I don't know why I keep getting myself into this, but I recently voted 'no' in a poll on Facebook asking if I would support a handgun ban. On the poll page itself were a bunch of comments. One commenter in particular said something that kind of got my goat, so I sent him a message in reply and the following conversation occured:
Allen: I would support private ownership of handguns if everyone carrying had to carry it out in the open so i could see them coming, thus knowing who, among those around me had the capacity to kill me if they happen to be having a bad day.
Me: Everyone you meet has the capacity to kill you if they happen to be having a bad day, armed or not. You should always be vigilant.
Allen: i'd damn sure prefer to face a crazy who doesn't have a gun than one who does.
i've had it both ways, and prefer unarmed lunatics (which, by my definition, includes just about any private citizen who feels a need to walk around with a gun in his/her pocket. ) considering i live in texas where just about any lunitic can take hisher gun with him just about anywhere heshe wants to go, i'm thinking of getting one of my own.
prefer the wyatt earp solution, though, leave your firearms behind when you come to my town.
Me: If it's a crazy you're facing, it's likely he has a gun, law or no law. I'd rather the law be on my side and not against me, since those who don't abide by the law and wish to do me and mine harm don't need any more advantages than they already have.
Allen: the problem is lunatics rarely carry a sign identifying their condition, the reason they can usually buy a gun with such ease. since i can't identify the lunatics ahead of time, i'd like to be able to identify the gun carriers.
as i said, my basic problem is not people carrying guns but that in most states that allow carrying the requirement is that it be kept concealed. let me see you're armed and accept legal responsiblity for that gun and eveything it does from the time you purchase it and you can have all the damn guns you want as far as i'm concerned.
don't see why any gun owner would have a problem with that.
Me: Then the lunatics can identify the gun owners, as well. No one knows I carry a knife or a multitool, or if I was an expert in hand to hand combat, and I don't see why they would need to know that as I am not planning on using either those or my concealed firearm to commit crimes. Gun owners who carry for self defense have a problem with open carry because open carry is less useful as a self defense tool than a concealed firearm. Gun owners who carry for self defense aren't interested in anyone knowing that they have the capability to defend themselves, as it makes them a target for pre-emptive strike.
I wish open carry were an option, as well, but in my state it is not so. We have to go through a lot of work just to get licensed to own a gun, let alone licensed to carry, and the potential of you getting a license to carry at all depends entirely on the police chief of your town and whether or not he likes the 2nd Amendment. Open carry is not illegal here in MA, but it is widely accepted that if you do open carry and a cop sees you, your police chief will revoke your license to own guns.
...and we do accept legal responsibility for our guns and our actions the minute we purchase them.
Allen: legal responsibility from the moment you buy it until the moment it is permanently disabled. know when you buy it that if you sell it or lose it your liability for what is done with it remains with you.
we are up to our necks in handguns, all of them legally purchased when new, floating now in the gun market for legal or illegal use meanwhile all these gun owners who brought the gun into circulation in the first place assume no responsibility for the fact that they are the original enablers of gun violence in this country. they certainly have a moral responsibility, i'd like to see them have legal responsibility as well.
and to your first point, someone intent on shooting someone will more likely shoot an openly armed person than a person showing no means of self-protection. that doesn't make any sense.
i could as reasonably argue that the reason some gun carrieries want to conceal their weapon is for the psycho-sexual satisfaction they get from their concealed dominance. they're certainly not doing it because they think it makes them safer if they conceal their gun.
Me: When you sell your car you should be responsible for what the next guy does with it. Until it is crushed and sold for parts, the liability of that vehicles 'actions' are your legal responsibility.
My point is that if I'm in a store, and someone is intent on robbing that store, and he walks in and sees me wearing a firearm in a holster, what do you think he's going to do? Ignore the fact that I have a gun? Or shoot me in the back while I'm not looking and then steal my gun and rob the store? If he's walking around the street with his concealed weapon looking to make a quick score, he can look around for the guy with the most expensive looking firearm strapped to his hip and execute him. Make sense now? In all cases, a concealed firearm allows you the option of anonymity, to either do nothing or to defend your life and others with as much critical advantage as you can muster.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROBB15_20090714-222605/280016/
Allen: the only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone, obviously not comparable to a car in any way. if you bring into your community a device whose only purpose is to kill, you have moral responsibility for anything and everything that's done with it and you don't unload that responsibility by selling the gun or allowing it to be stolen. you should have lega responsibility that matches your moral responsibility.
as to your store robbery, it makes no sense. criminals who go into a store to rob it aren't there to shoot anyone, they're there to grab the money and run like hell. if they see an armed person in the store the store will not be robbed. too many stores available to be robbed to complicate it with an unnecessary shooting.
police officers don't wear sidearms to shoot people, they wear sidearms to demonstrate power and authority and to deter crime before it happens. that's why many police officers can complete a long career and never draw their gun. your suggestions negates the whole value of deterence that gun owners claim for their gun. a concealed firearm has no power to deter anything.
Me: It was nice talking to you, Allen
Be safe,
-JB
As you can see, I ended up bailing out after his last rant. I just didn't know how to respond without telling him that his brain was diseased. I just don't fathom this line of logic. It's not the way I think at all. It confuses me how different peoples thought processes work sometimes.
Allen: I would support private ownership of handguns if everyone carrying had to carry it out in the open so i could see them coming, thus knowing who, among those around me had the capacity to kill me if they happen to be having a bad day.
Me: Everyone you meet has the capacity to kill you if they happen to be having a bad day, armed or not. You should always be vigilant.
Allen: i'd damn sure prefer to face a crazy who doesn't have a gun than one who does.
i've had it both ways, and prefer unarmed lunatics (which, by my definition, includes just about any private citizen who feels a need to walk around with a gun in his/her pocket. ) considering i live in texas where just about any lunitic can take hisher gun with him just about anywhere heshe wants to go, i'm thinking of getting one of my own.
prefer the wyatt earp solution, though, leave your firearms behind when you come to my town.
Me: If it's a crazy you're facing, it's likely he has a gun, law or no law. I'd rather the law be on my side and not against me, since those who don't abide by the law and wish to do me and mine harm don't need any more advantages than they already have.
Allen: the problem is lunatics rarely carry a sign identifying their condition, the reason they can usually buy a gun with such ease. since i can't identify the lunatics ahead of time, i'd like to be able to identify the gun carriers.
as i said, my basic problem is not people carrying guns but that in most states that allow carrying the requirement is that it be kept concealed. let me see you're armed and accept legal responsiblity for that gun and eveything it does from the time you purchase it and you can have all the damn guns you want as far as i'm concerned.
don't see why any gun owner would have a problem with that.
Me: Then the lunatics can identify the gun owners, as well. No one knows I carry a knife or a multitool, or if I was an expert in hand to hand combat, and I don't see why they would need to know that as I am not planning on using either those or my concealed firearm to commit crimes. Gun owners who carry for self defense have a problem with open carry because open carry is less useful as a self defense tool than a concealed firearm. Gun owners who carry for self defense aren't interested in anyone knowing that they have the capability to defend themselves, as it makes them a target for pre-emptive strike.
I wish open carry were an option, as well, but in my state it is not so. We have to go through a lot of work just to get licensed to own a gun, let alone licensed to carry, and the potential of you getting a license to carry at all depends entirely on the police chief of your town and whether or not he likes the 2nd Amendment. Open carry is not illegal here in MA, but it is widely accepted that if you do open carry and a cop sees you, your police chief will revoke your license to own guns.
...and we do accept legal responsibility for our guns and our actions the minute we purchase them.
Allen: legal responsibility from the moment you buy it until the moment it is permanently disabled. know when you buy it that if you sell it or lose it your liability for what is done with it remains with you.
we are up to our necks in handguns, all of them legally purchased when new, floating now in the gun market for legal or illegal use meanwhile all these gun owners who brought the gun into circulation in the first place assume no responsibility for the fact that they are the original enablers of gun violence in this country. they certainly have a moral responsibility, i'd like to see them have legal responsibility as well.
and to your first point, someone intent on shooting someone will more likely shoot an openly armed person than a person showing no means of self-protection. that doesn't make any sense.
i could as reasonably argue that the reason some gun carrieries want to conceal their weapon is for the psycho-sexual satisfaction they get from their concealed dominance. they're certainly not doing it because they think it makes them safer if they conceal their gun.
Me: When you sell your car you should be responsible for what the next guy does with it. Until it is crushed and sold for parts, the liability of that vehicles 'actions' are your legal responsibility.
My point is that if I'm in a store, and someone is intent on robbing that store, and he walks in and sees me wearing a firearm in a holster, what do you think he's going to do? Ignore the fact that I have a gun? Or shoot me in the back while I'm not looking and then steal my gun and rob the store? If he's walking around the street with his concealed weapon looking to make a quick score, he can look around for the guy with the most expensive looking firearm strapped to his hip and execute him. Make sense now? In all cases, a concealed firearm allows you the option of anonymity, to either do nothing or to defend your life and others with as much critical advantage as you can muster.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROBB15_20090714-222605/280016/
Allen: the only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone, obviously not comparable to a car in any way. if you bring into your community a device whose only purpose is to kill, you have moral responsibility for anything and everything that's done with it and you don't unload that responsibility by selling the gun or allowing it to be stolen. you should have lega responsibility that matches your moral responsibility.
as to your store robbery, it makes no sense. criminals who go into a store to rob it aren't there to shoot anyone, they're there to grab the money and run like hell. if they see an armed person in the store the store will not be robbed. too many stores available to be robbed to complicate it with an unnecessary shooting.
police officers don't wear sidearms to shoot people, they wear sidearms to demonstrate power and authority and to deter crime before it happens. that's why many police officers can complete a long career and never draw their gun. your suggestions negates the whole value of deterence that gun owners claim for their gun. a concealed firearm has no power to deter anything.
Me: It was nice talking to you, Allen
Be safe,
-JB
As you can see, I ended up bailing out after his last rant. I just didn't know how to respond without telling him that his brain was diseased. I just don't fathom this line of logic. It's not the way I think at all. It confuses me how different peoples thought processes work sometimes.