Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

CCW Laws......To those that don't know...Legally Packing Heat!

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

CCW Laws......To those that don't know...Legally Packing Heat!

Old 3rd May 2010, 01:47
  #41 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,445
I also understand why people like to own handguns. They're sexy, they're empowering, they're dangerous - and the people owning them feel "dangerous".
People who own Ferrari's do the same thing.....and in the hands of the wrong person are quite deadly in their own right.

Thus....we ban hi-powered automobiles. Why does anyone need a car that will do triple the highest speed limit in the country? A Smart Car will get the mundane job of motor transport done....would it not?

Back to the same old arguments.

Get back to the concept at hand...."Freedom" please.

Does not my freedom end where you nose begins....but not until then?
SASless is online now  
Old 3rd May 2010, 02:00
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
Sorry, Dushan, couldn't resist...

----------------------------------------------------------------

As to the long-range psychoanalysis diagnosis, the fact that it "is" in his mind is to invoke the pig and wristwatch scenario as far as trying discuss the matter.

I, and it seems most that support the freedom to choose, want to let him not carry if he so decides. He, on the other hand, wants to inflict his decision on everyone else. Guilty until proven innocent, it would seem.

Therefore, the state must impose its will upon the population. Except, of course, those that own illegal guns and do illegal things with them. They haven't quite figured out that one yet.



Meanwhile, I'll carry on, well, carrying...
brickhistory is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 02:06
  #43 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 80
Posts: 4,761
I feel a gun owner would be justified in first displaying his weapon and inviting the lunatic to put down his tire iron, and failing that, shooting him.
Pretty much the scenario that happened in Houston. Judge found the defensive killing. 'Lawful.'

There's a heck of a lot of psychology in this gun toting thing. Fear of seeing one's kids brutalized while being helpless was, I'm sure, the driving force for my years of gun ownership in the UK. When they left home I had no interest in shooting, but when the next generation came along, I found the need to . . . equip myself again. As I've said before, the Glock and Browning are double locked when the children are here, so it really is a bit self-defeating.

One of my lot has a vast arsenal, and carries almost all the time. The other, refuses to have a gun in the house. Both came shooting with me in the UK - before it was banned, obviously.

Somewhere between the two perhaps.
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 03:32
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
Checkboard

There is a lot of research showing that more gun possession by law-biding citizens is directly related to lower crime rates--especially violent crime. Widespread gun ownership reduces crime and saves lives, period.

My town has more than 50% of the homes and everyone feels save for it.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 07:55
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,560
From today's paper...

15 people on their way to a May Day celebration were injured by a teenager after he became enraged by their blocking a narrow road and by their refusal to move away so that he could drive past. He first drove into the group and injured a few people slightly. After they banged on the roof of his car he rammed more people, this time inflicting life-threatening injuries on a teenage girl. Members of the group tried to get his keys but he escaped to strike further pedestrians before fleeing on foot. When arrested soon after he had a 2.1% blood alcohol level.

Today German legislators are meeting to consider an immediate ban on sales of alcohol and teen-age driving, along with relaxing the strict German laws about private firearms.

Err, not really! I just made that second paragraph up! The first one is sadly real, though.

It's not as snappy but could we say that "Guns don't kill people, people... Okay, guns DO kill people but so do drunken driving, bee stings and being nibbled to death by ducks." (Every year three or four English grannies are found dead next to ponds. It is always the same heart-rending scenario: a ripped-open paper sack still held in one hand, their withered, wrinkly old bods literally covered in bites, mallard feathers and stale bread crumbs all around. Yet do you see any duck control legislation being enacted? Don't make me laugh! The RNDA, the Royal National Duck Association, has Parliament thoroughly bought off and intimidated.)

Where in Nigeria I had a shotgun loaded with buckshot here I only have a .177 air rifle. On the other hand, there I had burglar bars on all the windows and a ten-foot cinder block wall topped with razor wire and here just glass in the windows and no wall, not even a hedge. All in all, I guess I prefer here for safety though.

When I was in Miami I thought about a gun, since I was reliably informed that 3 out of 4 drivers there are tooled-up. A gun was rather expensive (no Saturday Night Special for me but a nickel-plated S&W .357 Magnum with a 4-inch barrel that was on special offer from one of the ramp boys at Butler) and then there is that notion that surprise always favours the attacker.

What with one thing and another I took a completely different tack and left Miami. If I had to stay there, though, I think I would probably have gone for a gun.
chuks is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 09:35
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,473
We used to be able do stuff like this in England when I were a sprog,still remember the solid slug 12 bore we made,
The Box O' Truth - The Box O' Truth
tony draper is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 12:15
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here and there...
Age: 54
Posts: 854
Ah, Basil, now I see your mistake as it were.

Cape Town, dear boy, Cape Town. Far safer, much nicer, wine farms, the sea (even if it is COLD) the mountain, etc etc. Winter can be tiresome with the rain, but the opportunities to sample the local eateries makes up for that.

Do yourself a favour and come back to see the nicer part of our land.
unstable load is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 12:33
  #48 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,445
The Attacker does have the benefit of initiating the encounter.....and the benefit of surprise if one is unaware of one's surroundings. Throw in a bit of Situational Awareness and some good ol' commonsense and that "surprise" thing is being way over rated.

Mind you when the guy demands a wallet and watch and gets a .45 slug or two....guess who gets surprised!

I did have the occasion while travelling in Arizona....well the Navajo Reservation which really ain't Arizona. I was refuelling my pickup at a rest area...using Jerry Cans...when I was approached by two local fellas. After asking for food....gave them some sandwiches....and gasoline...gave them the contents of a five gallon can....they asked for money. I referred them to the local Welfare Office and they became aggressive and one mumbled something about a knife or tomahawk or some such thing and reached into his pocket. Thinking he had invited me to a modern game of paper and scissors....I pulled my shiny little .38 Special. When I suggested we skip the original offer of a game and move on to "Cowboy and Indians"....the two decided to leave me alone.

As a Federal Law Enforcement Training course taught me one time...."Tea too hot to hold....Tea too hot to drink!"

Every encounter does not have to end in gunfire....fact of the matter very few if any will if handled correctly. No crook desires to get involved in a gun fight as coming "first" can still be no better than coming "second".

All this discussion assumes the government screening procedures provide access to "carrying" only to qualified individuals. Unfortunately, the government does not have the ability to pre-screen the criminal element who shall have their guns no matter what the law is. Therefore....it seems simple that the government should allow "honest" people the right to defend themselves as best possible.
SASless is online now  
Old 3rd May 2010, 12:46
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,560
Your logic is too simple for this liberal mind to wrap itself around comfortably yet, Grasshopper, I sense an element of truth in it. What to do next? So you say Vermont allows guns to all? Hmm... I would scare the crap out of few campus hippies there if I were to exercise my Constitutional rights, I guess.

Maybe I just wave my dreamcatcher in a vaguely menacing way to see if that works before moving to Phase B?
chuks is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 13:14
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MNL ex CCR ex CLE
Age: 60
Posts: 201
"Yep - welcome to democracy! "

Guess it's a good thing that America is a REPUBLIC!

Sorry Sasless....I couldn't resist!
PA-28-180 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 13:45
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
SASless wrote:

"regarding the carrying of concealed firearms by law abiding citizens"

I think the is the crux of the entire issue, SASless: law abiding citizens. The problem
with a liberal CCW law is that the thugs, crooks, thieves and others of dubious character will far outnumber said law abiding citizens.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 13:52
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
Checkboard:

You might also want to keep in mind that many, but not all, of those who advocate the carrying of a weapon have probably never taken someone else's life. Nor, when called upon to act in a hostile environment, would even know what to do with the weapon on their person.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 13:57
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
brickhistory wrote:

"Individual responsibility and freedom of choice."

And therein, brick, lies the problem as well as the all-encompassing conundrum.
Without responsibility freedom is just another term for anarchy. And you know damned well, as well as I do, that many of our fellow countrymen (oops. and women)
seem to think freedom is a right to be expressed as one sees fit, responsibility be damned.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 14:03
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,615
So are cricket and baseball bats, hockey sticks and bows and arrows - no sport is 'necessary' but that doesn't mean that people who want to should not participate
Yes all of those things are dangerous - but no where near as dangerous as a pistol - as they are bulky & thus so difficult to carry they are not carried on a regular basis, and if they are they are not concealed. You can run away from a girl carrying a hockey stick.

That statement shows a typical European bias against gun owners that clouds your arguments. I can think of a dozen real reasons why someone would want to own a gun, but why bother?
As I am not European, then YOUR statement would appear to show bias that my opinion is a European one. If you can think of a dozen reasons but aren't prepared to state any of them, why bother to join the discussion at all?

CB when do you carry your cell phone? Do you strap the thing on every day - to go to the shops? - to buy milk? -to drop the kids off at school?

Or is it a "special occasion" thing. Under the dinner jacket when at the opera?
Yes I do. Failing to see your point here. You regard concealed carry of a firearm as easily as carrying a mobile? That IS disturbing.

Should a gun carrying driver get into a minor fender bender with a driver who then leaps from his car carrying a tire iron and smashes the windshield ... I feel a gun owner would be justified in first displaying his weapon and inviting the lunatic to put down his tire iron, and failing that, shooting him.
Are you just as happy that the driver leaping from his car is just as legally permitted to carry a firearm as a tire iron? What if the weapon situation is reversed?

People who own Ferrari's do the same thing.....and in the hands of the wrong person are quite deadly in their own right.
Yes, but people who buy Ferraris don't buy them with the knowledge that they can't use them (outside of a racetrack) unless they plough them into a crowd. You buy a gun in the knowledge that should you ever use it you will use it to kill - that is the reason you buy it in the first place. BIG difference.

I, and it seems most that support the freedom to choose, want to let him not carry if he so decides. He, on the other hand, wants to inflict his decision on everyone else. Guilty until proven innocent, it would seem.
Yes, we make laws to govern the behaviour of society. That's the point. Not "guilty until proven innocent" rather "prevented from being guilty in the first instance".

There is a lot of research showing that more gun possession by law-biding citizens is directly related to lower crime rates--especially violent crime. Widespread gun ownership reduces crime and saves lives, period.
Oh "period" huh? Got a report to quote then? Have a look at a map of Homicide per capita:

File:Homicide-world2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice any difference between Canada/Australia and the USA?

You might also want to keep in mind that many, but not all, of those who advocate the carrying of a weapon have probably never taken someone else's life. Nor, when called upon to act in a hostile environment, would even know what to do with the weapon on their person.
I'm fully aware of that. I am not putting an argument that any individual here isn't responsible. My argument is:

If you permit the general population to own and carry handguns, then the law of supply and demand will mean a great many handguns at large in the community - and that community will be a less safe place because of it.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 14:06
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
To compare hockey sticks, baseball bats and other assorted sporting goods to a weapon is most ingenuous, to say the least.

The purpose of a hockey stick or a baseball bat or a cricket bat or whatever is to engage in the play of sports. However, those same sporting items can indeed be used as weapons, granted.

The purpose of a rifle or sidearm is quite easily defined. It is, to kill. Nothing more and nothing less.

Just a tad bit of a difference, no?
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 14:15
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
Checkboard:

I'll take your premise further. If you allow the general populace to carry concealed weapons we will have scenarios similar to the following:

Driver A shoots to death Driver B because of so-called road rage.

Mr. Smith, in trying to defend his family against an intruder, has his long gun taken from him and used against his person as well as the rest of the family. All dead. He kept meaning to take a training course but never found the time to do so.

During an attempted convenience store robbery, by armed thugs, a patron pulls out a .357 and in attempting to shoot one of the perpetrators, misses and hits a 7 year old kid in the store, instantly killing him. The armed thugs then shoot to death the armed patron and escape unscathed.

Mr. X decides that he feels intruded upon by Officer Smith for pulling him over during a routine traffic stop. Officer Smith noticed that Mr. X was weaving erratically whilst driving down the road.
Mr. X, who has had his license pulled previously for drunk driving has decided he's not going to have his license yanked again.
Mr. X has the right to carry concealed. Mr. X decides to exercise that right.

The list can be endless.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 15:39
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
As I am not European, then YOUR statement would appear to show bias that my opinion is a European one. If you can think of a dozen reasons but aren't prepared to state any of them, why bother to join the discussion at all?
I didn't say you were European, I said it is just a typical European bias...one I've heard in many conversations in Europe (and I tend to lump the UK in the European bucket these days, since the UK -- and the US I'm afraid -- tend to be following that well worn and ultimately destructive path).

As for the arguments for ownership? You miss the point. It doesn't matter the reason. It is a Constitutional right. The listing of reasons "why" inevitably leads to someone thinking they know better than the individual who is exercising his right.
Matari is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 15:41
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
The right to bear arms, as written into the Constitution, is subject to interpretation.
It may, or may not, have been establishing that right for the average citizen.

Just sayin'.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 16:10
  #59 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by rgbrock1 View Post
The right to bear arms, as written into the Constitution, is subject to interpretation.
It may, or may not, have been establishing that right for the average citizen.

Just sayin'.
Good thing your next government posting won't be on 1st St. NE in DC.
 
Old 3rd May 2010, 16:12
  #60 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,445
RGB,

You might keep up with the Supreme Court decisions of late....they affirmed the right of the individual to own firearms for their self defense.

Also....tell me a base ball bat is not a weapon after you watch this video which is based upon a true event.

SASless is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.