PROS and CONS on "the right to carry weapons" (violent crime, home)

[GreenGene]

Originally Posted by BF66389

The same can be said of a knife, brick, baseball bat, or even fists.

How many instances in just 2009 can you think of where a nut using a knife, brick, baseball bat, or his fists killed multiple innocent people?

Originally Posted by BF66389

A firearm is no different from any other tool....

If true, why aren't more people openly carrying knives, or bricks, or baseball bats?

Originally Posted by GregW

I believe it is a fundamental right to defend your self against any assault. I also believe it is a fundamental right to choose whatever weapons you deem necessary and to carry these weapons, openly or concealed anywhere you want to. I do not believe in any restrictions.

Given that the above may seem extreme ....

Gee, ya think? Extreme? So if I deem a light antitank weapon to be necessary, that's OK? I seem to recall they are pretty light and easily carried (assuming they still make them - my knowledge of LAWs goes back a few decades).

Ready, aim, .....

[CaseyB]

Originally Posted by GreenGene

How many instances in just 2009 can you think of where a nut using a knife, brick, baseball bat, or his fists killed multiple innocent people?

Milton, Massachusetts in March of this year.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/8115390-post1.html

[sgthoskins]

Originally Posted by GreenGene

How many instances in just 2009 can you think of where a nut using a knife, brick, baseball bat, or his fists killed multiple innocent people?


If true, why aren't more people openly carrying knives, or bricks, or baseball bats?


Gee, ya think? Extreme? So if I deem a light antitank weapon to be necessary, that's OK? I seem to recall they are pretty light and easily carried (assuming they still make them - my knowledge of LAWs goes back a few decades).

Ready, aim, .....

I carry a knife daily too.

Anti-tank weapons are illegal for civilians to use. This is a NH forum go troll the VA forum you sheep.

[tkx7]

why would anyone want the government taking away a weapon from a good, well-intentioned citizen?

[sgthoskins]

Originally Posted by tkx7

why would anyone want the government taking away a weapon from a good, well-intentioned citizen?

Control. Every population in the history of earth that has been disarmed has been controlled.

[blessedme]

I have never been able to come up with a single valid reason as to why a person should not be able to own a gun.
Any time anti-gun person tried to convince me otherwise, their arguments usually become mostly emotional rather than logical. And we all know that you can't argue with emotions.

If we want to talk about people's safety and what can potentially cause damage to the public, I think we should start by taking Driver License away from a very large portion of today's population. There are a whole lot more people who are killed by reckless, drunk, angry and now, text-messaging drivers then people who are killed by regular citizens who own a gun.

[BF66389]

Originally Posted by GreenGene

How many instances in just 2009 can you think of where a nut using a knife, brick, baseball bat, or his fists killed multiple innocent people?

If true, why aren't more people openly carrying knives, or bricks, or baseball bats?

Gee, ya think? Extreme? So if I deem a light antitank weapon to be necessary, that's OK? I seem to recall they are pretty light and easily carried (assuming they still make them - my knowledge of LAWs goes back a few decades).

Ready, aim, .....

Here's a few crimes recently close to home (different incidents, 2 gun, 4 knife):
Lawrence sees 2 shootings, 4 stabbings overnight - Boston.com

Here is another one with a hammer:
UPDATE: Boone Co. Woman Dies After Being Beaten with Hammer - WXIN

Here is one with I believe only body parts:
Father-of-four beaten to death after confronting teenagers outside home - Telegraph

Many people do concealed or open carry knives, because they can be a useful tool or perhaps they enjoy being able to enjoy their whittling hobby when they get a minute (I've seen folks sitting in a park whittling before).

Whether used defense, hunting, or hobby- a firearm is a useful tool for law-abiding citizens.

Also, you mention "how extreme"; a good analogy is vehicles. A soccer Mom doesn't really need :::insert name of large vehicle here::: in fact a Toyota Corolla is probably just fine- it seats 4 children easily/safely and their "gear" in the trunk. But, if she can operate the vehicle within the constraints of responsible use/the law...so be it. Likewise one could argue that if I like shooting targets a .22 is fine- it can be used to shoot targets; but if I have a 1000 meter range with an appropriate backstop why is using a .50 bmg any different? I would be operating within the constraints of responsible use/the law.

I completely respect anyones decision to NOT own a firearm or not permit firearms on their private property, just as I would any other decision (alcohol, parking, whatever). I would never argue that "you better own a gun", but I will fiercely argue "you should have the right to".

The issue at the heart of a crime is the DECISION MADE BY A CRIMINAL TO COMMIT A CRIME...the tool used really doesn't matter. We need to get criminals to stop commiting crimes...not limit the gun that Johny legal/responsible user can take to the range on Friday after work or use in another other legal way.

I'd also add that the vast majority of firearms used to commit a crime are NOT owned legally; they are stolen (often from the police actually) or imported via foreign black-markets. Someone at work asked me if people being able to own guns meant more were stolen by criminals/used in crimes- and generally this isn't the case. Stealing from the police (who they know 100% have a firearm) or acquiring via illegal markets is far more common.

[GregW]

IIRC owning an anti tank weapon is not illegal providing you register it with the Frderal government and pay the associated fees and taxes. You can even own the tank the weapon is supposed to be able to kill. They are, however, somewhat difficult to conceal and are far too destructive to use on a drunk soccer mon texting while driving the wrong way on and interstate at night.

[maestramommy]

I'm not anti-gun, though I don't own one, and probably never will. What I don't understand is why so many people in NH have a gun. You say it's to protect yourself and your family. From who? It was my understanding that the violent crime rate here (I mean random acts of violence) is pretty rare.

[BF66389]

Originally Posted by maestramommy

I'm not anti-gun, though I don't own one, and probably never will. What I don't understand is why so many people in NH have a gun. You say it's to protect yourself and your family. From who? It was my understanding that the violent crime rate here (I mean random acts of violence) is pretty rare.

There are a lot of reasons to own firearms other than for defense against criminals, some people own them because they are works of art (you should see some engraving work- I know a guy who collects custom-engraved firearms as pieces of art alone), some own them for hunting (yes, I actually know folks who consume entirely game animals- much healthier than most farmed animals), others own them for competitive shooting, and others own them in case wild animals pose a problem.

There are also statistics to show that areas with armed & trained individuals tend to have lower violent crime statistics; while I believe these are exaggerated to some extent (though not enough to lose their validity) and socio-economic reasons play a role- it does make A LOT more sense that a criminal would think twice about a home invasion in a state like NH where many families own guns vs. another state where they are very rare.

I hope that helps?