Technically the “foundation of the country” is a document explicitly limiting government power to formally enumerated rights, at both the federal constitutional and state constitutional level, not “state’s rights.” That’s the dominating difference from the previous UK government.
Do you listen to what they say, or what they actually do?
I believe in States rights, but I also believe that the Federal government can supersede some of those rights. Don’t most people think that?
I know I’m parsing what you said a bit here, but if you said “I work in a courthouse, so my risk is elevated,” I’d understand. My father was a defense attorney - which is not at all the way it’s portrayed on TV - and I have some idea what goes on in one. That’s not what you said, however. You said “I know violent crime does happen,” which means you expect to need your weapon outside the courthouse or its environs. Which is, as Phoenix pointed out, poor risk identification.
Motorcycle riding is a very high risk activity. Unlike a car, just about any incident is likely to result in brain injury or death if you don’t. It’s pretty much a given that you will need it sooner or later.
Driving a car is a moderately high risk activity. It’s not in the same category as riding a motorcycle, but it’s about the riskiest thing most people ever do. Wearing a seatbelt takes virtually no effort and greatly improves your survival and injury chances. Most people probably won’t need it, but the chances are significant.
Violent crime does happen, but unless you live in a slum or something, it’s far, far less common than the other two. More to the point, carrying a weapon is likely to increase your chances of being hurt and killed in the vast majority of those situations. Either because you escalate the situation from a humiliating robbery to a case where the criminal feels they must kill you or die, or because you do something stupid that you wouldn’t do if you weren’t armed.
Threatening someone with a pistol is dangerous. Honestly, if you’re not a police officer paid to do this, the rules of engagement should be: don’t pull your weapon unless you intend to use it immediately, and don’t shoot at someone you don’t intend to kill. Anything less than that and you’re asking to be shot, if the criminal doesn’t react the way you expect, reacts faster than you expect, or has an accomplice you don’t see.
I’m not even touching on how concealed carry elevates your risk with the police. Police officers tend to assume you’re a perp and a threat if they realize you’re armed. It’s a survival trait for the job.
I’m not anti-gun; I own several pistols in calibers from .22 to .45. I just understand that most of us don’t live in the Wild West.
I can see your point Gus. Like I said, I don’t hang out with trouble, and I don’t go looking for it either. So why carry? Because life in general may be risky. A lot of crime happens in good parts of town, in good neighborhoods, and the like.
I will escalate the situation if I feel it neccesary. I tell myself I will use my firearm if I have to. That situation hasn’t happen, and I hope it won’t. I really don’t know how I will react because it has never come to that. Will I freeze? Will I do nothing? I don’t know, but I prepare myself. I have memory muscle to draw my weapon quickly and not shoot myself. I’ve put thousands of rounds down range, I know my limits, I’m a good judge of distance. I know to shoot on the move or put rounds on a moving target. I know to look beyond my target. I do train.
And to tell the truth, I have a few friends on the force, and the last thing I want to do is be around them if they have their guns drawn. I’ve put more rounds down range in a single weekend than a majority of them in an entire year. I’m not dissing cops… well… yes I am. I’m biased. I don’t like them.
If Im “threatening” someone with a gun, I have every intention to fire it. I’m not just waving it in front of them like a stick yelling “shoo!”.
I don’t like talking “what ifs” or hypotheticals, etc. All I can do is prepare the best I can. When I carry, don’t think everyone I come across is out to get me. I don’t think of it at all.
As for cops finding out that I’m carrying… again. I can’t control what they do, but I can control what I do, and the best thing I can do is know my rights, and my state laws concerning firearms. Fortunately, AZ is very gun-friendly.
Gus, I’ll take issue with two things.
First, concealed carry absolutely does not increase your risk with police except in the case that you have somehow hauled your gun out and they are coming on a scene cold. I say this knowing many, many officers and if someone has a CCW their anxiety level goes down, not up. As I noted above the bad folks don’t bother getting the license.
Second, if we tune down Martinez’s original statement which can absolutely be perceived as “I pull my gun out when someone shakes his fist at me” then I think you jumped analogies because riding a motorcyle and driving a car are both much more dangerous than carrying a gun, simply because no one else can cause you to be harmed with your gun except in wacky circumstances. I drive, ride, and used to carry all the time, and by far far far the most dangerous thing is riding.
The point is that the risk of carrying a gun is damned near negligible vs. the risk of driving a car (moderate) or a bike (high). The risk of being in a situation where you might need to use a gun is much higher than anything, but it doesn’t really apply to the argument any more than the risk of jumping over a Duke Boys ramp to get away from Roscoe. It just doesn’t happen enough to be significant on a statistical level.
H.
I think that’s a terrific overgeneralization designed to stereotype a very diverse group of people who carry in very different scenarios. Almost all of the time, I don’t exercise my concealed carry. A good chunk of what’s left is transportation because I don’t like to be in weird legal gray areas when obtaining the permit is relatively straightforward. What’s left? Nighttime pedestrian activity in a good block/bad block route.
There is simply no way for a statistical analysis to reasonably account for the wide variety of factors in that situation, and the tiny chance that I will be attacked in some manner carries potentially catastrophic consequences. I don’t see passivity in the face of crime as a flaw in your character, but it certainly isn’t inherently virtuous.
I’m glad that you think that people deserve to die for misdemeanors and/or stealing your property. It really says a lot about how you value possessions more than people.
I don’t think people “deserve” to die for either of those things. Deserve’s got nothing to do with it. I just don’t believe they should dictate the outcomes of an encounter where they have decided to break the law and invade my house or otherwise threaten my person or that of the people I care about. If they have to die in order to prevent me having to turn over control of my life or that of people I care about to criminals, I’m absolutely comfortable with that trade. I also have an extensive familiarity with escalation of force procedures, which are easy to train and practice, and absolute certainty that I don’t hesitate to shoot people when the situation requires it thanks to experience doing it in the past. It’s not difficult to train for, and it’s not hard to say you can handle it without having the benefit, such as it is, of military experience such as mine.
I know what that’s like. I’ve never gone to the range with a police officer, but I did do so once with a guy who had no clue about basic firearms safety, and it was scary. He was not at all careful about where his Glock was pointing when he wasn’t in preparing to fire.
To clarify, I’m not talking about situations where the officer knows you have a concealed carry license. I’m talking about the situation where he notices you’re armed without knowing anything about you. So far as he knows, you’re a guy who shoots cops during a traffic stop. There’s a reason they want to see your hands on the wheel when they’re approaching the car.
Logically sound but in the real world a nonissue. They’ve run you before they stop you and they’ve already seen that you have a CCW. I speak from personal experience as a pull-ee and from secondhand as pull-ers. Again, in the largest part only the good folks bother to get the license.
In the unusual circumstance that you’ve A. Fallen foul of the law B. Are a CCW holder and C. The officer notices your weapon then generally he’s going to no doubt go on a bit higher alert and ask you if you’re licensed to carry. The next thing you do (in my case it would be to not make any sudden motions and say ‘yes.’) is what determines his reaction, not the fact that you have a weapon.
You’re absolutely right about the hands and the car, but that has nothing to do with CCW. That’s a courtesy you should always pay to the cop, and it’s gotten me off of a few speeding tickets.
Cops can pretty much murder you on a whim. This will just just make it more likely. If it means folks from easy ccw gun states are shot if you so much as make a cop uncomfortabe so be it. I have a hard time believeing anyone should be from Alabama.
I rate this troll 4/10.
I don’t think you’re really appreciating the subtlety of the troll here. I was impressed by the lazy capitalization and spelling, but it was this that elevated it for me:
A nice, ambiguous sentence fragment that is either a non-sequitur or maybe something that could (somehow) be rolled into a previous post’s point.
It’s rough, but I think it’s enough to elevate it to a 5, at least.
Interesting analysis of 5,000 articles regarding firearm use:
Meanwhile in Illinois, CCW may be heading to the supreme court:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-concealedcarry-il,0,331342.story
The judge ruled that the 2nd only applies in the home.
As a black man and the son of a cop, I think the above sentence is… ethnically situational. Highly.
You’ll get no argument from me; the way the police treat blacks in particular is criminal. Sorry. If it helps I’m a left-handed liberal atheist from one of the poorest Appalachian counties in Kentucky. I do have the ability to blend in with assholes whereas black people have that whole skin thing so it’s not real equivalence but . . . it sucks to be in the out-crowd.
H.
Well, you may not be that far off in Arizona…
My take is this, there are no states rights when it comes to firearms or really “arms”. The 2nd ammendment doesn’t say guns or firearms, it says “arms”. Which includes knives, swords, clubs etc…
The 10th ammendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The constitution and bill of rights supercedes the states when it comes to arms/firearms (as with the rest of the bill of rights/ammendments). The 2nd is a power delegated to the US and all signatories (states) are obliged to follow it or secede.
Speaking of those wackadoos in Arizona…
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/#.TzP9cr8hlO1
“We were watching from nearby vans as our buyers paid cash for a tactical assault rifle modified to use bullets for an AK-47, along with an easy-to-conceal pistol – no questions asked.”
ROFL. I’m still trying to figure out what he’s trying to say here other than a gotcha line using the dreaded “AK-47”. Idiot reporter probably took the retired ATF idiot at his word.
Another tragic example today of someone opening fire on the general public, this time in a movie theater. Here’s the QT3 thread on it.
I dislike government poking into my life as much as the next guy, but shit like this really does make me think gun control would be a good thing. Let people have tasers for self-protection and bows for hunting, and leave the firearms out of civilian life.
How would you deal with the saturated gun market? People who find owning guns being illegal that own a ton of guns for various reasons, what do they do? Does the goverment buy them back? Who pays for that? Do people that don’t want to sell them for whatever the goverment will reimburse for find a lucrative black market, and the problem is people who want guns for illegal reasons can still get them, only now maybe it’s even easier? I am curious how the logistics of such a change in how the laws operate now would even be enacted?
These are problably questions that have been asked a thousand times, but I’m honestly curious as to what the solutions might be in theory?
An intermediate period during which you can turn in your firearms to be destroyed. You’ll receive a receipt for the fair-market value that you can file with your taxes for a credit. During this time you can also apply for an exemption for certain weapons on collectors’ or utility grounds (hunting, sport shooting), and such claims will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
After the period is up, unlicensed possession of any firearms is a felony. You can apply for special licenses–again, sport shooters, hunters, etc.–but they will be strictly limited and not easy to obtain.
Edit: I’m not sure how buying guns illegally could ever be easier than it is now.