the right thing. A person in the position of authority shouldn't step outside of those positions standing to take advantage of the relationship in other areas. That is why teachers shouldn't date students among other abuses of authority with different professions. There is a line that shouldn’t be crossed and most people who are good at what they do don’t cross them.

You guys are arguing the wrong argument. I'm not saying to ban guns; I'm saying a license system to carry them is a bad idea. It doesn't insure anything is safer just like a vehicle license doesn't make the roads safer nor make driver obey all traffic laws. If you are going to die from an unnatural cause chances are it will be at the hands of someone who is licensed to drive.

All this nerdy talk makes me hot for Kosmo

I'm saying adding more guns into a social environment doesn't equal less deaths nor does it make those inclined to cause harm more polite. Maybe in a world that makes sense to your values it does but the theory has many flaws when trying to apply it to the real world. Giving people a license only makes them bold in their behavior and gives them no more self control or skilled than the next guy. Most here have a driver’s license and everyone I have ridden with disobeys the laws when riding. Giving them a license made no difference in their behavior.

Your polite society theory doesn't play out in the real world. Every other gang banger has a firearm and yet seems to have no fear of being shot by others. Your scenario works for you but not for most people that mean to cause harm. There are too many firearms and adding more to the mix won't mean less deaths.

I only use Mobil1 in my SUV.

Why do you have to gay up every thread?

Quit trying to make trouble So this just proves you have numbers to show that things don't change much when you give people a license to carry. Gun deaths are still at an acceptable level? Is that what you mean?

So innocent people need to die before the bad people are finally killed off? This proves that an armed society is NOT a polite society if you expect more killings the more people are armed. We need to stop these senseless killings and giving people a license hasn't slowed things down.

And your model for this statement is what? Maybe the inner city where there are thousands of guns and people are killing each other at an alarming rate. Let’s take a few semis full of guns into every city, drop them off so everyone will have one that should slow down the killings.

http://www.youtube.com/user/VPCvideos http://www.vpc.org/press/1010ccw.htm http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm This shit needs to stop, it's getting way out of hand, I don't know who to trust!

What type of failures are you guys talking about? Again, I know of no tire failures. Do you know of failures or are you imagining they happen? I'm not saying they can't happen but saying so on the internet without any knowledge of failures doesn't support your position very well. I have actual experience with plugged tires without any failures so I have a basis for my use of them. I couldn’t come up with any logic that would keep me from starting to use them or any knowledge of failures from the use of them so I use them. Have any of you guys had any failures or do you know anyone who has? If what causes a flat makes a tire fail beyond losing air I would like to know about it. Doesn't a nail compromise a tire just as much as a plug? In that case what else happens beyond losing air?

I mitigate the risk by carrying tire plugs with me so I don't have to trailer. I have never had a tire failure nor do I know of anyone having one, maybe I don't push my tires as much as others when riding but there is no evidence to make me feel like I am taking an extra risk.

Speculating a failure and knowing of failures are not the same, I know of no accidents caused by a plugged tire. I use them and tend to ride at a "spirited" pace. If a tire losing air causes you to wreck, why doesn't the hole that made you use the plug wreck you? If you worry about losing 50% of your tires when riding, why ride at all, it could happen at any time.

I have plugged every bike tire that needed it; can someone tell me why you wouldn't? I can't figure the logic behind not using a plugged tire. I have never heard of anyone having a problem with one on a bike or car. What am I missing?