• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NH passes constitutional carry

I've always felt that open and concealed carry should be considered standard. I don't see why you need a permit for either.
 
I've always felt that open and concealed carry should be considered standard. I don't see why you need a permit for either.

I for one think we should beg permission to exercise all of our rights! We are free to do as we're told after all.

"Can I please vote this year, Master?"
 
I for one think we should beg permission to exercise all of our rights! We are free to do as we're told after all.

"Can I please vote this year, Master?"

That is exactly what some people want. Somebody to tell them to do everything. They are to tired to even think.
 
That is exactly what some people want. Somebody to tell them to do everything. They are to tired to even think.

"People don't want to think. And the deeper they get into trouble, the less they want to think. But by some sort of instinct, they feel that they ought to and it makes them feel guilty. So they'll bless and follow anyone who gives them a justification for not thinking. Anyone who makes a virtue - a highly intellectual virtue - out of what they know to be their sin, their weakness and their guilt..." - Ayn Rand
 
I've always felt that open and concealed carry should be considered standard. I don't see why you need a permit for either.

I think it's because loaded weapons can kill people. I don't really mind rural states passing this sort of thing because a lot of people learn how to appropriately use guns, and the population is a lot lower so people aren't crammed into the subway or something. I imagine if NYC ever passed something like this you would actually be able to see the accidental discharge rate in the data just due to the sheer amount of people.
 
I think it's because loaded weapons can kill people. I don't really mind rural states passing this sort of thing because a lot of people learn how to appropriately use guns, and the population is a lot lower so people aren't crammed into the subway or something. I imagine if NYC ever passed something like this you would actually be able to see the accidental discharge rate in the data just due to the sheer amount of people.

They can?!?! OH MY GOD!
 
Everyone has a Crick-N-their-Ass ... doesn't mean they should be allowed to expose it in public.
 
They can?!?! OH MY GOD!

I know it's hard to believe. I was almost positive they only killed bad guys, and that they were perfectly safe for any untrained person to walk around with.
 
I know it's hard to believe.
Wow, learn something new everyday.

I was almost positive they only killed bad guys, and that they were perfectly safe for any untrained person to walk around with.
Wait whoa, untrained people carry guns!? That's terrifying, I'll bet every place that allows that must have had a crazy uptick in gun crimes and negligent shootings.

There's no way these people will turn out to be statistically safer and more law abiding than the general public, no way in hell that could be possibly be true.

These freedom lovers are going to be the death of us all.
 
Wow, learn something new everyday.


Wait whoa, untrained people carry guns!? That's terrifying, I'll bet every place that allows that must have had a crazy uptick in gun crimes and negligent shootings.

There's no way these people will turn out to be statistically safer and more law abiding than the general public, no way in hell that could be possibly be true.

These freedom lovers are going to be the death of us all.
If you have some data to share on that go ahead. I like people who utilize dangerous things to be trained. Whether it's driving a car, working at a construction site, or walking around with a loaded gun. I get the second amendment argument, but I think common sense should be allowed.
 
If you have some data to share on that go ahead.

Oh noes, it seems that you have seen through my ruse! Fine, I admit it, I don't actually oppose freedom.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2814691

I like people who utilize dangerous things to be trained.

I have no problem with training, so long as it isn't an unconstitutional requirement infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

Whether it's driving a car, working at a construction site, or walking around with a loaded gun. I get the second amendment argument, but I think common sense should be allowed.

I'm not quite sure that you do, if you compared a protected essential right to driving a vehicle.
 
Oh noes, it seems that you have seen through my ruse! Fine, I admit it, I don't actually oppose freedom.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2814691



I have no problem with training, so long as it isn't an unconstitutional requirement infringing on the 2nd Amendment.



I'm not quite sure that you do, if you compared a protected essential right to driving a vehicle.
I've got nothing against concealed carry permits. I was speaking directly about people without permits openly carrying. I compared carrying a loaded weapon with driving a vehicle based on safety. I already stated that because the second amendment exists it is a different argument. There is still a safety argument to have about this stuff. I'm not interested in banning permits or guns, but saying anyone and everyone should be able to just wander around with a loaded weapon doesn't seem safe to me.
 
I think it's because loaded weapons can kill people. I don't really mind rural states passing this sort of thing because a lot of people learn how to appropriately use guns, and the population is a lot lower so people aren't crammed into the subway or something. I imagine if NYC ever passed something like this you would actually be able to see the accidental discharge rate in the data just due to the sheer amount of people.

Why would people carrying a firearm in NYC have more problems than people carrying in, say, Arizona?

AZ went Constitutional Carry in 2010 and you can look at our crime stats here - Arizona Crime Rates 1960 - 2015
Since 2010 crime rates are down in nearly all categories so unless New Yorkers are inherently more dangerous than Arizonans I'd say you might want to reconsider your position.
 
Why would people carrying a firearm in NYC have more problems than people carrying in, say, Arizona?

AZ went Constitutional Carry in 2010 and you can look at our crime stats here - Arizona Crime Rates 1960 - 2015
Since 2010 crime rates are down in nearly all categories so unless New Yorkers are inherently more dangerous than Arizonans I'd say you might want to reconsider your position.
I already made the statement that it could be less safe in NYC because of population density. If an accidental discharge happens in a subway packed full of people it is probably more dangerous than if it happens in a small town where there is room to breath. I fully support having different rules for different areas. Like I stated earlier, I think rural communities should have more exceptions than urban communities. We have constitutional carry in my state, and so far it hasn't caused a problem.
 
I've got nothing against concealed carry permits. I was speaking directly about people without permits openly carrying. I compared carrying a loaded weapon with driving a vehicle based on safety. I already stated that because the second amendment exists it is a different argument. There is still a safety argument to have about this stuff. I'm not interested in banning permits or guns, but saying anyone and everyone should be able to just wander around with a loaded weapon doesn't seem safe to me.

Here's my problem with permits, I live in Maryland, which is a "May issue" state. Which means unless you're connected or an ex-cop, you pretty much have zero chance of them accepting your "Good and substantial reason" for requesting said permit. So thanks to said permit system, my 2nd Amendment right stops at my front door. Despite all my training, my DoD security clearance, clean record, etc...

No one is saying anyone and everyone should carry, but if someone wants to and you want to stop them then you had better have a convincing reason as to why. To me, safety is always a terrible reason to restrict freedom.
 
Here's my problem with permits, I live in Maryland, which is a "May issue" state. Which means unless you're connected or an ex-cop, you pretty much have zero chance of them accepting your "Good and substantial reason" for requesting said permit. So thanks to said permit system, my 2nd Amendment right stops at my front door. Despite all my training, my DoD security clearance, clean record, etc...

No one is saying anyone and everyone should carry, but if someone wants to and you want to stop them then you had better have a convincing reason as to why. To me, safety is always a terrible reason to restrict freedom.
If what you're saying is true about MD than I disagree with them. All I'm arguing for is some basic level of competence to be displayed before someone walks around in public with a loaded weapon. I live in a rural state and we haven't had any surges of gun crimes due to constitutional carry, but we also only have two places that are big enough to be called small cities. Each with a population just touching 50k. The potential for dangerous situations to occur in genuine large cities, under a constitutional carry model, seems far too high to me to excuse it away by using the second amendment as a blanket statement.
 
I already made the statement that it could be less safe in NYC because of population density. If an accidental discharge happens in a subway packed full of people it is probably more dangerous than if it happens in a small town where there is room to breath. I fully support having different rules for different areas. Like I stated earlier, I think rural communities should have more exceptions than urban communities. We have constitutional carry in my state, and so far it hasn't caused a problem.

Cases of negligent discharges in public areas are exceedingly rare. There was a case of some guy showing another guy his new gun in one room of a church and he ended up shooting someone through the wall. There was also a football player who shot his own leg while in a strip club. Stuff like that can happen but it's not the fault of the weapon. It's pretty much always the fault of the person who can't manage to keep his booger hook off the trigger. I really doubt that, on a per capita basis, it would happen any more in densely populated areas than it would in rural areas.

Hell there are gang bangers wandering Chicago, LA, New Orleans and NYC who are carrying illegally and THEY don't have a high rate of NDs so I really don't see why lawful carriers would cause the rate to increase.
 
If what you're saying is true about MD than I disagree with them. All I'm arguing for is some basic level of competence to be displayed before someone walks around in public with a loaded weapon. I live in a rural state and we haven't had any surges of gun crimes due to constitutional carry, but we also only have two places that are big enough to be called small cities. Each with a population just touching 50k. The potential for dangerous situations to occur in genuine large cities, under a constitutional carry model, seems far too high to me to excuse it away by using the second amendment as a blanket statement.

Well, while I still disagree, at least you're reasonable.
 
Cases of negligent discharges in public areas are exceedingly rare. There was a case of some guy showing another guy his new gun in one room of a church and he ended up shooting someone through the wall. There was also a football player who shot his own leg while in a strip club. Stuff like that can happen but it's not the fault of the weapon. It's pretty much always the fault of the person who can't manage to keep his booger hook off the trigger. I really doubt that, on a per capita basis, it would happen any more in densely populated areas than it would in rural areas.

Hell there are gang bangers wandering Chicago, LA, New Orleans and NYC who are carrying illegally and THEY don't have a high rate of NDs so I really don't see why lawful carriers would cause the rate to increase.

Both of us can only speculate at what real impacts would occur in a big city. My only real point of speculation, that I think is valid, is that an accidental discharge in an incredibly crowded area is dangerous to the safety of everyone around, while an accidental discharge in the woods or around a couple friends has a lower potential for danger. For that reason it seems like we would be weighing one person's 2nd amendment rights versus the safety of multiple people.
 
I think it's because loaded weapons can kill people. I don't really mind rural states passing this sort of thing because a lot of people learn how to appropriately use guns, and the population is a lot lower so people aren't crammed into the subway or something. I imagine if NYC ever passed something like this you would actually be able to see the accidental discharge rate in the data just due to the sheer amount of people.

every state that was contemplating liberalizing CCW permits or even CC, was bombarded by bannerrhoid propagandists saying that "blood would run in the streets" and pissed off shopping mall mothers would shoot each other over parking spaces during the heavy Christmas shopping weeks. Guess what-IT DIDN'T HAPPEN

there are millions more people legally carrying handguns on our public streets today than there were 25 years ago and guess what, there hasn't been any of the problems you predict
 
Both of us can only speculate at what real impacts would occur in a big city. My only real point of speculation, that I think is valid, is that an accidental discharge in an incredibly crowded area is dangerous to the safety of everyone around, while an accidental discharge in the woods or around a couple friends has a lower potential for danger. For that reason it seems like we would be weighing one person's 2nd amendment rights versus the safety of multiple people.


second amendment rights don't involve accidental or intentionally improper discharges. Your dichotomy is thus invalid
 
Both of us can only speculate at what real impacts would occur in a big city. My only real point of speculation, that I think is valid, is that an accidental discharge in an incredibly crowded area is dangerous to the safety of everyone around, while an accidental discharge in the woods or around a couple friends has a lower potential for danger. For that reason it seems like we would be weighing one person's 2nd amendment rights versus the safety of multiple people.

Washington State is a shall issue state for over a decade and there is been no out break of shootings from CPL holders up in Seattle.
 
Back
Top Bottom