Science Right-to-carry laws make us less safe

>>> This has never happened to me.

>>> Then I don't think you should carry. But I hope you don't mind if I do, when I think it is appropriate, Not when you do, but when I do.

 

I appreciate your reasoned and reasonable response. I too believe strongly in states rights. But life and the world today are so very different than they were almost 300 years ago. Mankind (despite massive evidence otherwise) IS capable of evolving. I'd even have no problem with each state determining it's own position on gun ownership and leaving the federal government out of it completely. If someone does not agree with the gun ownership laws of the state in which they reside, then they are free to move to a state with more agreeable laws. But it's obvious that some sort of control or increased oversight is critical.

 

I agree to an extent with states deciding guns, it should be based on counties for vs counties against. It isn't fair for the big cities of states to make decisions for the entire state.

 

Ummmm.........your "explanation" of "regulated" is nothing more than your opinion. That doesn't make it fact, it only makes it your opinion. And that is all I have been expressing on my part.....

 

Because when something violent happens to you and you need a gun, the person who obeys that law is the victim. The perpetrator doesn't care about laws, and he doesn't care about you.

Because restrictions don't work. This has been demonstrated time and time again in places like California, Chicago, New York, Jersey, Baltimore, and DC. They only make it more difficult for the law-abiding to abide by the law.

Don't confuse "obeying the law" with "I agree with restrictions". I know numerous NRA members on another forum....all of them obey the law, even if they vehemently disagree with it.

Well....maybe...just maybe.....if Democrats would stop pushing bullshit like "10 round capacities" and "Assault Rifle bans", among other stupid pointless "feel good" bullshit....then they would stop fighting.

They only fight because there's a fight. And I, having studied the cases that the ILA takes on, am glad that they fight for our Rights.

 

If you want to call the study of many scholars "an opinion", then you go right ahead. But at least that "opinion" has weight and merit.

 

Boy howdy do I agree with you on that. And I'm a moderate (though haters love to put the liberal tag on me) from the Portland metro area. But then, that topic is a whole 'nother YUGE (and separate) thread. Another antiquated "system" or concept from another era in need of modernization.....

 

Isn't that the truth.

 

I never thought I would agree with UncleCliffy about something.

 

I suspect most of the "opinions" posted in this forum are based on "scholarly" studies and related factual information. One only has to read Denny's posts to see that. And as Denny is fond of pointing out, just because it's printed doesn't make it so. Funny how many opinions you trash as fake news or bullshit when they don't agree with your views. But hey, welcome to Ripcitytwo.......

 

I find men will agree on lots of things besides politics... like pussy, porn, and grilling.

 

Throw in some top shelf weed and we have a party!

 

Alright. I can agree with that to a certain extent. The scholars I was referring to have spent their entire lives studying the topics of Firearms and Firearm Law....but okay, you make a point.

But I have a couple of questions:

1) why does such a scholar not have as much merit as someone quoted in, say, a Huffington Post article? What I mean is, why should I trust someone at Stanford, who did some 3rd-party "study", instead of someone like Alan Korwin or Massad Ayoob?

2) If we agree that these are "opinions", then why does the opinions of anti-gun folk and/or politicians who agree on gun control allow them to have a say over MY beliefs on what is best for ME?

Amen.

 

You are responsible for defending yourself. No where in this country, are the police responsible for defending you.
Depending where you live, the police may defend you if someone is on duty near enough to do it, if it is not too difficult.
If you live in rural Oregon, tomorrow maybe as soon as you can expect an officer to show up, if he knows you need him.

Perhaps you should thank Madison for reading Vattel's message. It is a logical concept. Emotion may chip away, wishing for no need, but logical men will not give up their right to defend their life from the fools that would take it for giggles.

 

I grew up in the country, surrounded by farmers. I saw shotgun cartridges scattered all over the woods when I would go for a walk. People loved shooting clay pigeons, and I've got no problem with that. But nobody needs assault weapons. Nobody needs handguns. Every study shows they make you less safe. People in this country just have a weird fetish about them.

 

1) I read the HuffPost pretty much for the same reason I read Fox News. They're entertaining and I find the truth usually lies (no pun intended) somewhere in the middle. My opinions on gun control has been formed over the course of years, just from watching the nightly news, regardless of who is peddling it. Gum violence is endemic and that is a true fact.

2) Welcome to the world of the governed. Why are motorcyclists (for instance) required to wear helmets? Why is marijuana illegal in the majority of states? Why is abortion legal? The general answer is public safety. Because our government chose to govern (ostensibly) in our best interests. Well meaning politicians (if such creatures exist) want gun restrictions for public safety reasons. It doesn't make their laws "right" or acceptable for everyone, it only makes them the law.

 

We don't live in a country of "needs and requirements". We live in a country of "wants and desires".

I don't NEED a Corvette with 650 horsepower. I WANT a Corvette with 650 horsepower. And I should be able to have one if I can afford it.

Likewise, if a person can afford an AR-15 or handgun, and they can pass the required background checks, then they should be able to have the firearms they want. It is not up to you to decide for them.

 

I have always been one to believe that I prefer to be able to return fire from a superior position

 

Did you ever study your TP? Before and after?

 

Yes, I think this has more to do with why I could say, "This never happened to me". Whether you are armed or not. The perception of might be armed is another.