text:
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:54 AM
justanidea (291 posts)
Why do so many on DU seem to be against concealed carry?
First and foremost, I don't mean this thread to be a snarky callout. I am genuinely curious as to why some here on DU seem so opposed to concealed carry.
Full disclaimer: I have a license to carry here in Pennsylvania. I do carry from time to time.
49 out of 50 states allow concealed carry. There are about 6-8 million active concealed carry licenses in the U.S. Most states require some sort of firearms safety course and background check prior to being given a license.
Now I am not one of those who think concealed carry will solve all societies ills. I do not think that every mass shooting can be resolved by some hero with a gun. I do not think that if you just give everyone a gun, we will live in a peaceful utopia. That is a silly position to have. However I do believe that if a person wishes to carry a firearm for self protection, they should be able to.
Several states keep stats on their license holders. Texas has carry laws typical of most of the states. Each year the publish an annual report on crimes committed by license holders. They include a wide range of crimes in their report, not just ones that involve firearms. In 2011 there were over 500,000 active carry licenses. A total of 101 crimes were committed by license holders. Even if we assume each crime was committed by a different license holder, that still means the percentage of license holders committing crime is about 0.02%
Now can I go to google and look up some rare cases of license holders doing wrong? Sure. I can read about a guy who shot his own dick off, or a guy who left his gun on the toilet at Walmart, or read about Zimmerman.
The fact remains however that these cases are the exception, not the rule.
If anything one reason to be ok with concealed carry is the fact that license holders rarely abuse their right to carry. The number of folks who safely and properly exercise their right to carry vastly outweighs the number of those who abuse that right.
So why do so many on DU seem to be against it? Some are adamant about concealed carry, insisting it is a scourge upon society. Others just calmly list it as something that needs to be done away with, with no explanation given.
So to those who oppose concealed carry: I ask why.
166 replies, 6778 views
|166 replies
Why do so many on DU seem to be against concealed carry? (Original post)
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Harmony Blue
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Harmony Blue
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Lizzie Poppet
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Harmony Blue
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|ehrenfeucht games
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Downtown Hound
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Harmony Blue
|Dec 2012
|Not Me
|Dec 2012
|Harmony Blue
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Downtown Hound
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|get the red out
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Lizzie Poppet
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|The Lord Fuzz
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Major Nikon
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|liberal N proud
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|liberal N proud
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|liberal N proud
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Moral Compass
|Dec 2012
|Speck Tater
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Speck Tater
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Speck Tater
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Speck Tater
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Spider Jerusalem
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Gormy Cuss
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Eric the Reddish
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Algebra Palin
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Bosso 63
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
|Dec 2012
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:55 AM
obamanut2012 (12,978 posts)
1. I am very liberal and have a CCW permit
I carry when I go trailrunning alone and on solo long interstate drives.
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #1)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:06 PM
SheilaT (23,156 posts)
8. So why is it I never find it
necessary to have a gun with me when I go on long solo interstate drives? Are the highways somehow more dangerous when you're driving?
Response to SheilaT (Reply #8)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:09 PM
obamanut2012 (12,978 posts)
13. Why is your decision somehow better than mine?
You make the choices you deem proper for you, and I will continue to make the decisions proper to mine. The highways I have to drive are very isolated ones, and women have gone missing from rest areas and shoulders during breakdowns. I also carry pepper spray when I run through neighborhoods. I hope that's okay with you.
My post was straight forward, and I neither "get" not appreciate the undeserved snark.
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #13)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:22 PM
SheilaT (23,156 posts)
21. I have driven on some pretty isolated interstates in my time.
I never stop in a rest area that doesn't have a goodly number of cars there. I don't sleep in rest areas either.
I don't happen to run, although I walk through my neighborhood. Never feel the need to carry anything with me.
It's not snark. It's just that I can't figure out why so many people think that they need to go out in the world armed all the time.
What happened Friday was because of guns guns guns. Guns everywhere. Guns that can be gotten legally or illegally and then everyone acts shocked, just shocked when those very guns are used to mow down several dozen people. Including children. I'm tired of these things being treated as aberrations when they're becoming the norm.
Response to SheilaT (Reply #21)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:39 PM
oldhippie (3,249 posts)
80. "Never feel the need to carry anything with me. "
Neither did many other women who never did come home from their walk/run/jog/trip on a lonely road.
Yes, the total numbers are relatively small in comparison to the population. So are mass murders.
Response to SheilaT (Reply #21)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:49 PM
Bake (21,977 posts)
98. Ever had car trouble and broken down on the side of the road?
I have. Happened just last night.
Response to Bake (Reply #98)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:38 PM
bongbong (5,436 posts)
127. Happened to me
Years ago, in the 1970s, near the height of urban decay and bad neighborhoods, my car failed in one of the worst sections of Detroit.
I opened the hood, saw the fan belt had shredded, asked a passerby where the nearest dealership was, and walked about 6 blocks to it. Bought the belt, came back to my car, put it on, drove off.
No gun needed. Now, I'm not a Delicate Flower, so maybe that explains it.
Response to SheilaT (Reply #21)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:35 PM
bongbong (5,436 posts)
126. They need to be armed all the time
Because they're Delicate Flowers.
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #13)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:06 PM
renie408 (9,854 posts)
102. Cause nobody can steal her lack of gun from her and shoot somebody with it?
Hey, if you're willing to accept the risks to yourself by carrying a gun, whatever. But please...isn't it a little disingenuous to pretend that carrying a gun is somehow NOT less safe for the rest of us?
I am OK with the pepper spray. I don't know about anybody else.
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #13)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:20 PM
shireen (8,333 posts)
138. +1
for what it's worth, i support you. It's your decision, and i wish people would not be so judgmental.
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #1)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:12 PM
Harmony Blue (3,978 posts)
15. May I ask you how will you be able to use
a gun in a situation when you are trail running? You probably already have figured out that using pepper spray is more effective in self defense in such a situation which is why you have pepper spray.
A gun for self defense is usually not the best options for the majority of the American civilian populace though. But it is up to us to shatter the myth about it being the best option.
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #1)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:14 PM
axetogrind (118 posts)
17. Several years ago my wife was beaten and robbed
so she now has a CHL and she carries when she's in the city. She has vowed that if it ever happens again, at least she'll have a fighting chance, and I fully agree with her.
Response to axetogrind (Reply #17)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:26 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
24. Wouldn't it be MORE prophylactic to ...
have a fire arm in plain view, if the intent of carrying at all is to prevent robbery or beatings?
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #24)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:37 PM
SidDithers (41,370 posts)
36. +1...nt
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #24)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:44 PM
axetogrind (118 posts)
43. It also gets you stopped by the police a lot.
It's perfectly legal to open carry in Las Vegas but the police don't like it and they will stop and harass anyone open carrying and why make people uncomfortable, and why let anyone wishing her harm know that she's carrying?
Like she says, out of sight, out of mind.
Response to axetogrind (Reply #43)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:22 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
59. It is perfectly legal to carry openly ...
here in Arizona, as well. But I don't see an increase in police stopping and harassing anyone.
why make people uncomfortable?
That seems more like a "No gun" argument, rather than a Concealed Weapon argument.
why let anyone wishing her harm know that she's carrying?
Because it will give anyone wishing to do her harm, pause. That would seem to be the more effective measure - stop the attack before it begins; rather than, have that person that intends to do her harm to find out after the fact that she is armed.
I can imagine that victims of violence are, to a degree comforted knowing they are armed and can fight back; but carrying concealed does nothing to prevent an attack.
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #59)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:30 PM
axetogrind (118 posts)
68. Her main reason for concealed rather than open
is because she doesn't want to upset people, which I think is admirable.
Your right that concealed does nothing to prevent attack, the way to prevent attack is being aware of what's happening around and leaving the area if someone or something doesn't look or feel right. Her gun is a weapon of last resort.
She has told me many times that she hopes she never has to use her gun but she will never be a defenseless victim again.
By the way, thank you for the reasoned response.
Response to axetogrind (Reply #68)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:52 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
I am licensed and carry most places I go, though I rarely carry in crowds. But I am pretty agnostic on the Concealed Carry issue; I just can't brook the "preventative" argument.
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #72)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:59 PM
axetogrind (118 posts)
73. Believe it or not,
I'm not licensed to carry concealed, although I've considered it, I figure my wife can protect me if it ever came down to that, she can be very headstrong and mean when she has to be. LOL.
I don't think a gun is preventative, preventative would be awareness of your surroundings, the gun would be if the preventative failed for any reason.
Good talking to you.
Response to axetogrind (Reply #43)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:24 PM
bluestate10 (10,942 posts)
124. Open carry is more effective.
Look, at the risk of sounding like a jerk, if your wife attempts to take out her gun, she is likely going to be killed. Criminals fall into to categories, the experienced ones and the inexperienced ones. The experienced ones will kill your wife without blinking an eyebrow. The inexperienced ones probably just want money and valuables. The way that I avoid being robbed is to pay attention to where I am and what is going on around me.
If someone invade my home there are two facts that I would know about them. Number one, they are professionals that have thought about how I may react and planned for any action that I have. Number two, they are there for a reason and likely have no interest in hurting me, they are there to get what they want. Now, if I had a wife or girlfriend, my thinking may change, but in those circumstances, I would spend more time planning security measures before getting into a situation that is dangerous to begin with.
Response to axetogrind (Reply #17)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:30 PM
Harmony Blue (3,978 posts)
28. She was beaten and robbed at close range
again...a gun is useless if the attacker has closed the distance. They use the element of surprise to counter the possibility someone has a concealed weapon.
People intent on doing harm or robbing someone have thought this out and planned it out. Your only option to react.
Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #28)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:48 PM
axetogrind (118 posts)
45. Not necessarily true
When she went through her CHL class, it was stressed that your first line of defense is situational awareness, be aware of whats happening around you, if someone or something doesn't look right, then leave the area as fast as possible.
Her philosophy is that her gun is a weapon of last resort, to be used only when all other options fail.
Response to axetogrind (Reply #45)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:29 PM
bluestate10 (10,942 posts)
125. The training on situational awareness is more valuable than the gun.
I pay attention to where I am. Now, if you wife's car break down on a lonely road, I can see where a gun may be useful. In a city, I don't see a gun being of much use. When I am out, I park in attended, well traveled parking garages and stay away from seedier parts of the city. If I am out late at night, I don't want into a situation where I can see for a distance far enough to give me a good running start from danger.
Response to bluestate10 (Reply #125)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:16 PM
axetogrind (118 posts)
137. All very good points.
My wife was trained by a former LV Metro Police Officer, and his most important point was situational awareness, situational awareness, situational awareness.
She practices getting her gun out very quickly and watching her, she is very fast. She also practices at the local shooting range at least once a month, she really scares me on how good she is. LOL.
Anyway, I truly believe that if you are qualified to Concealed Carry and can pass all the tests, then you should be able to carry.
I do believe that the threshold for getting a CHL should be straightened and more stringent testing should be implemented.
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #1)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:28 PM
Lizzie Poppet (10,164 posts)
65. Same here.
Careful, though: any even vaguely pro gun statement will get you accused by some of "parroting NRA talking points."
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:57 AM
HERVEPA (6,107 posts)
2. Why don't you just save the pro-gun crap for a while.
Response to HERVEPA (Reply #2)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:59 AM
sadbear (4,340 posts)
3. Yeah, I think it's appropriate to use a pro-gun tactic in this situation.
Now is not the time to be defending guns.
Response to sadbear (Reply #3)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:11 PM
MrDiaz (731 posts)
104. so at a time when everyone
is bashing guns, people should not be allowed to have pro gun opinions?
Response to HERVEPA (Reply #2)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:30 PM
Lightbulb_on (315 posts)
76. Yeah, how dare he use logic and reasoning?!
This is a time for emotional OUTRAGE!!!!
Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #76)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:50 PM
HERVEPA (6,107 posts)
93. Hell yeah it's a time for outrage!
Response to HERVEPA (Reply #93)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:25 PM
Lightbulb_on (315 posts)
97. I prefer logic and rationality...
... that leads to a quantitatively better result than what we have now.
Of course emotional outrage and illogic that accomplishes nothing but makes you feel good is another way to go.
Whatever floats your boat.
Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #97)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:01 PM
HERVEPA (6,107 posts)
119. Recognition by politiciian of the outrage is the only thing that will get something done.
I don't own a boat by the way, Mr. Condescending know-it-all.
Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #76)
Lightbulb_on This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:00 PM
ananda (17,837 posts)
4. Well..
There is only one thing a gun is designed to do: kill.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:01 PM
modem77 (191 posts)
5. Solving violent problems with violent solutions only perpetuates more violence.
Response to modem77 (Reply #5)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:28 PM
ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)
75. As a whole that may be true, but when you move from the abstract to the personal
and actual, that changes.
Response to modem77 (Reply #5)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:33 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
109. Let's start with getting the Pentagon and the MIC to accept that.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:03 PM
HockeyMom (13,973 posts)
6. I wish you had OPEN carry
Then I would KNOW you have a gun, and could stay away from you. This concealed carry is a COP OUT. SHOW yourself to the world so others can make their own judgment on who they want to associate.
My choice, you know. Maybe getting shunned by society at large might make more of an impact.
Response to HockeyMom (Reply #6)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:08 PM
Mass (27,315 posts)
11. Me too.
I would prefer him to have no weapons, but at least, if he does, I would prefer to know so that I can act accordingly.
Response to HockeyMom (Reply #6)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:37 PM
DanM (341 posts)
39. Agree!
I'd rather know who's armed than not know.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:05 PM
SheilaT (23,156 posts)
7. Concealed carry, open carry,
it's all the same to some of us.
It's the guns, stupid. The easy availability of guns that results in mass murder absolutely outweigh the rights of an individual to have one. Period.
For years I could not bring knitting needles or embroidery scissors on board an airplane because they were deemed capable of bringing an airplane down. Trust me, all of us knitters and embroiders thought that was the dumbest thing imaginable.
Meanwhile, anyone at all can obtain a gun, legally, illegally, it doesn't matter. Registration laws are virtually nonexistant as far as I can tell.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about "responsible" gun owners. Well, I bet pathetic Adam Lanza's sorry mother considered herself responsible too. Some responsibility.
Strict licensing of guns themselves and gun owners would be a huge start. And I mean strict. Serious background checks. Requirements to actually keep the weapons secure, with jail time if a gun stolen from the responsible owner is used in a crime. And if that happens, all the rest of the guns are taken away with no right ever to own another one.
Hunters. While I personally don't hunt, I sort of understand those who do. But how about their registered weapons are kept in a secure, supervised location. They get to check them out when they go hunting. And return them when the hunt is over.
Yes, it's true that the vast majority of gun owners don't go on a rampage and gun down a couple dozen people, but at what point are the "responsible" gun owners willing to say Enough? Will it take your own six year old child being murdered at school? Your brother who just wanted to see a movie? Your cousin who is attending college? None of those? Really?
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:06 PM
sufrommich (22,871 posts)
9. Because this is 2012, not the wild west. nt
Response to sufrommich (Reply #9)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:55 PM
movonne (9,623 posts)
50. Every time I see these post about caring a gun
I think of the old wild west...but they did have to store their guns in bars..I believe this country has become so violent that guns seems to be a big part of our lives...I do not own one and probably never will..
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:08 PM
Harmony Blue (3,978 posts)
10. Because we live in reality
using a gun in a real situation isn't like the movies.
Most of the time when someone is mugged or jumped it is from behind and close range. The attacker may even have a knife so close quarters unarmed hand to hand training is more valuable in saving your life than a gun. Worse, the gun can be used against you or stolen to be used against others.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:09 PM
cynatnite (28,720 posts)
12. Do I not have a right to know who is carrying a loaded gun around me and my child? n/t
Response to cynatnite (Reply #12)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:41 PM
DanM (341 posts)
41. Of course we do! n/t
Response to cynatnite (Reply #12)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:45 PM
ehrenfeucht games (139 posts)
81. Yes, you do. (nt)
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:11 PM
rrneck (17,671 posts)
14. Because Republicans like guns. nt
Response to rrneck (Reply #14)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:31 PM
Recursion (50,978 posts)
29. ^^^ This
It's our version of abortion. It's not really about what we're saying it's about; it's a cultural/tribal thing. Our tribe doesn't own guns, theirs does.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:13 PM
Downtown Hound (9,251 posts)
16. Because I don't want to live in a society where everybody is walking around armed
I know gun dorks like to say that we'd all be safer if we did that, but it doesn't make me feel safe. Simple arguments can turn into deadly shootings. What would be just a fist fight normally can turn into murder. Road rage because somebody cut you off can turn into somebody getting killed.
I've lived in ghettos before. Take my word for it that living in an area where everybody is armed has the opposite effect of making you feel safe.
Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #16)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:19 PM
justanidea (291 posts)
19. I understand what youre saying
However the fact remains that number of such unjustified shootings by licensed carriers is extremely rare.
Statistically speaking, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning that shot be a concealed carrier.
Response to justanidea (Reply #19)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:28 PM
Fumesucker (45,851 posts)
26. I avoid situations where I'm likely to be struck by lightning too
In fact I've even been in a car that was struck by lightning, thankfully the Faraday cage formed by the metal of the car protected us, it wouldn't have made much difference to a bullet though.
Response to justanidea (Reply #19)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:31 PM
Harmony Blue (3,978 posts)
32. A gun owner is more likely to be killed by their own weapon
than killing someone else.
If we are to go by stats I don't like that one.
Response to justanidea (Reply #19)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:34 PM
Not Me (3,397 posts)
33. If it is true that you have a better chance of being struck by lightning...
than being shot by a concealed carrier (and I am not agreeing with the point) that still doesn't address mothers who legally buy automatic weapons and a houseload of ammo when they have a son with known mental issues, and then leave them out in the open.
When you can protect against that, come back and talk to me.
Response to Not Me (Reply #33)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:37 PM
Harmony Blue (3,978 posts)
38. I live in the lightning capital of the world (Tampa Bay)
and we have ways to avoid lighting storms. We know when a storm is coming, and most of the time we can seek shelter.
Response to Not Me (Reply #33)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:21 PM
qkvhj (57 posts)
105. automatic weapon
This is totally not true. Automatic and semi-automatic are two different things and are an interchangeable as watermelons and grapes. Please know what you are talking about before you post.
Response to justanidea (Reply #19)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:37 PM
upaloopa (11,417 posts)
37. Stop with the gun propaganda please!
Guns killed 20 little children. I am sick to fucking death of your fucking god damned gun statistics and propaganda. It comes out of you like shit from a cow!
We need to get rid of the vast quantity of guns in our society no matter what the fuck your statistics say! E fucking nough!
Response to justanidea (Reply #19)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:22 PM
enlightenment (8,830 posts)
60. Unfortunately,
It seems that the number of mass killings by licensed carriers - or by people who had easy access to weapons owned by licensed carriers is on the rise.
Statistics don't mean diddly to the person who dies or to their friends and family. They're a cop-out, meant to deflect from the reality of what CAN happen.
I would rather die being struck by lightning - an act of nature - than die because someone who is apparently afraid all the time is packing a weapon that they think they know how to deploy effectively.
You asked why some of us reject the idea of concealed carry (I reject the idea that anyone should carry, concealed or open). My reason was just stated:
People who feel the need to carry a weapon are afraid. Look at the thread above - there are at least two who clearly state that they (or someone they know) carry because they are fearful of what might happen. Fear is a horrible motivator - it is not a clear state of mind. People do foolish things when they are afraid, because they are not thinking clearly - they are thinking only about their survival. When fear becomes chronic, it is worse.
Now, those folks won't admit they are afraid - they will justify their decision six ways from Sunday and never come close to that word - but please explain to me what else it could be that motivates the desire to have a weapon on their person? What are the alternative reasons?
Because they what? Want to feel special? Want to feel powerful? Just because the "want" to carry? Those aren't very good reasons, either.
We all give a certain amount of trust to strangers, relative to our position in regard to them. As pedestrians, we trust that the people driving on the road won't deliberately run us over; as customers we trust that the people helping us will do so in good faith and not deliberately try to take advantage of us. This isn't absolute trust; we don't usually step out in front of moving vehicles, we might check our receipts or count our change . . . but it is a level of trust that allows civil society to function.
When I discover that someone carries, I wonder about their state of mind. I distance myself from them - because they are breaking that basic level of trust - they clearly don't trust anyone and that gives me no reason to trust them.
Response to justanidea (Reply #19)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:47 PM
Hoyt (30,300 posts)
130. The unjustified shootings are even less likely if you don't have a gun.
Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)
Problem is, we are too accepting of guns today.
Response to justanidea (Reply #19)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:37 PM
Downtown Hound (9,251 posts)
166. Yeah, and the odds that those kids would be killed in a school mass shooting were pretty small too
And yet it happened.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:16 PM
Fumesucker (45,851 posts)
18. Because I want to know who to avoid when I'm in public places
I'd much rather open carry than concealed and beyond that I'd much rather people not carry guns at all.
Just watch people who open carry, there's a space around them even in a crowd where everyone else is packed together, many people are not comfortable around others who are carrying a lethal weapon and either consciously or unconsciously avoid them.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:19 PM
Tutonic (2,522 posts)
20. It is truly amazing what gun ownership does to a person.
Reality is 4,000 miles below.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:25 PM
get the red out (11,692 posts)
22. Adding more and more guns isn't a solution
I don't understand the need for a non-law enforcement individual, or someone whose job does not put them in obvious danger of assault to conceal and carry. It seems to be way too much, just saturating our society with fire arms. There will never ben enough at this rate.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:25 PM
bhikkhu (10,407 posts)
23. I don't care about concealed carry myself
I think the regulations to get the permit are good enough, and that the people who have the permit take it seriously enough. This said from a non-gun owner, living in an area pretty well saturated with gun owners.
Concealed carry is fine; assault weapons, on the other hand, are a big problem. There's too many of them, they're too easy to get, and they're not much good for anything but killing large numbers of people quickly.
Response to bhikkhu (Reply #23)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:56 PM
llmart (4,678 posts)
131. Question.
Just what do you know about the process of getting a concealed weapons permit?
Response to llmart (Reply #131)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:48 PM
bhikkhu (10,407 posts)
153. In Oregon it goes through the sheriff and the state police
you have to fill out the applications, pay a $50 annual fee, prove residency and citizenship and so forth, and pay for a background check. I believe you have to take an exam about gun safety and laws, and the people I know who have the permit all took a class (I'm not sure who runs it) to prepare for the exam.
We're close to the California border and plenty of people from here hunt in CA, so some of them have permits for California too. I'm not sure if its easier or harder there.
Response to bhikkhu (Reply #153)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:03 AM
llmart (4,678 posts)
155. Sounds about the same as in Michigan.
I've seen the so-called test. A fifth grader could pass it. I could pass it even without a class. I think you also have to submit two references from "friends". What they usually do is get another gun nut to write a reference about you and of course they write all the things the sheriff wants to hear, even if they hardly know the person.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:27 PM
RomneyLies (3,333 posts)
25. Because we've tried concealed carry and it only makes matters worse. n/t
Response to RomneyLies (Reply #25)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:31 PM
justanidea (291 posts)
30. *citation needed*
Response to justanidea (Reply #30)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:38 PM
RomneyLies (3,333 posts)
40. I cite 20 dead first graders in Connecticut nt
Response to RomneyLies (Reply #40)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:51 PM
justanidea (291 posts)
47. And that has to do with concealed carry how?
Response to justanidea (Reply #47)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:34 PM
guardian (2,282 posts)
110. Error! Error! Error! Does not compute!
You are asking an anti-gun person to use logic and reason. I believe that is one of the alternate dictionary definitions of the word 'futile'. They are nearly as irrational as the global warming doomer crowd.
Response to guardian (Reply #110)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:34 PM
thucythucy (3,271 posts)
143. Wow! A pro-gun advocate AND
a denier or global warming.
All that's needed is a suck up to the "right to life" crowd and you'd have the perfect right wing trifecta.
And you consider yourself a progressive Democrat, why?
Response to thucythucy (Reply #143)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:11 PM
guardian (2,282 posts)
146. Sure I do
I support
* social justice
* civil rights
* women's rights
* women's right to choose
* gay rights
* protecting the environment
* healthcare for all
* preserving Soc Sec
* strong public infrastructure
* etc.
I agree 90% with Democrats and 10% with those other guys. So I vote Democrat. Some may be a single issue voter...I am not. I am quite pro-gun; mainly that stems from a personal incident in my life. I think the jury is still out on global warming. But I'm quite turned off by the Malthusian, doomsday, religious mentality exhibited by many global warming adherents.
From what I have seen, both the anti-gun crowd and the diehard global warming crowd are mostly hateful, intolerant, condescending, puffed up, hypocritical, little A-holes. I don't mind telling them so.
Response to guardian (Reply #146)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:56 AM
thucythucy (3,271 posts)
164. Good for you. I'm glad we agree on all the things you listed.
As for global warming, ten, perhaps fifteen years from now we should know the definitive answer as to whether "the Malthusian, doomsday, religious mentality exhibited by many global warming adherents" (and I'd love to see some examples) was right all along. I suspect that within our lifetimes those who are currently denying the reality and the severity of the crisis will be regarded in ways similar to all those folks who denied that cigarettes cause cancer. I'm old enough to remember how talking head doctors (mostly paid off by the Tobacco Institute) would tell us "the evidence is contradictory" and "there is no scientific consensus"--while smokers I knew would cite their aged uncle who'd smoked all his life and lived to be eighty as "proof" there was nothing to the Surgeon General's report. But we shall see.
I'm sorry to hear about your personal experience with guns, whatever that might have been. I've had several experiences, not directly personal, but close enough. My partner's grandfather was shot in the back by a hunter who mistook him for a deer. A woman I know (fiancee of a good friend) was shot in the throat while driving in her car, and bled to death before the EMTs could arrive. Not much she could have done about that, even if she'd been armed. And as a former rape crisis counselor, I encountered people who had been raped at gunpoint. Without getting into details, there's absolutely nothing a concealed weapon would have done to help. All that would have happened is the rapist would have taken the weapon from them, putting more illicit guns into circulation.
So we all have our reasons for taking the stands we take do. We'll just have to agree to disagree, and hope, for all our sakes, that the best policy alternatives take the day.
Best wishes.
Response to RomneyLies (Reply #40)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:53 PM
axetogrind (118 posts)
48. But that had nothing to to with conceal carry.
That maniac did not have a CHL, please show me one incident where someone with a CHL massacred 20 children.
Now assault weapons, either heavily regulate or ban them.
Response to RomneyLies (Reply #40)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:30 PM
Lizzie Poppet (10,164 posts)
67. That's like citing rap music because your coffee tasted bad.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #67)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:06 PM
ThatPoetGuy (1,747 posts)
120. No, it's like citing the bad taste in your mouth as evidence that the coffee tasted bad.
I understand that cause and effect is a difficult concept to grasp in the throes of severe cognitive dissonance.
But the guns would not be everywhere if we stopped saying it's ok for guns to be everywhere.
The shooter's mom would not have had multiple high-powered weapons if she hadn't encountered plenty of stupid people providing social reinforcement that it was cool and good and positive to have multiple high-powered weapons.
If there were fewer people out there spouting things like this OP, those twenty children would still be alive.
It's hard to see yourself as part of the problem.
Kinda like someone who has joined up with an authoritarian mob, who starts shouting "MCCARTHYISM!" when people try to stop your mob from bullying people.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:29 PM
upaloopa (11,417 posts)
27. This is my thinking. Everyone around the carrier is in danger.
in danger of the gun accidentally being fired. Remember the guy in the theater, the guy who shot his dick off, the gun that hit the floor in the restaurant. I do not feel I am safe around gun carriers. Also I think the risk to the public out weighs the right to carry around a gun. The chance that the carrrier doing "good" with the gun is not a high percentage.
I don't want some gunner thinking I need his or her protection. I am not afraid of society but the carrier is that's why they carry a gun. Society is not that dangerous. I think there is something wrong with a person who thinks they need to carry a gun in normal society. I can understand if your day requires you do go to dangerous places or you have a job like a Brinks driver. Our everyday society is not that kind of environment. And I fear people who feel the need to carry a gun. I fear them more than I fear being attacked by a criminal.
And I believe that the more guns we have the more gun violence there will be.
I read that we have 9,000 deaths to other countries 2 or 10 or something like that.
I do not accept gunners self serving gun propaganda.
Concealed carry is part of our gun culture and problem in this country. I think just the word "carry" without the carry "what" such as " I carry" is somehow part of the problem. It's as if there is a whole other world that gunners live in that separates them from the rest of us.
That separation is so visible here on DU. That separation keeps society in danger. The idea that there is a constitutional right to gun culture is in itself a bastardization of the very Constitution gunners say they believe in. The SCOTUS was built by the right just so that such issues of gun law would be turned in favor of the NRA.
There are enough guns in our country so that just about every man woman and child could carry one. That makes us a sick society.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:31 PM
gollygee (20,864 posts)
31. People can get guns without having to have a mental health assessment
So I'd like to know if the guy screaming obscenities at me because he wanted the parking spot I was waiting for and took is carrying a gun or not.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:35 PM
The Lord Fuzz (3 posts)
34. We are looking at the tree, one tree, and not the forest.
If our country is to make the problems of mass shootings and senseless gun violence become a thing of the past, the following needs to be done, in my humble opinion.
1) The creation of a national health plan, which includes full and proper care for mental illnesses.
2) A slow and gradual culture change, which may take decades, similar to the anti-smoking campaign. Many people are religious and go to church every Sunday. Many people do not believe. For both groups, we need an alternative to "church" that can be attended on a regular basis. Let's say every Sunday for example. This alternative would not be religion based. This alternative should be federally funded and available in all towns and cities.
The purpose of this system would be allow community members to meet on a weekly basis, share a meal, and talk about what is going on in their lives. Again, no priests or ministers are required. POSITIVE things would be discussed. People could break bread, and discuss community problems, and how to fix them. It could be discussed at these meetings who is having problems in the community, and how they can be helped. Solutions could be discussed and implemented concerning the plight of local homeless people. The general goal of this alternative would to give people a place where they could safely discuss their concerns with their own community, and perhaps receive some help from the generosity of their friends and neighbors. The goal is to try to minimize the loneliness and desperation that many people feel.
3) Immediately and temporarily close all guns shops in the US. Owners of these shops would have their income replaced by working for the Government on a temporary basis to administer a gun control system which I will discuss below.
4) After the closing of all gun shops, give citizens the opportunity to turn in whatever guns they see fit for melting. Provide monetary compensation, funded by the Government, for each gun that is turned in. Provide a grace period of one month for the turn-in's.
5) During the grace period, announce that a bill will be implemented that does the following:
a) no more than one gun per person per household will be legal
b) any gun owners must receive mandatory firearms refresher courses once per year
c) gun types x, y, and z will be illegal to own after the grace period. So, if you do not turn in guns x, y, and z....you will be subject to a prison term if you are caught owning them
6) Reopen the gun shops, which will only be able to sell guns that are not the x, y , z type.
The gun experts here can decide which guns are the x, y, and z guns.
2a was written hundreds of years ago, and it needs to be revised to modern times. Just as there were no iphones, computers, and other technology during that time, there were also no guns that were capable of killing 20 school children unabated. 2a essentially becomes only a piece of paper when it is outdated, harmful, and takes away the right of the majority of the population to feel safe from worry of getting massacred whenever they leave their homes.
Summary: Culture change, love and help vs. hate and hurt, gun law changes.
Response to The Lord Fuzz (Reply #34)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:05 PM
Erose999 (5,624 posts)
56. I'm with you except "one gun per person, per household". Different types of game require different
guns. You use shotguns for birds and small game, rifles for deer and anything at longer ranges like antelope.
That being said, I'm also in favor of doing away with "trophy hunting" and restricting hunting to solely what is necessary for food and population control. You shoot it = you eat it - or you donate it to someone who will.
Response to Erose999 (Reply #56)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:01 PM
llmart (4,678 posts)
133. I like your thoughts in this post.
If you don't eat it, don't shoot it.
I'm always amazed at the guys with the humongous bellies who weigh about 275 pounds who try to say they hunt because they need the food! Appears to me you've got enough food already.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:36 PM
SidDithers (41,370 posts)
35. Why do you need to conceal carry?...
Why not carry out in the open? That way everyone can see you're armed, and me and my family can get as far away from you as humanly possible.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:43 PM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
42. If you're a licensed, bonded courier or a PI, jobs that involve mortal danger, fine. Otherwise, no.
The other exception is licensed bodyguards.
There's no reason, otherwise, why non-law enforcement should ever be carrying a concealed, loaded firearm in public. No.
Response to leveymg (Reply #42)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:54 PM
justanidea (291 posts)
49. So the only people who are attacked or victimized
Are those in high risk jobs?
Response to justanidea (Reply #49)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:02 PM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
55. Get a license, call the cops, or hire a licensed bodyguard with a concealed carry permit.
You have no right to carry a dangerous, concealed weapon.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:47 PM
Comrade_McKenzie (2,526 posts)
44. Because I don't want fellow citizens without a badge policing MY public spaces. nt
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:49 PM
loyalsister (11,424 posts)
46. Because I know more than one alcoholic that has one
They are easy to get and convincing the public that untreated unacknowledged alcoholism is a mental illness is a nonstarter. Knowing that these people- one particularly argumentative may be carrying a gun while drunk is pretty scary. Knowing they are not the only ones- scarier still.
Response to loyalsister (Reply #46)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:56 PM
Hoyt (30,300 posts)
132. No joke. Not to mention folks on prescription drugs that affect judgement.
Or folks with dementia. I had to take my father-in-law 's guns away when he started having hallucinations. That was a trip for a man retired from military and police with 25 years in each.
Or folks with a chip on their shoulder, including anger from previous assault.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:57 PM
kestrel91316 (51,666 posts)
51. I might consider it if a rigorous psych evaluation were a requirement.
Otherwise, not just no but HELL NO.
Besides, a concealed weapon permit just screams coward to me (and not hero). People afraid of their own shadows who feel the need to pack heat everywhere they go are NOT the ones we want to have easy access to weapons IMHO.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:59 PM
Skidmore (35,261 posts)
52. Do the rest of us (more than half of the nation) who do not own guns
not have a right to feel safe in our own communities? I really don't like the idea of sitting in the midst of lord knows how many armed people in a room or on a bus. I think that a person who runs around concealing a weapon is a bit paranoid to begin with and lacks something within them that allows them to negotiate society without their "superpower" so to speak. In periods of stress and distress, I do not trust people with weaponry be cool headed.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:02 PM
DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)
53. I don't like guns. I don't like what guns do to people.
That's the beginning and the end of the reason I don't like concealed carry. I don't want people carrying guns, either concealed or out in the open.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:02 PM
99Forever (14,524 posts)
54. How's about...
.. you take your "statistics" to the families of those 20 dead children and then come back and tell us how much they were comforted by them?
Response to 99Forever (Reply #54)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:20 PM
justanidea (291 posts)
58. Once again, that has nothing to do with concealed carry.
Please. I am trying to keep this thread on track.
This thread is specifically addressing the issue of concealed carry. Unless the shooter had a license to carry, it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
Response to justanidea (Reply #58)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:33 PM
99Forever (14,524 posts)
71. This is an open discussion forum...
.. who the hell are you tell other people what's "on track" about any subject? The deaths of those 20 innocent babies isn't going to get tossed aside and ignored, just because someone like you doesn't want it discussed.
Response to 99Forever (Reply #71)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:08 PM
joeglow3 (6,228 posts)
88. You can discuss them, but it is not relevant to the topic
May as well cite the massacre as the reason to ban apple sauce.
Response to joeglow3 (Reply #88)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:23 PM
99Forever (14,524 posts)
90. You are gawddamn right I not only CAN discuss your fellow gun nut's ...
... massacre of babies, but I WILL discuss your fellow gun nut's massacre of babies. I asking wasn't yours or the OP's permission. I don't fucking need it. You aren't going to silence me, EVER!
Response to 99Forever (Reply #90)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:35 AM
OneMoreDemocrat (913 posts)
161. Seriously?
...his/her fellow gun nut? You'll never be silenced...EVER ?!???!!!?!!!
Too bad.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:09 PM
Major Nikon (25,428 posts)
57. Because it's a nutty RW idea promoted by ALEC, which is counterproductive even to those who carry
...much less everyone else.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:22 PM
Coyotl (15,262 posts)
61. Why am I seeing all the Concealed Carry ads on DU?
This place has turned into a hotbed of gun ads!
Response to Coyotl (Reply #61)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:28 PM
liberal N proud (56,799 posts)
64. The ads are on your computer only
They are based on your browsing history and pair ads with things you have searched for, sites you have visited and news articles you read.
Search for love, visit sites about relationships and read fluff stories and your ads will all be about dating sites and relationships.
They are relative to your taste in otherwords.
Response to liberal N proud (Reply #64)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:55 PM
Coyotl (15,262 posts)
99. That is not true.
The ads are not able to read my browsing history. They are paired with the page content on DU. The gun sellers are buying keywords. I'm a Google advertiser myself, get a nice check every month for doing nothing but having a web site online.
Response to Coyotl (Reply #99)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:08 PM
liberal N proud (56,799 posts)
135. Cookies are the advertisers best friend
How Google uses cookies in advertising
Cookies help to make advertising more effective and that is what keeps thousands of websites free of charge. Without cookies, its harder for an advertiser to reach its audience, or to know how many ads were shown and how many clicks they received.
Many websites, such as news sites and blogs, partner with Google to show ads to their visitors. Working with our partners, we may use cookies for a number of purposes, such as to stop you seeing the same ad over and over again, to detect and stop click fraud, and to show ads that are likely to be more relevant (such as ads based on websites you have visited).
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:23 PM
Savannahmann (3,891 posts)
62. Fine, you asked.
First, the prevalence of guns, be they licensed or illegally carried have done nothing to improve the safety of the citizenry. The claims to the contrary are clearly demonstrated to be absolutely false by the fact that tens of thousands die every year from gun violence. By contrast, civilized nations with very strict gun laws have their deaths in the tens or perhaps hundreds. So by strict numbers, your "right" to endanger everyone around you by going around armed is asinine in the extreme.
Second. Your pathetic need to be protected by packing heat. I could go into the psychological examples of the phallic symbol, but why bother? You don't see anything wrong with dead children everywhere. Oh, you'll mouth the words. What a tragedy. But you won't do anything to prevent the tragedy from happening again. So instead I'll ask you this. How many must die in a single year before you'll even consider giving up your and everyone else's "right" to endanger the rest of us?
Third. A vast majority of uses of firearms against fellow citizens are in violation of laws. Last week, a woman in Atlanta was shot by a man in a wheelchair. While I'm sure you and the rest of the Second Amendment gang were cheering this exercise of the mans constitutional rights, I and others wondered when it would stop. The situation there was the woman had accidentally bumped his wheelchair, no harm done, with her car. She got out to apologize and see about the man she had accidentally bumped. Now, at this point in the story, she was absolutely wrong. She had not driven her car properly. She had made contact with a handicapped pedestrian. If the story had ended there, she would have been ticketed at the minimum by the police. The man in the wheelchair exercised his second amendment rights, and killed the woman. Witnesses were shocked, obviously. I mean, who gets shot over a minor vehicle accident. In this nation, with our asinine worship of the gun, we do.
In New York City, it was a newsworthy story that nobody got shot, or stabbed, on one day. One day without someone getting shot was a news story. But oh no, we can't do anything about guns. You have the right and while you personally haven't done anything to harm another with your gun, yet, millions of your fellow gun owners have.
So the answer is obvious, and just as obviously ignored. In England, a shooting is a big news story, because it almost never happens. In Canada, same thing. Yet in America, we cherish our right to be shot down for nothing all to protect your rights to be a douchbag and walk around dreaming of breaking up a robbery, or a murder with delusions of Dirty Harry running through your head.
Sorry, give me the chance to vote on it, and I'll vote to take your right to endanger the rest of us without a second thought.
Response to Savannahmann (Reply #62)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:30 PM
CTyankee (50,168 posts)
69. I agree with everything you have just posted!
Thank you!
Response to Savannahmann (Reply #62)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:09 PM
YvonneCa (10,093 posts)
74. EXCELLENT post...
...and rebuttal argument. I hope you will consider re-posting as OP.
Response to Savannahmann (Reply #62)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:54 PM
truegrit44 (332 posts)
86. Perfect response!
and I am a gun owner but they stay in my home.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:24 PM
liberal N proud (56,799 posts)
63. Let's see...
You carry a gun somewhere on you. I don't know that you are carrying it. I don't know what kind of person you are. You could be packing and crazy for all I know.
I am afraid that if I say the wrong thing, you will pop off and give me piece of your mind, whatever caliber it is.
An armed society is a society living in fear!
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:29 PM
RobinA (5,540 posts)
66. Here's Why
I'm not necessarily against concealed carry, but I don't like it much. Why? I do not hang around guns or gun people, so this is my limited experience, but it informs my unease with the whole idea. The few people I know with a concealed carry are all paranoid nuts who I wouldn't trust with or without gun. Do I think all people who can carry a weapon are nuts? No, I'm sure they aren't. But the ones I know are.
That being said, I am a single female and I have considered whether a concealed gun might be prudent. For the life of me, I can't think of a likely real-life situation in which carrying a gun would do much more than arm a bad guy. Police approach a possibly armed or dangerous person or situation with guns drawn. Unless I walk around the same way, what advantage do I get? I'm walking down the street and someone starts to assault me. Is he gonna wait 'til I pull my gun? I'm in a convenience store that starts to get robbed. I'm going to add another gun to the situation and that's going to improve things? My car breaks down on a lonely highway. Guy comes to try to help me. Do I shoot him for just being there and maybe being a bad guy? Or do I wait to SEE if he's a bad guy and if he suddenly grabs me wish I had shot him with my gun prophylactically? I just can't seem to figure out how to carry it safely, keep myself from being disarmed by the baddie, have it accessible when needed and what situation it would actually benefit.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:33 PM
Moral Compass (366 posts)
70. Let me ask an alternate question...
Why are there so many on DU that avidly support gun rights including concealed carry?
I'm not comfortable around people that are carrying because of many things: the potential for accident, escalation of arguments into armed violence, my feeling that I'd better watch my step around someone packing, and just generally not wanting to live in an armed society.
The barriers to license are very low in most states and I don't know if they include any sort of psychological testing. Some of those I know that have CCL's I'm perfectly comfortable around. There are several I know that their being armed creates fear in me. These guys and gals are not quite right in the head, but they're armed. I think they'll be okay, but I'm grateful that my workplace doesn't allow guns on the premises.
Sometimes, when it comes to guns this site sounds really right wing. Since it is okay at DU to curse and directly attack the person not the argument--it gets nasty quickly. The gun folks seem to have, for lack of a better term, a hair trigger temper when it comes to guns.
Right now is an especially bad time to support CC and other 'liberties'. There are a lot of people that are very upset about what just happened. My wife, my daughters, and I have all cried at the thought of these small children being gunned down by a deranged psychopath. It is only natural that there will be calls for restrictions on magazine size, ammunition type, and assault weapons. None of these laws would affect CC. It's really hard to carry a Bushmaster and conceal it--the long coat is an obvious give away.
These calls for action are all part of the national grieving. I've become pretty inured to these mass shootings, but this one really got to me.
Ultimately, we also will have to talk about mental health and our society deciding to close our mental hospitals. It sounds like there were ample signs that Adam Lanza was a very troubled young man that had shown a capacity for violence for many years. His mother was a gun enthusiast and would take her children shooting. This was, as is so clear now, a recipe for disaster and it cost her her life. Then it cost 26 others their lives. We will also have to talk about ultra-violent video games that objectify the enemy and teaches people how to react quickly with deadly violence. The Army and Marine Corp use violent video games to train now. Do you think that is any accident?
What Nancy Lanza was doing was analogous to training an arsonist on how to set fires. She'd told a young man that baby sat Adam that he should never turn his back on him (I'm astounded that he took the job) when Adam was 9 or 10. So, she taught him to shoot. Unfortunately, he learned well. Does that make sense to anyone reading this?
Legislation can only help somewhat. But it could help. If he'd had only a revolver or a bolt action hunting rifle then how many more would be alive today? These weapons that we can all carry if we wish are designed for mass slaughter. There will be many more incidents like these before we can, as a society, come to a viable action plan.
This can't be addressed with a single law. The problem is, unfortunately, multifaceted.
The argument we will have to have will be about competing rights. Your right to feel comfortable while armed vs. right to not be surrounded by armed people. The rights of the mentally ill to walk free vs. the right of society to protect it's citizens from the inevitable meltdowns of the mentally ill... The rights of the avid gamers against the rights of society as a whole...
We've got a lot to talk about you and me and everyone else here.
But remember this--your rights to swing your arms ends at the point that you impact my jaw. Actually, your rights to swing your arms ends when I feel threatened by your swinging arms. I feel threatened by being surrounded by people bearing weapons of mass death.
Ultimately, this conversation ends up in only one place. We will either restrict gun ownership or we will go the way of countries that have very weak governments and uncivil societies: Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, the Congo... It is our choice. Heinlein turns out to have been an idiot. An armed society is not a polite society. It is a deadly society.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:35 PM
Speck Tater (10,618 posts)
77. People who carry weapons are, by definition, afraid.
I am uncomfortable being surrounded by fearful people who have the power to terminate my life on a whim.
I have faced the world for 67 years without a gun in my hand. I can only feel sorry for people who do not have enough courage to do the same.
Response to Speck Tater (Reply #77)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:48 PM
LP2K12 (877 posts)
82. So..
Soldiers are afraid?
Police are afraid?
Response to LP2K12 (Reply #82)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:07 PM
COLGATE4 (11,711 posts)
83. Beyond silly response.
Both military and police are required to carry weapons. We're talking about all the rest of us here for whom carrying is optional.
Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #83)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:21 PM
LP2K12 (877 posts)
84. Well..
Most veterans of both forces, military and police, tend to carry after retirement.
I'm a veteran, I concealed carry. I'm trained. Do we make exceptions for those with that sort of training?
It's not silly...
Response to LP2K12 (Reply #84)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:08 PM
ieoeja (9,748 posts)
94. And you are the first veteran of either I have seen deny they were afraid when on duty.
I'll say it. Yes, soldiers and the police are afraid. And you were either lying, or knew that some idiots out there reading my post will translate it in their macho dumbass excuse for a brain that I am calling soldiers and the police "cowards".
I am not. But I am saying they are afraid. Let me repeat, you are the first fucking veteran of the military or the police force whom I have ever encountered who implied that soldiers and cops do not spend a lot of their career in flat out fear.
And a lot of innocent people get killed by soldiers and cops. What is the official justification used by every cop who kills an innocent person?
"I was in fear for my life."
Were it not a necessary evil for cops to carry guns, we would be demanding that they also be disarmed. Because their being armed does result in the accidental loss of innocent lives.
Response to ieoeja (Reply #94)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:21 PM
LP2K12 (877 posts)
96. My post
did not mention fear. CTRL+F if you don't believe me. I simply stated that as a veteran we become accustomed to daily life with a firearm, yes, as a soldier this is out of fear of what the enemy will bring.
We are also, in most cases, highly trained a level surpassing that of a civilian with a firearm. So, why not let a veteran of either force who has no disciplinary actions and passes all BG checks keep a firearm once retired?
Response to LP2K12 (Reply #96)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:02 PM
ieoeja (9,748 posts)
100. Your first post of this subthread: "So
"Soldiers are afraid?
"Police are afraid?"
I was commenting on the thread in total when talking about "fear". I believe you made that post knowing it would eviserate the reasoning of the post to which you were replying in regards to soldiers and police because s/he would then be calling them "cowards". In my opinion that was a dirty trick on your part, and I chose to challenge it.
As to your latest question, I oppose retired cops becoming a separate class of citizen with more rights than the rest of us. I would support open carry for all before I would support that.
And my past support for open carry has waned due to people's reactions to African-Americans having that right. Again, I oppose Whites becoming a separate class of citizen with more rights than others. That separate class would not legally exist. But I am pretty certain it would exist in application.
"Waned" not entirely "gone". It's a chicken and egg thing. If AA are allowed to carry, White people might learn that the vast majority of the AA community are law abiding citizens. If they are never allowed to carry, will Whites learn? Also, in one of the recent incidents, while the NRA, local media and general populace reaction was racist as hell, the Police actually treated both incidents equally and the law was applied equally. Thought I'm not naive enough to believe that it will be applied equally overall.
Response to ieoeja (Reply #100)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:45 PM
LP2K12 (877 posts)
129. I actually have no issue with your thoughts in this post...
AA should be able to carry to the same standards as whites and I can see the separate class(es) becoming an issue.
Response to LP2K12 (Reply #96)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:47 PM
Speck Tater (10,618 posts)
115. Any veteran of the police or armed forces that retires
should be glad to no longer be in constant danger and should feel relieved that they no longer have to fear for their lives every day, and be glad to put down that gun and never pick it up again.
Response to LP2K12 (Reply #84)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:22 PM
COLGATE4 (11,711 posts)
123. I think you're missing the point of the OP.
Not a question about whether you're trained or not. The question was about the motivation for the need to carry. I pointed out that, with military and police carrying is not optional - it's part of the job, so there's no motivational issue with them. As to vets or former cops, I submit that the decision to carry IS optional, and the question then becomes WHY you feel the need to carry.
Response to LP2K12 (Reply #82)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:41 PM
Speck Tater (10,618 posts)
111. Would you go to war without a gun?
Or would you, like any sane person, be too afraid to go into a battle without a gun?
Guns are all about fear.
You wouldn't hesitate to great a fluffy puppy without a gun, but you'd be a fool to confront a grizzly bear without a gun. Why? Because a grizzly bear is something to fear, while a fluffy puppy is not.
If I go hiking in grizzly bear country I'd be damned sure to carry a gun with me.
If I go shopping at the mall I'd be a damned fool to carry a gun with me.
I'm afraid of grizzly bears.
I'm not afraid of the mall.
It's ALL about fear. How many ways to I have to explain that to you?
Response to Speck Tater (Reply #111)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:43 PM
LP2K12 (877 posts)
128. Where's the mall?
For example, I grew up around Detroit. A city with a limited police force who now tells visitors to visit the city "at their own risk."
Last time I visited with my father he took his weapon with him from Tampa Intl. Airport to Detroit. If the mall is there, yes, I want to concealed carry.
However, put me at my local mall. No.
Sure, it's a perception issue. You have your idea of safety and I have mine. I'm also willing to bend, but not break, on mine.
Response to Speck Tater (Reply #111)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:29 PM
Glassunion (10,150 posts)
140. Speaking from experience.
Twice I have encountered grizzly bears in bear country. Both situations as luck would have it, I was down wind and in a noisy environment (waterfall). So the bear could not hear my occasional "Yo Bear!" or smell me coming. Bear Mace did the trick both times. Even with the wind in my face, that stuff shoots so powerfully very little blows back.
So my recomendation is bear mace... Oh and a change of undies.
Response to LP2K12 (Reply #82)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:46 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
114. +1 ...yea they are cowards too.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
Response to Speck Tater (Reply #77)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:42 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
112. We have the example of the brave US soldier using a gun to kill and being called a hero.
That's ok because he's not out in our public areas. If we own a gun here then we are called fearful and cowards but become a US soldier and use a gun to kill and we are brave. I guess the enemy is only over in other countries. When we quit showing our children the double standard for a few decades then maybe our society will become less violent.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #112)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:56 PM
Speck Tater (10,618 posts)
117. When your life is in danger you are WISE to be afraid.
and believe me, "afraid" does NOT mean "coward". Anybody who believes that bullshit doesn't know what they're talking about.
I lost friends in Viet Nam, and I've laid in the mud with bullets whizzing over my head. I've know quite a few real heroes and not one single one ever said he was not afraid. Anyone who thinks a hero is somebody who is not afraid is a damn fool. The kids who were not afraid in Viet Nam are the ones who went home in a box.
I have nothing but respect for police and soldiers who are in harms way every day. But I have nothing but contempt for blow-hards who are such cowards they can't walk out the front door of their own house without a cannon strapped to their hip. THOSE are the cowards. They are afraid even when there is no danger.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:37 PM
aquart (69,014 posts)
78. When I had a gun in my purse, I didn't like what was in my head.
Why would I trust what was in the heads of other people with hidden guns?
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:39 PM
graham4anything (11,464 posts)
79. people who think they need a gun to protect them should not be the ones to have a gun IMHO
Response to graham4anything (Reply #79)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:43 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
113. The Pentagon, MIC and US soldiers do not agree.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #113)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:50 PM
graham4anything (11,464 posts)
116. Private citizens who think they need a gun to protect them are the ones that don't need it
typical response to nitpick minutia
I for one do not mind the government having all the weapons as it should be.
I fear private citizens having guns claiming to protect people from some nutty conspiracy theory idea
As FDR said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself and I fear guns because of the fear the gun people fear they have without one when there is no one coming after them except for the ones that are stockpiling guns and believing in loony conspiracy theory fears
Conspriacy theories=propaganda of the NRA's best friend
they toss the breadcrumbs and provide the end of the breadcrumbs they want to lead people directly to
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:27 PM
Spider Jerusalem (20,076 posts)
85. A far better question is why some support it.
I don't know about you, but a society in which people have to habitually go about armed in order to feel themselves safe doesn't fit my idea of "civilised".
Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #85)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:56 PM
Recursion (50,978 posts)
87. I used to carry because of snakes and coyotes on the farm I worked on
That was open carry, but still. The entire country isn't the east coast.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:17 PM
Gormy Cuss (30,884 posts)
89. Because I don't live in a demon-haunted world.
I expect that most people I encounter aren't vested in trying to hurt me.
I don't object to open carry as much as concealed carry because with the former at least I know which person near me may overreact to a minor situation and start shooting. With concealed carry I don't have as good a chance of getting out of the way.
There's also the anecdotal evidence of those I know who have guns on them all the time. There are two groups: 1)LE/former LE who never want to draw their weapons and 2)survivalists,racists,Tea Baggers who have never experienced any personal violence but who think that they must be ever ready to shoot the boogie man.
I wish that I knew a third group: rational civilians who like the LE's never, ever want to draw their weapons but I've yet to meet one of those in the flesh.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:32 PM
BigDemVoter (2,407 posts)
91. Well, for one, this isn't the Wild West anymore. . . .
With the proliferation of handguns, concealed or not, comes the risk of using them when they're not warranted. Imagine if everybody had one. . . Scary.
I'm not 100% anti-gun, although I have to admit that I don't like them; I do not hunt, do not have a weapon of any sort, and I never intend on buying one. I suppose there ARE people out there who DO like to hunt, but do they really need rapid-fire assault weapons? I digress. . .
Back to the concealed weapons, there's a very good chance they WILL be used to intimidate others, and there's always the risk of accidents.
You asked, so just my 2 cents worth.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:36 PM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
92. I will put it this way.
I am ok with it if the police determines you need it...see Judge, for example...some cases of domestic disputes, witness a crime that may lead to you being a target.
Conditions for this LICENSE have to be reviewed every three years, you need a background check, and training at the POLICE TACTICAL RANGE.
Meet those conditions...we can talk...Florida's it comes in the box of cracker jacks, no, not really.
One last thing, you violate this, like oh for example Zimmerman did, when he threatened the SO...it goes away, immediately.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:05 PM
Eric the Reddish (106 posts)
101. Because it's Insane and a Recipe for Disaster
Most CC "enthusiasts" are arrested adolescents wanting to live out their Norris/Willis/Arnold fantasies.
Response to Eric the Reddish (Reply #101)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:13 PM
justanidea (291 posts)
122. Thats weird.
Because its been legal in many states for 20+ years and these disasters of epidemic proportions have yet to occur.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:06 PM
bowens43 (16,064 posts)
103. because there is no valid reason that ANYONE should carry a concealed weapon.
the only reason to carry one is because you intend to use it to kill someone. It has no other purpose.
Response to bowens43 (Reply #103)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:16 PM
guardian (2,282 posts)
Would that include the plain clothed secret service detail that protects President Obama? Maybe you should be in charge of the Secret Service and set them straight.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:25 PM
mike_c (34,654 posts)
106. because being surrounded by fearful, paranoid, and armed people...
...harshes my mellow.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:26 PM
BainsBane (42,224 posts)
107. I don't want to be shot because my music is too loud
For starters.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:31 PM
Algebra Palin (34 posts)
108. i like to wear hoodies
Response to Algebra Palin (Reply #108)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:31 PM
Glassunion (10,150 posts)
142. Just don't arm yourself with Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea and you'll be fine.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:58 PM
bettyellen (42,848 posts)
118. BS stats would not include Sandy Hook (not by guns owner) assholes who abuse SYG." Accidents"
Where negligence kills a friend or family member. Or the crimes committed where the fuckers got away.
What a bullshit stat to quote. Try gun deaths from guns that were once legal, because THAT's the real price we pay for their freedom.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:09 PM
bluestate10 (10,942 posts)
121. I am not opposed to concealed carry. But I don't see how carrying solves the problem
of gun violence. Regardless of how adept a person thinks he or she is with a gun, that gun become rather useless in most situations of violence and can actually increase the number of innocent deaths in a particular situation.
Do you really think you will be in a store or bank where dedicated criminals hit and think that you, carrying a concealed weapon would make a difference? Experience criminals have planned for a person like you, are looking out for you and will kill you instantly if they remotely suspect that you are a threat. You may stop an inexperienced criminal or a kid with a gun, but my argument is that you can probably influence people like that with calm reasoning, hurting them serves no purpose.
Response to bluestate10 (Reply #121)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:22 PM
guardian (2,282 posts)
147. So you think "calm reasoning"
would have worked at Sandy Creek? Maybe the principle should have tried that as the asshole was slaughtering 5 year olds.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:07 PM
decayincl (27 posts)
134. A few days ago,
I was pretty confident I could walk thru Walmart and not be caught in a crossfire. Today, not so much.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:20 PM
DainBramaged (39,191 posts)
139. Why are you against civilization?
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:30 PM
tledford (917 posts)
141. Every American should be required to own a flame thrower.
Of course, it would be impossible to CONCEAL such a weapon, but the world would be a safer place if everyone had a flame thrower with them at all times. Including when sleeping, showering or swimming, and when traveling by commercial airliner.
Response to tledford (Reply #141)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:28 PM
justanidea (291 posts)
149. Cool strawman bro.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:39 PM
thucythucy (3,271 posts)
144. I would prefer to keep the children in my family away from guns.
"Concealed and carry" means I have no way of doing that. It means that every time I go out in public, I have no way of knowing who might be carrying a lethal weapon.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:57 PM
thucythucy (3,271 posts)
145. In addition to my answer above, I ask you
to consider the information in this video.
If the link doesn't work (and mine haven't lately, don't know why) do a Google search of the DU site for "Proof That Concealed Carry Permit Holders Live in a Dream World, Part One."
Best wishes.
Response to thucythucy (Reply #145)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:31 PM
justanidea (291 posts)
150. I've seen that video many times before.
As I pointed out in another thread, it was a horribly bad experiment.
The baggy t-shirts, bulky gloves, and vision blocking helmets essentially set the students up for failure. Not to mention the fact that the shooter seemed to know exactly where the person with the gun was before entering the room.
Response to justanidea (Reply #150)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:42 AM
thucythucy (3,271 posts)
162. Baggy t-shirts (and pants) are a staple
of American life, so I don't know how inaccurate they are. The vision blocking helmets were necessary I suppose to keep people from getting hurt, since even a paintball can be dangerous if it hits you in the head. Other than taking unethical risks with the experimental subjects, I don't know how you get around that.
As for knowing who the person with the gun is, you'll notice the student himself confided to the woman next to him, in an effort I suppose to be "big man on campus." I've seen this dynamic before. I knew at a former workplace exactly who had a concealed weapon, because the dude was obsessed with it, and quite happy to let people know. If I'd ever decided to go postal and return to that workplace, I would have known exactly who to take out first.
You never did answer my original reason for opposing C & C--that I want to know, cerainly before I place children in that context, exactly who around me is carrying. Is that such an unreasonable thing to ask?
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:24 PM
Chorophyll (5,179 posts)
148. Oh, I dunno. I guess I'd just prefer to see the metal death-projectile machine coming toward me
first so that I can make peace with my god(s.)
If guns are so fabulous, wear one taped to your forehead so I know who I'm dealing with. Thanks.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:36 PM
letemrot (184 posts)
151. Many believe all guns are bad and evil
and that anyone that would carry in public must be/have(select all that apply) [These are reasons I have seen in the many threads].
*Small penis
*extreme paranoia
*irrational fear of brown people
*have a hero complex
*have an inferiority complex
*teeny weenie penis
*murderous thugs hoping to gun down someone
*lack of critical thought
Those are just a few of the reasons that I have seen posted in various threads.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:46 PM
MichiganVote (21,086 posts)
152. In Michigan, concealed carry is now inextricably linked with schools,
daycares, hospitals. I for one, don't give an ever lovin' rats ass about your right to protect yourself. This shit does not belong in these areas. Little kids, sick people, Jesus, next you'll all want concealed carry in Heaven. Hell, that's probably not enough. Jesus should be packing as far as you and others like you are concerned.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:53 PM
GoneOffShore (13,015 posts)
154. Because the lie of "gun rights" has made us a less civil society.
It's time to put the lies to rest and call them out for what they are.
Lies by the liars who have a desire to exhibit and exert naked power over others through the possession and use of weapons.
The lie that "an armed society is a polite society".
The lie that "guns will protect us from a despotic government".
Our gun culture promotes a fatal slide into extreme individualism. It fosters a society of atomistic individuals, isolated before power and one another and in the aftermath of shootings such as at Newtown, paralyzed with fear. That is not freedom, but quite its opposite. And as the Occupy movement makes clear, also the demonstrators that precipitated regime change in Egypt and Myanmar last year, assembled masses dont require guns to exercise and secure their freedom, and wield world-changing political force. Arendt and Foucault reveal that power does not lie in armed individuals, but in assembly and everything conducive to that.
The Freedom of an Armed Society
By FIRMIN DEBRABANDER
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:10 AM
kestrel91316 (51,666 posts)
156. Secrecy about deadly weapons seems very sneaky and underhanded to me.
CRIMINALS hide weapons on themselves so they can do harm.
I can't get past that. I'd almost be willing to go with open carry rather than concealed carry. I cannot fathom why anyone would need to HIDE a weapon on themselves in daily life.
Military and LEO certainly don't need to.
Again, it's what sneaky criminals do.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:12 AM
rustydog (9,030 posts)
157. There is no reason to have to conceal carry
Response to rustydog (Reply #157)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:18 AM
justanidea (291 posts)
158. Self-defense?
Response to justanidea (Reply #158)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:32 AM
rustydog (9,030 posts)
160. I've said this before
I've had people threaten to kill me and my family. I've pissed off drug dealers and gang members and I still do not carry. It is stupid.
My belief, my right.
No person carrying (except fo an off duty deputy a day ago) has successfully prevented or ended a mass killing in America. Your theory of self-defense does nothold water. You are more llikely to accidentally kill a family member.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:28 AM
Bosso 63 (992 posts)
159. I do in home therapy and most of my clients have been court mandated.
Domestic Violence, CD issues, and always mental health issues.
For the most part, my clients live in "questionable" neighborhoods, and the best time to see them is usually in the evening.
As it happens, I own firearms and I have a concealed carry permit.
And yet I never carry, thats not to say that I never will, but for now, I don't feel the need.
I'll let other people decide for themselves what they want to do.
I think the NRA is as crazy as a shit house rat.
Its true, we have a gun problem, but we have a much bigger mental health problem.
That is all.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:43 AM
Tommy_Carcetti (30,497 posts)
163. Two words for me: Trayvon Martin.
That's enough to convince me it's not worth the hassle.
Response to justanidea (Original post)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:07 PM
Arkana (24,347 posts)
165. Because more guns don't make a society more polite.
They make it more violent.


text:
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 16:09, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 13:06, Steve Randall wrote:
Now that the Ximian Connector for Microsoft Exchange has been GPL'd, is there any chance of it's inclusion?
Maybe for FC3. I doubt it would be possible for FC2
Dave Malcolm was packaging it today, but won't be in FC2 official release. I'm sure the package will work with FC2 though.
https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1589 spot packaged it...
https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1590 panu packaged it...

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Help WFSS Water the Seeds of Change in South Sudan
Campaign now over $1.2 million!
On March 22, 2016, World Water Day, Salva Dut and Water for South Sudan (WFSS) launched the public phase of our Watering the Seeds of Change campaign.
Watering the Seeds of Change aims to raise $1,500,000 to replace outdated drilling and support equipment, allowing WFSS to become more efficient in drilling operations, and to bolster critical staff in both South Sudan and the United States, strengthening operations in both locations. The campaign will also fund a pilot sanitation project, allowing WFSS to fully move into the WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) sector.
As of June 14, WFSS has raised over $1,200,000. We are so grateful for the many supporters who helped us achieve this amazing total.
We look forward to engaging with our supporters across the US and around the world to complete the campaign.
With a 12 year track record of successful projects and the liberation of South Sudan in 2011, WFSS is in a unique position to contribute to the development of the world's newest country. Our mission, first and foremost, will continue to be improving the quality of life of the people of South Sudan by providing access to clean, safe water and improving hygiene practices in areas of great need. Access to water becomes a catalyst for broader development, providing a basis for sustainable communities that can develop and grow on their own, and bringing stability to a fragile nation. Trade and market activity, schools, and medical care result when women and children no spend their days collecting water.
WFSS has technical skill in building wells in South Sudan, expertise in engaging villagers in projects, and acumen in collaborating with the Government of South Sudan (GoSS) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). WFSS is exploring opportunities to expand its mission through collaboration with government agencies and NGOs.
WFSS operations in South Sudan are led by our Founder, Salva Dut, with Ater Akol "Lion" Thiep and Ajang Abraham "AJ" Agok. All three men are former "Lost Boys" who had the good fortune to come to the United States as refugees. They received all of the advantages that the United States has to offer, including education. They each now have dual citizenship in South Sudan and the United States and are dedicated to rebuilding their homeland to become a stable, democratic republic. Knowing the people, the language, the customs, and the geography gives them a tremendous advantage in accomplishing WFSS's objectives.
Continuing to fulfill our mission in the future requires WFSS to upgrade equipment and to continue investing in developing the skills of our staff. Watering the Seeds of Change is an unprecedented undertaking with a goal of raising $1,500,000. WFSS receives philanthropic support from generous friends in all 50 states and 33 countries. One hundred percent of the Board of Directors has made a financial pledge to the effort. You can download a PDF of our campaign brochure here.
The overall objectives of Watering the Seeds of Change are to:
Replace outdated drilling and support equipment, allowing WFSS to become more efficient in drilling operations.
Bolster critical staff in both South Sudan and the United States, strengthening operations in both locations.
Develop a pilot sanitation project.
The campaign goal is $1,500,000, to be allocated as follows:
Equipment $1,200,000
- New drilling rig and compressor
- New trucks for drilling equipment and vehicles for drilling and hygiene crews
- Operations Center and field operations communications equipment
Human Resources $ 180,000
- Internship program for returning and local South Sudanese
- Continuing technical and management education experiences for senior staff
Sanitation Pilot Project $ 120,000
For information on the campaign, please contact Cindy DeCarolis, WFSS Director of Development at firstname.lastname@example.com or call 585-383-0410.


text:
Use Limewire? Maybe Not Anymore.
(Reuters) – A U.S. federal judge on Tuesday granted the music industry's request to shut down the popular LimeWire file-sharing service, which had been found liable for copyright infringement. The ruling by Judge Kimba Wood in Manhattan federal court halts one of the world's biggest services for letting consumers share music, movies and TV shows…Details


text:
Prosource Worldwide – Industry Leader
** Breaking News **
Check out this Commercial Grow using ProSource LED Grow Lights!
Through ongoing research and testing, we have developed a line of LED grow lights featuring proprietary technology. There is no question that these lights can and will provide thick vegetative growth with prolific flowering. When used properly and in the correct configuration, our lights will produce a professional, finished product while giving you an exceptional yield. Please call using the number above or Contact Us for a FREE consultation.
ProSourceWorldwide – Developer of LED Grow Lights
Please see our newly added sections titled "Truth in Advertising" & "Why Choose Us" which provide information that exposes the misconceptions and myths that dominate this industry to the reality that LED Grow Lights are here to stay. From the professional grower to the hobbyist, one must get educated about what makes one light differ from another. This is a must read for anyone interested in purchasing LED grow lights and is full of useful information to help you in making your purchasing decision.
How To Grow With LED Grow Lights
We at ProSource Worldwide understand that even though growing with LEDs offers many benefits to small and large-scale growers alike, it also presents a couple of challenges. No matter what you are growing with LED grow lights, you must take a few simple but vitally important changes to ensure a successful grow – cycle after cycle.
This is why we made this instructional video. No longer will you have to guess about how to grow with LEDs – just watch the video and follow our guide for simple tips to maximize your yield! If you need more help along the way – just contact us via email, check out our LED Grow Lights FAQ, or give us a call.
Commercial Medical Grow
Check out this ground breaking video of a commercial grow. Finally there is PROOF that LED Grow Lights are the answer for commercial growing.
Making the decision to switch to LED grow lighting is not one that should be taken lightly, nor should you feel as though you are making a leap of faith.
This is why we have taken all the risk & put our money where our mouth is with our:
90-Day No-Risk Trial on all Illuminator LED Grow Lights
Very simply put, if your grow is not performing as it should, let us know and we can try to help. Otherwise, just send it back to us for a refund of 100% of the purchase price – No Questions Asked!
Now you can buy a light based on PERFORMANCE not PROMISES.
New Full-Cycle LED Grow Lights available in 90W, 180W, & Commercial 400w.
Illuminator LED Grow Lights
5-Band Tri-Spectrum Proprietary Technology
Very specific wavelengths within the Red, Blue, & Infrared bandwidths provide the most beneficial light to your plants. The green, orange, & yellow spectra provide very little to no benefit to the development of your plants therefore you wouldn't use those bandwidths in your design. The "Design" is the configuration of Wavelengths that you employ into your light along those most desirable spectra. With the development of New Technology, now we can duplicate the most desirable Wavelengths of light your plants find most beneficial & those wavelengths can be found at the key absorption points along the photosynthetic spectrum.
We explain in a straight forward approach why we design our light the way we do and why this design is the most effective approach to producing superior results. While we could design full-spectrum LED grow lights, the 5-Band Tri-Spectrum approach is by far the most desirable combination to allow for the best possible results.
Illuminator LED Grow Lights use a 5-Band Tri-Spectrum design of Red, Blue & Infrared to deliver over 95% absorbable light to your plants, compared to only 15% with High Intensity Discharge Lighting, but that's not where it ends. The ultimate goal to developing a Commercial and Warehouse Grow-ready LED Grow Light is to be able to deliver the optimum wavelengths your plants require and be able to support all cycles of plant growth. Plants crave different wavelengths during each cycle of growth therefore you need the appropriate elements designed into your lighting system to support this function. By using Proprietary LED Technology, we developed a series of LED Grow Lights that produce spectacular results which are now as mainstream as Metal Halide & High Pressure Sodium Lighting.
Common Questions About LED Grow Lights
- What can I grow with an LED grow light?
From herbs to orchids, cactus to medical cannabis, our lights are guaranteed to grow whatever you throw at them. Not designed for sea algae.
- How do your lights stack up against my trusty HPS in terms of yield?
Our research, coupled with independent testing, has shown that our LED grow lights can match or exceed the yield of HPS grow lights. Please call or email for a one-on-one consultation with our highly trained support staff. This way, we can properly match your current HPS configuration to ensure peak performance and yield.
- Are LED Grow Lights worth the investment?
Really the question is: Can you afford not to? Our lights are proven to save up to 75% on electricity costs when compared to HID lighting. If that wasn't enough, when you take into account that you do not need expensive ballasts, replacement bulbs, heat removal systems, nor do you have to worry about burning your plants, you can see that these lights can pay for themselves quickly. In as little as 18 months for larger grows and about 24 months for the hobbyist, you can recoup your initial investment.
Wholesale LED Grow Lights
If you are interested in multiple units, please contact us regarding a volume discount. This is perfect for larger scale growers requiring 10 or more units. Please email us or call with any questions you might have about LED grow lights.


text:
They have killed, maimed and destroyed the lives of more people than all wars put together.
More than any other single factor our history has been shaped by disease.
The Black Death has ravaged mankind for centuries, it has devastated every corner of the planet - at its peak in the middle ages it killed 25 million people in just five years.
For most people the plague is a thing of the past, but just last year John Tull almost became another victim.
Bitten by a rat in his back yard, John's body soon became the perfect breeding ground for the bacterium that causes the plague.
In a desperate bid to save his life his partner, Linda, gave the go ahead to amputate both of John's feet.
After 60 days John regained consciousness. He now has to learn how to walk again.
John's story is a reminder of how we can never underestimate the power of micro-parasites to strike when we are least suspecting them.
Getting stronger
The final programme in the "Bodysnatchers" series reveals how, rather than reducing the threat from these micro-parasites, our technological breakthroughs are in fact making them stronger and providing them with the means to spread faster than ever before.
So how are we going to cope if a new superbug appears?
It is currently living in the bodies of 2 billion people - one in three of world's population.
There are records of TB victims dating back to the Egyptians (it was thought that Tutankhamen died from TB).
But with the discovery of antibiotics, TB's days should have been numbered.
For a few years the number of TB cases plummeted and then something very worrying began to happen - strains of TB resistant to the drugs began to appear.
Our own drugs had helped create these superbugs. TB began to reappear in cities where only a few years before it was all but eradicated.
In cities like London and New York, where people are crammed in and living closer than ever before, the TB parasite has found its perfect breeding ground.
Passed by coughing and sneezing, rates of TB are starting to approach epidemic proportions.
Virus menace
To try to contain the parasite we have resorted to the age old practices of isolation and quarantine.
And the parasitic masters of this are the viruses.
Every year millions of us are struck down by colds and flu, but still there is no cure. Able to disguise themselves by changing their "coat", viruses continue to baffle our medicines.
And they are extraordinarily adept at exploiting our technology against us.
The greatest threat facing us are the new viruses that are starting to emerge from remote regions of the world.
Lurking in jungles and swamps, these viruses have been contained to isolated outbreaks.
But with the advent of international jet travel, these parasites can escape from their remote lairs to every corner of the world in just a few hours.
Deadly arrivals
The deadliest of these "emerging" micro-parasites are the haemorrhagic viruses.
Viruses that kill by causing their victims to bleed to death.
And the deadliest of these is the Ebola virus. First discovered just over 30 years ago, Ebola can strike without warning, and when it does it can rip through a community like a hurricane.
At its worst Ebola kills nine out 10 people that catch it - the victims' bodies literally come apart at the seams. There is no treatment, although scientists are working to try to produce an effective vaccine.
The greatest threat humanity is facing is that one day a virus will emerge that can spread as efficiently as tuberculosis and that is as deadly as Ebola.
In February this year, it looked like our worst nightmare might just be about to become reality.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome, Sars, was a never before seen virus that was spread by sneezing and was killing one in 10 of the people that caught it.
Sars had the potential to kill millions, to defeat it would take something extraordinary.
But it wasn't a new wonder drug that saved us, but lessons that we'd learned from the past - hygiene, quarantine and, most importantly, sharing information.
Faced with the havoc that Sars could wreak, governments, scientists and doctors from around the world talked to each other, sharing vital bits of information and coming up with ways to beat Sars.
The Sars outbreak was a reminder of just how real the threat from these micro-parasites is, but it also showed that, if humanity stands together, we do have the power to defeat our most feared enemy.