Carrying a gun won't provide much protection when it is taken away from you. Many people think carrying a gun is what will get them out of trouble. Many more people have found that carrying a gun caused more trouble than it was worth. Where do you put it? Every place is uncomfortable. It's much heavier than a wallet. If you got a belly it don't fit so well in your pants. People that don't have a need are show-offs and that will just get them in trouble that wouldn't have existed if they just didn't carry.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Let's see your statistics. I'm especially curious where you get your data about how many more people have found that carrying a gun has caused more trouble than it was worth.
But if we are just using meaningless generalities framed heavily by weasel words, many people have found that the gun made the difference between life and death. Between being raped and being secure in their person. Who do you think you are to tell a woman who has had her life saved from a would be rapist that she would be better off without the gun that made it possible?
Also, to address several of your claims, again, I'm guessing you don't have much experience with firearms. There are pistols that aren't much bigger than your wallet, (some which are smaller) and weigh about the same. I've carried both a pocket pistol and a full sized pistol, both fully concealed. I carry one or the other nearly every day. It isn't uncomfortable, in fact, it's easy to forget it is there.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-06-2013 at 06:29 AM.
Let's start here, How to protect yourself against crime
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Just because you read something into my post that I did not say? Not gonna play that bait-n-switch game with you, no matter how often you try. I've said our existing laws aren't being fully prosecuted, with underfunded/understaffed detectives and DAs as one explanation.
IIRC you've said we shouldn't add new laws until current laws are actually implemented, implying you agree that plenty of gun-related crimes aren't fully prosecuted.
My POV is that some SYG laws have flaws in how they're written, that there's so much variation between states it's ridiculous, and under-funding for investigations and prosecutions can mean nothing happens (when something should). Now please, stop putting words in my mouth, or spinning my posts out of context to suit your desire to argue.You seem to be under the impression that you can shoot someone in your house or on the streets and there be no subsequent investigation... because SYG law. This is not nor has it ever been the case.
What does the difference between the State's laws re: SYG make? Are there rampant shooting's taking place, being called SYG, but the shooter was crisscrossing states and is claiming ignorance?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
The difference is how they're prosecuted (or not), and sentenced (or not). That's one of my complaints about state laws vs federal laws, and lack of coordination that means inconsistency, particularly when crimes happen across state lines.
Didn't we already discuss this in the dedicated SYG laws after the Treyvon Martin case? Didn't we compare it to the domestic incident where the woman shot a gun in the air to ward off her attacker husband -- and got like a 15 year prison sentence -- even though no one was hurt, let alone killed?
Again so what? If Florida has a different standard than say New Jersey for SYG, what does it matter? What lack of coordination is there? Florida doesn't care how NJ handles its issues and the inverse is true to.
How does that impact anyone aside from someone who goes back and forth between the 2 States?
You are now making up issues.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Hope is the denial of reality
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You really think that is the core of her argument?
That's not a really bad argument, but not a really good one either.
The 14th is to prevent people being treated differently because of who they are (black vs white) not where they are.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Plus that would be an argument against allowing any variation in laws between states or cities...
Hope is the denial of reality
Well that is what she appears to want, to Hell with State's Rights...that pesky 10th!
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Yes. As she's said in the past she likes emotional reasoning, relies on what feels right and thinks we get bogged down with excessive intellectualizing and logical consistency.
I think it really is a bad argument, a very bad argument, but I really doubt GGT would be willing to engage in a discussion reasoning it all out. See above.That's not a really bad argument, but not a really good one either.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I object to your characterization of my opining, and it's not the best way to engage me in a reasoned discussion, either.
FYI: I don't think state's rights, to enact their own particular laws, are necessarily undermined by federal laws/oversight/consistency. I also recognize the importance of interstate mobility and commerce, as it fits in the fabric of our United States. These laws are all supposed to be Constitutional at the federal level, with judicial review, and ultimately decided by SCOTUS when challenged.
When states try to 'legalize' certain things -- by amending their own state constitutions -- it's usually struck down via the judicial process when it conflicts with the US Constitution. But not always, and definitely not in a timely manner. Judiciary moves slower than legislative.
Three current examples: Defining Marriage (to prohibit same-sex marriage), Personhood Amendments (to ban abortion services), and handgun bans (as DC tried). Equal Treatment, abortion, and gun ownership are currently Constitutionally protected rights. States cross a fine line when they enact laws that, in practice, translate to a prohibition/ban.
Every Right comes with legally recognized limitations, as well as protections. That includes firearms. I don't think *some* federal regulatory oversight over states is unreasonable or unconstitutional. The harder part is to determine what limitations, their degrees, and who's responsible for that oversight.
I don't think any state should be able to legalize any weapon for any person (even if it's written into their state constitution, or decided by voter ballot-iniative), and then use the 2nd Amendment as their rationale.
It is a little fucked up when murders are treated so very differently depending on the region in which they occur. Canadians and USAnians are worlds apart; New Jersians and Floridians are much closer to being members of the same society, more so in this interconnected age than ever before.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Criminal systems are also different between, say, Netherlands and Belgium.
I disagree with this rationality. Simply put there could be clear holes in the existing laws that need to be addressed. I think automatic guns are among them. Hunting guns should be legal, guns used at practices ranges/competitions (perhaps you have some addtional exclusive guns allowed there), things that no hunter would really need to do their job well, or something beyond a handgun's power, I think is silly. Guns do make me personally uncomfortable. Such a lethal weapon.IIRC you've said we shouldn't add new laws until current laws are actually implemented, implying you agree that plenty of gun-related crimes aren't fully prosecuted.
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 03-09-2013 at 09:54 AM.