HeavyInk.com - Reconsider Using Them (See Link)

Knightt · Post by **Knightt** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:07 pm

Chiclo wrote:
Knightt wrote:
Chiclo wrote:Liberty is hard. Freedom of speech is hard.
Knightt is hard.
Liberty goes longer than 45 seconds. Liberty goes all night long.

Knightt goes 30 seconds whether she does or not.

IMJ · Post by **IMJ** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:26 pm

Chiclo wrote:Yes, I have a CHL.

Frankly, I don't think I am doing it right unless the Europeans disapprove of what I am doing. Except for Sarkozy - that guy has his head on straight. May the French lead Europe!

Cool, LMAO!, and clearly you missed my point.

All I know is the behaviorally, if people were prolific about walking around with guns on them for no real reason, they'd simply scare others to want to carry too because of human emotion tied in with escalation.

We have the right to bear arms and that shouldn't ever change. Ever. But wearing your firearm out just because you have a permit serves no purpose at all whatsoever.

And yes, I think it's possible to have a middle ground opinion here where we should have the right to own, but what's the point in walking armed without a purpose for it?

But, yeah I'd fight for your right to own a weapon to defend yourself and your property if I had to, absolutely.

Can't get any clearly than that I suppose, although you always risk someone *SQUEE*, warping or misinterpreting your point.

Knightt · Post by **Knightt** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:40 pm

IMJ wrote:But wearing your firearm out just because you have a permit serves no purpose at all whatsoever.

It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:48 pm

Knightt wrote:
IMJ wrote:But wearing your firearm out just because you have a permit serves no purpose at all whatsoever.
It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

There's some wisdom in that but as recent events have shown, the other argument, detente, doesn't always work out the way it used to.

IMJ · Post by **IMJ** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:55 pm

Knightt wrote:
IMJ wrote:But wearing your firearm out just because you have a permit serves no purpose at all whatsoever.
It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

There's that "escalation" thing I was talking about.

We don't live in a society (at the moment) where people "need" to walk around armed. Anyone who makes a case for that is in for a huge learning curve if something ever happens where that would actually be the case. I'd bet a lot of the carry and conceal bravado would be replaced immediately with "ah hell, I wish I didn't have to carry a firearm with me everywhere I went".

Again, I'm only making a point here, and I'm not saying that we should ban the American right to bear arms.

Although if we all walked around with phasers or something, that might be pretty cool.

magnusr · Post by **magnusr** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:17 am

Chiclo wrote:Except for Sarkozy - that guy has his head on straight. May the French lead Europe!

I know you're kidding, but still a scary statement. The mere thought of being led by the French... brrr... And especially a pro-sect garden gnome... Ouch.

/Magnus

Chiclo · Post by **Chiclo** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:50 am

magnusr wrote:
Chiclo wrote:Except for Sarkozy - that guy has his head on straight. May the French lead Europe!
I know you're kidding, but still a scary statement. The mere thought of being led by the French... brrr... And especially a pro-sect garden gnome... Ouch.

/Magnus

I do have a better opinion of the current crop of European leaders than what they had 10 or 15 years ago. Probably the worst of the lot was Gerhardt Schroder - this German man kept his balls in Paris. Angela Merkel is a thousand times better than he. Germany would have been better off with Helmut Kohl for another however many years rather than Schroder. The thing that makes Sarko really great is that he's not even French.

Can't forget Finland. President Tarja scares me. If Finland wants to get past the stereotype about trolls, they probably should not select one to lead their government.

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:19 am

IMJ wrote:All I know is the behaviorally, if people were prolific about walking around with guns on them for no real reason, they'd simply scare others to want to carry too because of human emotion tied in with escalation.

If everybody assumed everybody else was packing heat, imagine how many less assaults, robberies, carjackings, etc. there would be. Evidenced by the fact that areas with very restrictive gun laws have much higher crime rates than those with permissive gun laws.

IMJ · Post by **IMJ** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:17 am

Heath wrote:If everybody assumed everybody else was packing heat, imagine how many less assaults, robberies, carjackings, etc. there would be. Evidenced by the fact that areas with very restrictive gun laws have much higher crime rates than those with permissive gun laws.

Oh, I understand the logic, but the logic sounds circumplexic to me, rather than linear.

And let's look at that carjacking you mentioned. Citizen X stumbles upon a carjacking. That citizen otherwise has no authority aside from his rights as a man, but that carjacker is a moron who only understands authority as a badge. Everyone here packs a weapon, so the carjacker knows that, but is intent on stealing the car. He doesn't listen to the citizen who draws on him and steals the car anyway. What's Mr. X going to do? Shoot the guy for stealing a car? And what if he gets away with shooting the guy? Eh... I could write the rest of this, but it's tiresome.

It's simple. While there may be reason to own a firearm in your home, and someday maybe there'd be a reason to wear it publicly, right now there's no immediate reason for any non-enforcement official in this society to be walking with it on the streets other than because he can with his license.

dave · Post by **dave** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:46 am

IMJ wrote:
Heath wrote:If everybody assumed everybody else was packing heat, imagine how many less assaults, robberies, carjackings, etc. there would be. Evidenced by the fact that areas with very restrictive gun laws have much higher crime rates than those with permissive gun laws.
Oh, I understand the logic, but the logic sounds circumplexic to me, rather than linear.

And let's look at that carjacking you mentioned. Citizen X stumbles upon a carjacking. That citizen otherwise has no authority aside from his rights as a man, but that carjacker is a moron who only understands authority as a badge. Everyone here packs a weapon, so the carjacker knows that, but is intent on stealing the car. He doesn't listen to the citizen who draws on him and steals the car anyway. What's Mr. X going to do? Shoot the guy for stealing a car? And what if he gets away with shooting the guy? Eh... I could write the rest of this, but it's tiresome.

It's simple. While there may be reason to own a firearm in your home, and someday maybe there'd be a reason to wear it publicly, right now there's no immediate reason for any non-enforcement official in this society to be walking with it on the streets other than because he can with his license.

Even worse. Imagine the citizen is an NFL player! He would shoot himself in the leg and his career might be over!

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:14 pm

IMJ wrote:
Heath wrote:If everybody assumed everybody else was packing heat, imagine how many less assaults, robberies, carjackings, etc. there would be. Evidenced by the fact that areas with very restrictive gun laws have much higher crime rates than those with permissive gun laws.
Oh, I understand the logic, but the logic sounds circumplexic to me, rather than linear.

And let's look at that carjacking you mentioned. Citizen X stumbles upon a carjacking. That citizen otherwise has no authority aside from his rights as a man, but that carjacker is a moron who only understands authority as a badge. Everyone here packs a weapon, so the carjacker knows that, but is intent on stealing the car. He doesn't listen to the citizen who draws on him and steals the car anyway. What's Mr. X going to do? Shoot the guy for stealing a car? And what if he gets away with shooting the guy? Eh... I could write the rest of this, but it's tiresome.

It's simple. While there may be reason to own a firearm in your home, and someday maybe there'd be a reason to wear it publicly, right now there's no immediate reason for any non-enforcement official in this society to be walking with it on the streets other than because he can with his license.

If everybody was armed (and confident in using their weapon), then the person being forced out of the car would have the choice to defend themselves and their property or not. And usually, just showing the attacker you are armed is plenty enough to scare them away.

Your scenario sounds more like a car theft than a carjacking (car jacking is stealing a car that is currently occupied by forcing the occupant out of the car by threatening death if they refuse - so the attacker can take over control of the car). If the car did not belong to Mr. X, and his life (or the life of someone else) was not threatened, then I don't think shooting the thief would be the right reaction.

Cyberstrike · Post by **Cyberstrike** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:02 pm

I think they guy was a scumbag, just like Beck, Palin, the rest of their ilk.

Cyberstrike · Post by **Cyberstrike** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:06 pm

Heath wrote:If the car did not belong to Mr. X, and his life (or the life of someone else) was not threatened, then I don't think shooting the thief would be the right reaction.

Why not?