What is scary about citizens that are licensed to carry handguns? Maybe you are not aware but many people carry concealed handguns on an everyday basis and you don't have any idea that they are. I would love to see your reaction/statement/post title if one of those so called "scary people" saved your life or a family members from an armed criminal. Remember the word criminal.. not armed law abiding citizen.
Yes! Please don't come across the river! It's full of gun-toting tweakers! It's very scary! You would not like it here! You're much better off in Hudson where you belong! "Across the river" is like a vast wasteland of totally ignorant, uncultured white trash with monster trucks in section 8 housing and there are no good restaurants - across the entire river! Don't go there! It's horrible!
From Marc Ambinder, editor-at-large for the progressive magazine, The Week:
"Why do people who support restrictive gun control — and I count myself as someone who does — mock the notion that, in some circumstances, particularly and exclusively at locations where lots of people gather to work, play, or live, having a few highly trained, armed good guys shooting back at the bad guys might be an option worth exploring?"
I'm sure that many who are licensed to "conceal carry" already do. That being the case, why is the scenario of an armed citizen stepping forth to save the day always a hypothetical? After all, the scenario of a toddler accidentally shooting somebody with a licensed firearm is an actual, daily occurrence.
We got toddlers shooting' guns all over the place "across the river". Bullets are flying everywhere! Stay home - it's too dangerous over here. We don't need statistics - we LIVE it.
According to an article in the Washington Post on October 14, 43 toddler shootings had occurred as of that date in the USA in 2015. 13 children accidentally killed themselves, 2 accidentally killed others, the remaining 28 were gun injuries to selves or others. While these shootings are perhaps not occurring daily, on average they are happening on a weekly basis; and these are only the shootings, resulting in injury or death, that are being reported to law enforcement. Now I would like to see some statistics, posted from a credible source, of the number of mass shooting incidents that have been halted by a civilian concealed carrier.
Well as of the few mass shooting that do occur I do not know of any. Doesn't mean I'm right. I think cars should be banned because more toddlers are injured or killed by those than guns. Maybe even ban people they injure or kill more toddlers than guns
Seizing a statistic on deterrence is like proving a negative. It's elusive at best.
Because there are two ideas about deterrence which are based on two schools of "common" sense, I suggest an experiment.
Those who're most adamant that private gun ownership is not a deterrent to crime should be allowed to advertise, with signage if necessary, that their homes are "gun-free zones."
After a given number of years, we can compare the crime rates between the self-admitted gun-free residences and everyone else's homes.
This makes a lot of sense, because the burden should be on those who wish to change the status quo, and not on those who've felt safer with legal firearms in their homes for the last 239 years.
By the FBI's definition of "mass murder", that is, 4 or more killed, there have been 45 mass murders in the USA during 2015 as of October 1, 2015. Among those not included in this statistic is, of course, San Bernardino. Among those "few" incidents I am not aware of any civilian gun-toting heroes, and I dare say had there been the NRA would have it plastered on billboards and bumper stickers across the nation.
My original comment on this thread was intended to point out that the Ulster Sheriff's call to arms was hardly necessary given a culture where almost everybody who can pack heat already does; and that all those guns have done absolutely nothing to deter, prevent, forestall or interrupt any mass shooting.
And that, statistically, overwhelmingly the people getting shot in this country are not the bad guys but the innocents. We've already conducted the experiment, and it has proven that more people with more guns is not going to change that.
White Whale, I don't think that anyone on this thread, including you, are being unreasonable. That said, how can we iron out such different perspectives? I don't think that anyone one wants bazookas on our streets, which tells us that those with whom you disagree, like me, are not as extreme as the anti-gun lobby would make out. It is not unreasonable to keep a firearm. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect us from our own government, which at this rate we may need some day, so the burden is on your side to remove this very old liberty.
A little advice then, from one reasonable person to another. Contrary to the president's relentless axe-grinding, for which no disaster is too large or somber not to exploit for political points, this post-San Bernadino moment is probably not the best time to gin up the anti-gun argument.
The sheriff of Ulster County was speaking to people's sense - which is also my own sense - that federal agencies, taking their cues from the current administration, are abandoning the nation and the world to a profoundly serious jihadi threat. The insanity of absenting ourselves from our own preservation by refusing to name the threat is only underlined by the principal reason for doing so: political correctness (and in the case of the president, sanctimonious, moral preening).
The following may not satisfy you, but here's a list of some bad people who were stopped by civilians (or at least non-cops) with guns. I don't know how many of the good guys (and women too) had concealed weapon permits, because they all stopped murderers using small arms. But that's another interesting question.
How many of these mass shooting occurred in places where guns were allowed to be carried concealed. In NY county,federal and schools properties are just a few of these places that restrict carrying firearms.
What is scary about citizens that are licensed to carry handguns? Maybe you are not aware but many people carry concealed handguns on an everyday basis and you don't have any idea that they are. I would love to see your reaction/statement/post title if one of those so called "scary people" saved your life or a family members from an armed criminal. Remember the word criminal.. not armed law abiding citizen.
ReplyDeleteProviding you are licensed to carry a firearm, it is still legal ...Of course you don't want to hear that ....
ReplyDeleteOne more reason to stay on this side of the river
ReplyDeleteYes! Please don't come across the river! It's full of gun-toting tweakers! It's very scary! You would not like it here! You're much better off in Hudson where you belong! "Across the river" is like a vast wasteland of totally ignorant, uncultured white trash with monster trucks in section 8 housing and there are no good restaurants - across the entire river! Don't go there! It's horrible!
DeleteFrom Marc Ambinder, editor-at-large for the progressive magazine, The Week:
ReplyDelete"Why do people who support restrictive gun control — and I count myself as someone who does — mock the notion that, in some circumstances, particularly and exclusively at locations where lots of people gather to work, play, or live, having a few highly trained, armed good guys shooting back at the bad guys might be an option worth exploring?"
http://theweek.com/articles/591997
It's a center-right magazine.
DeleteThe Week?! Good grief!
DeleteAsk someone who's center right whether it's center right or not. (It ain't.)
I'm sure that many who are licensed to "conceal carry" already do. That being the case, why is the scenario of an armed citizen stepping forth to save the day always a hypothetical? After all, the scenario of a toddler accidentally shooting somebody with a licensed firearm is an actual, daily occurrence.
ReplyDeleteWould love to see those statistics posted from a credible source.
DeleteWe got toddlers shooting' guns all over the place "across the river". Bullets are flying everywhere! Stay home - it's too dangerous over here. We don't need statistics - we LIVE it.
DeleteAccording to an article in the Washington Post on October 14, 43 toddler shootings had occurred as of that date in the USA in 2015. 13 children accidentally killed themselves, 2 accidentally killed others, the remaining 28 were gun injuries to selves or others. While these shootings are perhaps not occurring daily, on average they are happening on a weekly basis; and these are only the shootings, resulting in injury or death, that are being reported to law enforcement. Now I would like to see some statistics, posted from a credible source, of the number of mass shooting incidents that have been halted by a civilian concealed carrier.
DeleteWell as of the few mass shooting that do occur I do not know of any. Doesn't mean I'm right. I think cars should be banned because more toddlers are injured or killed by those than guns. Maybe even ban people they injure or kill more toddlers than guns
DeleteSeizing a statistic on deterrence is like proving a negative. It's elusive at best.
ReplyDeleteBecause there are two ideas about deterrence which are based on two schools of "common" sense, I suggest an experiment.
Those who're most adamant that private gun ownership is not a deterrent to crime should be allowed to advertise, with signage if necessary, that their homes are "gun-free zones."
After a given number of years, we can compare the crime rates between the self-admitted gun-free residences and everyone else's homes.
This makes a lot of sense, because the burden should be on those who wish to change the status quo, and not on those who've felt safer with legal firearms in their homes for the last 239 years.
So, do we have any volunteers?
By the FBI's definition of "mass murder", that is, 4 or more killed, there have been 45 mass murders in the USA during 2015 as of October 1, 2015. Among those not included in this statistic is, of course, San Bernardino. Among those "few" incidents I am not aware of any civilian gun-toting heroes, and I dare say had there been the NRA would have it plastered on billboards and bumper stickers across the nation.
ReplyDeleteMy original comment on this thread was intended to point out that the Ulster Sheriff's call to arms was hardly necessary given a culture where almost everybody who can pack heat already does; and that all those guns have done absolutely nothing to deter, prevent, forestall or interrupt any mass shooting.
And that, statistically, overwhelmingly the people getting shot in this country are not the bad guys but the innocents. We've already conducted the experiment, and it has proven that more people with more guns is not going to change that.
White Whale, I don't think that anyone on this thread, including you, are being unreasonable. That said, how can we iron out such different perspectives? I don't think that anyone one wants bazookas on our streets, which tells us that those with whom you disagree, like me, are not as extreme as the anti-gun lobby would make out. It is not unreasonable to keep a firearm. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect us from our own government, which at this rate we may need some day, so the burden is on your side to remove this very old liberty.
DeleteA little advice then, from one reasonable person to another. Contrary to the president's relentless axe-grinding, for which no disaster is too large or somber not to exploit for political points, this post-San Bernadino moment is probably not the best time to gin up the anti-gun argument.
The sheriff of Ulster County was speaking to people's sense - which is also my own sense - that federal agencies, taking their cues from the current administration, are abandoning the nation and the world to a profoundly serious jihadi threat. The insanity of absenting ourselves from our own preservation by refusing to name the threat is only underlined by the principal reason for doing so: political correctness (and in the case of the president, sanctimonious, moral preening).
The following may not satisfy you, but here's a list of some bad people who were stopped by civilians (or at least non-cops) with guns. I don't know how many of the good guys (and women too) had concealed weapon permits, because they all stopped murderers using small arms. But that's another interesting question.
1. Chicago, IL, April 2015
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83337910/
2. Philadelphia, PA, 2015
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Shot-in-the-Chest-Inside-West-Philly-Barbershop-297176271.html
3. Philadelphia, PA, 2014
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/26/official-suspect-in-deadly-hospital-shooting-had-lengthy-history-gun-arrests/
4. Plymouth, PA, 2012
http://citizensvoice.com/news/police-plymouth-homicide-suspect-shot-by-patron-1.1370815
5. Spartanburg, SC, 2012
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/17251517/churchgoers-subdue-gunman-at-spartanburg-church
6. Atlanta, GA 2009
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2054129059072688443
7. Winnemucca, NV, 2008
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/three-dead-shooting-winnemucca-bar
8. Colorado Springs, CO, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/us/12brfs-GUNMANKILLED_BRF.html?fta=y&pagewanted=print&_r=1&
9. Edinboro, PA, 1998
http://articles.philly.com/1998-04-26/news/25765866_1_andrew-wurst-john-gillette-science-teacher
10. Pearl, MS, 1997
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136736,00.html
How many of these mass shooting occurred in places where guns were allowed to be carried concealed. In NY county,federal and schools properties are just a few of these places that restrict carrying firearms.
ReplyDelete