<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Yes, that was the joke, you see - that a drug dealer would probably be the least affected by legislation allowing them to bring a gun to work, as the very nature of their unemployment is such that… you know what? Never mind. I can’t even tell when you’re serious anyway.</p>
<p>^^^ Yay-- someone picked up on the humor! Besides, my crack dealer wants a new hat for Christmas. </p>
<p>I just can’t get with the NRA rhetoric. Sorry. Encouraging the carrying of weapons just feels to me like a throwback to the unruliness of the wild west. It just feels tacky and uncivilized. Sorry. Are we going to briing back duels in the street next?? (Rhetorical question-- no need for an answer!!)</p>
<p>I personally believe that every household should have a gun, and residents be properly trained in it’s use. Not sure if it’s still exists, but in the early 80’s the town of KENNESAW, GEORGIA made it mandatory that every household own and possess a gun. Crime stats went down considerably. And contrary to all those who want to say how great Europe is because of their gun control, Switzerland has the highest gun ownership of citizens in just about the entire world. Some of the lowest restrictions on guns. Some of the lowest crime involving guns.</p>
<p>Believe what you want and rationalize all you want; the truth is; a citizen owing and properly trained in the use of a firearm is a much safer citizen. The reason criminals use guns is because they know that many of the victims don’t have a gun. It’s a train of thought. Not something ingrained overnight. But, the more citizens that have guns and training, the less crime against them.</p>
<p>
Contrary to the Hollywood image, the “wild west” actually had low rates of violent crime. The exception was among mostly willing combatants (young, angry, and often drunk men). [Violence</a> and Lawlessness on the Western Frontier](<a href=“http://guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html]Violence”>Violence and Lawlessness on the Western Frontier)</p>
<p>Jym626, I actually research at the VPC and Brady Campaign sites about as often as I do the NRA site. None of them are very good sources, because most of them rely on emotional arguments or cherry picked data. For example, the VPC site lists around 50 crimes involving .50 caliber weapons, but only 1 instance actually involved the use of a .50 caliber rifle (and the results of the action were not included).</p>
<p>Christcorp-
The silly gun requirement that Kennesaw “imposed” in 1982 was in response to a gun ban in Morton Grove, IL in 1981. It was a political statement. Per wikipedia
Kennesaw’s law was political grandstanding. No one follows up on or enforces this law. I know of no one who has been thrown in the pokey for failing to buy a gun.</p>
<p>For those on this forum who have a general fear of concealed-carry in society at large, worrying people will snap or shoot each other or escalate altercations or “create a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations” as Barack Obama put it…consider Kansas. Kansas just had its 1-year concealed-carry anniversary, so they put out their numbers.</p>
<p>They’ve had almost 12,000 permits issued, about 150 denied. Of those 12,000, 13 have been revoked and 4 have been suspended. No reasons are given in the article. There have been no homicides or firearms assaults by CCW holders in Kansas. Those 17 bad apples account for 0.1% of permit holders. There has been one armed robbery where a CCW holder legally shot and wounded the robber (without shooting the clerk, the responding the police, or fellow patrons). The permit holder had an Oklahoma permit (reciprocity) and was a 57-year-old Gulf War veteran. Remember now, Kansas is home to Dodge City, and CCW didn’t turn it into the Wild West.</p>
<p>England had a lower rate of homicide than the US BEFORE they banned handguns. After the Dunblane shooting in 1997 spurred a sweeping handgun ban, gun crime went up 40%. That study, run on the BBC and conducted by Kings College, also said…</p>
<p>“Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.
And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.”</p>
<p>As for the UK and the United States, let’s look at crime beyond the firearms murder rate (and beyond the fact that the homicide rate in the US is decreasing, even as states add concealed-carry and people purchase legal, semiauto AR-15s and AK-47s). The only comparable statistics I’ve been able to find are BoJ stats ending in 1996, a year before the handgun ban. I think it’s safe to say though that home invasions, assaults, muggings, and theft are all more common in the UK than in the US. The robbery rate in England for 1996 was twice that of the US’s. The burglary victimization rate was 1.4 times that of the United States (more likely to be a victim of a burglary in England). The English assault rate was twice that of the United States in 1996. </p>
<p>England isn’t a magical, crime free place. They have fewer gun homicides at great expense to person freedom, in addition to very high rates of other violent and property crimes. Their Olympic pistol shooters have to train in other countries. The BoJ study sums it up nicely. The only two crimes where the US has a higher rate than England are forcible rape and murder. “In 1995 (the latest year that could be compared), serious crime rates measured in victim surveys were all higher in England than in the United States (statistically significant at the 95% confidence level).”</p>
<p>I agree jym. My point is that by banning guns doesn’t automatically mean that crime rates will go down either. Switzerland has a very liberal gun policy and a very low crime rate. </p>
<p>Personally, I would love to see even man and woman over 18 years old owning a gun and properly trained in it’s use and safety. (Not counting criminals, mentally ill, etc… from owning guns)</p>
<p>
Sorry- I couldn’t disagree more. Blech.</p>
<p>Nice to see the anti-gun lobby throwing out “feelings” and things that seem “tacky and uncivilized” while the pro-gun lobby throws out numerous studies down on the effect of lowering/heightening gun restrictions and their impact on crime.</p>
<p>That’s the irony, LaxAttack, because gun ownership shouldn’t HAVE to be defended based on crime studies and CCW history. After all, it’s a Constitutional right.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, if we don’t defend on occasion certain “Constitutional Rights”, then there will be those who think certain rights are DATED and therefor no longer apply; thus campaigning to have those rights rescinded. </p>
<p>The truth is; we don’t actually have that many rights. Other than the RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; everything else is a privilege. Each one of the “Privileges” can be revoked if abused. Freedom of speech, guns, etc… Just about any of the “Bill of Rights”. The word RIGHTS has changed meaning of the years. it’s always meant privilege. You obviously have the right to free speech. But, if you abuse that, you can be fined, imprisoned, etc… Don’t believe me; look at the definition of “Disturbing the peace”.</p>
<p>Anyway; getting away from semantics; we need to justify our rights from time to time. If not; then those who don’t exercise those certain rights will believe that they aren’t important and will fight to have them rescinded. Especially the ignorant people who believe that certain rights is the cause of a problem instead of placing responsibility where it belongs. Again; there isn’t one fully functional and safe firearm that has EVER injured a human being without the intervention of a human. Same with an automobile. Never seen a car kill anyone without a human behind the wheel. Of course, people don’t want to hear how more people die in cars than with guns. That’s OK; they are ignorant and will rationalize the car as being required and a gun as not necessary.</p>
<p>Throwing selected data to support ones point of view is also positing a feeling, an opinion, with a few word games thrown in. Sorry, I find the thinking that every able minded adult should have a gun absurd.</p>
<p>Simple quest jym… WHY? And if you are going to try and come up with some excuse why every able bodied, qualified, trained, etc… SHOULDN’T have a firearm, then where do you decide WHO SHOULD AND WHO SHOULDN’T.</p>
<p>I never said that I wanted to see a law FORCING everyone to have one. I simply said i would LIKE TO SEE EVERYONE HAVE ONE. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!</p>
<p>I would also like to see EVERY college student attend their school’s sporting events. It’s free and helps with team and school spirit. I wouldn’t make it mandatory for the students to attend a football game. Just that I’d like to see it.</p>
<p>I would like to see every responsible adult owning a firearm because it would be a deterrent to the criminals. (Just as a country’s military IS a deterrent to other aggressive countries). It would also teach everyone how to respect a gun and it’s potentials and limitations AS A TOOL!!!</p>
<p>I’m not talking about untrained people; or mentally ill people; or criminals; etc… And I’m not talking about making it MANDATORY. I’m just saying that I would like to see those that are responsible, having one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The day you can predict with certainty every person who has an undiagnosed mental illness like worsening depression and deny them all permits, your idea will work. Until then, allowing such wide carrying is without doubt going to lead to a significant increase in the number of unsuitable people getting guns.</p>
<p>Allowing people to carry guns in public doesn’t mean every single person will be packing heat. In Florida, there have been 1,346,074 permits issued since the passage of CCW. There have been 165 permits revoked due to the CCW holder committing a crime with that firearm. 165 out of 1.3 million is an acceptable risk, in my opinion. In comparison, there were 12,111 robberies with firearms in Florida and 13,566 aggravated assaults with firearms in 1999 (most recent year available). There were also 180,785 burglaries and 856 homicides (460 of those committed with firearms).</p>
<p>165 gun crimes out of 1.3 million permit holders over a 20-year period…compared to at least 26,000 gun crimes committed by non-permit holders in a single year.
Concealed carry may not dramatically reduce crime but the risk of permit holders shooting up their grocery stores is clearly acceptable.</p>
<p>Every able-minded and responsible adult (current NICS-type checks and training are sufficient) should have the right to own a gun and then that adult can make the choice for himself/herself.</p>
<p>1of42, what is your definition of an “unsuitable person?”</p>
<p>This is rapidly heading towards another useless “choice” vs “rights” discussion, a path not worth travelling. </p>
<p>IMO, there are places that guns do not belong. We had a state legislator who made national news several years ago for introducing legislation allowing (not mandating, I dont believe) teachers to have guns in the classroom. Even in our conservative community, he was not re-elected.</p>
<p>I think I’m going to have to look to see what the fatality rate is of firearms verses the fatality rate of driving… or maybe driving is the next thing to be banned???</p>
<p>Or people die each year from drowning in the bathtub… should those be banned? And we gotta ban sports too because people get hurt and killed playing or even just watching those!!!</p>
<p>Hopsscout-
read back a few pgs-- the driving analogy has already been addressed. Comparing weapons to hygiene or sports is just… silly. People die from choking too. Whyd don’t you ban food while you are at it.</p>
<p>So jym, which parking lots are unsuitable places for guns? Schools, prisons, nuclear power plants, places that have explosives, and some other buildings are exceptions to the Florida law. Or should all parking lots be “gun-free” zones?</p>