Moving to Arlington, need to invest in personal protection? (place to live, dangerous)

[saganista]

So, what you are saying is that it's the areas that have the larger problems with crime and violence that tend to pass the majority of gun control laws? Interesting...

[Bluefly]

^^
48 out of 50 states allow concealed carry. Which are the ones with much lower crime? California allows concealed carry. New York allows concealed carry. Louisiana allows concealed carry.

TheseGoTo11 - how would allowing guns make people safer? There are neighborhoods where children can't even walk out on the street. Is an open gun war between the "good" guys and the "bad" guys (however that is defined on any particular day) going to make it all better? The good guys would have to win pretty quickly and comprehensively (assuming they knew how to shoot straight) or else it'd get Iraq War ugly very fast. You gun down some drug dealer on the corner, you better watch you back and lock your children away because his cousin's coming for blood. He guns your child down and then your family's going for revenge on him.

I'm actually quite pro-gun rights for hunting and target shooting and perhaps home invasion. I just find the arguments for arming all of society absurd. Is that what the land of the free should be? Everybody with their finger on the trigger, waiting for someone to look at them funny? We don't live in 1950s westerns.

Anyway - this is all off topic. No. You don't need a gun in Arlington.

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by saganista

So, what you are saying is that it's the areas that have the larger problems with crime and violence that tend to pass the majority of gun control laws? Interesting...

I think it's hard for people from more rural areas to comprehend how dangerous guns can be when the groundrules of basic human behavior give way to an urban territorial mindset. It's why there's a general cultural divide between those who live responsibily with guns (typically exurban, small town, or rural) and those who have seen how irresponsibly guns can be handled (typically urban).

I would, personally, be scared living in DC if everybody could carry guns. I've seen too many incidents of tempers flaring on crowded, alcohol-fueled streets or in clubs. In some instances, mass pandamonia broke out with cops racing in from all directions. In others, people were gunned down - not in the hood, but in front of million dollar condos. I can only imagine how many more would have been killed if others started drawing guns in self defense or revenge.

[Yac]

If anyone wants to add their 2c to the gun laws and 2nd amendment discussion, we have a separate forum for this type of topics :Politics and Other Controversies Forum - Relocation, Moving, Local City Discussions - City-Data Forum
Here, please stick to the original topic.
Yac.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

I know this is predictably getting off topic (any topic involving guns is bound to), but just curious why people who cry out about 2nd amendment rights never finish the sentence.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I think guns are fine to have, but how come most gun owners don't actually belong to a well regulated militia, per the purpose of the amendment? There is nothing in there that talks about peoples' right to carry around guns and shoot down criminals. That is not "well regulated".

The "militia" refers to anyone capable of bearing arms, not in the military (standing armies were seen as a threat to liberty, having a well armed population, armed equally with the government, was seen as the best way to ensure the country remains free). The first clause is the purpose, the second portion is the actual right it protects.

Back to the original topic: I'd definately carry a gun, in any city or rural area. As the saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Arlington has enough crime to do so. Vermont doesn't have much crime and I still carry in VT. Get a CC license for Virginia (actually you could open carry without any license in VA but you may or may not like doing that), in Maryland and DC proper it's of course impossible, seeing as how Maryland generally never issues the licenses, and DC bans handguns and carrying them.

[Gil3]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

I think it's hard for people from more rural areas to comprehend how dangerous guns can be when the groundrules of basic human behavior give way to an urban territorial mindset. It's why there's a general cultural divide between those who live responsibily with guns (typically exurban, small town, or rural) and those who have seen how irresponsibly guns can be handled (typically urban).

I would, personally, be scared living in DC if everybody could carry guns. I've seen too many incidents of tempers flaring on crowded, alcohol-fueled streets or in clubs. In some instances, mass pandamonia broke out with cops racing in from all directions. In others, people were gunned down - not in the hood, but in front of million dollar condos. I can only imagine how many more would have been killed if others started drawing guns in self defense or revenge.

Very well said...

To the OP, no, you will be safe without a gun in the area of Arlington you are living. In fact, you will be in one of the safest areas in the region, and a coveted one at that. Don't get me wrong..I am NOT anti-gun. I'm an ex-Marine..I've been around many weapons. However, paranoia can sometimes be worse than not having a weapon at all.

[Trigger2008]

They allow concealed carry if you show the need to be armed ie., carry large amounts of cash, can prove your life is being threated etc. They are very difficult to obtain in many cases.

In many cases criminals are able obtain guns illegally and everyday law abiding citizens cannot. Another example of criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens.

[Trigger2008]

Last note on this subject and the founders intent on this was clear:

The United States was founded when its citizens overthrew a tyrannical government by force. The founding fathers included the Second Amendment in our Constitution to ensure that it could be done again. The words of Thomas Jefferson make this clear.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

TheseGoTo11 - how would allowing guns make people safer?

There's high demand for guns in bad areas, and criminals find a way to get them regardless of the law, similar to how they do drugs. Statistically, gun violence correlates highly with race, income, and population density, but not at all with gun laws.

Problem gun laws create is that cops spend too much time chasing down illegal guns, just as they spin their wheels hunting down pot smokers. Absolute waste of taxpayer $. More effective thing to do is clean up neighborhoods, and to reduce the population densities of poor people.

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by saganista

So, what you are saying is that it's the areas that have the larger problems with crime and violence that tend to pass the majority of gun control laws? Interesting...

gun control has been attempted as a panacea in high crime cities

but look at DC, homicide rate is the 4 wealthiest zips (20007,20008,20015,20016) is virtually zero, and they're almost 20% of the city, other 80% is ridiculous

same laws, but different people in different circumstances

if you hold race constant, biggest declines come when property values increase or density decreases

gun violence is a symptom of many social factors no politician can solve, so pols pretend gun control will somehow be the magic answer even though the illegal distribution networks remain strong, as they are for drugs, and we've already wasted tens of billions losing that war