The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
Let's be sure and tell this idiot how dangerous automobiles are. He might never drive again, or the radiation from that lethal device would rot his brain.
On the other hand, he may be a member of the tinfoil hat crowd. In any case, I would hope HE owuld be denied a CCW - his writing seriously does sound like a person with a serious mental illness.
My thoughts exactly John. Although, it sounds like it may be too late, and the radiation has already gotten to his brain.
My personal favorite paragraph is the one where he brays ignorance about gun laws, as if it's impossible to learn about local laws governing use of deadly force. Forget about the fact that police departments, private citizens, and any good local law office should be able to educate you easily and quickly, though sometimes for a small fee. Instead, let's just pretend that the decision to use deadly force in a self-defense situation is such a hysteria inducing event that the mere contemplation of said event gives me the vapors.
What a wuss.
Thank you everyone for misreading my post, and calling me an idiot and a wuss. That shows what kind of adults you all are. Thank you.
How exactly was your post misread? "The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself," just from carrying a gun? I don't have a CCL, nor do I even own a gun, but I have friends who do, and they are quite sensible and level-headed about it. They are *less* likely to go ape because they are *more* aware of their responsibilities.
You might check into the statistics for violent crime committed by holders of CCLs before jumping to conclusions.
Actually, Hoplophobe describes you very well, Barry. Please don't every carry a pistol.
I just love it when someone refers to a tool in such a way. 'Evil', 'emitting lethal radiation', etc. It usually comes with, or is followed by, how it corrupts people into vile acts, or how common people aren't smart/sophisticated/trustworthy enough to deal with this device.
To borrow a phrase, take a pill, dude. It's a tool, and it doesn't make you do anything.
"it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation"
What I was trying to get across was that the knowledge I was carrying a weapon would make me feel extremely nervous and probably paranoid, and its effects would like increase the longer I held on to it. LIKE radiation, it would be a gradual, insidious process. It's a comparison, a metaphor...not to be taken literally. Geez.
It's a good thing that there seem to be low statistics attributed to CCL wearers but that may be due to the fact that the fewer who have them the more likely they are to be trained and mentally stable enough to carry. The more and more people who carry, the better and better chance that someone's going to snap and go off on someone. Brawls, fights, knifings, etc happen all the time - just because they don't involve handguns yet doesn't mean they won't if the percentage of people carrying a gun increases. It's the law of averages coupled with human propensity toward sudd
You do realize that, in the unlikly event that one of your fellow Americans snaps, you're defenseless? That's one of the reasons for concealed carry. To deter anti-social behavior like crime, spree-killings, and such. Because only you know if you're armed.
Carrying a gun does not make me more likely to "snap and go off on someone". I am of sound mind and body, and have a firm grasp of my emotions. I carry all the time, and have no trouble when someone is rude, cuts me off in traffic or shouts verbal insults at me. (Such is the norm in DC traffic.) Indeed, people who do not have emotional stability, should not carry a firearm. Unfortunately there is no good way to determine such a thing.
As an analogy, people that have anger management problems may be more prone to child abuse. You could even suppose that they should not be permitted to be around children. You cannot logically deduce, however, that the mere presence of children makes child abuse more likely, or that children are to blame for the abuse. (no matter how ornery they are.)
You do realize that, in the unlikly event that one of your fellow Americans snaps, you're defenseless?
All the more reason to make it illegal for them to be carrying a firearm in the first place. The risk is too great.
What I'm saying is: In society as a whole, from what I've seen of human nature, the risk of unintentional deadly violence due to possession of a more lethal weapon than any other formerly allowed is greater than the gains of individual self-defense.
In other words, I don't think the numbers of people saved will make up for the numbers of people who will eventually be lost.
And if you don't believe that will happen - fine. I do. And I'm not trying to force anyone to change their ways - I'm just giving my opinion of what I think the consequences will eventually be.
So your saying that gun possession turns law-abiding citizens into criminal madmen? That, if concealed carry was illegal, they would obey that law but, when they got their grubby little hands on a firearm, they would gleefully mow down innocent people?
Barry what is your first reaction to this statement: "I don't like deadbolts. Deadbolts say that you don't trust people. This causes resentment which makes a person more likely to commit burglary. If there were no deadbolts, they would be less crime. I don't have deadbolts and neither should anyone else."
(Of course a better analogy would be, "I'll let people own deadbolts but I won't let them install them on the door")
Don't say "Deadbolts aren't designed to kill people." I'm looking for your assessment of the ass-hattedness of the remark, not how it fits into you point of view.
If a person is not hindered by the law against murder, what makes you think that a law against carrying a gun is going to stop him?
Your notion that a would be murderer will say to himself "Well, gee I want to kill that guy, but carrying a gun would be illegal.." is pretty shallow.
Just as a anecdotal aside, about 10 years ago, I was robbed at gun point under a street lamp, next to a fast food joint, 40 paces from my apartment. It was a well lit area, never had problems there before or since. By two guys with a gun they had obtained illegally.
They also took my car keys and car.
All the laws of the state didn't stop that from happening.
So never say "It can't happen to me" because it can. Not saying it will, but that it can.
I didn't have a gun on me. Would it have made a difference? Who knows, but I do know that the criminals had no regard to gun laws or my personal safety. They were willing to risk my life for a couple of bucks and a car.
Another anecdotal story. I have never been held up at gun point by a law abiding citizen with a CCW. Ever. Nor do I know of anyone who has.
BTW, I plan on getting a gun and a CCW permit. I have no problem understanding that the gun is just a tool that can be used in different situations to produce diffe
part 2. Sorry, didn't realize this board has a character cap...
...gun is just a tool that can be used in different situations to produce different results.
I am not anymore likely to go on a murderous rampage with a gun than I am to go on a murderous rampage with my car. Although stats indicate that cars kill more people than guns.
Barry's sentiments echo my mother-in-law's. However, even she would use a gun to defend her self or her loved ones against rape or assualt. The only problem is that she has never touched a firearm, doesn't trust herself to, and is frightened by their presence. I concur, with her temper, she is one person that I would not like to see with a firearm. She made a choice not to own or carry one. I make a choice to own and would carry if my local laws allowed it. I'm working to change my local laws. The deadbolt analogy was spot on.
barry, you say that you aren't trying to force anyone to change their ways, but you are advocating a change in the law that would cause exactly that. at any rate, it doesn't matter; "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed"... i don't see anything in there about "barry's feelings".
Although I appreciate Barry's fears, I resent the idea that his fears should control my actions.
Umpty-ump millions of people in this country own guns and have not snapped and suddenly attacked their fellow citizens.
A smaller number have been granted permits to carry a concealed firearm, and have not snapped.
I don't know who's carrying, legally or illegally. Barry, you don't know either--at what point are you willing to consider that your fear is irrational, and that you are as safe as the rest of us?
Barry is the product of a successful society, and an example of why successful societies rarely persist for long periods of time. The people feel safe without having to learn anything about the harsh realities of defending themselves from attackers, they then forget, over generations, that there is a need to protect themselves from such things. Subsequent generations then fail to support anything to do with protecting themselves, and then the criminal elements or the tyrannical elements, or whatever destructive element begins to grow unrestricted.
Then Barry either learns very quickly the purpose and proper execution of CCW, or Barry dies and society devolves into anarchy or tyranny. Have a nice life Barry, your peers will provide for your safety as best we can.
Damn! Gone for another four days and get this great comment thread!
And Barry, re-read your own post. It was not misread. I think you don't really understand what you were saying. Read what you wrote, forgetting for a moment what you intended.
Ever hear of a "Freudian slip"?
Barry has a post on his blog.
Yup. Referenced three posts above.
Actually, I understand what Barry is saying.
Having the power of life and death over another human being IS a huge responsibility -- and not everyone can handle it.
Which is why I never advocate compulsory arming of the population, unlike some of the more rabid gun nuts.
But I resent bitterly that people who are overwhelmed by the responsibility automatically assume that everyone else is the same as them, and that therefore no one should be allowed to exercise it.
Good point, Kim. Hope Barry sees it.
Kim given my recent experience you speak the truth regarding the responsibility that comes with carrying. Having hunted a man in my back yard I can say for certain that the aftermath was nothing to be taken lightly.
Will I stop carrying my Springfield .45 Stainless GI Model...hehe. Only when they pry that bastard out of my cold dying hand. Till then it is always near.
I too want to thank you for being willing to discuss this issue.
Now, to the matter at hand.
Regarding trust, you said :
"I also would feel uncomfortable knowing that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person.
And here's why - despite training, despite temperament, despite the best of intentions: I don't trust you. That's simply it, I don't trust you. I don't trust a person who is not a licensed law enforcement officer of some kind - someone who, by virtue of their job, I would assume they have proper gun training - to carry a weapon."
Yet you do in fact trust people with your life all the time, we all do. You trust that the cab, train, airline or bus driver won't decide to crash on a whim.
You trust the cook won't put rat poison in the soup today.
You trust that the driver controling a ton of steel at 50mph with only a painted line between you won't swerve into you.
You trust the elevator repair guy didn't sabotage the lift.
The examples are everywhere. All cases where you put your life and the lives of your children in the hands of people you don't know.
You have no problem with this because you know that to not trust these people would be irrational.
But you do not trust these same people with concealed firearms.
Why? These are the same people in whose hands you place your life all the time.
The answer is what Kevin Baker suggested in a previous response; you fear the firearm not the person. The proof? Ask yourself this question: if in a given situation if the firearm was removed would you feel uncomfortable?
If you would not feel uncomfortable in a given situation where you put your life in someone else’s hands but would given the same situation when a firearm in introduced that the firearm is the object of your fear.
I do not like high places; I choose not to seek out balconys etc. It is an irrational fear I know but it is part of who I am. You have similar feelings regarding firearms. You see the mere presence of a firearm as somehow engendering a potential for violence where no potential existed before. This is not rational. It is however very real to you; in the same way looking over the edge of a high balcony makes me uneasy while looking over a balcony one step off the ground would not.
There is no real difference in danger to me only my perception has changed.
Barry doesn't trust himself to make really important decisions for himself and knowing himself to be superior to most (read all) others, how could you possibly be capable of making such decisions.
He needs to understand that the only thing between the bad guys with guns and the good guys without guns is the good guys with guns. If not then the experiment is over and the bad guys win.
But John, for Barry the "good guys with guns" must collect government paychecks and carry badges. Otherwise they're just other bad guys with guns.
That's the part I don't grok.
If he actually thinks that having a gun will eat away at his sanity, I'd have to conclude that he's already insane--gun or no gun.