Anti-Gun Sean Penn to star in the Gunman

lolobugg

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

when someone murders someone else, they aren't thinking "shit, I might get the DP, I better not do this".

no they are not....
but the ones who think twice about it and don't go thru with it are.

disagree. and studies agree with that.

agree to disagree...
I am talking pre-meditated murder.
heat of the moment killings- I don't support the DP.

HughFreakingDillon

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

when someone murders someone else, they aren't thinking "shit, I might get the DP, I better not do this".

no they are not....
but the ones who think twice about it and don't go thru with it are.

disagree. and studies agree with that.

agree to disagree...
I am talking pre-meditated murder.
heat of the moment killings- I don't support the DP.

statistics don't lie. in the US and elsewhere, it's the same.

oftenreading

lolobugg said:

oftenreading said:

lolobugg said:

goingtoverona said:

@lolo, i see what you're saying, but would have to argue that it doesn't matter. laws are for the law abiding. if you make it so guns are completely illegal, the same people that were criminals before are still criminals now, they're gonna find a black market gun to commit crimes with. the only thing you've done is make it so regular ordinary citizens that want to be able to defend themselves are now criminals too. and what's their crime? that they want to be able to defend themselves against armed criminals. i don't understand how you could say to someone that they should be executed or spend life in jail for just wanting to survive. yeah you could execute every single person caught with a gun, there's still gonna be gun violence, there's still gonna be guns. so personally, i don't think life in prison or the death penalty is an acceptable punishment to minimize gun violence, hell i don't think executing innocent people is worth it even if it actually did work and completely eliminated gun violence.

@Paulo, they do use real guns in movies. they don't use real bullets but they do use real guns. and if an actor glorified being a slave owner in the majority of his movies, then told everyone how horrible and despicable slavery is, but to make sure to come to his new movie where he beats, kills, rapes, and humiliates his slaves....i would say he's a counter productive worthless asshole not to be taken seriously.

yes, death penalty is an extreme example. as I said, this will never happen anyway because of the gun lobby. I just wanted to make the point that the deterrent has to be extreme enough before anything changes. if murder wasn't (potentially)punishable by death or life imprisonment then I guarantee you that the murder rate would go up exponentially. so applying this logic to banning handguns is the same idea. now you might not think it is correct but under this law no one with a handgun would be "innocent". I see handguns as having one purpose- to kill humans.
keep your rifles and shotguns.... but we need to ban handguns.

Two points to refute your statement. First, it's well established that the murder rate is currently and historically much lower in countries that don't have the death penalty compared to the US, which does. Second, the vast majority of murders are committed by people who are not thinking through the consequences and making a reasoned choice; thus, the threat of eventual punishment, whether it be life in prison or death penalty, is never going to be an effective deterrence for murder. With the rather small exception of things like gang-related killings, most murders are very in-the-moment and due to rage.

Not to disagree totally.... and not to shift blame..
but the US is a different animal. just look at the gun culture. our country was created with violence, taking people's land, infecting the natives with smallpox, overthrowing the government. take away the death penalty in America and I assure you- the murder rate would skyrocket. look at Zimmerman and the guy who shot those kids because he didn't like their music. there are a lot of "americans" out there armed to the teeth ready to use "self defense" against people that they don't like.

for the record I support the death penalty only for Pre-meditated murder and child rapists.

I must admit that after I wrote my post I thought a bit more and decided that indeed you can't really extrapolate what might happen in the US if the DP were removed from what has happened in other countries that haven't had it in decades (or centuries?). I actually have no idea what the result might be, but I don't think it would be an "exponential" rise in murders because evidence still suggests that most murderers aren't carefully thinking through the situation, and those that are, think they are smart enough not to get caught.

lolobugg

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

when someone murders someone else, they aren't thinking "shit, I might get the DP, I better not do this".

no they are not....
but the ones who think twice about it and don't go thru with it are.

disagree. and studies agree with that.

agree to disagree...
I am talking pre-meditated murder.
heat of the moment killings- I don't support the DP.

statistics don't lie. in the US and elsewhere, it's the same.

Well I could give you a history lesson of the American South where I live....
From the 1960s until now.... some of the people have the same views now as then.
the difference is now they can't lynch a black man with impunity.

well, I could argue this all day.... I don't want to hijack this thread.

lolobugg

oftenreading said:

lolobugg said:

oftenreading said:

lolobugg said:

goingtoverona said:

@lolo, i see what you're saying, but would have to argue that it doesn't matter. laws are for the law abiding. if you make it so guns are completely illegal, the same people that were criminals before are still criminals now, they're gonna find a black market gun to commit crimes with. the only thing you've done is make it so regular ordinary citizens that want to be able to defend themselves are now criminals too. and what's their crime? that they want to be able to defend themselves against armed criminals. i don't understand how you could say to someone that they should be executed or spend life in jail for just wanting to survive. yeah you could execute every single person caught with a gun, there's still gonna be gun violence, there's still gonna be guns. so personally, i don't think life in prison or the death penalty is an acceptable punishment to minimize gun violence, hell i don't think executing innocent people is worth it even if it actually did work and completely eliminated gun violence.

@Paulo, they do use real guns in movies. they don't use real bullets but they do use real guns. and if an actor glorified being a slave owner in the majority of his movies, then told everyone how horrible and despicable slavery is, but to make sure to come to his new movie where he beats, kills, rapes, and humiliates his slaves....i would say he's a counter productive worthless asshole not to be taken seriously.

yes, death penalty is an extreme example. as I said, this will never happen anyway because of the gun lobby. I just wanted to make the point that the deterrent has to be extreme enough before anything changes. if murder wasn't (potentially)punishable by death or life imprisonment then I guarantee you that the murder rate would go up exponentially. so applying this logic to banning handguns is the same idea. now you might not think it is correct but under this law no one with a handgun would be "innocent". I see handguns as having one purpose- to kill humans.
keep your rifles and shotguns.... but we need to ban handguns.

Two points to refute your statement. First, it's well established that the murder rate is currently and historically much lower in countries that don't have the death penalty compared to the US, which does. Second, the vast majority of murders are committed by people who are not thinking through the consequences and making a reasoned choice; thus, the threat of eventual punishment, whether it be life in prison or death penalty, is never going to be an effective deterrence for murder. With the rather small exception of things like gang-related killings, most murders are very in-the-moment and due to rage.

Not to disagree totally.... and not to shift blame..
but the US is a different animal. just look at the gun culture. our country was created with violence, taking people's land, infecting the natives with smallpox, overthrowing the government. take away the death penalty in America and I assure you- the murder rate would skyrocket. look at Zimmerman and the guy who shot those kids because he didn't like their music. there are a lot of "americans" out there armed to the teeth ready to use "self defense" against people that they don't like.

for the record I support the death penalty only for Pre-meditated murder and child rapists.

I must admit that after I wrote my post I thought a bit more and decided that indeed you can't really extrapolate what might happen in the US if the DP were removed from what has happened in other countries that haven't had it in decades (or centuries?). I actually have no idea what the result might be, but I don't think it would be an "exponential" rise in murders because evidence still suggests that most murderers aren't carefully thinking through the situation, and those that are, think they are smart enough not to get caught.

I wish America was more like Canada

HughFreakingDillon

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

when someone murders someone else, they aren't thinking "shit, I might get the DP, I better not do this".

no they are not....
but the ones who think twice about it and don't go thru with it are.

disagree. and studies agree with that.

agree to disagree...
I am talking pre-meditated murder.
heat of the moment killings- I don't support the DP.

statistics don't lie. in the US and elsewhere, it's the same.

Well I could give you a history lesson of the American South where I live....
From the 1960s until now.... some of the people have the same views now as then.
the difference is now they can't lynch a black man with impunity.

well, I could argue this all day.... I don't want to hijack this thread.

I have no idea what this has to do with the point you were making earlier. but ok. in canada we learn just as much about american history as americans do. so no history lesson required.

HughFreakingDillon

lolobugg said:

oftenreading said:

lolobugg said:

oftenreading said:

lolobugg said:

goingtoverona said:

@lolo, i see what you're saying, but would have to argue that it doesn't matter. laws are for the law abiding. if you make it so guns are completely illegal, the same people that were criminals before are still criminals now, they're gonna find a black market gun to commit crimes with. the only thing you've done is make it so regular ordinary citizens that want to be able to defend themselves are now criminals too. and what's their crime? that they want to be able to defend themselves against armed criminals. i don't understand how you could say to someone that they should be executed or spend life in jail for just wanting to survive. yeah you could execute every single person caught with a gun, there's still gonna be gun violence, there's still gonna be guns. so personally, i don't think life in prison or the death penalty is an acceptable punishment to minimize gun violence, hell i don't think executing innocent people is worth it even if it actually did work and completely eliminated gun violence.

@Paulo, they do use real guns in movies. they don't use real bullets but they do use real guns. and if an actor glorified being a slave owner in the majority of his movies, then told everyone how horrible and despicable slavery is, but to make sure to come to his new movie where he beats, kills, rapes, and humiliates his slaves....i would say he's a counter productive worthless asshole not to be taken seriously.

yes, death penalty is an extreme example. as I said, this will never happen anyway because of the gun lobby. I just wanted to make the point that the deterrent has to be extreme enough before anything changes. if murder wasn't (potentially)punishable by death or life imprisonment then I guarantee you that the murder rate would go up exponentially. so applying this logic to banning handguns is the same idea. now you might not think it is correct but under this law no one with a handgun would be "innocent". I see handguns as having one purpose- to kill humans.
keep your rifles and shotguns.... but we need to ban handguns.

Two points to refute your statement. First, it's well established that the murder rate is currently and historically much lower in countries that don't have the death penalty compared to the US, which does. Second, the vast majority of murders are committed by people who are not thinking through the consequences and making a reasoned choice; thus, the threat of eventual punishment, whether it be life in prison or death penalty, is never going to be an effective deterrence for murder. With the rather small exception of things like gang-related killings, most murders are very in-the-moment and due to rage.

Not to disagree totally.... and not to shift blame..
but the US is a different animal. just look at the gun culture. our country was created with violence, taking people's land, infecting the natives with smallpox, overthrowing the government. take away the death penalty in America and I assure you- the murder rate would skyrocket. look at Zimmerman and the guy who shot those kids because he didn't like their music. there are a lot of "americans" out there armed to the teeth ready to use "self defense" against people that they don't like.

for the record I support the death penalty only for Pre-meditated murder and child rapists.

I must admit that after I wrote my post I thought a bit more and decided that indeed you can't really extrapolate what might happen in the US if the DP were removed from what has happened in other countries that haven't had it in decades (or centuries?). I actually have no idea what the result might be, but I don't think it would be an "exponential" rise in murders because evidence still suggests that most murderers aren't carefully thinking through the situation, and those that are, think they are smart enough not to get caught.

I wish America was more like Canada

why, so you can experience extreme racism against native americans instead of african americans? it really isn't much different. just a different race.

lolobugg

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

oftenreading said:

lolobugg said:

oftenreading said:

lolobugg said:

goingtoverona said:

@lolo, i see what you're saying, but would have to argue that it doesn't matter. laws are for the law abiding. if you make it so guns are completely illegal, the same people that were criminals before are still criminals now, they're gonna find a black market gun to commit crimes with. the only thing you've done is make it so regular ordinary citizens that want to be able to defend themselves are now criminals too. and what's their crime? that they want to be able to defend themselves against armed criminals. i don't understand how you could say to someone that they should be executed or spend life in jail for just wanting to survive. yeah you could execute every single person caught with a gun, there's still gonna be gun violence, there's still gonna be guns. so personally, i don't think life in prison or the death penalty is an acceptable punishment to minimize gun violence, hell i don't think executing innocent people is worth it even if it actually did work and completely eliminated gun violence.

@Paulo, they do use real guns in movies. they don't use real bullets but they do use real guns. and if an actor glorified being a slave owner in the majority of his movies, then told everyone how horrible and despicable slavery is, but to make sure to come to his new movie where he beats, kills, rapes, and humiliates his slaves....i would say he's a counter productive worthless asshole not to be taken seriously.

yes, death penalty is an extreme example. as I said, this will never happen anyway because of the gun lobby. I just wanted to make the point that the deterrent has to be extreme enough before anything changes. if murder wasn't (potentially)punishable by death or life imprisonment then I guarantee you that the murder rate would go up exponentially. so applying this logic to banning handguns is the same idea. now you might not think it is correct but under this law no one with a handgun would be "innocent". I see handguns as having one purpose- to kill humans.
keep your rifles and shotguns.... but we need to ban handguns.

Two points to refute your statement. First, it's well established that the murder rate is currently and historically much lower in countries that don't have the death penalty compared to the US, which does. Second, the vast majority of murders are committed by people who are not thinking through the consequences and making a reasoned choice; thus, the threat of eventual punishment, whether it be life in prison or death penalty, is never going to be an effective deterrence for murder. With the rather small exception of things like gang-related killings, most murders are very in-the-moment and due to rage.

Not to disagree totally.... and not to shift blame..
but the US is a different animal. just look at the gun culture. our country was created with violence, taking people's land, infecting the natives with smallpox, overthrowing the government. take away the death penalty in America and I assure you- the murder rate would skyrocket. look at Zimmerman and the guy who shot those kids because he didn't like their music. there are a lot of "americans" out there armed to the teeth ready to use "self defense" against people that they don't like.

for the record I support the death penalty only for Pre-meditated murder and child rapists.

I must admit that after I wrote my post I thought a bit more and decided that indeed you can't really extrapolate what might happen in the US if the DP were removed from what has happened in other countries that haven't had it in decades (or centuries?). I actually have no idea what the result might be, but I don't think it would be an "exponential" rise in murders because evidence still suggests that most murderers aren't carefully thinking through the situation, and those that are, think they are smart enough not to get caught.

I wish America was more like Canada

why, so you can experience extreme racism against native americans instead of african americans? it really isn't much different. just a different race.

Well I admit. we learn almost zero about Canadian history and certainly not enough about our own history. just look at the mistakes we keep repeating.

lolobugg

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

when someone murders someone else, they aren't thinking "shit, I might get the DP, I better not do this".

no they are not....
but the ones who think twice about it and don't go thru with it are.

disagree. and studies agree with that.

agree to disagree...
I am talking pre-meditated murder.
heat of the moment killings- I don't support the DP.

statistics don't lie. in the US and elsewhere, it's the same.

Well I could give you a history lesson of the American South where I live....
From the 1960s until now.... some of the people have the same views now as then.
the difference is now they can't lynch a black man with impunity.

well, I could argue this all day.... I don't want to hijack this thread.

I have no idea what this has to do with the point you were making earlier. but ok. in canada we learn just as much about american history as americans do. so no history lesson required.

just trying to prove the deterrent theory....
and doing a horrible job at it.

goingtoverona

@lolo, say you accomplished your goal of banning handguns. now, knowing that an illegal black market for handguns sprung up after you made them illegal and criminals still have handguns and commit crimes against humanity with handguns, what is your solution to being victimized? how is a regular average joe expected to defend themselves against a criminal with a handgun?

and as far as laws go, i think all of us follow our own personal code to an extent. i'm not murdering and raping because i might go to jail or hell, i don't do it because i find it morally reprehensible. i break the law regarding cannabis prohibition, not because i have no respect for the law, but because i feel that cannabis prohibition is an assault against my personal freedoms.

HughFreakingDillon

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lolobugg said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

when someone murders someone else, they aren't thinking "shit, I might get the DP, I better not do this".

no they are not....
but the ones who think twice about it and don't go thru with it are.

disagree. and studies agree with that.

agree to disagree...
I am talking pre-meditated murder.
heat of the moment killings- I don't support the DP.

statistics don't lie. in the US and elsewhere, it's the same.

Well I could give you a history lesson of the American South where I live....
From the 1960s until now.... some of the people have the same views now as then.
the difference is now they can't lynch a black man with impunity.

well, I could argue this all day.... I don't want to hijack this thread.

I have no idea what this has to do with the point you were making earlier. but ok. in canada we learn just as much about american history as americans do. so no history lesson required.

just trying to prove the deterrent theory....
and doing a horrible job at it.

LOL

lolobugg

goingtoverona said:

@lolo, say you accomplished your goal of banning handguns. now, knowing that an illegal black market for handguns sprung up after you made them illegal and criminals still have handguns and commit crimes against humanity with handguns,what is your solution to being victimized? how is a regular average joe expected to defend themselves against a criminal with a handgun?

and as far as laws go, i think all of us follow our own personal code to an extent. i'm not murdering and raping because i might go to jail or hell, i don't do it because i find it morally reprehensible. i break the law regarding cannabis prohibition, not because i have no respect for the law, but because i feel that cannabis prohibition is an assault against my personal freedoms.

what is your solution to being victimized?
execute everyone motherfucking one of them....
to paraphrase the chick from Pulp Fiction.

I think I should have a personal freedom to walk down the street without worrying if someone is carrying a concealed weapon in their waistband.
to worry that some fucker is gonna walk into my child's school with a gun and shoot innocent children... oh yeah... you would probably say arm the teachers...seriously????

you will never stop crime 100% but you can cut the murder rate by banning handguns.
stop manufacturing them. offer incentives to turn in your weapons. hell if you are a gun nut let them trade them for rifles or shotguns. there will always be a black market. you can't stop it 100% but I for one think we should open our jails for minor (hell all) drug offenses and lock up people who don't obey the handgun ban.
if you are caught committing a crime with a handgun you will get the death penalty.
radical problems require radical answers.

why not try it? prohibition worked... but there were some people that still found a way to get the stuff. but I bet Henry Ford's production numbers went up.

jeffbr

lolobugg said:

I think I should have a personal freedom to walk down the street without worrying if someone is carrying a concealed weapon in their waistband.

Why? If that person is legally carrying, you should never see the concealed weapon come out of their waistband. If they are concealing illegally and it comes out of their waistband, there are already laws in place for that and I support using those laws to punish the offender with maximum sentences.

lolobugg said:

why not try it? prohibition worked... but there were some people that still found a way to get the stuff. but I bet Henry Ford's production numbers went up.

Prohibition worked? You may be the first person I've ever seen say this. Prohibition didn't work. And current prohibitions on drugs don't currently work, unless by work you mean create a black market, create more criminals, require more prison space to house these criminals and create a mechanism for gov'ts to eat away at our freedoms.

lolobugg

jeffbr said:

lolobugg said:

I think I should have a personal freedom to walk down the street without worrying if someone is carrying a concealed weapon in their waistband.

Why? If that person is legally carrying, you should never see the concealed weapon come out of their waistband. If they are concealing illegally and it comes out of their waistband, there are already laws in place for that and I support using those laws to punish the offender with maximum sentences.

under my plan they would not be legally carrying.

lolobugg said:

why not try it? prohibition worked... but there were some people that still found a way to get the stuff. but I bet Henry Ford's production numbers went up.

Prohibition worked? You may be the first person I've ever seen say this. Prohibition didn't work. And current prohibitions on drugs don't currently work, unless by work you mean create a black market, create more criminals, require more prison space to house these criminals and create a mechanism for gov'ts to eat away at our freedoms.

It did work. alcohol related deaths decreased. domestic abuse decreased. industry production increased. It failed because it was unenforceable. once again... let me state that the deterrent has to be strong enough to prevent the crime.

jeffbr

lolobugg said:

jeffbr said:

lolobugg said:

I think I should have a personal freedom to walk down the street without worrying if someone is carrying a concealed weapon in their waistband.

Why? If that person is legally carrying, you should never see the concealed weapon come out of their waistband. If they are concealing illegally and it comes out of their waistband, there are already laws in place for that and I support using those laws to punish the offender with maximum sentences.

under my plan they would not be legally carrying.

Right, but currently you're lobbying for removal of someone's freedom so that you don't have to worry. If "worry" is the new bar to limit what others can do, then we're in for some crazy laws.

lolobugg said:

jeffbr said:

lolobugg said:

why not try it? prohibition worked... but there were some people that still found a way to get the stuff. but I bet Henry Ford's production numbers went up.

Prohibition worked? You may be the first person I've ever seen say this. Prohibition didn't work. And current prohibitions on drugs don't currently work, unless by work you mean create a black market, create more criminals, require more prison space to house these criminals and create a mechanism for gov'ts to eat away at our freedoms.

It did work. alcohol related deaths decreased. domestic abuse decreased. industry production increased. It failed because it was unenforceable. once again... let me state that the deterrent has to be strong enough to prevent the crime.

OK, I guess we'll see different prohibition success indicators. I saw the rise of black markets and criminal enterprises, and people still consuming alcohol as indicators of failure. But I know people see situations from different perspectives. The Kenneys clearly benefited from alcohol prohibition, afterall. But for me alcohol and marijuana prohibitions were and continue to be abject policy failures.

lolobugg

jeffbr said:

lolobugg said:

jeffbr said:

lolobugg said:

I think I should have a personal freedom to walk down the street without worrying if someone is carrying a concealed weapon in their waistband.

Why? If that person is legally carrying, you should never see the concealed weapon come out of their waistband. If they are concealing illegally and it comes out of their waistband, there are already laws in place for that and I support using those laws to punish the offender with maximum sentences.

under my plan they would not be legally carrying.

Right, but currently you're lobbying for removal of someone's freedom so that you don't have to worry. If "worry" is the new bar to limit what others can do, then we're in for some crazy laws.

it's not just a worry. Remember John Lennon?

lolobugg said:

jeffbr said:

lolobugg said:

why not try it? prohibition worked... but there were some people that still found a way to get the stuff. but I bet Henry Ford's production numbers went up.

Prohibition worked? You may be the first person I've ever seen say this. Prohibition didn't work. And current prohibitions on drugs don't currently work, unless by work you mean create a black market, create more criminals, require more prison space to house these criminals and create a mechanism for gov'ts to eat away at our freedoms.

It did work. alcohol related deaths decreased. domestic abuse decreased. industry production increased. It failed because it was unenforceable. once again... let me state that the deterrent has to be strong enough to prevent the crime.

OK, I guess we'll see different prohibition success indicators. I saw the rise of black markets and criminal enterprises, and people still consuming alcohol as indicators of failure. But I know people see situations from different perspectives. The Kenneys clearly benefited from alcohol prohibition, afterall. But for me alcohol and marijuana prohibitions were and continue to be abject policy failures.

and to be sure I am 100% against prohibition. just trying to cite an example of a radical law that worked in my opinion. at least in terms of what it was trying to accomplish. of course "entrepreneurs'' found a way to make money off of it. but it is different from guns in that you have a right to do what you want to yourself. you can choose to drink/smoke or not. I cannot choose which imbecile has a handgun under current law. too many loopholes in background checks, etc.

sorry to keep editing but it is getting hard to tell our responses apart.

rgambs

jeffbr said:

lolobugg said:

I think I should have a personal freedom to walk down the street without worrying if someone is carrying a concealed weapon in their waistband.

Why? If that person is legally carrying, you should never see the concealed weapon come out of their waistband. If they are concealing illegally and it comes out of their waistband, there are already laws in place for that and I support using those laws to punish the offender with maximum sentences.

lolobugg said:

why not try it? prohibition worked... but there were some people that still found a way to get the stuff. but I bet Henry Ford's production numbers went up.

Prohibition worked? You may be the first person I've ever seen say this. Prohibition didn't work. And current prohibitions on drugs don't currently work, unless by work you mean create a black market, create more criminals, require more prison space to house these criminals and create a mechanism for gov'ts to eat away at our freedoms.

The suggestion here seems to be that people who have conceal carry permits don't shoot people but this is certainly not true.

HughFreakingDillon

rgambs said:

jeffbr said:

lolobugg said:

I think I should have a personal freedom to walk down the street without worrying if someone is carrying a concealed weapon in their waistband.

Why? If that person is legally carrying, you should never see the concealed weapon come out of their waistband. If they are concealing illegally and it comes out of their waistband, there are already laws in place for that and I support using those laws to punish the offender with maximum sentences.

lolobugg said:

why not try it? prohibition worked... but there were some people that still found a way to get the stuff. but I bet Henry Ford's production numbers went up.

Prohibition worked? You may be the first person I've ever seen say this. Prohibition didn't work. And current prohibitions on drugs don't currently work, unless by work you mean create a black market, create more criminals, require more prison space to house these criminals and create a mechanism for gov'ts to eat away at our freedoms.

The suggestion here seems to be that people who have conceal carry permits don't shoot people but this is certainly not true.

I think the suggestion is that if the person is LEGALLY carrying, you won't see the gun. as soon as the gun comes out, it is now illegal ujnless for self defence. am I right?

jeffbr

HughFreakingDillon said:

rgambs said:

jeffbr said:

lolobugg said:

I think I should have a personal freedom to walk down the street without worrying if someone is carrying a concealed weapon in their waistband.

Why? If that person is legally carrying, you should never see the concealed weapon come out of their waistband. If they are concealing illegally and it comes out of their waistband, there are already laws in place for that and I support using those laws to punish the offender with maximum sentences.

lolobugg said:

why not try it? prohibition worked... but there were some people that still found a way to get the stuff. but I bet Henry Ford's production numbers went up.

Prohibition worked? You may be the first person I've ever seen say this. Prohibition didn't work. And current prohibitions on drugs don't currently work, unless by work you mean create a black market, create more criminals, require more prison space to house these criminals and create a mechanism for gov'ts to eat away at our freedoms.

The suggestion here seems to be that people who have conceal carry permits don't shoot people but this is certainly not true.

I think the suggestion is that if the person is LEGALLY carrying, you won't see the gun. as soon as the gun comes out, it is now illegal ujnless for self defence. am I right?

That's what I'm suggesting, Hugh. If someone (who is a law abiding citizen with a carry permit) is carrying concealed, one should never see it and never know. If that person pulls their firearm and uses it legitimately for the purposes of self-defense, then there should be no issue. If that person pulls it out for any other reason in public and starts waiving it around, they are no longer acting in a legal manner since that is generally considered brandishing, which is a crime.

Gambs, people who have conceal carry permits do shoot people. But if they do so unlawfully, they should be hit with every punishment afforded by law. If they do so lawfully, then I have no issue with that, since the reason they lawfully did so was in defense of life.

rgambs

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rgambs said:

jeffbr said:

lolobugg said:

I think I should have a personal freedom to walk down the street without worrying if someone is carrying a concealed weapon in their waistband.

Why? If that person is legally carrying, you should never see the concealed weapon come out of their waistband. If they are concealing illegally and it comes out of their waistband, there are already laws in place for that and I support using those laws to punish the offender with maximum sentences.

lolobugg said:

why not try it? prohibition worked... but there were some people that still found a way to get the stuff. but I bet Henry Ford's production numbers went up.

Prohibition worked? You may be the first person I've ever seen say this. Prohibition didn't work. And current prohibitions on drugs don't currently work, unless by work you mean create a black market, create more criminals, require more prison space to house these criminals and create a mechanism for gov'ts to eat away at our freedoms.

The suggestion here seems to be that people who have conceal carry permits don't shoot people but this is certainly not true.

I think the suggestion is that if the person is LEGALLY carrying, you won't see the gun. as soon as the gun comes out, it is now illegal ujnless for self defence. am I right?

That's what I'm suggesting, Hugh. If someone (who is a law abiding citizen with a carry permit) is carrying concealed, one should never see it and never know. If that person pulls their firearm and uses it legitimately for the purposes of self-defense, then there should be no issue. If that person pulls it out for any other reason in public and starts waiving it around, they are no longer acting in a legal manner since that is generally considered brandishing, which is a crime.

Gambs, people who have conceal carry permits do shoot people. But if they do so unlawfully, they should be hit with every punishment afforded by law. If they do so lawfully, then I have no issue with that, since the reason they lawfully did so was in defense of life.

Yeah, but punishment doesn't do anything to chamge what's already happened, due to the fact that said person was given permission to conceal carry.