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.
Back on topic you are right, 95% of those murders were with illegal handguns. I get it, the crooks will always get guns. But let's not forgot how many tragedies occur when guns are available. You mentioned suicide in a post before I removed my figures. It should be pretty clear that some of these could have been prevented had a gun not been so readily available.
As for background checks to own a firearm I have no idea why anyone would be against that. Sure it's a hassle for you guys, I don't doubt that. But it's also a huge responsibility that should be worth the effort IMO. Why in the world would I want to live in a state where a convicted felon with a short fuse and a cheating wife can walk into a gun store and walk out with a Glock? Why would I want the guy I just cut off unintentionally on the highway to have a gun at his side?
You shouldn't have removed your figures...no way were suicides a part of those figures...suicides run into the tens of thousands per year
You shouldn't have removed your figures...no way were suicides a part of those figures...suicides run into the tens of thousands per year
Yeah but like I said once we go down that road we will open up an entire new debate that will go on for 100 pages. I'd rather stay on track if possible.
Again I understand the frustration that law abiding gun owners feel by not being able to do what the Constitution says they can do. Again I'm not a gun hater, I treat hunting and gun ownership like homosexuality. Not for me but if it's your thing then who am I to object?
I just feel that allowing more people to carry concealed guns could lead to a whole lot more trouble than the 1 in 10 million chance that you can stop a bear or a crazy guy on the loose in the woods. Again my traffic accident example is just one of many. How about a dispute with a neighbor? Or finding your wife in bed with another man? Or a bar fight? A loud mouth drunk who spit on your son at the Ravens game? The list goes on and on.
Back on topic you are right, 95% of those murders were with illegal handguns. I get it, the crooks will always get guns. But let's not forgot how many tragedies occur when guns are available. You mentioned suicide in a post before I removed my figures. It should be pretty clear that some of these could have been prevented had a gun not been so readily available.
As for background checks to own a firearm I have no idea why anyone would be against that. Sure it's a hassle for you guys, I don't doubt that. But it's also a huge responsibility that should be worth the effort IMO. Why in the world would I want to live in a state where a convicted felon with a short fuse and a cheating wife can walk into a gun store and walk out with a Glock? Why would I want the guy I just cut off unintentionally on the highway to have a gun at his side?
Because that convicted felon can easily purchase and carry a firearm, regardless of the law. I mean, it is beating a dead horse at this point, but every situation you throw out about a potential tragedy involving a firearm is on the table regardless of concealed carry laws because laws only restricts firearm access to those who choose to follow them.
Society allows individuals to take risks with themselves and the lives of others every day. Cars can be used as deadly weapons....and are. You can kill your cheating wife with your bare hands (unless she has a gun ), which are completely legal to openly carry.
So, this conversation is devolving into "I reject your experiences because they are uncomfortable and will substitute my own in their place," a bit on both side as we are all debating about low probability events, some of which have happened, some of which may happen.
I will end with a philosophical point. I think human beings have not only a right to self defense from other humans who would do us harm, including outside our homes (like the woods,) but also the right to keep our place at the top of the food chain. I like having bears (some, we have too many) living in our woods. I support initiatives like reintroducing wolves at Yellowstone (again, so long as there are controls in place to keep the population in line with what the wild areas can support.) Many people, myself including, think it is only a matter of time before breeding populations of Mountain Lions will return to Western Maryland. I believe wild places are healthier when herbivore populations are kept in check.
But if as a society we are going to back track on our long standing mentality to eradicate the animals that can eat us, we have to understand that it is a game changer in terms of safety when going into the woods. I don't want to be put in the position of having myself or a family member hurt or killed by a wild animal, when it could have been avoiding by allowing what has been custom for 100s of years, and law in many (if not most) states where nature is still wild.
Last edited by westsideboy; 05-26-2015 at 09:24 AM..
Living in Virginia where you can carry openly or concealed, I find myself more concerned about encountering drunk drivers than I am with someone carrying a gun.
Because that convicted felon can easily purchase and carry a firearm, regardless of the law. I mean, it is beating a dead horse at this point, but every situation you throw out about a potential tragedy involving a firearm is on the table regardless of concealed carry laws because laws only restricts firearm access to those who choose to follow them.
Society allows individuals to take risks with themselves and the lives of others every day. Cars can be used as deadly weapons....and are. You can kill your cheating wife with your bare hands (unless she has a gun ), which are completely legal to openly carry.
So, this conversation is devolving into "I reject your experiences because they are uncomfortable and will substitute my own in their place," a bit on both side as we are all debating about low probability events, some of which have happened, some of which may happen.
I will end with a philosophical point. I think human beings have not only a right to self defense from other humans who would do us harm, including outside our homes (like the woods,) but also the right to keep our place at the top of the food chain. I like having bears (some, we have too many) living in our woods. I support initiatives like reintroducing wolves at Yellowstone (again, so long as there are controls in place to keep the population in line with what the wild areas can support.) Many people, myself including, think it is only a matter of time before breeding populations of Mountain Lions will return to Western Maryland. I believe wild places are healthier when herbivore populations are kept in check.
But if as a society we are going to back track on our long standing mentality to eradicate the animals that can eat us, we have to understand that it is a game changer in terms of safety when going into the woods. I don't want to be put in the position of having myself or a family member hurt or killed by a wild animal, when it could have been avoiding by allowing what has been custom for 100s of years, and law in many (if not most) states where nature is still wild.
Again you are missing my point. Can a convicted felon obtain an illegal gun on the street? Of course. But can he do it 10 minutes after finding his wife in bed with his best friend? Not even close to as easily and quickly as he could if he simply walked into a gun store as my example illustrates. Of course he can kill with his bare hands but he's much more likely to kill when armed with rage and a hand gun.
But again the issue here is will your way result in more people carrying weapons and what are the ramification. I think it's beyond obvious that if gun laws are relaxed to follow your guidelines your neighbor or the guy you just cut off on the highway is MUCH more likely to be carrying a gun. That's my point, not the career criminal but the guy who can pass a basic requirement that you want as law. This guy is not a criminal, he will have no interest in purchasing a hand gun illegally. But with your law here he is, armed with a hand gun and full of happy hour Budweiser as you accidentally cut him off. We all have seen how people on the road react, or should I say over react, to traffic issues. Put a gun at the side of this guy and someone may not make it home alive.
Sorry not a good trade off so you can feel safe from the monsters in the woods that apparently only are attracted to you and have avoided me and everyone I know for 40 years. Again I posted a quote from a gun enthusiast who points out spray is much more effective than a gun on a charging bear. You do not need a gun to keep safe, you just think you do.
Again you are missing my point. Can a convicted felon obtain an illegal gun on the street? Of course. But can he do it 10 minutes after finding his wife in bed with his best friend? Not even close to as easily and quickly as he could if he simply walked into a gun store as my example illustrates. Of course he can kill with his bare hands but he's much more likely to kill when armed with rage and a hand gun.
But again the issue here is will your way result in more people carrying weapons and what are the ramification. I think it's beyond obvious that if gun laws are relaxed to follow your guidelines your neighbor or the guy you just cut off on the highway is MUCH more likely to be carrying a gun. That's my point, not the career criminal but the guy who can pass a basic requirement that you want as law. This guy is not a criminal, he will have no interest in purchasing a hand gun illegally. But with your law here he is, armed with a hand gun and full of happy hour Budweiser as you accidentally cut him off. We all have seen how people on the road react, or should I say over react, to traffic issues. Put a gun at the side of this guy and someone may not make it home alive.
Sorry not a good trade off so you can feel safe from the monsters in the woods that apparently only are attracted to you and have avoided me and everyone I know for 40 years. Again I posted a quote from a gun enthusiast who points out spray is much more effective than a gun on a charging bear. You do not need a gun to keep safe, you just think you do.
I am not missing your point, it is just really weak. I am not arguing against background checks for firearm purchases, so even if your hypothetical felon who finds his cheating wife in bed isn't currently packing heat, he is orders of magnitudes more likely to be able to buy a weapon illegally on the street quickly, than the guy going through the legal process of purchase I have not argued against.......and at any rate, what does it have it do with the right to defend yourself and your family in the woods from potentially dangerous animals (fellow humans included.)
People for hundreds of years have had the right to defend themselves against wild animals rather than being eaten if they are targeted. These animals are making a comeback across the nation, and in our own state. A lot has changed in 40 years. I think the basic right for a human being to stay at the top of the food chain remains valid.
You know there is a middle ground position right? One where carrying a firearm is still illegal in certain places at certain times, but allowed at others. I am not approaching this debate as a "all or nothing" proposition. I am asking for folks to think about circumstances where having a firearm on you could mean the difference between life and death for yourself and your family. The debate about the guy carrying his gun after leaving the bar and cutting you off shouldn't be a reason to ban hikers from carrying firearms in bear country.
There is also a "paradox of risk" that should be brought up. The people most familiar with the risk associated with an activity are almost certainly the most likely to engage in it. Think of Baltimore City. People that live there are much more aware of what is going on in their streets and neighborhoods in regards to random crime......and also more likely to take the risk of hoofing around, than somebody like me.
Why? Because you can become familiar with risk, know how to mitigate it (or at least think you can,) and understand that some risks are part of parcel of the lifestyle you wish to live.
It is same for folks like me. I don't see bears as monsters, it is a bit unwelcome for those words to be put in my mouth. I think bears, mountain lions, coyotes, all have a place in a world with as much forest as Western Maryland. I am also not naive to what happens when predators overpopulate, or the risk involved with them living close to people. The risk isn't immense, but still very real. Forgetting that risk is losing respect for the power of nature. So, when I saw that pile of bear crap on my hike a few weeks back, I said "Hmm.....bear has been around recently, keep my head up and eyes peeled." But I also didn't deviate from my purpose of being as quiet as possible (my family was out of town) so I could bird watch (which was very successful. I got to spend about 2-3 minutes only 10 yards away from a crow sized Piliated Woodpecker looking around for food at eye level; breath taking bird.)
I took a small risk of maybe getting too close to a bear, just like a city person would take the calculated risk of walking home at night from a bar even if there have been muggings on their street.
Still, it stinks to know that I can't trust certain trails around my city to be safe from people up to no good. It stinks to know that when my kids are with me, we better be making lots of noise to make sure the bears hear us well in advance, even if it takes away from our chances to see special things.
So, no fear of monsters in the woods, just respect for animals much larger and powerful than myself. I want a world where animals can live in the woods freely, but people are protected, if necessary. I don't see any other way it can work unless you want to eradicate anything larger than a fox that isn't an herbivore, or tell people "good luck, hope you don't run into 300 pounds of rabid, hungry, or protective claws and teeth."
Again, there is a middle ground here. Willing to take it?
Oh I'm absolutely willing to take it. If you want a gun to protect yourself in the woods I'm fine with that. But please help me understand how a guy carrying a gun in the woods for protection can not possibly be the same angry motorist on his way home from those woods with that same gun that I have described earlier. He may well have purchased that gun with the best of intentions but when he has had 6 beers and gets cut off or walks in the door and finds his wife in bed with the neighbor all bets are off. No gun no shooting.
You put guns in more people's hands there is a better chance that they will misuse it. Just that simple.
Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 05-26-2015 at 01:13 PM..
Oh I'm absolutely willing to take it. If you want a gun to protect yourself in the woods I'm fine with that. But please help me understand how a guy carrying a gun in the woods for protection can not possibly be the same angry motorist on his way home from those woods with that same gun that I have described earlier. He may well have purchased that gun with the best of intentions but when he has had 6 beers and gets cut off or walks in the door and finds his wife in bed with the neighbor all bets are off. No gun no shooting.
You put guns in more people's hands there is a better chance that they will misuse it. Just that simple.
There is no way to tell which motorist who receives his driver's license is going to misuse it and drink and drive or become an aggressor in a road rage situation. There is no way to tell which people are going to violate their marriage vows and commit adultery in the family house. Yet, we still have legal processes that allow for people to drive, and legal processes for people to get married.
No gun, no shooting? Sure. No car, no drunk driving. No marriage, no adultery. Risk is part of life. The balancing act is advocating for your own safety in a way that doesn't enforce a standard on others that exposes them to unnecessary danger.
I haven't been convinced that people who apply and qualify for concealed carry permits for safety in the forest based on some pretty simple standards (like say gun safety classes + no criminal record + background check) pose an unacceptable level of risk to anyone else. Again, the person you need to worry about is the one that doesn't care a lick about whether carrying the weapon is legal, or not, and just does it. That person has already shown a disregard for the rule of law, and standards of society. There is no way to legislate or regulate away the risk that person causes. To me, that is the simplest argument of all.
Last edited by westsideboy; 05-26-2015 at 04:00 PM..
We both agree on the criminals getting guns. Let's focus on the real issue here, the tens of thousands of folks that will now carry guns under your proposal that will not under my plan. Again the more guns there are on the road the more likely a hot head will use one after being cut off. Frankly I don't see how that is debatable. And for people like me that's not a good trade off so you will feel safe in the woods. It's just that simple and I'm hardly alone.
Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 05-27-2015 at 07:16 AM..
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.
), which are completely legal to openly carry.
