Concealed Weapons (or more specifically, handguns)

[Sesshoumaru]

Could you explain the last part please. It looks like your saying that defending yourself with a gun only works when the other guy has one to, which doesn't make any sense to me at all.

And Sith, if you apply take your definition of the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the other parts where the phrase 'the right of the people' is used, then the whole Bill of Rights falls apart (the BoR is dedicated to the rights of the people not the states. And it clearly differentiates when it is talking about the states).

[POS Industries]

Honestly, I support the second amendment only because it's probably the most powerful thing standing between the American people and dictatorship. If every person didn't have the express right to own a gun and the access to obtain them, certain executive administrations that have already and repeatedly infringed on damn near every civil liberty imaginable at one point or another could just take those last little steps toward a complete martial takeover.

You know, for "our own protection".

Yes, it would be ideal to be able to live in a peaceful society without people getting shot all over the place every day, but brutally murdering each other is sorta the way of life in this country and people would go nuts and kill whatever they felt needed to be killed via some other means if a firearm wasn't available.

If you ask me, the only major concern with keeping guns in the house is people's kids getting ahold of them and accidentally blowing their brains out while playing. The best solution to this, in my opinion, is that keeping a gun in the house with children presents a higher risk of have social services come and take away your kids.

It seems harsh, I realize, but I feel that if you prove yourself to even potentially be an unstable individual (like, say, getting a drunken disorderly or something) and you have a deadly weapon in the same house as helpless children, someone best be getting those kids out of there. I mean, yes, everyone in this right has the right to bear arms, but they have just as much right to live in squalor and defecate in the living room. But if you're living like that and subjecting your children to that, the state comes and takes them away. If nothing else, it promotes a safer and more lawful lifestyle for parents.

[ArlanKels]

Concealed Carry Laws differ from state to state, as I believe everyone here knows. Some of them allow for concealed carry without a permit, which means that anyone you see could be legally lugging around a weapon.

The difference between a legal and illegal right to carry a weapon concealed is a pretty simple one. If it's legal then bob down the street could stroll down to the supermarket and pick up some milk, all the while armed with two glocks and maybe a browning. If someone makes him mad or he just has had a bad day he can then casually pull out one of those guns and use it.
And up until he brandishes the weapon he won't get in trouble whatsoever, nor will anyone know he has the weapon as it's CONCEALED. Which means someone might antagonize him, not realizing he has a firearm...and the result is of course the potential usage of said firearm.

Now if it's illegal and a cop is at the supermarket, as many cops like to frequent them for donuts(Yay donuts), and if the weapon was flashed even in the slightest or the bulge of a weapon was noticed, then the cop could stop the man.
The result could be the man using the weapon on the cop.


On the legal carry the biggest danger is the hotheaded retard moron who whips it out and uses it.

On the illegal carry people could get in extreme danger for carrying concealed. If how people react to being pulled over is any representation then this could be very very bad.




Personally I'm against everyone having assault rifles/shotguns/rifles/magnums(Not counting hunting rifles/shotguns). A .22 though? Pfft, I don't have qualms with that, and I doubt many of you worry about it either.



Oh, and don't use "The people have the right to bear arms" crap. That was created back when people lived far from one another, firearms were extremely weak and could maybe fire two times in a row before needing reloading, and the overall Firearm Related Crime quantity was minute compared to current day standards.
Different times and all that.

[Sithdarth]

And Sith, if you apply take your definition of the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the other parts where the phrase 'the right of the people' is used, then the whole Bill of Rights falls apart (the BoR is dedicated to the rights of the people not the states. And it clearly differentiates when it is talking about the states).

I was referring to this quote from the 2nd amendment:

"The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Which is about the States, and/or the people protecting themselves from the national government. Even without that my point still stands on its own. The spirit of this amendment has be rendered absolutely useless because no state , militia, or person could possibly hope to actually win a revolution against the government. If the government saw it as a truly serious threat, and was immoral enough that the revolution was warranted, it'd be carpet bombed into oblivion, or god forbid nuked by a corrupt government. The point of all of this is that if the government ever got so corrupt a majority of people were prepared to overthrow it violently the resistance would last a month maximum against the full furry of our armed forces.

[Azisien]

I wouldn't mind being linked to some of these credible studies on gun-related incidents. While it's been said you're "safer" with a gun, I've also heard the opposite. Honestly, I can run through the logic and make some sense of both camps, hence the request for evidence.

As for the issue at hand, I don't live in the states, so it doesn't really affect me specifically, and I'm not even sure my opinion carries any weight as a non-American. As far as I'm concerned though, the whole arms thing is unnecessary. I realize it's a whole founding fathers thing, nice and ingrained into most of you probably, and maybe it works for you. Criminals will get a hold of guns, whether they're widely available or not, but that's why we have police. I would seriously not want to live anywhere where my safety increased if and only if I carried a gun around; that sounds like a scary environment to begin with.

Fighting back at the corrupt government, or against invaders; that's probably the stronger argument for right to bear arms. I'd rather the more peaceful protest thing...but I think any rational person would rather that, given the choice.

To try and focus on the exact topic, I figure why not allow concealment, if they're already fully legal and such? Personally, I'd rather not look at people holding guns, and although it seems a little odd, I'd feel less scared if handguns, for instance, were concealed. Maybe I'm just not overly de-sensitized to them yet, despite having fired them and handled them multiple times.

[Demetrius]

I'm sorry, the last time Vermont had a gun related death was a couple years ago when a man was shot in the head on his recliner when a hunter missed a deer a field over or so. People are killed more often here in drunken fist fights than in shootings.

As for a .22, yeah I'd prefer to get shot with just about anything else, a .22 bullet is more dangerous than just about any other because it travels inside your body, ripping apart just about anything.

I have a friend who works in an armored transport service, he waesr his gun everywhere and sleeps with the damn thing, (this is a result of traumatic things that occured in Iraq, in which he was awarded a medal for bravery in combat, saving several other soldiers under enemy fire) it makes him feel safe. If people have any sense what so ever, they would realize that if I am carrying a gun and so are they, politeness will be the result, and guns will be pulled less often. This is because very rarely do people actually want to die.

[Azisien]

Really, only one gun death in several years in a whole state? That sounds remarkable.

We can toss priorities around easily. I'm sure between malaria, AIDS, cancer, and heart disease, violent deaths would seem like a total non-issue as far as mortality is concerned.

[Fifthfiend]

I guess I'm kinda like Asizen on the concealed carry thing. I can see it going either way and such study of its actual effects as I've seen has been spotty at best.

I have a friend who works in an armored transport service, he waesr his gun everywhere and sleeps with the damn thing, (this is a result of traumatic things that occured in Iraq, in which he was awarded a medal for bravery in combat, saving several other soldiers under enemy fire) it makes him feel safe.

...

I'll be honest, I think a guy with PTSD who's sleeping with his (presumably loaded) gun is probably as good an argument against letting said person carry said gun concealed on his person in public as any you're likely to find.

Oh, and don't use "The people have the right to bear arms" crap. That was created back when people lived far from one another, firearms were extremely weak and could maybe fire two times in a row before needing reloading, and the overall Firearm Related Crime quantity was minute compared to current day standards.
Different times and all that.

Be that as it may, it's still there in the Constitution.

...Of course so's Habeas Corpus and Congress / the President chucked that out on its ear easily enough last year, but that's a whole other thread.

[Skyshot]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

I'm sorry, the last time Vermont had a gun related death was a couple years ago when a man was shot in the head on his recliner when a hunter missed a deer a field over or so. People are killed more often here in drunken fist fights than in shootings.

Interesting. Got a source on this? It looks pretty important to the whole issue.

Offhand, I noticed something reading this thread -- the second amendment doesn't specify "guns." It says "arms," a slightly archaic synonym for "weapons," that predates firearms by centuries. In other words, swords and knives are covered in there, too. Make of that what you will.

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

I’ve done a bit of research on the matter, so I’ll try to answer any further questions any of you might have.

Yes, can you point me to Georgia's exact concealed weapons laws? I've been looking for those for a while now.

In particular, I've doubled up a ten-foot chain twice into a flail-ish thing and tied off the end into something that, with a handle, could make an interesting improvised weapon particularly good for attackers that are either unarmed or armed with close-range weapons (i.e. knives). I'm thinking if I got them across bare skin, particularly the face, it might hurt bad enough and draw enough blood to scare 'em off. If it doesn't, I'm in trouble, because the chain isn't heavy enough to cause serious injury. (Maybe if I got a really heavy handle...) Does that sort of thing legally qualify as a "weapon?"

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Which is about the States, and/or the people protecting themselves from the national government. Even without that my point still stands on its own. The spirit of this amendment has be rendered absolutely useless because no state , militia, or person could possibly hope to actually win a revolution against the government. If the government saw it as a truly serious threat, and was immoral enough that the revolution was warranted, it'd be carpet bombed into oblivion, or god forbid nuked by a corrupt government. The point of all of this is that if the government ever got so corrupt a majority of people were prepared to overthrow it violently the resistance would last a month maximum against the full furry of our armed forces.

You know, I was gonna write out a big, nice counter post to this, when I suddenly realized Mannix did this awhile ago.

Here.

Corrupt=/=Crazy, btw. In as much as some people in our government might just be plain insane, the decision to activate and drop a nuke, especially on one's own nation, would have to go through so much processing, and I can only imagine along the way that it would somehow be stopped by someone.

Maybe even a scruffy, unknown Corporal who just got the balls to shoot the crazy corrupt general in the head and save America! Classic movie, right there!