Should Concealed Handguns Be Legal for Citizens in the United States?

[eNtRopY]

Recently, a single, caucasian woman in the Madison area killed two African American intruders who illegally entered her apartment. She was not charged with any crime as the law is in her favor.

I have been thinking about purchasing a classic western six shooter for recreational shooting and possibly self defense. However, the state I live is one of the six states that prohibits anyone other than a police officer to carry a concealed handgun. I'm not saying that I would want to walk around my city armed with a weapon, but if I were venture into a high-crime area for some reason, I would not feel safe without a weapon, but I would feel even less safe if I had a gun exposed for gansters to see. Let's face it, anyone who walks into the getto with a displayed pistol will be definitely be killed--everyone knows that the street value of an unregistered weapon is far more than its weight in gold.

I was wondering what PF members think about gun laws in the United States? Should citizens be allowed to take the law into their own hands when their own life is at stake? Should citizens be allowed to carry concealed handguns?

eNtRopY

 

[Zero]

You are better off unarmed...keep it in your pants, Junior, and leave the gunfights to the cops.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, I have seen statistics that show that violent crime goes down in areas in areas when they pass concealed-handgun laws (meaning that you would now be allowed to carry one). Conversely, crime went up in surrounding areas.

This was in a book by a right-winger, though.

 

[BoulderHead]

"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
~Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC.

 

[Loren Booda]

At least folks in the inner city know how to spell "ghetto." (Is such decay due to entropy?)

I have heard (from the "liberal" media) that a handgun kept at home for "self defense" is ~30 times as likely to kill an acquaintance than a stranger. God knows what on the street where you are your only acquaintance.

The best defense may be a good attitude learned in part from a respectable martial arts expert.

 

[Zero]

Never trust statistics...they generally select only the data that supports their side, and ignore other factors.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Never trust statistics...they generally select only the data that supports their side, and ignore other factors.

Sooo, if you don't trust statistics what are you going to trust? opinion?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Sooo, if you don't trust statistics what are you going to trust? opinion?

Common sense...common sense says that:
1) If a gun makes you feel safe in inherently unsafe situations, you shouldn't carry a gun.
2) The public trust is served by restricting the amount of guns on the street at any given time.
3) The public has the right to defend itself within limits.
4) The government has the responsibility to make sure citizens are knowledgeable and safe with their guns.

I suspect that eNtRopY has watched too many movies, and I would also suggest that by his attitude he should NEVER be allowed to own a handgun, let alone a concealed carry permit.

 

[Eh]

You don't need to carry a gun outside to defend yourself against home invasions. Outside, you can minimize the possibility of being in a situation where you might need a gun in the first place. Anybody who breaks into someone's house is a potential threat, and I would argue there is moral and legal justification for shooting the intruders. At least parts of the US have not become like Canada in regards to that.

 

[Zero]

Can you see someone swaggering into a bad neighborhood, because they have a gun? Why would you do that?? It seems like some people(in my experience, anyways) carry a gun to make themselves feel bigger. They should work on their self-esteem, not their marksmanship.

 

[Eh]

Working on common sense wouldn't be a bad idea either.

 

[Zero]

Working on not being a racist might help too...

 

[Eh]

What does racism have to do with anything?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
Recently, a single, caucasian woman in the Madison area killed two African American intruders who illegally entered her apartment. She was not charged with any crime as the law is in her favor.

This sounds like he is saying 'We need guns to protect our white women from the sex-crazed darkies!'.

 

[Eh]

Well, that may be a bad choice of words, but I think gun owners in that certain mindset would shoot an intruder of any color. A white man breaking into your dwelling to do God knows what, is just as much of a threat as a black intruder.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Eh
Well, that may be a bad choice of words, but I think gun owners in that certain mindset would shoot an intruder of any color. A white man breaking into your dwelling to do God knows what, is just as much of a threat as a black intruder.

I agree, which is why his point of listing the races of the victim and robbers strikes me as being motivated by less than honorable ideas...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Statistics can be very useful...as long as their used properly and you understand how they were collected and how statistics, in general, work.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Got to be careful with statistics because they can be misleading or inaccurate. Many times they are politically motivated. It is easy to play with numbers to make things look the way you want them.

I think if everyone owned a gun you wouldn't see as much fights, you wouldn't see as much crime and you would see people respecting each other more.

However, what we could do in terms of gun control is prevent individuals convicted of crims from not owning guns. That and people part of criminal gangs. However, the regular joe should be allowed to own a weapon. Besides, I think it would do good for this nation.

Remember, freedom isn't comfort.

Will someone start a thread for prison reform? I'm running out of time atm.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
Got to be careful with statistics because they can be misleading or inaccurate. Many times they are politically motivated. It is easy to play with numbers to make things look the way you want them.

I think if everyone owned a gun you wouldn't see as much fights, you wouldn't see as much crime and you would see people respecting each other more.

However, what we could do in terms of gun control is prevent individuals convicted of crims from not owning guns. That and people part of criminal gangs. However, the regular joe should be allowed to own a weapon. Besides, I think it would do good for this nation.

Remember, freedom isn't comfort.

Will someone start a thread for prison reform? I'm running out of time atm.

The problem is, the crime rates will shoot way up if everyone has a gun, because the same guys who now just start barfights would start shooting each other instead.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Yeah after that not many bar fights would happen if the inciters cared for their lives. Remember, there are more law abiding people than perpetrators. That means more good guys have more power and bad guys have less.

Let's not forget, gun control only keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens not criminals.

Freedom isn't comfort.

I think the government cares about gun control so they can keep track of people. It's all about control.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
Yeah after that not many bar fights would happen if the inciters cared for their lives. Remember, there are more law abiding people than perpetrators. That means more good guys have more power and bad guys have less.

Freedom isn't comfort.

I think the government cares about gun control so they can keep track of people. It's all about control.

Well, they license our cars, and no one seems to mind...

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Do you think there is perhaps a tiny difference between a car and a gun? I know you hit the mark, they are both mechanical devices. RoflroflroflroflLrfl

But now that you mention it...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
Do you think there is perhaps a tiny difference between a car and a gun? I know you hit the mark, they are both mechanical devices. RoflroflroflroflLrfl

But now that you mention it...

Yeah, guns are MORE dangerous, and therefore need to be more controlled than cars.

 

[FZ+]

you would see people respecting each other more.

You mean fearing each other more? There is a big difference.

One is all fine and dandy.
The other is one step short of a totalitarian state.

 

[GENIERE]

Guns are more dangerous to civilians than cars?

Yeah, guns are MORE dangerous, and therefore need to be more controlled than cars.

Wrong again!

Well, they license our cars, and no one seems to mind...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
Guns are more dangerous to civilians than cars?



Wrong again!

You oppose having a driver's licence?

 

[Dissident Dan]

If people didn't start quarrels because of the lethality of guns, we wouldn't have had the "Wild West", and we wouldn't have street guns. I remember a quotation from some famous guy saying that he thought that machine guns (maybe Gatling said it) would make war obsolete, because it would make it nothing but a quick, senseless slaughter. Obviously, he was wrong.


With that being said, cars do kill many times more people in the USA each year than guns.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan



With that being said, cars do kill many times more people in the USA each year than guns.

I agree with this...butguns are made to kill, cars are not...plus, I wonder what would happen if everyone had a gun? We can't drive, how can we be expected to shoot straight?

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

If the U.S. became Snake Pliskin's police state the first thing that would happen is everyone's guns would be rounded up, not everyone's cars.

Think about that.

But the same principal applies to guns as the tough guy no one messes with. A high school kid will antagonize a vulnerable dork way before he does it to the big guy because the big guy can kick his ass. So, if that high school kid knows that everyone he tries to antagonize can kick his ass, he won't likely antagonize them. The antagonization (to use the word loosely) would decrease significantly. Either way, when people know there are summary consequences to their negative actions they will think twice about doing it.

More power in more people's hands. It is what so called democracy is about. But while you are chipping away at the constitution, why don't you take away other fundamental rights? What I'm saying is, give em an inch and they take 2000 miles.

But remember the past, there was an age in America when every man owned a gun, there were less restrictions on everything and people were civilized. I understand certain situations require certain actions but we live in a civilized society, this isn't Afghanistan.

 

[FZ+]

So, WHY then did we oppose letting Saddam have access to WMDs then?

Because a society run by mutual fear may be all very "stable", but it is the perfect situation for a totalitarian government to take over power, and that the situation itself is one where no one remotely wants to live in.

Trust me. A place where you need to continuously watch your back is not a nice place.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh

But remember the past, there was an age in America when every man owned a gun, there were less restrictions on everything and people were civilized. I understand certain situations require certain actions but we live in a civilized society, this isn't Afghanistan.

We definitely have more civilized human society (I mention "human society" because the way that we treat animals has not improved) in the USA today than we did 100 years ago.