Is it right or wrong to carry a firearm?

[cnorman18]

Is it right or wrong to carry a weapon--specifically, a handgun--as a means of defense for oneself and others?

Self-defense seems to be almost universally accepted as a legitimate and moral use of force. If that is true, what could possibly be wrong with having the means to carry out such defense?

In most states in the US, if one passes the required background and medical history investigations, one may obtain a permit to legally carry a weapon. In every state where this law has been instituted, the rate of violent crime has dropped, sometimes precipitously. It has been observed that such a law benefits even those who do not carry weapons, since criminals are more reluctant to prey on citizens when they cannot know who is armed and who is not.

Also: The number of permit holders convicted of weapon-related crimes has remained statistically insignificant for decades. In spite of predictions of a Wild West atmosphere and frequent gunfire in the checkout lines at Wal-Mart, there have been virtually no instances of shootings over trivial matters--but a very great many instances of crimes stopped or prevented by privately owned and carried guns.

Still, there are some who believe that it is immoral and even uncivilized to own, let alone carry, a firearm. Considering the state of society at present, I personally find that hard to credit.

Opinions?

[cnorman18]

Did anyone actually say that all guns are always bad? Maybe they did and I missed it.

Not here, but the sentiment is common among the American Left, particularly regarding handguns. Many anti-gun organizations openly admit that their eventual goal is the outright banning of all firearms.

[Fallibleone]

OK I see. Thank you for clearing that up.

[McCulloch]

Sarcasm has its price.

Yeah, but I have to work with my strengths.

My argument is, of course, precisely the opposite of what you say; if all guns were always bad, then we would not allow them in the hands of anyone at all. The fact that we give them to police officers is proof positive that they aren't.

OK, so we agree that guns are not always bad and not always good. Is that progress?

Is it right or wrong to carry a firearm? then becomes like asking Is it right or wrong to carry an armed nuclear device? The answer is rather obviously, it is right in certain defined situations and wrong in other defined situations. I'm sure that we can easily agree on some situations where it is right and other situations where it is wrong. I'm also fairly sure that we can find some circumstances where we all might not agree.

[zepper899]

one issue to ponder is the root. should enforcement be proactive or not?
true: if one is armed, they may stop another aggressor who is armed.
true: if the aggressor was not armed, the aggressor could likely be apprehended without loss of his/her life or the life of a bystander.
therefore, if weapons meant simply to kill (guns) were successfully disposed of/regulated, guns deaths would go down, as well as crimes

[cnorman18]

one issue to ponder is the root. should enforcement be proactive or not?
true: if one is armed, they may stop another aggressor who is armed.
true: if the aggressor was not armed, the aggressor could likely be apprehended without loss of his/her life or the life of a bystander.
therefore, if weapons meant simply to kill (guns) were successfully disposed of/regulated, guns deaths would go down, as well as crimes

A couple of points:

First, owning or carrying a gun can and often does prevent or stop crimes without the necessity of firing a single shot. In all three of the incidents/situations in which I was personally involved, that was the case. No one killed or injured, no crime, no harm. If I had not been armed, at least one death--my own, and possibly my then wife's as well--would have been possible, and in one case certain.

Second, "disposing" of all firearms is absolutely impossible on a practical level, which is the only one that matters. Guns are here to stay; one cannot uninvent them. Attempting to outlaw all guns would result in law-abiding citizens being disarmed while criminals remain armed. This would not be a good situation.

Third, all guns are regulated. This has not stopped criminals from obtaining guns. Neither will more regulation, as is presently being proven in the UK.

Strict restrictions on firearms ownership have invariably resulted in a higher rate of crime; the cities in the US with the tightest restrictions also have the highest crime rates. More than half of the home burglaries in the UK take place while the victims are at home; that figure in the US is 13 percent. Criminals here avoid robbing occupied homes specifically because they fear being confronted by an armed citizen (this has been confirmed in many interviews with criminals and prison surveys). In Britain, they have no such fear, and the numbers prove it.

On the other hand, every state in the US that has instituted concealed carry by licensed citizens has seen a drop in the rate of violent crime, and often a steep one. In spite of predictions of frequent gunfights and deaths from the arming of citizens, none of this has occurred.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding and responsible citizens do not contribute to crime; they prevent it. Taking those guns away does not prevent crime; it enables it and makes it more frequent.

[zepper899]

I agree with you on several points:
Possessing a gun does not require shots to be fired, although often shots are. I'm sorry, but i have neglected to read your anecdotal evidence. On the other hand, I have heard accounts, other instances of anecdotal evidence, that shots are sometimes fired and people sometimes die. As a simple example: If a criminal had a gun and wanted to rob you of $100, the total likelyhood of him firing at you are very low. If, however, you pulled a gun on this person, they MAY, perhaps, shot you. This may have turned a petty crime into a murder.

I did not suggest that it is feasible to remove weapons from society, i merely suggested that strong enforcement of illegal operations, proper monitering of distribution and collections.
You say that strict restrictions resutl in higher crime. this is spurious. you are putting the effect before the cause. high crime results in high restriction.
As a canadian, i know that the VAST majority of illicit guns come into teh country via the american border. I AM NOT SAYING AMERICANS ARE LAX OR VIOLENT, i am saying that if regulations and searches at teh border were tighter, fewer guns would enter and fewer gun-related crimes would result.

[cnorman18]

I agree with you on several points:
Possessing a gun does not require shots to be fired, although often shots are. I'm sorry, but i have neglected to read your anecdotal evidence. On the other hand, I have heard accounts, other instances of anecdotal evidence, that shots are sometimes fired and people sometimes die. As a simple example: If a criminal had a gun and wanted to rob you of $100, the total likelyhood of him firing at you are very low. If, however, you pulled a gun on this person, they MAY, perhaps, shot you. This may have turned a petty crime into a murder.

Certainly that's true. Give up the money, the car, whatever. Besides, if the criminal is actually pointing a gun at one, it's unlikely that one could draw and fire in time.

On the other hand, if one's life is in imminent danger, there is no alternative. Case in point; a restaurant was robbed in the town where I was living at the time, and one of the patrons was wearing a concealed pistol. He did not interfere with the three criminals as the clerk opened the register and gave them the cash and as they went around taking the other customers' wallets and purses. But when the robbers rounded everyone up and began herding them into the back room, their intentions were obvious. No one was looking for rope or duct tape, only brandishing their guns. When their attention was elsewhere, he drew and fired, killing two of the robbers and wounding the third. They were later connected to a similar robbery where all the witnesses were murdered.

Yes, sometimes shots are fired, and sometimes people die. Sometimes that is inevitable, and I think it's better when the criminals are the ones that die, rather than the innocent.

In my own case, I was leaving an ATM late at night when a man approached me demanding money. He showed me his knife, I showed him my gun, and he abruptly decided he had urgent business elsewhere. I knew there would be no need to fire. I never even pointed it at him. On the other hand, if he had lunged at me, I'd have shot him without hesitation. I didn't, and don't, think there was any reason to give him my money.

I did not suggest that it is feasible to remove weapons from society, i merely suggested that strong enforcement of illegal operations, proper monitering of distribution and collections.

I have no problem with that at all.

You say that strict restrictions resutl in higher crime. this is spurious. you are putting the effect before the cause. high crime results in high restriction.

Of course you are right; A high crime rate may motivate restrictions on guns. My point was that the restrictions haven't helped, while allowing citizens to go armed does. Legalize concealed carry in Washington, D.C., and the rate of street crime will drop like a stone. It did in Houston, Miami, and other large cities in CCW states.

As a canadian, i know that the VAST majority of illicit guns come into teh country via the american border. I AM NOT SAYING AMERICANS ARE LAX OR VIOLENT, i am saying that if regulations and searches at teh border were tighter, fewer guns would enter and fewer gun-related crimes would result.

Maybe; but Britain has about as tight a rein on that as can be imagined, and the guns keep getting in. I think you underestimate the ingenuity of criminals.
With what, 2,000 miles of unguarded border, I doubt you'll stop the flow anytime soon.

Don't get me wrong; border restrictions SHOULD be very tight. But that is never going to solve the problem. We're having a similar problem here in Texas with smuggling people, and people are much harder to hide than guns.

[zepper899]

I am slightly confused in regards to your first paragraph.
Are you saying its unlikely for a citizen to fire before teh criminal?
You immediately present an opposing arguement.
But, as always, personal experience and grapevine tales represent the small picture. Just as a medical company is required to present findings on thousands of people before their product is considered safe, you must not rely on small samples (3), but find statistics regarding an adequatly large sample group (countries).
For instance, this website: http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/F ... Deaths.pdf , has statisitics to prove the opposite of your evidence.
A summary: As the percent of households with guns increases, the gunshot death rate increases as well. you may argue that it is criminals that are dying (i doubt the veracity of this), but would it not be better for there to be fewer deaths altogether.
Homocide of a family member is almost 3X more likely in households that possess one or more firearms.
thank you for appreciating these statistics

[cnorman18]

I am slightly confused in regards to your first paragraph.
Are you saying its unlikely for a citizen to fire before teh criminal?

If a fellow has his gun pointed at you, and his finger is on the trigger, he can pull that trigger a lot faster than you can draw a gun. I don't care if you're Wild Bill Hickok, you're going to lose that race. "Hands up" is the order of the day.

You immediately present an opposing arguement.
But, as always, personal experience and grapevine tales represent the small picture. Just as a medical company is required to present findings on thousands of people before their product is considered safe, you must not rely on small samples (3), but find statistics regarding an adequatly large sample group (countries).
For instance, this website: http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/F ... Deaths.pdf , has statisitics to prove the opposite of your evidence.
A summary: As the percent of households with guns increases, the gunshot death rate increases as well. you may argue that it is criminals that are dying (i doubt the veracity of this), but would it not be better for there to be fewer deaths altogether.

I said pretty early on here that statistics are of doubtful value here. The title of that website makes their bias pretty clear (I use a BlackBerry and can't download PDF files, by the way). I could counter with Gary Kleck's work, or any number of other studies.

Homocide of a family member is almost 3X more likely in households that possess one or more firearms.

Yes, but other studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of those deaths take place in homes where there are not only guns, but also drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic violence and/or other kinds of criminal or irresponsible activity.

A moment's reflection will show this to be much more likely than that Mr. and Mrs. Suburban Gunowner are popping caps at each other after Wheel of Fortune. That's the impression that those numbers are intended to make, but it's a false one. I have no doubt that these "researchers" see aware of those facts, too; but they choose not to mention them because it weakens their case. That is lying by omission, pure and simple.

This stuff is only persuasive to people unfamiliar with guns. I grew up in a home where there were guns and always had been. So did almost everyone I knew. No one I knew was ever involved in a shooting at home, accidental or otherwise. Sorry. Statistics that lump in responsible, law-abiding citizens with criminals and lowlifes are deceptive, and generally knowingly so.

thank you for appreciating these statistics

As you see, I find them more dishonest than worthy of appreciation.

A couple of generations back, firearms were an accepted and familiar part of American life. They were not associated with violent crime; they were associated with fun. Not just hunting; I never cared for that, even as a kid. Shooting tin cans, target practice, seeing how small a group you could shoot with your .22 from 25 yards, then 50. Skeet shooting; clay targets with a shotgun. I remember how proud my dad was when I broke 17 for 25 my first time. You could go to a county fair or a rodeo and see trick shooters; fast-draw cowboys who would pop balloons with wax bullets so fast you couldn't see their hands move; guys who could throw a handful of marbles in the air and shoot them before they hit the ground with a .22 rifle, then shoot a picture of Uncle Sam or an Indian chief into a metal plate with bullet holes. Annie Oakley stuff, Wild West shows, it wasn't about violence; it was just fun.

And you know what? The guns haven't changed. Just the political agendas. In 1960, you could buy a gun by mail-order, no questions asked--and there were no mass shootings. By what we're being told today, there should have been blood in the streets, but there wasn't.

Gee, maybe it isn't the guns that are the problem.

Self-defense isn't all there is to shooting, and never was. Today there are more shooting sports than ever before; besides target shooting, skeet and trap, there are benchrest, bowling pin shoots, Steel Challenge, Hogan's Alley, Cowboy Action Shooting, practical combat, IPSC, steel silhouette for rifles and pistols, blackpowder competitions of all kinds, even 1000-yard target matches with those evil .50 caliber rifles, and on and on. And nobody, ever, gets hurt; the rules and supervision are super-strict, and irresponsible shooters are treated like lepers after being kicked out.
Shooting sports are more popular today than ever, but you'll never see families out at the range or the matches having fun, as they do every weekend all over the country, on TV. It's not politically correct to show guns in a positive light any more.

People who shoot aren't bloodthirsty barbarians, and no one will ever convince them that they are. They know better. And people who have used their guns to save their lives, like me, aren't likely to give them up because some phony statistics show that we're safer without them. We know better than that, too.

[zepper899]

[quote="cnorman18"][quote="zepper899"]I am slightly confused in regards to your first paragraph.
Are you saying its unlikely for a citizen to fire before teh criminal?[/quote]

If a fellow has his gun pointed at you, and his finger is on the trigger, he can pull that trigger a lot faster than you can draw a gun. I don't care if you're Wild Bill Hickok, you're going to lose that race. "Hands up" is the order of the day.

[quote]
You immediately present an opposing arguement.
But, as always, personal experience and grapevine tales represent the small picture. Just as a medical company is required to present findings on thousands of people before their product is considered safe, you must not rely on small samples (3), but find statistics regarding an adequatly large sample group (countries).
For instance, this website: http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/F ... Deaths.pdf , has statisitics to prove the opposite of your evidence.
A summary: As the percent of households with guns increases, the gunshot death rate increases as well. you may argue that it is criminals that are dying (i doubt the veracity of this), but would it not be better for there to be fewer deaths altogether.[/quote]

I said pretty early on here that statistics are of doubtful value here. The title of that website makes their bias pretty clear (I use a BlackBerry and can't download PDF files, by the way). I could counter with Gary Kleck's work, or any number of other studies.

[quote]Homocide of a family member is almost 3X more likely in households that possess one or more firearms.[/quote]

Yes, but other studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of those deaths take place in homes where there are not only guns, but also drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic violence and/or other kinds of criminal or irresponsible activity.

A moment's reflection will show this to be much more likely than that Mr. and Mrs. Suburban Gunowner are popping caps at each other after Wheel of Fortune. That's the impression that those numbers are intended to make, but it's a false one. I have no doubt that these "researchers" see aware of those facts, too; but they choose not to mention them because it weakens their case. That is lying by omission, pure and simple.

This stuff is only persuasive to people unfamiliar with guns. I grew up in a home where there were guns and always had been. So did almost everyone I knew. No one I knew was ever involved in a shooting at home, accidental or otherwise. Sorry. Statistics that lump in responsible, law-abiding citizens with criminals and lowlifes are deceptive, and generally knowingly so.

[quote]
thank you for appreciating these statistics[/quote]

As you see, I find them more dishonest than worthy of appreciation.

A couple of generations back, firearms were an accepted and familiar part of American life. They were not associated with violent crime; they were associated with fun. Not just hunting; I never cared for that, even as a kid. Shooting tin cans, target practice, seeing how small a group you could shoot with your .22 from 25 yards, then 50. Skeet shooting; clay targets with a shotgun. I remember how proud my dad was when I broke 17 for 25 my first time. You could go to a county fair or a rodeo and see trick shooters; fast-draw cowboys who would pop balloons with wax bullets so fast you couldn't see their hands move; guys who could throw a handful of marbles in the air and shoot them before they hit the ground with a .22 rifle, then shoot a picture of Uncle Sam or an Indian chief into a metal plate with bullet holes. Annie Oakley stuff, Wild West shows, it wasn't about violence; it was just fun.

And you know what? The guns haven't changed. Just the political agendas. In 1960, you could buy a gun by mail-order, no questions asked--and there were no mass shootings. By what we're being told today, there should have been blood in the streets, but there wasn't.

Gee, maybe it isn't the guns that are the problem.

Self-defense isn't all there is to shooting, and never was. Today there are more shooting sports than ever before; besides target shooting, skeet and trap, there are benchrest, bowling pin shoots, Steel Challenge, Hogan's Alley, Cowboy Action Shooting, practical combat, IPSC, steel silhouette for rifles and pistols, blackpowder competitions of all kinds, even 1000-yard target matches with those evil .50 caliber rifles, and on and on. And nobody, ever, gets hurt; the rules and supervision are super-strict, and irresponsible shooters are treated like lepers after being kicked out.
Shooting sports are more popular today than ever, but you'll never see families out at the range or the matches having fun, as they do every weekend all over the country, on TV. It's not politically correct to show guns in a positive light any more.

People who shoot aren't bloodthirsty barbarians, and no one will ever convince them that they are. They know better. And people who have used their guns to save their lives, like me, aren't likely to give them up because some phony statistics show that we're safer without them. We know better than that, too.[/quote]


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st arguement: you say that an armed citizen is unlikely to have an effect on a criminal. sounds like there is no point in having guns. but i don`t think this arguement is teh main one we`re trying to discuss.

2nd arguement: you said you couldn`t open pdf files. if you could you could see that the source for these statistics was ``accident analysis ànd prevention``.`it is a journal ``Provides coverage of the general areas relating to accidental injury and damage, including the pre-injury and immediate post-injury phases..`` i don`t know who gary gleck is, but i doubt his neutrality. the canadian gun control lobby (leftist) is using this journal (neutral) to prove their point.

3rd arguement: you say that mostly irresponsible people are murdered in their homes. i know that there are millions upon millions of people in north america that have statistical alcohol or violence problems. these are teh people who are getting more guns. these are teh people who are dying. they are not bad people, and the fewer deaths they experience the better.

you also do not need to act like you have experience that i lack. i grew up in northern ontario, although go to school in teh city. i have been on hunts and have friends who hunt. my father is also an emergency room physician. i am well aware of many stories of case he recieves and i hear about (through the grapevine) of wounds and deaths due to unintentional gunfire in teh home.

i personally am not against guns. if used in a safe situation, stored securely (theft is a huge source of guns) and fully regulated, sports are a great way of demonstrating skill and honing an art. there are many sports that do not get tv time. i was a national level cross country skiier, but didn`t see a single race aired. is it a forbidden sport...

im sure that if you could open the pdf file (i was unaware you used a blackberry), you would be able to understand the authenticity of teh statistics given. i do not give statistics that are from left or right wing sources, unlike many links in this forum. i``m not trying to look down from my high horse, but i like to argue with sense, reason and even statistics. i especially hate having to resort to personal opinions and experiences, as they ALWAYS present a fractured sample group