[gt702]

Originally Posted by dattaway

50% of the households on my street are owned by lawyers and educators. A criminal looking for opportunity here may be looking down a long hard road.

Who said criminals were smart?

On the radio this morning they were talking of a guy who tried to use a "poorly photocopied check" for $800 and some dollars at a store ... that was full of 80+ cops on a "shop with a cop" charity event. 80 cops in an enclosed space wasn't enough deterent for him

[Quick 26]

[edp]

35 states now have "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Shall issue means that (in general, varies a bit from state to state) if a person 21 or older who has no felony convictions or domestic abuse convictions, and completes a firearms safety and use course, which usually includes when you can and can't use a weapon and the legal ramifications of use then the state shall issue the concealed carry license. In the states that have these laws, violent crime has decreased by 6 to 10%. Problems with licensees are minimal, less than 1% of licenses are revoked. According to the available statistics, people who carry legally are more law-abiding than average and legally held to a higher standard of responsibility than the general population.
Concealed carry is definitely not for everyone, but those who will go through the training to obtain one are more than likely a plus for society.

[bikerboy1974]

The training was an excellent experience for me. I learned a lot of valuable information. One of the big ones was the "facing" of your assailant. Even if they had a gun on you, if they turn and run it is considered a wrongful shooting if you fire at them in the back. Front facing with due cause is what they state here. Otherwise you are only to use to detain or scare off a criminal.

[HRC NICK 11]

If your in my house uninvited your a threat to my family, even if your running for the door, what would happen to a child if they got between a theif and the door.

If your in my house uninvited and I can get to a gun fast enough you'll be shot. I'll be more than happy to let a jury decide my fate.

[bikerboy1974]

Originally Posted by HRC NICK 11

If your in my house uninvited your a threat to my family, even if your running for the door, what would happen to a child if they got between a theif and the door.

If your in my house uninvited and I can get to a gun fast enough you'll be shot. I'll be more than happy to let a jury decide my fate.

See that's where I stand too, I would die or kill for my children. Their protection is my #1 concern. Yes, I passed the test, but in a "real life" judgement decision, I know I would do what I believe is right, and work from there. Would be okay too, knowing my kids would understand why I did what I did.

[edp]

Like somoeone said, "Better to be judged by twleve than carried by six."

[bikerboy1974]

Originally Posted by edp

Like somoeone said, "Better to be judged by twleve than carried by six."

[ihatecrashing]

Originally Posted by edp

Like somoeone said, "Better to be judged by twleve than carried by six."

[jaim]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Jaim, I'm curious. What "kind" of people own guns?

All kinds of people own guns but there seems to be an assumption by those who think no-one should own a gun, that certain type of people own guns. I actually work with a guy like this. He is rather rabid on the subject. Otherwise a rational guy but when it comes to guns he thinks gun owners are out to kill someone and hence no-one should be allowed to own guns for personal use or protection.

The law that was mentioned in the original post seemed to be an exclusionary law. Maybe to get some folks out of town who didn't quite fit in and use the fact that they didn't want to own guns as a means to get them to leave.

As far as CCW, I am more in the camp of being able to carry a gun but it has to be in plain sight (i.e. holster).

[Hammer]

I think I will move there.

Crime Rate Plummets in Kennesaw, GA

[leelover]

Originally Posted by jaim

Anyone know the back story on this? What prompted the legislation? Kind of an odd law. Especially when citizens have the right to own guns if they want to. To me it seems like legislation to actually exclude and possibly expel someone from the town. Gun ownership is assumed to be associated with a certain type of person. And and refusal to own guns is assumed to be associated with another type of person. And the later may not be welcomed in that town.

Yes, I am sure there is a political agenda behind this.
Is it possible for you to go ahead and answer LTL's question about the type of people who do and don't own guns?
Oh wait, I forgot you don't have to explain yourself...

[jaim]

Originally Posted by leelover

Yes, I am sure there is a political agenda behind this.
Is it possible for you to go ahead and answer LTL's question about the type of people who do and don't own guns?
Oh wait, I forgot you don't have to explain yourself...

Huh? Seems like some folks seem to know what I think about what type of people do and don't own guns. Re-read my last post and I answered LTL in the first sentence. Do you think I own a gun?

[seamus]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I think I will move there.

Crime Rate Plummets in Kennesaw, GA

Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security.

Actually, it proves nothing. It's a small suburb of Atlanta. My parents live in a suburb of NYC with well over 5 times the population of Kennesaw and there have been about the same amount of violent crimes. Not the same rate, but the same actual number.

Most criminals, being better experts in law than many honest citizens, still know that the law will provide them better protection than the homeowner who puts a couple of rounds in them.

Stats are useless. Give me real numbers.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by jaim

As far as CCW, I am more in the camp of being able to carry a gun but it has to be in plain sight (i.e. holster).

Nope, doesn't work.

Makes some people WAY too nervous.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by seamus

Actually, it proves nothing.

No, it doesn't. About the only decent "easy" conclusions you can get from comparing places with gun bans and those without them, is that gun bans don't seem to lead to making a city safe from gun violence.

But just because Swiss all have an assault rifle in their closet, and gun crime isn't bad, doesn't mean if every American had an assault rifle, there'd be no crime here.

There are far too many cultural/socio-economic differences.

Stats are useless. Give me real numbers.

Stats are real numbers. And they can be worth their weight in gold. But they need solid analysis and rigor from collection to interpretation.

[sheepofblue]

die goat die!!!

[Quick 26]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

die goat die!!!

wrong thread

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

But just because Swiss all have an assault rifle in their closet, and gun crime isn't bad, doesn't mean if every American had an assault rifle, there'd be no crime here.

There are far too many cultural/socio-economic differences.

.

Mandatory military service means that the Swiss have the training and discipline neccessary to have that assault rifle in the closet.

Oh man what have I done.

[Quick 26]

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Mandatory military service means that the Swiss have the training and discipline neccessary to have that assault rifle in the closet.

Oh man what have I done.

What in that training makes people not decide to pick up a weapon and shoot their fellow man?

The tool chosen to kill is not the problem. The decision to kill IS the problem. But that doesn't make for a nice tidy political package like banning a gun does. (Nor is it palatable to address the fact that more Americans decide to kill their fellow man than citizens of some other countries)

Training (from a safety standpoint) has extremely little to do with firearms deaths.

Lack of firearms (tactical) training by criminals saves lots of cops's lives everyday in the US.

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

What in that training makes people not decide to pick up a weapon and shoot their fellow man?

The tool chosen to kill is not the problem. The decision to kill IS the problem. But that doesn't make for a nice tidy political package like banning a gun does. (Nor is it palatable to address the fact that more Americans decide to kill their fellow man than citizens of some other countries)

Training (from a safety standpoint) has extremely little to do with firearms deaths.

Lack of firearms (tactical) training by criminals saves lots of cops's lives everyday in the US.

Who said anything about banning guns?

Your argument is contradictory and fundamentally flawed. On one hand you defend your constitutional right to bear arms on the basis that the armed "militia" could defend itself from a/o overthrow a corrupt or oppressive government, yet you're opposed to firearm training because it prevents agents of the government (police a/o soldiers) from being able to kill you more easily.

Your zeal for gun rights is teetering on the edge of mania.

[luvtolean]

Phobe, I may have made a poor assumption about your post.

What "problem" do you think the training of the Swiss avoids compared to those without training having the same weapons?