Matt Z wrote:
"I totally don't understand what you are saying here. I clearly believe bad things will happen; if I did not, I would have no problem with guns. Carrying a gun is inconvenient but they are also lazy, both of which result in non carrying? I don't get any of that." - Ryan A
It's not that complicated. Some people have no desire to arm themselves. Others might like the idea of concealed carry, but not enough to put up with the discomfort and inconvenience. Only a relatively small percentage of the population has the inclination and self-discipline to carry a firearm on a daily basis.
You seemed to be saying many contradictory things and so I was hoping for some clarification. You seemed to be making the point that I didn't think bad things would happen to people when clearly I have never said anything of the sort. You seem to be assuming all kinds of things about my position that are not true. So given that you know only a small percentage of the population has the inclination to carry a firearm, what do you think a good policy is for everyone else?
I guess this is my main problem, you sound like many other conservatives I have met who have the attitude that they are something special and that as long as they can take care of the themselves, that is all that matters. Although I agree individualism is important, I also recognize many things that could not happen without awareness of the group level at which progress uniquely may occur.
Matt Z wrote:
Your the one claiming that concealed carry will increase/intensify violence. The burden of proof is one you.
I would suggest you start with FBI crime statistics, and then look for information on concealed carry laws. I think you'll find that violent crime rates actually dropped durring the same time period when many states legalized concealed carry.
I am getting a little tired of this "burden of proof" stuff when nobody seems to understand when it applies. I was not asking you to prove my side of the equation, since you are claiming carrying will lower violence, I was asking for your proof, as I already said plainly that I had no proof of my claim. If you don't have these resources that support your claim readily on hand, I began to doubt you have read them yourself and are equally assuming your position is the right one. The only position I can imagine that would not require proof is that guns do nothing to change anything, (please note so you don't get confused I am not saying guns do nothing, I am merely giving an example of when the burden of proof does not exist). I wish you could understand what someone is saying before telling someone about "burden of proof" when you clearly don't understand what it means.