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]

Very well. Let me try to explain why I find this conversation largely futile.

I will not respond directly to your last post; it did not actually respond to a single point I made, but continued to exhibit the kind of questionable thinking that I find so frustrating in every instance. I shall choose a few examples.

Point one: When using statistical studies to determine public policy, even the rare exception must be dealt with and not totally ignored; indeed, sometimes the exception is the most important point. You do this rather consistently:

mass murders, occur, i still don't think its a legitamate sample. i'm sorry i'm so hung up on this. i think very linearly, and i just need statistics....

Again, teh massacre although horrible, although this captures less than a statistically relevent scenerio. i think they are awful, but i believe there is a bigger picture...

statistical anomoly. i look at the greater amount of statistics, not specific examples....

When adverse reactions from drugs occur, they frequently involve only a few deaths out of hundreds of millions of uses. Still, those drugs are removed from the market, and few people question the wisdom of that action. But by your standards, those few deaths are a "bad sample" and ought to be ignored.

Another example: It is a fact that the average police officer never has occasion to fire his weapon in his entire career. By your standards of optimism, there is no reason to allow the police to carry guns, either.

In neither of these example is the rare exception deemed irrelevant and ignored; on the contrary, the rare exception is the reason for the policy. So with licensed carry of handguns; it is precisely the rare situation of need for which that policy was instituted.

Point two, and related: Real-life events must be accounted for and not ignored in favor of theory. Again, you do this consistently:

...perhaps those 23 could be saved. perhaps total murders could be reduced by 0.025% and more people would be saved.

As I said; those 23 deaths were actual, and some of them were friends of mine. Casually remarking that their deaths ought to be accepted in favor of the theoretical possibility of a reduction in overall deaths is, in the precise definition of the words, cold and calculating. If your theories don't take those deaths into account and find some way of dealing with the cold, hard reality of them, they are, again by precise definition, worthless.

the reality you present is a unique identity. i try to present teh more phenomenal and transcendental reality....

again, i try to dealy with the transcendental reality as opposed to the unique. it is not as drastic....

what if. although this is a valid situation, i am looking a more general theory....

There is no such thing as "the more phenomenal and transcendental reality." The word that belongs there is "theory," as in the last quote above. Since that theory is not supported by facts--that is, by ACTUAL REALITY--it is more than a little questionable to be willing to blithely sacrifice real, actual human lives to it.

Point three: Dismissing solid information solely because of its reporting source is illegitimate. Again, you do this consistently:

The source was "organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times" (a leftwing paper, by the way). Kleck simply reported the information.

the bibliographic entry:“Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995.
sounds like gary kleck's entry to me.

You here totally ignored the FACT that those numbers came from clearly UNBIASED surveys, and focused on the messenger--while ignoring, AGAIN, that this was published in a clearly unbiased venue: the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology from the Northwestern University School of Law, a fact which you posted yourself. Do you think that respected and peer-reviewed law journals routinely allow the publication of false information under their auspices?

In any case, I did not comment on what Kleck makes of those statistics; I merely posted the numbers themselves. Kleck's use of them is here irrelevant, since I made no reference to that. The surveys themselves are clearly valid, whether reported by Kleck, me, you, or the L. A. Times.

In the same way, if even the NRA reports facts from government statistics, does that make them no longer facts? Again, the conclusions they draw are quite anothe matter; but the numbers themselves are clearly valid, whoever reports them.

You standard seems to be this; any fact, no matter how well documented or what its ultimate source, is to be dismissed if it is reported by a pro-gun advocate. On the other hand, information that supports your position, even if it comes from a clearly biased anti-gun source AND NOWHERE ELSE, is deemed credible, e.g., the unsupported and obviously skewed criticism of Kleck's work by a committed anti-gun activist.

As I said; your standard is very clearly not based on the reliability of information, but on whether or not it supports your point of view. Intentionally or not--and I do not believe it was intentional, but simply a product of your own biases--that is both illogical and intellectually dishonest.

Point four: Unwarranted optimism about the behavior of criminals is not sufficient reason to bet your life on it, or those of other citizens. You are consistent in this respect as well:

whoa, not all robberies end in murder if the homeowner is unarmed. you know that...

(and from earlier posts:)

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....

perhaps these criminals weren't going to kill everybody. this is not a common occurence... usually the vast, VAST, majority of hostages survive....

All of these statements reveal a willingness to discount and ignore the very frequent exceptions. If there were only a 1 in 100 chance of being murdered in a home invasion robbery, for instance, those odds are still not good enough for any rational human to discount the possibility; and as it happens, the odds are not nearly that good.

Casual murder in the course of committing otherwise petty crimes is becoming commonplace; convenience-store robberies, street muggings, and of course home invasions, very often leave dead victims behind, even when there was no reason to kill them. Kidnappings, particularly of women for the purpose of rape, end more frequently in murder than not; and nowadays, random murder as a result of gang activity (sometimes required for initiation into the gang--or sometimes just for fun) has also become tragically common. These things may not be common in Canada yet, but if the enormous upsurge of drug and gang activity in the UK is any indication, they will be coming to a neighborhood near you, and soon.

Trusting in the good intentions of someone who has already proven that he has no regard for morality or law is an incredibly naïve act of unwarranted faith, and it can and does get people killed.

Point five: Unwarranted pessimism about the misuse of guns by armed civilians is not good enough reason to disarm them. Once again, you are consistent here (but see below):

...concealed firearms... kill thousands of people per year.

i believe that all firearms in the public should be kept in safes at all times save sporting events and catastrophes (hurricanes) for example. that is, in my opinion, responsible use of guns.

i say that guns are too dangerous to permit more widespread useage.

i just don't agree with having a plethora of firearms available to the general public.

However, you seem to contradict yourself on this very point:

i think nonlethal weapons, FOR TEH MOST CASE, are all that should be carried.... [Note emphasis. Implication of same: there are exceptions.]

i don't suggest gun holders are criminals....

i don't think citizens should be armed. i don't thnk they will actively use tehm... [emphasis added.]

This seems strange to me. I suspect the latter statements are because of information you have received here; but it's also apparent that you haven't thought it through. If armed civilians are not committing crimes, and if privately held firearms are being used properly for defense, then... ?

The conclusion may not be obvious, but it's pretty close: Disarming responsible citizens will solve no problems, and it is likely to exacerbate
problems in the situations where weapons are being used responsibly now.

You seem to be deeply committed to the idea that guns themselves are somehow the cause of gun violence. That simply makes no objective sense. A gun requires a shooter, and since we have established that licensed CCW holders are not committing those crimes, the problem must lie with the criminals who are; and criminals are not affected by gun legislation.

One more note, just for the record: I do not live in a particularly "bad" neighborhood here in Dallas; though there are many apartment complexes, it is near a notably upscale mall and is surrounded by well-kept private homes and public and private schools. Even so, I have heard gunfire within a few blocks of where I live three of the last five nights.

You seem to understand that my position has been in part determined by my own experiences, and further determined by the fact that I live in a violent culture. Try to understand that neither of those facts are likely to change, and that my position is very well-justified indeed on those grounds and is neither barbaric nor irrational.

Theories are all very well, but I do not consent to being a guinea pig to find out if they work--because I know for a fact that they won't. You can discount my attitude as being a result of my "dramatic" experiences, but that doesn't mean they weren't real or are of no account.

On the other hand, I discount yours on the ground that you clearly have no idea at all of what the actual threat of imminent violence is or means in existential reality. Armchair theorizing is one thing; actually facing an upraised knife, or having strangers break into one's home in the middle of the night, or having one's friends gunned down by a deranged criminal, is quite another--and only that perspective has any meaning here, because those are the real-life situations we are talking about.

Again, I can guarantee that when one is actually threatened with immediate death or injury, any concerns about The Greater Good Of Society suddenly take a back seat to the one and only sane priority imaginable at that time; that of preserving one's own life. And once that perspective changes, it never changes back.

You can trust me on this: No one wants to see violence less than someone who actually has. It is my deepest, sincerest wish and hope and prayer that I never face such a situation again; but I know it might happen, and I decline to be unprepared for that very real possibility.

You say your views have changed; well and good. If you can think through and discard the five difficulties I have outlined here, we might have a basis for continued conversation; but if you continue in your biased and one-sided assessment of evidence, and your unrealistic and theoretical style of argument, we do not.

[zepper899]

i'm glad you are still here to debate/teach.

Very well. Let me try to explain why I find this conversation largely futile.

I will not respond directly to your last post; it did not actually respond to a single point I made, but continued to exhibit the kind of questionable thinking that I find so frustrating in every instance. I shall choose a few examples.

i thought many points were already addressed in earlier discussions. perhaps this is a cyclical argument, but i will attempt ot readdress your following statements:

Point one: When using statistical studies to determine public policy, even the rare exception must be dealt with and not totally ignored; indeed, sometimes the exception is the most important point. You do this rather consistently:

mass murders, occur, i still don't think its a legitamate sample. i'm sorry i'm so hung up on this. i think very linearly, and i just need statistics....

Again, teh massacre although horrible, although this captures less than a statistically relevent scenerio. i think they are awful, but i believe there is a bigger picture...

statistical anomoly. i look at the greater amount of statistics, not specific examples....

When adverse reactions from drugs occur, they frequently involve only a few deaths out of hundreds of millions of uses. Still, those drugs are removed from the market, and few people question the wisdom of that action. But by your standards, those few deaths are a "bad sample" and ought to be ignored.

Another example: It is a fact that the average police officer never has occasion to fire his weapon in his entire career. By your standards of optimism, there is no reason to allow the police to carry guns, either.

In neither of these example is the rare exception deemed irrelevant and ignored; on the contrary, the rare exception is the reason for the policy. So with licensed carry of handguns; it is precisely the rare situation of need for which that policy was instituted.

you may, when doing scientific research, exclude a point from affecting results. it must be explained as to why it is not statistically relevent, as i hope i have done. mass murders occurr, but they by no means demonstrate the average homocide.
when a company is doing research on a drug, inevitably people will die during the course of the study. the death may have absolutely nothing to do with the drug.
these deaths, if understood as inapplicable, may be excluded from teh study.

i believe that guns in the hands of police officers are unlikely to enter teh criminal realm and unlikely to shoot as an overreaction. police officers always carry several nonlethal means of stopping a criminal, and they often are all they need. perhaps these means should be more widely in use as opposed to guns. instead of a woman carrying a gun, pepperspray could be used.

Point two, and related: Real-life events must be accounted for and not ignored in favor of theory. Again, you do this consistently:

...perhaps those 23 could be saved. perhaps total murders could be reduced by 0.025% and more people would be saved.

As I said; those 23 deaths were actual, and some of them were friends of mine. Casually remarking that their deaths ought to be accepted in favor of the theoretical possibility of a reduction in overall deaths is, in the precise definition of the words, cold and calculating. If your theories don't take those deaths into account and find some way of dealing with the cold, hard reality of them, they are, again by precise definition, worthless.

the reality you present is a unique identity. i try to present teh more phenomenal and transcendental reality....

again, i try to dealy with the transcendental reality as opposed to the unique. it is not as drastic....

what if. although this is a valid situation, i am looking a more general theory....

There is no such thing as "the more phenomenal and transcendental reality." The word that belongs there is "theory," as in the last quote above. Since that theory is not supported by facts--that is, by ACTUAL REALITY--it is more than a little questionable to be willing to blithely sacrifice real, actual human lives to it.

alright, perhaps i am calculating, as demonstrated. the society i envision has fewer deaths per capita. less gun violence per capita. this is a calculated statistic done in a removed, perhaps cold, sense. my theories attempt do deal with teh cold, hard reality of gun-related homocide, and provide a society that has relatively few. in my opinion, we are analyzing different aspects of the "cause and effect" phenonmenon. i am attempting to address teh cause of gun violence. you seem to be addressing teh effect of gun violence. i think if the situatioin is cut of at the root of teh problem, the situation would be less hositle and more pleasent to inhabit.
i still think this is a valid viewpoint.

Point three: Dismissing solid information solely because of its reporting source is illegitimate. Again, you do this consistently:

The source was "organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times" (a leftwing paper, by the way). Kleck simply reported the information.

the bibliographic entry:“Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995.
sounds like gary kleck's entry to me.

You here totally ignored the FACT that those numbers came from clearly UNBIASED surveys, and focused on the messenger--while ignoring, AGAIN, that this was published in a clearly unbiased venue: the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology from the Northwestern University School of Law, a fact which you posted yourself. Do you think that respected and peer-reviewed law journals routinely allow the publication of false information under their auspices?

In any case, I did not comment on what Kleck makes of those statistics; I merely posted the numbers themselves. Kleck's use of them is here irrelevant, since I made no reference to that. The surveys themselves are clearly valid, whether reported by Kleck, me, you, or the L. A. Times.

In the same way, if even the NRA reports facts from government statistics, does that make them no longer facts? Again, the conclusions they draw are quite anothe matter; but the numbers themselves are clearly valid, whoever reports them.

You standard seems to be this; any fact, no matter how well documented or what its ultimate source, is to be dismissed if it is reported by a pro-gun advocate. On the other hand, information that supports your position, even if it comes from a clearly biased anti-gun source AND NOWHERE ELSE, is deemed credible, e.g., the unsupported and obviously skewed criticism of Kleck's work by a committed anti-gun activist.

As I said; your standard is very clearly not based on the reliability of information, but on whether or not it supports your point of view. Intentionally or not--and I do not believe it was intentional, but simply a product of your own biases--that is both illogical and intellectually dishonest.

i still maintain that your only one source that conclusivly proves anything that could be taken into account may be skewed. gary kleck, which you present in several different places, has been apparently discredited by a study which i presented. we have two sources saying teh other is biased. the study i presented showed that the studies themselves discounted many factors that would affect teh results of the surveys.
also, in regards to teh statistic the NRA presented: i believe that they have used some government statistics out of context. as often happens by a source campaigning in a non-neutral fashion, they use a statistic that doesn't apply to the general picture to prove a point. the nra reported on teh ban of handguns in washington. i don't support a small scale (in relation to the USA) ban on handguns, as their is absolutely no way of enforcing anything, unless they pat down every person they see. guns could enter from teh outside, be produced on teh outside and be hidden on teh outside. a nation wide ban with high security at borders could preven guns from entering a nation.

perhaps bothsources are wrong, perhaps neither are. perhaps, also, you are completely in teh right and my source is a scumbag on the street. perhaps.

Point four: Unwarranted optimism about the behavior of criminals is not sufficient reason to bet your life on it, or those of other citizens. You are consistent in this respect as well:

whoa, not all robberies end in murder if the homeowner is unarmed. you know that...

(and from earlier posts:)

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....

perhaps these criminals weren't going to kill everybody. this is not a common occurence... usually the vast, VAST, majority of hostages survive....

All of these statements reveal a willingness to discount and ignore the very frequent exceptions. If there were only a 1 in 100 chance of being murdered in a home invasion robbery, for instance, those odds are still not good enough for any rational human to discount the possibility; and as it happens, the odds are not nearly that good.

Casual murder in the course of committing otherwise petty crimes is becoming commonplace; convenience-store robberies, street muggings, and of course home invasions, very often leave dead victims behind, even when there was no reason to kill them. Kidnappings, particularly of women for the purpose of rape, end more frequently in murder than not; and nowadays, random murder as a result of gang activity (sometimes required for initiation into the gang--or sometimes just for fun) has also become tragically common. These things may not be common in Canada yet, but if the enormous upsurge of drug and gang activity in the UK is any indication, they will be coming to a neighborhood near you, and soon.

Trusting in the good intentions of someone who has already proven that he has no regard for morality or law is an incredibly naïve act of unwarranted faith, and it can and does get people killed.

i don't ignore the exceptions, i just consider them exceptions. they are not teh average, and i want teh average to be low.
you said the chances of being murdered in a home invasion are more than 1:100. i did not know that. thay is very high (i believe). please show me this fact.
perhaps casual murder is on the rise. perhaps that is due to a complacency on the side of the public regarding widespread use of firearms. in places where there is less firearm useage, more of these crimes don't end in murder. and if you live in a place where gunmen roam the streets cutting people down at random, i hope either it doesn't affect you or you manage to hold off a gang of criminals who may overreact when you return fire.
i am not trusting in teh good intentions of criminals, i am trusting on the statistical probability of being killed.

Point five: Unwarranted pessimism about the misuse of guns by armed civilians is not good enough reason to disarm them. Once again, you are consistent here (but see below):

...concealed firearms... kill thousands of people per year.

i believe that all firearms in the public should be kept in safes at all times save sporting events and catastrophes (hurricanes) for example. that is, in my opinion, responsible use of guns.

i say that guns are too dangerous to permit more widespread useage.

i just don't agree with having a plethora of firearms available to the general public.

However, you seem to contradict yourself on this very point:

i think nonlethal weapons, FOR TEH MOST CASE, are all that should be carried.... [Note emphasis. Implication of same: there are exceptions.]

i don't suggest gun holders are criminals....

i don't think citizens should be armed. i don't thnk they will actively use tehm... [emphasis added.]

This seems strange to me. I suspect the latter statements are because of information you have received here; but it's also apparent that you haven't thought it through. If armed civilians are not committing crimes, and if privately held firearms are being used properly for defense, then... ?

i don't see contradictions. the first quote was taken out of context. it was relating to a discussion regarding teh probability of guns being stolen from a licenced carrier. they do get stolen, as proven, and do kill people.
to sum up the rest of the arguments you presented: guns may be kept at home, securely locked, for use during sporting events and extreme situations requiring a civilian form of martial law, such as the hurricane you present. at other times, nonlethal weapons may be carried by teh general public and that is often all that is needed.
nonlethal weapons may be whats needed.

The conclusion may not be obvious, but it's pretty close: Disarming responsible citizens will solve no problems, and it is likely to exacerbate
problems in the situations where weapons are being used responsibly now.

You seem to be deeply committed to the idea that guns themselves are somehow the cause of gun violence. That simply makes no objective sense. A gun requires a shooter, and since we have established that licensed CCW holders are not committing those crimes, the problem must lie with the criminals who are; and criminals are not affected by gun legislation.

the more guns possessed by a society, teh more criminals are going to use guns. you may be able to defend yourself sometimes from a criminal, but wouldn't it be better to not have to be forced to defend yourself?

One more note, just for the record: I do not live in a particularly "bad" neighborhood here in Dallas; though there are many apartment complexes, it is near a notably upscale mall and is surrounded by well-kept private homes and public and private schools. Even so, I have heard gunfire within a few blocks of where I live three of the last five nights.

You seem to understand that my position has been in part determined by my own experiences, and further determined by the fact that I live in a violent culture. Try to understand that neither of those facts are likely to change, and that my position is very well-justified indeed on those grounds and is neither barbaric nor irrational.

i hope you understand by objectives. i don't want you to be under constant threat. i believe my thoughts would stop the threat. you deal with the treat, i deal with the threatener.

Theories are all very well, but I do not consent to being a guinea pig to find out if they work--because I know for a fact that they won't. You can discount my attitude as being a result of my "dramatic" experiences, but that doesn't mean they weren't real or are of no account.

you don't know for a fact that these theories don't work. you know in your experience that they don't work. i respect that, but believe that work of one man who has never done a widespread study, although impacting my beliefs, does not capture teh bigger image of society

On the other hand, I discount yours on the ground that you clearly have no idea at all of what the actual threat of imminent violence is or means in existential reality. Armchair theorizing is one thing; actually facing an upraised knife, or having strangers break into one's home in the middle of the night, or having one's friends gunned down by a deranged criminal, is quite another--and only that perspective has any meaning here, because those are the real-life situations we are talking about.

Again, I can guarantee that when one is actually threatened with immediate death or injury, any concerns about The Greater Good Of Society suddenly take a back seat to the one and only sane priority imaginable at that time; that of preserving one's own life. And once that perspective changes, it never changes back.

You can trust me on this: No one wants to see violence less than someone who actually has. It is my deepest, sincerest wish and hope and prayer that I never face such a situation again; but I know it might happen, and I decline to be unprepared for that very real possibility.

You say your views have changed; well and good. If you can think through and discard the five difficulties I have outlined here, we might have a basis for continued conversation; but if you continue in your biased and one-sided assessment of evidence, and your unrealistic and theoretical style of argument, we do not.

[/quote]
again, i am attempting to deal with the threatener as opposed to teh threat. it results in a society closer to the ideal. again, the theories capture society as a whole as opposed to the aspect of soceity captured by your onesided views.

[cnorman18]

You either ducked or confirmed every point I made.

Thanks for the conversation, but it is now at an end.

Peace.

[zepper899]

You either ducked or confirmed every point I made.

Thanks for the conversation, but it is now at an end.

Peace.

duck, refute: same thing. some of your points are right, and i confirmed them. hope to see you elsewhere

[Aetixintro]

I support a limited possibility for carrying a firearm, also by court ruling, also by police approval, also for being (approved/special) watchguard, security person.

This goes under the (valid) political attempt, under political theory, for the people who have the brains for it, rather sadly, often, I guess, ending up behind the bars... Well, well, different story...

Further:

Self defence - We must defend ourselves... It's a duty

Then one good verse to remember for this weapon purpose of self-defence:

Psalm 149
King James Version (KJV)
149 Praise ye the Lord. Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.
2 Let Israel rejoice in him that made him: let the children of Zion be joyful in their King.
3 Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.
4 For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation.
5 Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand;

I suggest that being prepared for self-defence is as important as bringing the word of the Bible. If you're not ready to grant other people their rights to self-defence they don't need your word of the Bible either!

To see a loved one being tortured before your eyes is destructive to belief in Christianity. And if people are to be tortured by other Christians or by Christians approval, then they are Christians NO MORE, ever failing the possibility to bring the word of the Bible AGAIN (British: AGAIN)!

Peculiar: It says, "Her Majesty the Queen, Defender of Faith (to Canada) by the Bible, under "Commonwealth".

[keithprosser3]

Why stop at verse 6?

[font=Georgia]6 ...................and a two-edged sword in their hand;
7 To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people;
8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the Lord.[/font]