The Flip Side of an Armed Public

engineer wrote:

Owning a gun not only provides you with the ability to defend yourself, it provides you with the ability to effortlessly harm others.

No, it does not, because you already have this ability anyway. As any trainer in hand-to-hand combat will tell you, it's ridiculously easy to kill humans without any weapons at all. You just hit them hard against their voice box with the edge of your hand. Granted, the physical effort of doing this is slightly higher than that of pulling a trigger. But it's still trivial.

But you can accomplish the one from a safe distance, the other not.

How do u feel about the constitutional requirement of "equal protection of the laws" ?
Do u believe that the author thereof meant:
equal protection of the law EXCEPT as to defending your life from violence ???

Clearly you defend yourself. Never said or implied otherwise.

engineer wrote:

but I also support common sense restrictions.
I think licenses with mandatory training in firearms use should be required.

Inasmuch as compulsory education has been accepted, without objection (except by me, when I was 6 years old),
I agree as to teaching effective and safe use of guns, along with arithmetic,
but I cannot see licensing people's right to self defense from predatory violence, an inalienable right.

Why not? Owning a gun not only provides you with the ability to defend yourself,
it provides you with the ability to effortlessly harm others.
People can clearly defend themselves in a variety of ways.[ ?? ]

If you choose a way that also puts other people at risk,
then it makes sense to ensure that you take steps to mitigate the risk
while keeping the benefits, hence training and licensing.

engineer wrote:

I think concealed carry should be very restricted;
if someone in the room has the means to kill me and those around me very quickly,
I should be able to see the threat.

If he is going to commit MURDER, a capital offense,
then Y do u believe that he ll obay a gun control law ??
Have u asked of murderers, inquiring qua whether
obaying the law is important to them ?

But when they are found with a concealed weapon,
law enforcement can immediately assume they intend to break the law.

I don't see why this would cause you any heartburn.

If your hypothetical murderer walked into a room where honest citizens are carrying unconcealed,
they are not in any way disadvantaged to him in terms of self defense.
If anything, their weapons are more available. Nor is there any
Constitutional guarantee that you can carry concealed.

Why doesn't my right to self defense including my right to understand
potential threats around me trump your right to carry concealed? Isn't my self defense right inalienable?

What possible benefit is there to allowing you to hide your weapon from me?

engineer wrote:

I support tracking gun sales so that weapons used in crimes
can be tracked back to their points of origin and so conduits
of weapons going to criminals can be identified.

Prohibitions do not work. Prohibitions are to be LAFFED at. There is no reason to identify them.
Neither marijuana nor guns, nor knives will be kept out of criminal hands.
I think that 's obvious.

I didn't propose prohibitions, I proposed tracking of gun sales.

Most people aren't accurate beyond a few feet with a handgun.

Yes, that would satisfy me.

Did u imply an exception against criminals? That when thay are attacked, like Paul Castellano, that thay have no right to defend themselves and thay are duty bound to allow themselves to be slaughtered.
I thought that was your position. Yes ?

engineer wrote:

Why not? Owning a gun not only provides you with the ability to defend yourself, it provides you with the ability to effortlessly harm others. People can clearly defend themselves in a variety of ways.[ ?? ]

Only guns are feasible. U can t expect people to carry bows & arrows around, nor i]pillows[/i] to smother robbers.

CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS
IS AMONG YOUR NATURAL RIGHTS.

engineer wrote:

If you choose a way that also puts other people at risk, then it makes sense to ensure that you take steps to mitigate the risk while keeping the benefits, hence training and licensing.

I say: training, yes from grade 1 in school.Licensing, (discrimination) NO. Its an inalienable, inviolable right. Carrying concealed guns does not put others at risk, and no duty is owed to them.

engineer wrote:

I think concealed carry should be very restricted;
if someone in the room has the means to kill me and those around me very quickly,
I should be able to see the threat.

If he is going to commit MURDER, a capital offense,
then Y do u believe that he ll obay a gun control law ??

engineer wrote:

I support tracking gun sales so that weapons used in crimes can be tracked back to their points of origin and so conduits of weapons going to criminals can be identified.

Prohibitions do not work. Prohibitions are to be LAFFED at. There is no reason to identify them. Neither marijuana nor guns, nor knives will be kept out of criminal hands. I think that 's obvious.

engineer wrote:

I didn't propose prohibitions, I proposed tracking of gun sales.

Tracking for what PURPOSE?? It is to enforce the futile prohibitions.

Quote:

Most people aren't accurate beyond a few feet with a handgun.

That statement has bullshit for logic. Most people killed by handguns are within that range.

You cant outrun a bullet though I would like to see you try.

That was my point.

If someone's holding a gun pointed at you, then you can't draw your weapon in time to save yourself, either.

In one case, you are rapidly becoming a smaller target, while in the other it's just a gamble.

Did u imply an exception against criminals?
That when thay are attacked, like Paul Castellano, that thay have
no right to defend themselves and thay are duty bound to allow
themselves to be slaughtered. I thought that was your position. Yes ?

I don't understand your question.
When criminals are attacked can they defend themselves?

Are you asking if criminals attack and they are counter attacked, can they then defend themselves?

engineer wrote:

Why not? Owning a gun not only provides you with the ability to defend yourself,
it provides you with the ability to effortlessly harm others.
People can clearly defend themselves in a variety of ways.[ ?? ]

Only guns are feasible. U can t expect people to carry bows & arrows around,
nor pillows to smother robbers.

CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS
IS AMONG YOUR NATURAL RIGHTS.

Now it is a "right" not just to carry but to carry concealed?

engineer wrote:

If you choose a way that also puts other people at risk,
then it makes sense to ensure that you take steps to mitigate the
risk while keeping the benefits, hence training and licensing.

I say: training, yes from grade 1 in school.Licensing, (discrimination) NO. Its an inalienable,
inviolable right. Carrying concealed guns does not put others at risk, and no duty is owed to them.

Licensing is no more discrimination than asking people to register to vote.

The state has a vesting interest in ensuring that people vote per the rules.
It also has a vested interest in seeing guns used safely.

As for carrying concealed not putting people at risk, there are two types of people who want to carry concealed. Good, law abiding citizens such as yourself and those who intend violence. If you come into someone's yard carrying concealed and they notice it below your clothing, they would be a fool to trust to your good intentions.

If you are all about self defense, this should make sense.

However your suggesting that those carrying concealed wear some other signifier of a weapon meets that need.

engineer wrote:

I think concealed carry should be very restricted;
if someone in the room has the means to kill me and those around me very quickly,
I should be able to see the threat.

If he is going to commit MURDER, a capital offense,
then Y do u believe that he ll obay a gun control law ??

If they are not going to commit murder,
they shouldn't have an issue advertising that they have a weapon.

You don't conceal things without a reason.

engineer wrote:

I support tracking gun sales so that weapons used in crimes can be tracked back
to their points of origin and so conduits of weapons going to criminals can be identified.

Prohibitions do not work. Prohibitions are to be LAFFED at.
There is no reason to identify them.
Neither marijuana nor guns, nor knives will be kept out of criminal hands. I think that 's obvious.

engineer wrote:

I didn't propose prohibitions, I proposed tracking of gun sales.

Tracking for what PURPOSE?? It is to enforce the futile prohibitions.

No, tracking for the purpose of tracking weapons used in crimes back to the points of origin.

Once again, for someone who wants to get criminals off the streets
and into another country, why would you resist steps to allow that to happen?

Quote:

That was my point.

Try to keep up. That wasnt your point.

Did u imply an exception against criminals?
.... I thought that was your position. Yes ?

engineer wrote:

Licensing is no more discrimination than asking people to register to vote.

Engineer, the purpose of licensing has always been to discriminate between those who HAVE the license and those who do not. As to a license for THIS purpose, it is government permission to defend your life when attacked by man or beast.

engineer wrote:

The state has a vesting interest in ensuring that people vote per the rules. It also has a vested interest in seeing guns used safely.

As a condition of the EXISTENCE of government,
it was denied jurisdiction to interfere in any citizen's possession of guns.

engineer wrote:

As for carrying concealed not putting people at risk, there are two types of people who want to carry concealed. Good, law abiding citizens such as yourself and those who intend violence. If you come into someone's yard carrying concealed and they notice it below your clothing, they would be a fool to trust to your good intentions.

That makes no sense, unless the landowner believes that this fellow is very mad at him,
or intends to rob him of something. Simply carrying your defensive weapons with u wherever u go is not a threat. Paranoia; unreasoning fear.

engineer wrote:

However your suggesting that those carrying concealed wear some other signifier of a weapon meets that need.

On that point, shall we now require undercover police (our employees) to display that signifier? So that we be safer from them ?

I think concealed carry should be very restricted;

engineer wrote:

You don't conceal things without a reason.

I respectfully DISPUTE that. I think every guy has something that he conceals,
which (like guns) is his own private business! (His wallet.)

Almost all of my property that I carry with me daily
is concealed, including a concealed pocket
that I have my tailors sew inside all of my vests,
for spare keys n emergency cash.

engineer wrote:

I didn't propose prohibitions, I proposed tracking of gun sales.

Tracking for what PURPOSE?? It is to enforce the futile prohibitions.

engineer wrote:

No, tracking for the purpose of tracking weapons used in crimes back to the points of origin.

Y do u wish to do THAT ?

I'm late here, I think I have missed the whole thread. I picked it up now since I like the title.

I suppose it is possible I posted before, but I'd like to start again.

So, checking in.