Who has a Concealed Carry?

[Mark_G]

I disagree with this particular statement. History has shown us that the prevalence of armed citizens in close proximity to each other fuels violence and criminal acts instead of deterring them. Anyone familiar with the true history of the American old west knows this. In fact the only way men like Wyatt Earp and David Cook were able to clean up towns and cities in the west was by prohibiting carrying firearms inside of town and city limits. Experience had shown these men that the fact that everyone had a gun did not reduce crime but increased it, and the best way to reduce crime was to ensure that only peace officers were armed inside of town and city limits.

Once firearms were banned within city limits, those cities began to grow and thrive as law and order settled in.

On the flip side, it's important to point out that the second ammendment was in fact designed to ensure that the citizens of a given state were able to throw off corrupt government, being ratified by most states within a few years of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. It was always intended to empower the people to organize and defend themselves should the government find itself moving closer to the totalitarianism of King George.

So the second Amendment was not ambiguous about the rights of the people to own and bear arms in their homes, or to organize as a body when necessary to defend the integrity of their societies from corrupt government or other threats, but the notion of people walking around in town with side arms was not specifically permitted by this Amendment, nor should it be.

Our own history has shown us that law and order will not come by having everyone carrying guns in open society, but by the opposite.


"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

And this theory is so well proved by the lack of violence in Washington Dc, NYC, Chicago etc. as compared by the abysmal violence in most small towns and cities that don't restrict gun.....

 

[Bill Barrett]

maybe this is my lack of trust in the government but do any of you think that concealed carry is an easy registration? not to start a fire storm but this is one of the reasons why i haven't got a CC.......

yeah, i know that the goverment- in a complete fall out of society- could interrogate people and find out who has guns but, man, a concealed carry list would be a VERY quick way to find out who has guns.........at least in the beginning stages of disarmament....

like i said, i'm not sure i believe this myself, but it crosses my mind a lot...

I think you are 100% right. I thought long and hard about it. Sad thing is, they already have my number. So my name on one more list they're not suppose to have, is moot point.

 

[chh]

I'm unaware of even one instance where removing firearms from law abiding citizens has succeeded in lowering crime.

England is a case in point. Bobbies never had to be armed until the average citizens were disarmed. Shooting incidents by criminals went from general firearms to military class weapons. Now it seems the propoganda mill over there is trying to outlaw carrying a knife, due to the increase in stabbings. Gun control sure helped.

 

[Waynebro]

And this theory is so well proved by the lack of violence in Washington Dc, NYC, Chicago etc. as compared by the abysmal violence in most small towns and cities that don't restrict gun.....

No, no one said there won't be violence in a city or town. Just controllable violence. We know there will be violence. That's why we have peace officers to deal with the individuals who are not capable of obeying our laws.

But to give everyone a gun makes a police officer just another man with a gun.

Most people are brave enough to walk around in open society without a gun to protect themselves. Some of us unfortunately are not. But I feel as those people come to understand that giving everyone guns will lead to worse anarchy than the spotted violence our cities currently maintain, they too will somehow find within themselves the courage to move through society without a gun to protect themselves.

What I do find ironic however is that most people who feel the need to carry a handgun in our towns and cities often are fans of the old west, yet never seem to comprehend the simple historical fact that it was the prohibitions on carrying guns in our wild west towns and cities that contained the violence and permitted peace officers to do their jobs. Most gun carry advocates love Wyatt Earp but they don't apparently seem to agree with Mr Earp's views on the right to carry guns in civilized society.

This is not of course my opinion but a historical fact, and anyone who's actually studied American history know's that. Whether or not you "agree" with history is your problem, however the fact is lawless societies are the ones that require it's citizens to constantly arm themselves. Decent, civilized societies (which includes unfortunately some criminal activity) do not.

And by the way, if you can't learn from US history, perhaps a drive up to Canada, or a trip to Europe may enlighten you more as to how civilized people are able to live and work in cities and towns without the need for a firearm to protect them.

And before you go painting me as a pacifist or anti gun person, I happen to endorse gun ownership and believe it is a protected constitutional right. I enjoy firearms but I also find it pathetic for individuals to be so frightened of walking around in general society that they feel they need a handgun to protect themselves.

 

[Waynebro]

Something to ponder.
The old west was a period of about 25 years. Most of the major killings and shoot outs have been immortalized. When you look at Native American issues, buffalo mass hunting, and guns used in every day life as they were, I'm surprised there wasn't more deaths. Also dime novels of the old west become popular all over the world, authors embellished stories to sell and hype their work. History Channel just had a show that looked at the old west, there was only one face to face high noon show down that could be verified, and a handful of OK corral type occurrences. Most shootings were done in the back! Number of killings in that 25 year period probably wouldn't match Chicago, a gun free zone, in one year. Back on the east coast almost everyone carried a pocket pistol, including most women, not much heard about gun blood shed in the streets, I'm sure there was some. There sure was a lot of clubbing, stoning, fires, and gang wars going on.

There is a lot of statistics that show conceal carry stops and reverses grime.
But statistics can be spun anyway the experts want to slant the numbers.

Yes, well fortunately I was not extracting my information from the "Dime Novels" or the History Channel, but on actual US History, nor was I basing my information on some statistics. What I was relaying was the plain simple fact that the prohibition of carrying sidearms in town was the number one tool at the disposal of the peace officer for taming towns that prior to these ordances were awash in anarchy and lawlessness.

 

[Waynebro]

To make a point in disagreement with your findings, check out the crime rate in ******, one of the most armed countries in the world. Mandatory military service, training and a requirement to keep weapons and ammo at home while in the reserve. They have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world among their citizens.

You're joking, right? I mean you're not taking your statistics from Israeli sources now are you? You know they prop those figures up by eliminating anything they consider related to military operations, i.e. someone getting shot in the head while eating lunch at a sidewalk cafe. You get that right?

Perhaps before declaring the safety in ****** you might want to check out the US State Department travel advisories for ****** and the Gaza region. But I do suggest if you like a society where people must carry guns to protect themselves that you try moving to one for a while.

We'll be here when you get homesick.

Here, you might want to read this though before loading up the UHaul.


Travel Warning
United States Department of State
Bureau of Consular Affairs
Washington, DC 20520


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

This information is current as of today, Thu Dec 04 19:33:07 2008.

******, THE WEST BANK AND GAZA



This Travel Warning updates information on the general security environment in ******, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and reminds American citizens of threats to themselves and to U.S. interests in those locations. The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to remain mindful of security factors when planning travel to ******. In addition, the Department of State urges U.S. citizens to defer travel to the West Bank and to avoid all travel to the Gaza Strip. This warning supersedes the Travel Warning issued March 19, 2008.


The security environment in the West Bank remains volatile. Violent demonstrations, kidnappings and shootings are unpredictable and can occur without warning. The Department of State urges Americans to defer travel to the West Bank at this time.

The IDF continues to carry out security operations in the West Bank, including nighttime raids to arrest terrorist suspects that sometimes result in gun battles. Israeli security operations can occur at any time, including frequent raids to arrest terrorist suspects that result in shootings, demonstrations and often violent conflict. This heightens the risk of Americans being caught in the middle of potentially dangerous situations. Some Americans and Europeans involved in demonstrations and other such activities in the West Bank have become involved in confrontations with Israeli settlers and the IDF. The State Department recommends that Americans, for their own safety, avoid demonstrations.


The security environment is very fluid in the vicinity of the Gaza Strip, and the ceasefire could collapse with little or no advance warning. Rocket and mortar launches into ****** are unpredictable, resulting in a potentially unsafe situation. Gunfire from Gaza into ****** is a danger. Palestinian snipers have killed individuals within rifle range of the Gaza border. As a result, travel in the surrounding area is strongly discouraged. Due to the continued high level of tensions and violence in and near the Gaza Strip, all U.S. Embassy and Consulate General employees are required to provide 24 hours advance notice of any official travel to the city of Sderot, crossing points into Gaza, and to any other areas bordering Gaza. American citizens should be aware that as a consequence of the prohibition on travel by U.S. Government employees to the Gaza Strip, the ability of consular staff to offer timely assistance to U.S. citizens there is extremely limited.


Have fun in your new low crime homeland. I for one will be happy remaining here in the US, where citizens can walk down the street without the need for a firearm to protect themselves (or Kevlar).

Waynebro


P.S

Oh and by the way, as for your affinity for mandatory conscription into service, you missed the boat on that one. The boat to England that is, during the Revolution. A boat that no doubt would have been flying the Union Jack, since mandatory conscription sans an active war was a British concept, not an American one. (heck we even had to bribe them into service when there WAS a war, lol).

I find it so ironic to hear so many so called "patriotic American's" who are busy spouting the ideologies of foreign monarchies dictatorships and banana republic puppet regimes, rather than the simple American foundations of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"Don't Tread On Me"

 

[BungeeII]

How about that. It only took 114 posts before someone with an opposing view was called an uncivilized coward.

 

[Wayne County Hose]

Yes, well fortunately I was not extracting my information from the "Dime Novels" or the History Channel, but on actual US History, nor was I basing my information on some statistics. What I was relaying was the plain simple fact that the prohibition of carrying sidearms in town was the number one tool at the disposal of the peace officer for taming towns that prior to these ordances were awash in anarchy and lawlessness.

Well I think that comparing the lawlessness of the old west to a modern day city is like comparing alcohol to crack. I have done both and there is no comparison. Do you want to go back to the time when taking guns away meant less violence? Then you will have barbers that are also your dentist too. History is irrelevant in this case. There were no Bloods and Crypts back then. There were no crackheads and heroin junkies.

As far as not needing kevlar or a firearm to protect yourself in America you are at best naive, at worst, well I won't resort to name calling. Try going into Harlem in NYC at night, by yourself. Let's see how long you last. I bet you don't make it 5 blocks.

 

[Bill Barrett]

Wayne I'm glad you don't carry a gun. You might think about a Lexapro.

 

[Waynebro]

History is irrelevant in this case.

History is irrelevant to those who don't learn from history, and more frequently, to those who don't know history. To the rest of the population, history is always relevant.

See, whenever we look at history it's not going to be identical to our current sitution. But as educated people we can learn from the experiences of those who went before in similar situations.

You are arguing for the right to carry weapons in our cities and towns.

This same right was argued for, and lost, back in 1800 America when we quickly learned that if everyone was armed then our peace officers were just more armed men.

I know that fact does not sit well with you but the fact is anyone who is even slightly familiar with the early American west know that it was the prohibition on carrying guns inside our cities and towns that ended the lawlessness and brought order and civilized society to these towns.

Therefore it is would non too wise to return to the environment that first facilitated this lawlessness. Not a difficult concept.