Self Defence

Ryan A · Post by **Ryan A** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:07 pm

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.

Ryan A · Post by **Ryan A** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:27 pm

TimD wrote:I've pretty much stayed out of this, but in retirement now, I drive a cab on the side as a supplemental incomeI'm totally on Matt's side. I would NEVER incite any violence, but the fact that I let people know I have a conceal permit ( I post the permit in plain view), it keeps things real calm in the bad parts of town in the wee hours of the morning.
Tim

My point is, if I wanted to rob you and got into your cab I would see your sign. The next time, I would climb into your cab, shoot you before I got comfortable and then take your cab and drive off. I think you guys are reading way more into the intimidation factor of the gun you are carrying. I agree it is going to deter some people but if someone wants to hurt you, they are going to hurt you. It is impossible to constantly watch everyone around you in a crowded area. Regardless of whether or not violence gets intensified, I think your life is still going to be in danger.

Ryan A · Post by **Ryan A** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:28 pm

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=1

According to this, which I believe to be a a credible source, right to carry permits do not decrease or increase violent crime.

Post by **Jungledoc** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:39 pm

What are the laws in most states about carrying guns in the open? It seems to me that this would have a very similar effect to Tim's posted permit.

A friend of mine (who carries) was making a withdrawal at an isolated ATM (I don't know why--this doesn't seem like a good idea to me), when he was approached by a young man holding a knife, who requested a transfer of funds. My friend looked the kid in the eye, and said "You came to a gun fight, and all you brought was that little knife?" The kid thought for a few seconds, then ran off. My friend never showed his piece.

Jebus · Post by **Jebus** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:43 pm

Jungledoc wrote:What are the laws in most states about carrying guns in the open? It seems to me that this would have a very similar effect to Tim's posted permit.

A friend of mine (who carries) was making a withdrawal at an isolated ATM (I don't know why--this doesn't seem like a good idea to me), when he was approached by a young man holding a knife, who requested a transfer of funds. My friend looked the kid in the eye, and said "You came to a gun fight, and all you brought was that little knife?" The kid thought for a few seconds, then ran off. My friend never showed his piece.

That's awsome.

It is possible to have guns in society and have peace. Here in canada we love guns, more than most think. And yes we do have murdurs and stuff but overall it's not bad. We just have good gun control and regulation.

By the way I'm thinking about getting a .308 Remmington VTR, maybe the desert recon. It's only 800, 850 for the DR

Ryan A · Post by **Ryan A** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:39 pm

This seems to be an extensive list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... (by_state)

California apparently does not allow open carry.

Ryan A · Post by **Ryan A** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:43 pm

Was reading through a bit more and found this which seems pretty smart and useful:

On October 13, 2007, California enacted AB 1471. This controversial[33] law requires that, effective January 1, 2010, semi-automatic handguns be equipped with microstamping technology and be listed in the roster of handguns certified for sale. When such a pistol is fired, the microstamping mechanism will imprint each cartridge case with a microscopic array of characters that will uniquely identify the gun that fired it.[34][35]

This is the kind of thing I would like to see more of although I understand many acts of gun violence would not be with such a modified gun.

Post by **Ironman** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:42 am

Ryan A wrote:That sounds kind of like boarder line slippery slope to me. I also don't see anything that makes up for the consequences of criminalization. Which I think is a fatal flaw in outright banning. Although I'm with you on regulation.

I don't quite follow the "consequences of criminalization" part. Could you elaborate.

As for the car situation, that just sounds like an argument for public transportation. It doesn't really support banning cars. It kind of demonstrates the arm race, but the arms race scenario is a bit of a stretch.

At some point in the thread it was said "I wish everyone could be forced to carry a gun." This is a bad idea, and that was the point of the car analogy although with the cars, I think the bad idea is being actively lived out. People feel a lot of pressure to drive, especially in CA where things are so spread out, in most cases.

The main problem with California, is the people that live there. They want to have tons of social programs and government projects, but then nobody is willing to pay any taxes. Much like the Bush administration's budget, but worse. Now this is coming from a nonresident, but it seems to me that all their legislature does is block everything and anything the governor tries to do without offering any ideas of their own.

Well yes, and no. We have a major rift in income ranging from hollywood rich to immigrant poor. We have a lot of fringe counties that are very republican and then of course, the very large cities that are democratic so the legislature is quite the madhouse I am sure, kind of like the US Congress. We are very big and have many different "cultures" as well, who all seem to have these special needs.

I don't mind paying more taxes as long as it goes toward intelligent social programs, which don't really exist in my opinion. I would like to see unemployment converted to reeducation and job placement. The only social programs I would like to see are public education that is good and healthcare that is good. Education is difficult to do the huge variety of foreigners in the school system. Healthcare shares the same plight as it does in the rest of the country, although I think a system could exist if people were less greedy with corporate profits and less trigger happy on the lawsuit cannon. The most depressing thing for me is seeing "improvements" being made to roads/freeways to accommodate the endless suburbia sprawl and no effort being made to create high rise residential where public transit would actually work. The entire Sacramento valley is likely to be covered in single story houses by 2050, if not sooner.

My elaboration is easy. Any time we decide to create a black market there is a big spike in violent crime. Just look at the charts. Prohibition was probably the worst one. The current drug prohibition is what funds crime. Prices skyrocket during black markets so the profits are huge.

I didn't realize someone said we should force people to carry a gun. That's retarded. I agree with you on that. Your car thing makes a lot more sense now.

Ryan A · Post by **Ryan A** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:02 am

Now I see. Yes, I think black markets are something that should have more thought put into them.

Unfortunately, it seems like a hard thing to address, although I think any effort would be better than what is occurring now.

Matt Z · Post by **Matt Z** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:04 pm

"Was reading through a bit more and found this which seems pretty smart and useful:

On October 13, 2007, California enacted AB 1471. This controversial[33] law requires that, effective January 1, 2010, semi-automatic handguns be equipped with microstamping technology and be listed in the roster of handguns certified for sale. When such a pistol is fired, the microstamping mechanism will imprint each cartridge case with a microscopic array of characters that will uniquely identify the gun that fired it.[34][35]

This is the kind of thing I would like to see more of although I understand many acts of gun violence would not be with such a modified gun." - Ryan A

The technology your describing doesn't exist yet ... Hence this law is just a sneaky way to ban all new semi-auto handguns (If I remember correctly, it doesn't apply to handguns made prior to the ban).

Matt Z · Post by **Matt Z** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:05 pm

"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." - Ryan A

I wasn't refering to you.

Matt Z · Post by **Matt Z** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:23 pm

"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." - Ryan A

I never claimed that concealed carry would lower the overall rate of voilent crime. Realisically, I don't think enough people carry regularly to signifigantly effect crime rates, or the behavior of criminals.

Your the one who claimed that lawful concealed carry would increase/intensify violence. That is why the burden of proof is on you.

Matt Z · Post by **Matt Z** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:26 pm

"http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=1

According to this, which I believe to be a a credible source, right to carry permits do not decrease or increase violent crime." - Ryan A

This actually supports my point.

Matt Z · Post by **Matt Z** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:30 pm

If lawful concealed carry increases the ability of regular people to defend themselves and their loved ones against dangerous criminals, while having no negative effect on the overall rate of violent crime, then wouldn't that make it a good thing?

Post by **TimD** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:07 pm

Why conceal? Where I grew up in northern California in he 1950's, we all had gun racks and there was no concealment about it, and the crime rates were negligible. We didn't even lock the doors at night. (Oh yeah, the term "redneck" has been applied to me before).
Tim

ExRx.net

Self Defence

Self defence is a basic human right.