Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Asysin2leads

Texas at it again

Recommended Posts

[Omitting, I hope without distortion, kristo's careful qualifiers] I do not believe I would have what it takes to point a gun at another human being and squeeze the trigger unless under extremely exceptional conditions. I see a weapon in my home as an increased risk for me or my family, either by accident or if a potential attacker (if one would come) would somehow get the weapon (maybe through my inability to use it against him?).

Given that providing armed guards for every citizen is impractical, the legal-philosophical question seems to be whether it is morally right forcibly (that is, through threat of state violence) to prohibit someone else from using deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another target of unprovoked lethal aggression.

I think it is wrong for the state to prohibit its citizens from defending themselves and other targets of predatory violence.

Whatever one thinks of a policy of pacifism/non-resistance, it should be an individual's choice rather than a mandate of the government acting in incidental collusion with freelance thugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Credit HC Resident on the local forum:

700,000 DOCTORS OF MEDICINE IN USA

120,000 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS CAUSED BY DOCTORS PER YEAR

= 0.17 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS PER DOCTOR PER YEAR

80,000,000 GUN OWNERS IN USA

1,500 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS CAUSED BY GUNS PER YEAR

FOR ALL AGE GROUPS... TOTAL...KIDS & ALL.. GET IT?

= 0.000019 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS PER GUN OWNER PER YEAR

0.17 IS TO 0.000019 AS 8,947 IS TO 1 !

DOCTORS, THEREFORE, ARE 8,947 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO

KILL YOU THAN A GUN OWNER...

Something about that... just seems... too... convenient. While I am not against CCW, the type of statistics above, seem like someone sat down and pulled some numbers out of their head. And unfortunately these are the stats that become "prime" in a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's statements like this...

I agree with the texas law and I think that it should be expanded to where if you see a violent happening any where you can use deadly force

and this

Credit HC Resident on the local forum:

700,000 DOCTORS OF MEDICINE IN USA

120,000 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS CAUSED BY DOCTORS PER YEAR

= 0.17 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS PER DOCTOR PER YEAR

80,000,000 GUN OWNERS IN USA

1,500 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS CAUSED BY GUNS PER YEAR

FOR ALL AGE GROUPS... TOTAL...KIDS & ALL.. GET IT?

= 0.000019 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS PER GUN OWNER PER YEAR

0.17 IS TO 0.000019 AS 8,947 IS TO 1 !

DOCTORS, THEREFORE, ARE 8,947 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO

KILL YOU THAN A GUN OWNER...

that make me cringe when people put forth arguements like this. And these people carry guns...

Is there any study that shows that carrying a concealed weapon acts as deterrent for criminals? Has truly significantly intervened in preventing/disabling a criminal act? Has saved more lives than it has taken/injured? I'm talking statistical significance, not anecdotes or "facts" as expressed in the above.

I obviously disagree that the average citizen should be legally able to carry a concealed pistol on them.

But it is totally cultural. The arguements to the high heavens about "the constitution says..." I'm sure if you tried enact a similar law in a similarly advanced society it would be shot down (I made a funny) by the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a touchy subject... to carry or not to carry. if we lived in a society where we didnt need to worry about being mugged, beat up, raped, etc etc... i could see. i would carry for my own protection. thats it. i doubt i would actually shoot, let alone actually kill someone. i guess it just makes these people feel more safe. i dont necessarily agree with the law though. it just gives people more of an excuse and immunity to shoot someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vs-eh, what constitutes an "average citizen." In addition, I would like to see hard statistics that prove concealed carry leads to increased violence.

Take care,

chbare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any study that shows that carrying a concealed weapon acts as deterrent for criminals? Has truly significantly intervened in preventing/disabling a criminal act? Has saved more lives than it has taken/injured? I'm talking statistical significance, not anecdotes or "facts" as expressed in the above.

I obviously disagree that the average citizen should be legally able to carry a concealed pistol on them.

But it is totally cultural. The arguements to the high heavens about "the constitution says..." I'm sure if you tried enact a similar law in a similarly advanced society it would be shot down (I made a funny) by the public.

Are there any studies that shows that conceal carry laws increase crime? Similar, is there a difference in changes (either increase or decrease) between 'may issue' (permits can be issued if the reason is deemed significant) and 'shall issue' (permits must be issued unless there is a reason not to [i.e. criminal record])?

Here's a good question (and not really bound by state [international or US state] borders). If there is no evidence to support that conceal carry increases crime, then SHOULD government regulate an activity that does not harm society? If so, at what point does government regulation for 'feel good' reasons invade a civilian's right to be as free from undue regulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the stats.. but the 12 + that was shot and killed last year in self defense (thoroughly investigated and deemed such) will never harm or break into another person's home again.

So yes, it may not lower the crime rate over all, but there is 12+ less this year! ...

Again, we are not discussing running around with a 6 shooter on your hip. In fact, I cannot publicly display my weapon and there are several factors where and how it can be used. As well, you are automatically placed into a data base etc.. so, they know your fingerprints, DNA, etc.. It is not a free ride or pass to shoot someone.

Ironically, I have yet heard of an accidental shooting or "raged" shooter attempting to use this law. The case is very scrutinized and investigated.

R/r 911

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a good question (and not really bound by state [international or US state] borders). If there is no evidence to support that conceal carry increases crime, then SHOULD government regulate an activity that does not harm society? If so, at what point does government regulation for 'feel good' reasons invade a civilian's right to be as free from undue regulation?

Good question. Perhaps that should be applied to things like homosexual marriage, abortion, marijuana laws (and why alcohol is legal), etc...

I don't have any facts regarding increases homicide, just as you all don't regarding deterrents/interventions on criminal acts. Why don't you argue that you can wear swords on your back or waist? At least it would be an immediate visual deterrent.

People want to carry guns because they can be "removed" from harming a person (as opposed to stabbing someone), it is easily portable, and because of the fear that guns can instill.

There are a vast array of objects that can threaten, potentially harm, or kill someone. Pieces of string, sunglasses, machine guns, remote controls, bricks, cars, beer bottles...Where is the line drawn that if someone is threatening you (with a broomhandle say) and you are packing, are you not supposed to use your gun and use a "less lethal" means of protection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vs-eh, the use of force is not to be taken lightly. You have to make the decision when to utilize lethal force. I think people who have weapons should be required to complete an extensive program that teaches mindset, law, and use of force in addition to weapon handling. It is not as static as saying somebody waving a broom cannot be shot. Each situation is unique and should be taken as such. For example, a 90 pound 5 foot female is brutally attacked by a 250 pound 6.5 foot male. Let's say the male did not have a weapon other than his hands. You could argue that this is a hand to hand fight and the use of a weapon is not warranted; however, the victim is obviously not able to fend off the attack with her bare hands and may need to use her concealed weapon to stop the attack.

Take care,

chbare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...