This type of bill would pass in Georgia... (high crime, how much)

[gt6974a]

The guys that robbed me and then took me hostage in my own car were going to kill me. They were saying this in Spanish and speaking to me in English. I got away by rolling out of my car at 35mph on Roswell Road in BuckHead.

If I had a gun in my car then, where I keep it now, I could have protected myself.

[Jimrob1]

Reading all this sounds like taking a ride on a stagecoach in something like 1870 in the wild west. If your transit is that bad and you need a gun which has only 2 purposes to hurt or kill someone, then why bother with your transit then. If you need one in a restaurant, I mean this is getting ridiculous.

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by gt6974a

If I had a gun in my car then, where I keep it now, I could have protected myself.

Or they could have shot you instantly as you reached for your gun or saw you with a gun.

I am not trying to diminish that very traumatic incident that you experienced, but please realize that having a gun is not the "be all end all" of being a victim of crime. There are times when having a gun for protection can make the outcome even more tragic. I know that is easier for me to say because I was not (and have never been) in your situation, but I just think issues like carrying a gun into a restaurant need to be thought of more logically and less dichotomously (i.e., no gun = victim, gun = not a victim).

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by Jimrob1

Reading all this sounds like taking a ride on a stagecoach in something like 1870 in the wild west. If your transit is that bad and you need a gun which has only 2 purposes to hurt or kill someone, then why bother with your transit then. If you need one in a restaurant, I mean this is getting ridiculous.

I completely agree with you here. Is crime in Georgia truly this bad that we feel like we have to give permission to our citizens to be armed while eating at a restaurant? What's next - having 18 year olds in high school packing heat?

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by AtlDad

But, I obviously do support people's rights to responsibly carry. I believe I could be convinced it is not possilbe to responsibly carry. I also definitely believe that there are places that people should not be allowed to carry.

The issue is - there is little in place to objectively determine a subjective quality such as "responsible." Sure, we can have measures against folks with mental disorders or previous criminal records. But that's it. I am not a pacifist, but I am not a supporter of completely open and free gun laws either. I still have no idea why people believe they need a gun on a subway or a bus. And don't people realize that introducing a hazard like a gun into the equation increases risk for everyone around (family, friends, fellow commuters)?

I also think cross-fire arguments are valid. I also would agree that the criminals always start with the advantage. But, I can also imagine scenarios where people may be able to overcome the advantage and prevail.

This is what many open gun law advocates do - imagine scenarios or how things would be different. For example, after the Virginia Tech massacre, those in favor of guns on college campuses kept touting how the massacre could have been prevented (in terms of the number of people killed) if students were allowed to have guns. However, the case could also be made that more would have died in the crossfire. So, while it's nice to envision a more harmonious world with everyone packing a 39 mm, the reality is - there is little tangible evidence to firmly defend such a position.

[RainyRainyDay]

Originally Posted by wxjay

I completely agree with you here. Is crime in Georgia truly this bad that we feel like we have to give permission to our citizens to be armed while eating at a restaurant? What's next - having 18 year olds in high school packing heat?

The logical extension of the arguments we're seeing here would seem to be elementary school kids packing heat.

[AtlDad]

Originally Posted by wxjay

This is what many open gun law advocates do - imagine scenarios or how things would be different. For example, after the Virginia Tech massacre, those in favor of guns on college campuses kept touting how the massacre could have been prevented (in terms of the number of people killed) if students were allowed to have guns. However, the case could also be made that more would have died in the crossfire. So, while it's nice to envision a more harmonious world with everyone packing a 39 mm, the reality is - there is little tangible evidence to firmly defend such a position.

The evidence comes in the form of the many articles you can find on the web (that I referenced in an earlier post on this thread) where private citizens carrying guns did, in fact, stop the criminal. Did the bystander having a gun stop the situation or was the criminal going to stop killing people anyway? We may never know but it seems a little too likely that when citizens show up with guns at massacre type events that the killing stops.

We don't have to imagine scenarios where guns stop violence. We have plenty of news articles available that show where the victims have been able to turn the tables. Many times criminals with knives end up getting shot by the victim. Other times, someone not involved as a criminal or a victim hears gun shots and goes to the scene to help. Again, you can find articles for this scenario using your favorite search engine.

Could the case be made that more people may die if someone that does not know what they are doing pulls their gun? Absolutely. There are likely documented cases where this has happend. But, the case can just as easily be made (and has happened and has been documented) that the private citizen carrying a gun stops additional people from being shot. Saying that there is little tangible evidence (for either side) is simply incorrect.

[JoeP]

And those who break the law should be punished for their actions. Those that do not break the law should not be punished.

Correct, which is why we have laws.

[clmaloy]

Originally Posted by Vampgrrl

Yes, the thugs don't listen to the law already. They are already carrying.

All this bill does is give you the legal right to protect yourself with a valid CCP.

AMEN!

WHy is it that people think someone carrying a gun is itching to shoot it? Carrying requires a permit. Permits require education. Kinda like driving a car. When used responsibly, it is a boon to the person and those around them. When used irresponsibly, the law doesn't really matter until after they've done the damage in the first place, because it obviously didn't stop them.

[clmaloy]

Originally Posted by wxjay

And don't people realize that introducing a hazard like a gun into the equation increases risk for everyone around (family, friends, fellow commuters)?

What makes you think that a change in the law will INTRODUCE a hazard? That implies that it isn't already there. Gotta tell you, there are probably already Guns on Marta... carried by those that would take our rights away... you know, the ones called Criminals by the general public.