Jump to content

Concealed carry = bad


Uncle Punk

Recommended Posts

The license means nothing to me. An artificial creation of the state to make them and others feel all happy about people being armed. I will be armed, license or otherwise if need be. My life comes first. The whole cold dead fingers thing...license be damned.

^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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People still go to war with each other even though both sides are armed why doesn’t this theory apply here?

It does actually apply. Think back to the Cold War, WWII, even today. WWII - Japan didn't have nukes and we did; we used it. Cold War - Soviet Union had nukes, U.S. had nukes; neither used them for fear of the other. Today - Nukes are common weapons throughout the world, when was the last nuclear attack you heard about?

Even more example - North Korea. If those crazy asses had the firepower to attack the world, they would do it. No matter what the UN tells them, they are going to do whatever they want to do and whatever they feel they can get away with (test missiles in the pacific anyone?) Knowing that they would be destroyed in a matter of hours, is enough to keep them at bay for the time being.

Let me break it down more. Law abiding citizens - nations that follow the laws. Criminals - nations that dont (N Korea for this example.) If the UN passed a law that mandated all countries to get rid of their militaries, do you think N Korea would listen? If the rest of the world destroyed their militaries, N Korea would have a great time attacking anyone they could. Translate that to citizens. Criminals do not care about the laws, and they will carry a gun whether or not it is legal. Law abiding citizens carry with a permit. If you take the right to carry away, you are now giving the criminals more opportunity to attack the law abiding citizens, and giving the LACs less opportunity to defend themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you are just trolling as usual and stirring the pot ...

I think I called you out right away. But you are disappointed in the responses and arguments? What do you think is better, arguing your points or saying fuck you this is my god given right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Translate that to citizens. Criminals do not care about the laws, and they will carry a gun whether or not it is legal. Law abiding citizens carry with a permit. If you take the right to carry away, you are now giving the criminals more opportunity to attack the law abiding citizens, and giving the LACs less opportunity to defend themselves.

I was saying this all day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually being an asshole is fun and I thought this thread would be more fun but soon realized it was fail. I just couldn't pull off being a lefty gun banner with any real flair. I apologize for my attempt failing to entertain even me; I thought it had so much potential at the start. Where were all the anti gun people at?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, this is a hopeless subject. Common sense has been legislated to death. Hell, it has been unpopular for some time now. People will believe anything if they hear it often enough or if they can some how profit from it. No matter how idiotic it is.:nono:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a cursory glance at the VPC website:

This is a text book case of bad statistical work. There is no time frame, circumstances, or reference shown. For example, the "total people killed by handgun permit holders" category. Were they killed with a gun? Could they be pulling from instances of vehicular manslaughter? The driver has their conceal and carry permit is involved in a fatal car crash. So technically a CCW has killed someone.

There are two kinds of people who carry guns: law-abiding citizens and criminals. If we outlaw guns, which group will comply and which will not? Criminals will get guns and use them no matter what. At best an armed populace lowers the overall crime rate, at worst it causes every criminal to think "is this person armed?" before they commit a crime.

Most dictators after seizing power do two things:

disarm the populace, and then kill the opposition.

An unarmed populace is easily cowed, controlled and oppressed. And what are you going to do if the King of England comes in and starts pushing you around? huh?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a cursory glance at the VPC website:

This is a text book case of bad statistical work. There is no time frame, circumstances, or reference shown. For example, the "total people killed by handgun permit holders" category. Were they killed with a gun? Could they be pulling from instances of vehicular manslaughter? The driver has their conceal and carry permit is involved in a fatal car crash. So technically a CCW has killed someone.

There are two kinds of people who carry guns: law-abiding citizens and criminals. If we outlaw guns, which group will comply and which will not? Criminals will get guns and use them no matter what. At best an armed populace lowers the overall crime rate, at worst it causes every criminal to think "is this person armed?" before they commit a crime.

Most dictators after seizing power do two things:

disarm the populace, and then kill the opposition.

An unarmed populace is easily cowed, controlled and oppressed. And what are you going to do if the King of England comes in and starts pushing you around? huh?

repped

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll chime in for just a moment.

At best an armed populace lowers the overall crime rate, at worst it causes every criminal to think "is this person armed?" before they commit a crime.

I feel the statment is not entirely correct and should read "At best an armed populace lowers the overall crime rate, at worst it will cause every criminal to inflict a fatal or nearly fatal wound prior to commiting a crime."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...