Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, the risk of being a victim of violent crime DOES exist and varies based on location and context, so I'm not against people concealed carrying, but I think the risk is quite overstated and pushed by people with an agenda or profit motive, especially in a white-middle-class context where such crimes just happen less. I also think we need to increase the training and licensing requirements to concealed carry. In my state getting a CC permit is as simple as filling out an application, paying the fee, and sitting through a 4 hour class.
SO the people who may most likely to need to defend themselves should be unable to defend themselves? Makes sense. If poor minorities are more likely to be victims of crimes how is it they (the poor) will be able to arm themselves and take upon the increased burden you propose?
It is already overly burdensome for most of the poor, 200 plus bucks and 3 months of time to get a permit around here, another 500 for a firearm, ammo for training. Becomes a thousand bucks REAL fast.
SO the people who may most likely to need to defend themselves should be unable to defend themselves? Makes sense. If poor minorities are more likely to be victims of crimes how is it they (the poor) will be able to arm themselves and take upon the increased burden you propose?
It is already overly burdensome for most of the poor, 200 plus bucks and 3 months of time to get a permit around here, another 500 for a firearm, ammo for training. Becomes a thousand bucks REAL fast.
Weapons have never been cheap. I'm not saying raise the price of application, I'm just saying some more hours of training may be in order.
There's another aspect of this that is being overlooked. The good guy with the gun had no way of knowing whether the thugs would come after him next. So he was left in a "fight 'em over there vs. fight 'em over here" situation. Under those circumstances his decision to go ahead and take them down looks pretty smart.
It's easy for us to sit here and armchair quarterback this situation but this man had to act under tremendous pressure.
Is there any point in time when the consensus is against you that you might concede that your thinking is wrong.
The CCW carrier was not a cop and had no right draw or shoot his weapon.
You have obviously never taken a concealed carry class, if you had then you would know your thinking is skewed.
You are advocating using lethal force when the shooters life was not in danger and he had no fear for his life.
Good chance this guy my spend some jail time.
Your reasoning is why not everybody should be allowed to carry.
I'm wondering why the shooter didn't just shoot out the tires on the truck !
Probably would have been an easier target to shoot and the truck wouldn't have got very far.
The sound of a gun going off several times shooting out tires would have soiled the carjackers pants and would have sent them running.
He could have prevented the truck from being stolen and wouldn't have had the responsilbility of playing judge and executioner.
Tires are worth a lot less than human lives !
Hey FYI nobody is gonna take you seriously if you keep making sense
This is what concerns me about 'good guys with guns' getting involved in situations. First, their ability to actually hit the target - remember this is not the range - and not to hit innocent bystanders or victims and, second, their ability to accurately identify who the good guys are and who the bad guys are and to engage the right people.
There is theory and there is practice and real life is usually a lot more complicated than the theory.
^ this
I am a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and an advocate for common sense (ie: somewhat looser) gun laws here in New York but Jaggy brings up a really important point. I always ask how LEOs responding to a mass shooting will be able to distinguish between "good guys with guns" and "bad guys with guns"? Ive never gotten an answer ...
I firmly believe that the security of public places is best left to sworn law enforcement officers.
I am a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and an advocate for common sense (ie: somewhat looser) gun laws here in New York but Jaggy brings up a really important point. I always ask how LEOs responding to a mass shooting will be able to distinguish between "good guys with guns" and "bad guys with guns"? Ive never gotten an answer ...
I firmly believe that the security of public places is best left to sworn law enforcement officers.
Law abiding citizens will generally have an easier time in shoot/ no shoot scenarios due to the increased in clarity when it comes to the usage of force. LEOs dont respond to ongoing gunfights unless they are already there. The vast majority of the time they play cleanup.
I would imagine hit rates between CCW holders and LEOs are very similar and CCW holders may have better hit rates, again driven by clarity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
