Topic: Rights freedoms and Gun Control Facts
no photo
Wed 02/15/12 01:23 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 02/15/12 02:19 PM
Rights freedoms and Gun Control Facts

It has always been a curiosity of mine that the constitution can outline a right and yet we still have laws which effectively remove that right from use and law makers can ignore the contradictions.

What I have found even more curious is that many people can support the concepts of freedom for one aspect, but then pull back that support for another aspect.

I think freedom and personal responsibility go hand in hand. When one is depleted the other is depleted. If you are expected to be responsible you are free to fail to live up to that responsibility with the consequences being the potential loss of that freedom. However if you have no freedom you also have no responsibility nor expectations.

I dont know the personal lives of really any of the people who regularly post on these forums. What I do know has been gleaned from only what each person here has been willing to put out there on the internet. However it would shock me to find out I am the only person who has lost a loved one to violent crime that could have been stopped if my loved one had been in possession of a firearm.

Often times when I express my views on guns it seem inevitable that someone will liken me or my attitude to something out of the old west. This upon reflection is a strange attitude to have IMHO. Murder statistics seem to rise and fall based on a variety of factors, but the essential truth is that murders are perpetuated by people, and as long as people exist then murder will likely follow. From this fact alone I cannot comprehend what about the old west was seen as validating the common usage of carrying a firearm for personal protection that does not also exist today in our modern society.

I think the reality is that our society is just as dangerous as it was then, what we have that they did not was many creature comforts, and a way to get easy access to food, medicine, and are able to travel at the drop of a hat due to transportation being nearly ubiquitous.

Often times I will hear the rebuttal, "well but you live in a good neighborhood, why do you need a gun?"
This to me is just as shocking of a statement. Crime happens everywhere a criminal may find an opportunity.
My best friend was murdered in a nice area with low crime and at a pet store opening up for the morning. The attacker had only his hands and a fire extinguisher as a weapon and attacked the little 5'0 petite women mercilessly.

Sometimes advocates for gun control will use deceptive tactics to try to gain support for banning or restricting firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

"Safety & Prevention-Where We Stand: Gun Safety

The most effective way to prevent firearm-related injury to children is to keep guns out of homes and communities. The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly supports gun-control legislation. We believe that handguns, deadly air guns, and assault weapons should be banned.

Until handguns are banned, we recommend that handguns and handgun ammunition be regulated, that restrictions be placed on handgun ownership, and that the number of privately owned handguns be reduced. Firearms should be removed from the environments where children live and play, but if they are not, they must be stored locked and unloaded. Loaded firearms and unloaded firearms and ammunition represent a serious danger to children."

Amazingly enough, the statement above appeared on the AAP website until 3/9/11, coinciding with the Florida legislative committee hearings on the privacy bill. Perhaps they felt that their own published statement would be perceived as being anti-2A. Hmmm. It was quietly replaced with one that calls for safe storage and handling in lieu of banning.

The cry of "it's for the children" is used by the AAP. The AAP claims 3,000 child deaths by firearm per year. This figure is arrived at by including suicides, murders, and classification of ages 0 - 24 as "children" in order to capture gang violence deaths. This is to intentionally inflate the figure and garner the support of the uninformed. The AAP maintains that through counseling parents by their pediatricians to either remove firearms from the home or to use gun locks, gun safes, and separation of guns and ammo, these figures will be reduced. With regards to suicide, the absence of firearms would merely change the method of suicide by a despondent person. Many teens have hung themselves or overdosed on prescription medication. Does the AAP advocate the removal of rope, cord, and wire from homes? No. As far as murder and gang violence is concerned, how would removal or safe storage of a firearm in the home eliminate those deaths, which occur mainly outside the home? Answer: it wouldn't.

The only true category reflecting the AAP's concern about firearms in the home is accidental deaths by firearms, and only within the 0 - 15 (or so) age group. Care to guess how many deaths per year nationwide are reported by the CDC under those parameters? About 120, a far cry from the 3,000 figure the AAP would have you believe. And according to the FBI and CDC, that number is dropping every year.

So the AAP is being intentionally disingenuous with regards to the scope of the problem. With the move to electronic medical records, and the federal government's presumed ability to "snoop" in those records without so much as a court order, it becomes clear that this very well may be a backdoor registration system disguised as a noble program to protect children.


There are many dangerous things in modern society, criminals being just one example, many tools, devices, and methods hold extreme risks. We as modern citizens accept these risks becuase the reward to a stable and peaceful society far outweighs the risks, and in each case the risks can be minimized through education, awareness, and practice.

At the age of 15-16 all across the country young people are being taught how to safety drive a motor vehicle, one of the most dangerous tools to ever come into use by human beings. Some will learn proper safety procedures, some will follow them all there lives, some will shirk the responsibility and some will never live to regret that decision.

Firearms are no different, its a tool, it has its place, and when you learn to master this dangerous device it can offer responsible users a potentially life saving tool in many situations.

I get asked why I carry a gun, and sometimes I respond that it is to protect what is important to me. In the same way that I have a fire extinguisher and know how to use it to protect my home, I have a firearm and know how to use it to protect my life and the lives of my loved ones.



Just the facts
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Florida Carry
FloridaCarry.org

Open Carry
http://opencarry.org/

no photo
Thu 02/16/12 10:48 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 02/16/12 10:52 AM
Maybe I need to say something more controversial to get some attention in this thread!

When government restricts the rights of its citizens to carry guns it panders to criminals.

Campus Carry is a great example. Laws are followed by the law abiding, so when a law restricts a person from carrying a gun onto a local college campus only the law abiding citizens are going to comply, what this does is setup an environment were only criminals are armed and leaves campuses attractive targets for sociopaths.

Columbine?
Virgina tech?

Any comments?

Gun free zones are only free of guns in respect to the law abiding.

Gun free zones are predator friendly zones.


Maybe I should have had Whitney in the title.

no photo
Thu 02/16/12 02:36 PM
How about a normal citizen openly carrying a firearm?

Anyone on these forums participate in open carry?

Would someone be against it?

Why?

Sin_and_Sorrow's photo
Thu 02/16/12 02:55 PM

Maybe I need to say something more controversial to get some attention in this thread!


..apparently, lol.
I jut hadn't noticed it.


When government restricts the rights of its citizens to carry guns it panders to criminals.


Indeed.

Above you compared modern day to the west.
We still live in the 'wild west' so to speak.
The major difference is, transportation and law.

Law in the west was usually a sheriff and a deputy. Maybe a few other lawmen that protected an entire town. Inhabitants were maybe 100 or so, give or take by area.

If a group, say 10, invaded said town and managed to kill even just the deputy. This town was now at a serious disadvantage. One lawman to protect 100 some people?

Nowadays, we have a lot more police officers to protect a wider area all triangulated through scanners, surveillance, radios, etc. So, law has, since then expended greatly. However, to believe that criminal didn't as well adapt to this change is ludicrous. They got smarter or, in other cases, more violent.

I see now difference between permitting a house a mass amount of kitchen knives to owning one revolver that fires six bullets.

So, in comparison, what has truly changed except everything is modernized? Crime and violence they haven't dwindled or faded, no, instead they've multiplied and reproduced even more psychotic means to devastate and destroy.


Campus Carry is a great example. Laws are followed by the law abiding, so when a law restricts a person from carrying a gun onto a local college campus only the law abiding citizens are going to comply, what this does is setup an environment were only criminals are armed and leaves campuses attractive targets for sociopaths.

Columbine?
Virgina tech?

Any comments?


Not sure if much of this ever got on the national headlines or not.
However, Allentown School District (major school district area where I reside) consists of 7 different High Schools; not to mention each having two or three middle schools linked to them.

Recently, kids and parents have been mercilessly attacked by several 'thugs' wielding machetes like Myers. There have been over 25 stabbings and related incidents in the area all within at the most 3 blocks from the H.S.

So, I agree wholeheartedly about the concept of 'gun control'; however, permitting everyone to carry.. I'm not sure how that would justify the matter.

For example, people like me who have 'rage' issues and are easily angered, would then become more prone to committing said acts of violence and murder. Just because once you kill someone you can't take it back and say, 'I'm sorry'. The damage has been done.

So, while I believe it would be more astute to permit each and every person to 'own' 'carry' and 'handle' a firearm, overall, I'm not sure how much that would improve the overall quality of life.

At the same time, to argue my own said point.

IF everyone WAS carrying, some aspects of crime might actually drop; i.e., home invasion for example, because entering a house that you know there are guns involved inside, may give you second thoughts or at best should.


Gun free zones are only free of guns in respect to the law abiding.

Gun free zones are predator friendly zones.

Maybe I should have had Whitney in the title.


..Very, very true.

So, what do you suggest?

..and Whitney in the title? Cold man, lol.

Now to you next comment:


How about a normal citizen openly carrying a firearm?


See, I just don't know.
Half says, hell yes, because it is indeed our 'right'.
Half says, hell no, because like every other right, people will abuse it and make it harder for others to 'want' this freedom for 'everyone'.


Anyone on these forums participate in open carry?


Not sure what you mean by 'open carry'.
As in any citizen, no matter locale, is permitted to own and brandish a firearm?

If so, I believe that it's not an overly horrid idea.
But you'd need to keep them out of the schools, regardless.

They can take them to school, but have a check point to drop them off and check them out. Keep the room sealed permanently until school lets out; no exceptions. Maybe feasible. I'm not sure...

Too many pros and cons swirling at the moment.


Would someone be against it?

Why?


I'm only against it until I am cleared to 'own' and brandish my own firearm. So long as I'm excluded from this 'freedom', then I am against it.

I am, by the state, unable to own and/or brandish a firearm.

Ladylid2012's photo
Thu 02/16/12 03:11 PM

How about a normal citizen openly carrying a firearm?

Anyone on these forums participate in open carry?

Would someone be against it?

Why?


I hate guns.
I support the right of others to carry if they must.

adj4u's photo
Thu 02/16/12 04:03 PM
most of those in the elected offices of the federal govt could be charged tried and eventually convicted of treason

they take an oath to defend and uphold the constitution most of them pass legislation destroying it

until people take a stand with their elected officials it will only get worse

freedom has responsibility----true freedom is not free you an ordinary citizen must fulfill your responsibilities and hold your elected officials responsible for their actions--and remove them from office (legally of course) and do your research when you vote.

if you want term limits press your official to make it law and do not revote for them

anyone that votes for someone just because of their political party is just irresponsible and does not deserve liberty nor freedom and that is what they are getting --- the loss of liberty and freedom

the two most terrifying groups killing this country are the democrat and republican party (generally speaking) yes there are good in both parties but as a whole the destruction of liberty and freedom is at hand

Sin_and_Sorrow's photo
Thu 02/16/12 05:10 PM
See Bushido.

You just needed me to bring everyone out. :D

no photo
Fri 02/17/12 10:01 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 02/17/12 10:20 AM

See Bushido.

You just needed me to bring everyone out. :D
Thanks!


So, I agree wholeheartedly about the concept of 'gun control'; however, permitting everyone to carry.. I'm not sure how that would justify the matter.
Its like any other dangerous thing in society, its about taking personal responsibility for the freedom in question. If you know something about yourself that makes you question your ability to be responsible, then I think it behooves you to take that seriously when considering the odds of needing the tool in question. Weigh the odds of misuse vs the odds of usefulness. Training adds to the ability to be responsible, and many times can make all the difference. I would never tell someone to carry a gun if they were not going to train with it, prepare mentally to use it, and find ways to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.



freedom has responsibility----true freedom is not free you an ordinary citizen must fulfill your responsibilities and hold your elected officials responsible for their actions--and remove them from office (legally of course) and do your research when you vote.
Exactly!


**Warning anecdotes incoming.**


I have heard many criticisms, or fears regarding allowing people to openly carry a firearm in an exposed holster (ie to allow people without a permit to carry a firearms that is not concealed)

From my own personal experience these fears and criticisms are mostly without merit.

1) people will feel threatened by the presence of the firearm.
2) someone can take the firearms from you
3) police will think your a bad guy and harass or arrest you.

These are some of the common fears/criticisms of open carry.

I spent 2 years on North Carolina were it is legal for a person over the age of 18 who can legally own a pistol to carry it in a holster on there hip pretty much unrestricted in most areas, and I carried openly 90% of the time.

1) If you dress nicely, do not walk around like a thug, respect everyone and generally are a nice person, no one even takes a second thought about the firearm. On rare occasions I had people ask me a question or two, and one time a gentlemen was surprised to look down and see it as we were both adding our creme/sugar to our coffee in a star bucks. One time the manager at a Harris teeter asked me to take it out to my car or leave, I left without comment.

2) This is a real threat, however an unlikely one statistically (but so is being attacked at all which is the point of the firearm so worth some thought and attention) So many of us that carry a firearm openly use what is called a retention holster, which just means there is some kind of manual lock on the holster to prevent a tug or pull to draw the weapon. I think if a person is going to carry openly any significant portion of there day they need this kind of holster.

3)I can only speak to my own experiences with the police in the Garner, Clayton and Raleigh areas of North Carolina, but the police are extremely professional and very respectful of 2A rights in those areas. I have nothing but praise for the professionals in those areas. The manager at the Harris Teeter I was asked to leave did call the police, and they did come out and check me out, but were very respectful and did not detain me illegally.

Studies have been done by the FBI, and basically bad guys dont open carry. The ability to hide the weapon until the criminal is ready to attack is just such a fundamental aspect that officers in the know immediately understand the likely hood of someone openly carrying the weapon and intending to use it criminally is even smaller a chance then being hit by lightning on a cloudless day.