• 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!

Do you have a conceal and carry license?

Do you have a conceal and carry permit?

  • Total voters
    66
Dirty Harry said:
My city is like most cities because it is not an agriculture town but relies on the service industry and manufacturing. Don't you get it? He stated my town was not like most because it was a farm town. It isn't.
Click to expand...

Being like most is not what you said, but I see your point.

OK.
 
Dirty Harry said:
He was a law abiding citizen until he got pissed off. Most people are law abiding citizens right up to the point where they commit a crime. You are right that guns don't turn people into criminals. It is just a tool for them.
Like the guy that shot his wife and then himself this week in Hugo Minn. He had never broken the law before. The gun he used was just a tool. Having a gun in the house did not make his wife safer in this case.
Click to expand...


Ah, you're going with the old "having guns makes law abiding people more likely to go berserk and kill" argument, with a few anecdotes presented as evidence.

The stats do not support that position at all; to the contrary in fact.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[61]

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.[62]
Click to expand...

More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Dirty Harry said:
These statistics seem to be made up to me. This isn't the country I know. I live in a town of about 20,000 people. People do not carry here and there is virtually no crime. There probably hasn't been a case of a gun being used for defence since the 1950s.
I guess if I ever felt the need to carry a gun to feel safe I would move. I do however keep a shotgun by my bed.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you feel safe in your community. I presume you are aware there are other communities that are not so safe, and that even "safe" places can have troubles.

I live in a rural area about fifteen miles from a smallish city. Last year we had a serial killer strike repeatedly in this area, one of his victims was someone I knew who lived only a couple miles up the road.

While there is some controversy over Kleck's numbers, it is scientific and statistical fact that guns are used defensively many times more often than they are used to murder. Deny it if you wish, but it is true.

Number Of Protective Uses Of Firearms In U.S: Projected at a minimum of 2.5 million cases annually, equal to 1% of total U.S. population each year. Criminal assailants are killed by their victims or others in only about 0.1%, and wounded in only about 1.0% of incidents as described above. Most such crimes are prevented by mere presence of a firearm in the hands of an intended victim.(Dr. Gary Kleck, PhD, Florida State University, Targeting Guns, 1998)
Click to expand...


A 1993 Gallup Poll study (hardly a conservative partisan group) found a likely annual rate of defensive gun use (DGU) of 777,153 per year in the US.
An LA Times 1994 study found an implied national DGU of 3,609,682.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies, [16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries. [17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported. [18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses. [19]
The strongest evidence that a measurement is inaccurate is that it is inconsistent with many other independent measurements or observations of the same phenomenon; indeed, some would argue that this is ultimately the only way of knowing that a measurement is wrong. Therefore, one might suppose that the gross inconsistency of the NCVS-based estimates with all other known estimates, each derived from sources with no known flaws even remotely substantial enough to account for nine-to-one, or more, discrepancies, would be sufficient to persuade any serious scholar that the NCVS estimates are unreliable.
...The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.
Click to expand...


The Kleck study concluded that there were possibly as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, many of which involved no shots fired or no one injured, and many of which were not reported:
The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that rely on Rs' first-hand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.
Click to expand...


While I doubt the real number is as high as 2.5 million, it is probably far higher than the gov't numbers (82,000). Even if you accept the low-ball figures from the NCVS study, it would mean guns were used for defense about six times as often as for murder. The reality is probably between the two extremes.

A man threatened my father's life once, in a case of mistaken identity, and only backed off when my father pulled out his pistol. My mother once ran off a burglar by firing a shot into the floor. I backed down a pair of young men who tried to ambush me with a pistol. That's one family over the course of about 30 years. My "anecdotal stats" would be that 3 out of 20 (my extended family) used guns defensively over the course of 30 years, or about 15% in 3 decades. Translated to the national population of 300 million, that would be about 1.5 million uses a year nationally. I think that's probably about average, as it is midway between Kleck's high number and NCVS's low number.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens save lives and stop crime. Period.
 
Goshin said:
Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens save lives and stop crime. Period.
Click to expand...

Not true. Guns are inanimate objects. Guns don't kill people...... just like they don't save lives. Can't have it both ways.
 
Dirty Harry said:
I know. For one thing it's illegal and this is a law abiding town. We are not dumb enough to risk a weapons charge when crime in non-existant. We are a town of hunters and gun owners and the only people carrying here are the police.
Click to expand...


Dear friend, you are mistaken: someone other than the police are packing guns: criminals.

If a cop isn't around when you need one... :doh
 
Dirty Harry said:
Not true. Guns are inanimate objects. Guns don't kill people...... just like they don't save lives. Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I didn't say guns save lives; I said guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives. There is a difference.

Criminals are typically armed. If the law-abiding citizen acting in defense of self or others is NOT armed, he is outgunned and at a severe disadvantage...and having been a cop, I assure you it is rare that we arrive in time to stop someone from getting hurt or killed by a criminal.
 
Last edited:
windovervocalcords said:
What's he doing with it on a playground?
Click to expand...


Perhaps he is playing with his child. Perhaps he is aware that the world is a dangerous place, and that, regrettably, criminals sometimes operate in parks or near playgrounds. Maybe he knows that crime can and does occur at unexpected times in unexpected places, and not just when you're expecting it. Possibly he knows that if an armed criminal threatens him, his child, or an innocent person nearby, that he would be at a severe disadvantage in trying to stop the criminal if he is unarmed. Perhaps that is why he has a pistol concealed on his person.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Dear friend, you are mistaken: someone other than the police are packing guns: criminals.

If a cop isn't around when you need one... :doh
Click to expand...

Actually the only murders in my city were people related and aquaintences. They weren't criminals until they killed someone. There was one guy that did rob the bank, but he had a toy gun.
I do support conceal carry laws with a permit. I just don't believe I would ever carry but I do have guns at home for defence.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Actually the only murders in my city were people related and aquaintences. They weren't criminals until they killed someone. There was one guy that did rob the bank, but he had a toy gun.
I do support conceal carry laws with a permit. I just don't believe I would ever carry.
Click to expand...

I am glad your community is so peaceful; it is a regrettable fact that many communities are not so safe.

I fully support your right to not go armed if that is your choice. :mrgreen:
 
there have been a few times in my life, that a gun helped deescalate a life threatening situation. and nobody was harmed.
 
Goshin said:
I fully support your right to not go armed if that is your choice. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It is my choice. I am not afraid to go anywhere without a gun.
 
Dirty Harry said:
It is my choice. I am not afraid to go anywhere without a gun.
Click to expand...

That was my point. If you don't feel the need, well, good for you. I'm glad you live somewhere you believe to be so safe that you don't fear crime. It is indeed your choice... and those of us who feel otherwise should be allowed our choice. Most people don't live somewhere as safe as you profess your hometown to be.
 
Goshin said:
That was my point. If you don't feel the need, well, good for you. I'm glad you live somewhere you believe to be so safe that you don't fear crime. It is indeed your choice... and those of us who feel otherwise should be allowed our choice. Most people don't live somewhere as safe as you profess your hometown to be.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement. Like I said I agree with CCW, but I believe permits should be required.
 
Dirty Harry said:
We are in agreement. Like I said I agree with CCW, but I believe permits should be required.
Click to expand...


Okay.

Properly and ideally, I don't think permits to carry should be required under the original intent of the 2A.

On the other hand, I have a permit, and it has its uses. When I buy a gun, instead of having to wait 15-30 minutes to clear the NICS, I just show my permit and I'm done. When a police officer pulls me over and asks if I have any weapons, I say "yes I do, and here's my carry permit", then he knows immediately that I have a clean criminal record and he can chill out a little. It's sort of like a "Yes, I am a Good Guy" card. :mrgreen:

While I think requiring carry permits is Constitutionally dubious, I can live with it, as long as they are "Shall Issue" and not discretionary-issue.
 
Last edited:
Come to think of it, maybe this point should be made:

What is ideal is one thing; what is acceptible, or tolerable, is another. The world is like that: none of us get our way entirely in all things.

As the Declaration says, "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing those forms to which they are accustomed."

As a matter of principle, I believe that a strictly literal, original-intent-based interpretation of the Constitution would be that no regulation of small-arms is lawful, and that requiring permits for concealed (or other) carry is not Constitutional.

But, we don't live in a perfect world, and sometimes you have to make accomodations with your principles in order to survive.

So I have a concealed carry permit, and "suffer the evil while it is sufferable" because shall-issue permits are not overly burdensome and have their uses. I wouldn't live in a discretionary-issue state, because for one thing I shouldn't have to justify reasons for my right to carry, and for another "discretionary-issue" often means "will not be issued, unless you play golf with a Kennedy".:mrgreen:


I feel similarly about NICS. I don't think it is Constitutional, but it isn't overly burdensome so I tolerate it as a compromise position. The wait is usually no more than 20 minutes even if you don't have a permit. OTOH I wouldn't want to live in a state that has a 5 day waiting period, because I consider waiting periods useless, burdensome and unreasonable.

So on the one hand there's what I believe in principle, as an ideal; on the other hand, there's what I'm willing to put up with for the sake of getting along in the world and staying out of trouble with the law.
 
Last edited:
the only time I ever carried a Pistol, is when my back was out, and I felt pretty much helpless to defend myself or my family. Once i got better, I no longer feel the need to carry. ---not to mention, concealed carry rigs just rub me raw after a while. and I tried just about every combination out there. and even came up with a few on my own.
 
Jerry said:
There are a lot of domestic disputes that don't occur at all to prove you wrong here.
Click to expand...

How does that prove me wrong? Or are you saying that the presence of a firearm in the house actually prevented a domestic dispute?

Because that is quite frankly bollox.
 
Goshin said:
Come to think of it, maybe this point should be made:

What is ideal is one thing; what is acceptible, or tolerable, is another. The world is like that: none of us get our way entirely in all things.

As the Declaration says, "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing those forms to which they are accustomed."

As a matter of principle, I believe that a strictly literal, original-intent-based interpretation of the Constitution would be that no regulation of small-arms is lawful, and that requiring permits for concealed (or other) carry is not Constitutional.

But, we don't live in a perfect world, and sometimes you have to make accomodations with your principles in order to survive.

So I have a concealed carry permit, and "suffer the evil while it is sufferable" because shall-issue permits are not overly burdensome and have their uses. I wouldn't live in a discretionary-issue state, because for one thing I shouldn't have to justify reasons for my right to carry, and for another "discretionary-issue" often means "will not be issued, unless you play golf with a Kennedy".:mrgreen:


I feel similarly about NICS. I don't think it is Constitutional, but it isn't overly burdensome so I tolerate it as a compromise position. The wait is usually no more than 20 minutes even if you don't have a permit. OTOH I wouldn't want to live in a state that has a 5 day waiting period, because I consider waiting periods useless, burdensome and unreasonable.

So on the one hand there's what I believe in principle, as an ideal; on the other hand, there's what I'm willing to put up with for the sake of getting along in the world and staying out of trouble with the law.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with about 90% of this.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Wrong. Some people here believe that their right to bear arms should not be infringed.
Click to expand...
As in...anyone that reads the Constition? 'Coz that's what it says.

That a person should be free to carry any firearm wherever he wants, concealed or not.
Click to expand...
No one has made this argument. Straw, man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom