Gallup: Majority (56%) Say More Concealed Weapons Would Make U.S. Safer

Well, there you have it.

This is exactly what the gun-grabbing anti-gun crowd doesn't want to hear.

They want you to believe that people are against people owning and carrying guns.

 

That doesn't cut it when someone is concealing a firearm and then opens fire on innocent people.

 

That's why the majority think innocent people should be armed.

 

Just how many background checked CHL holders open fire on innocent people?

How many mass shooters choose places where civilians often carry concealed? They are not shooting up my mall or movie theater.

Why don't Democrats trust their friends with a gun? Is it because they don't trust themselves with one?

 

When was the last time a CCW permit holder opened fire on innocent people????

 

but, but, but right wingers on this forum constantly tell us that there are too many guns in the Chicago ghettos and in other cities

so what's the solution?

less guns or more ???

 

Black culture control, since you ask.

 

Americans will defend the Constitutional rights of all Americans if they want to preserve their liberty.
Americans prefer freedom over a false sense of security. That is just one more reason we are awesome.

 

do you mean to say more 2d Amendment rights exercise such as this:









after all, you have to admit that this did reduce police crimes and violence against blacks

 

No they don't. They tell you minorities are killing one another and their neighborhoods are more inclined to crime, poverty, violence, and decreased academic outcome. Banning all firearms wouldn't fix any of those problems.

 

Blacks in the US kill one another more than any other group or race in the US kills any other. Blacks are the most violent, criminal, uneducated, impoverished, and so on... Blacks in the US have unprecedented awful stats. Doesn't matter how much money is thrown at their entitlement programs or public education... Mexicans outperform them with far less aide and resources.
What exactly would you like to see improved in the American black culture and what ideas can you offer to make it happen?

 

We tried to disarm and make chi-town gun free like NYC. Did not work very well did it? Let's go back to what the founding fathers wanted , equality.
Less guns in the hands of those chi-town criminals and more in the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

That percentage would be higher, if those who were polled had greater knowledge of firearms. If you notice, the left leaning who're also gun enthusiast, are not vocal on this issue. The reason being is that they know their brethren are clueless and nonsensical, yet they don't want to step on any toes either.

 

but the Constitution applies to everyone - esp its equal protection and its privileges and immunities clauses

 

I think that subject has been covered in other threads. The point here is the matter of concealed carry - an issue strongly defended by conservatives. Yet, those same critics do not show the same enthusiasm about defending blacks and their rights to have weaponry.

 

Too may bad guys with guns and not enough good guys with guns because of Chicago's strict gun control.

Gun laws only keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Bad guys don't care about your gun laws.

Do you understand now?????

 

''your guns laws''


I'm a former member of the NRA and fully support the 2d Amendment rights including those rights enjoyed (in theory) by the Black Panthers

 

This gets to the core of the liberal mindset. I'll bet you if a poll were taken of democrats asking what would happen if the Civil Rights Act were repealed today, 99% of them would say that our society would immediately regress to the Jim Crow era of segregation and that the KKK would become the ruling class. It's because they a) believe that regular people are mostly evil at heart, and b) no one does what is right, unless they are forced by government to do it. It really is a sad commentary on their faith in their fellow man, and their overall view of people.

This topic is no different. They believe that almost no one is trustworthy, and that everyone has an inherently violent nature that can only be repressed and controlled by fear of legal consequences. I submit that those who would ever consider the initiation of any kind of violence against another as a means of conflict resolution are fairly rare in our society. Most people are good, peace loving folks, who would NEVER resort to initiating violence against another, particularly using a weapon, no matter what happens.

 

You DO realize that polls also show the majority of people want stricter gun regulations? Always a good idea to spend just a bit more time looking at things before you jump in there with your 'Gotcha' moment.

 

A few points:

1. CCW permit holders are some of the most law-abiding individuals around. In many CCW states there hasn't been a single instance of such an individual committing a felony related to their carry.

2. Carry is not the issue. Carry has never been the issue - ownership is. Legal ownership creates a pool from which criminals can steal. That and international import are the the favored methods of criminal firearm ownership.

3. You can argue about gun control generally, but concealed carry demonstrably has no effect on the criminal population. Their guns are already illicit, they're already committing crimes which carry multiple decade sentences. They're perfectly capable of donning an overcoat and concealing a handgun - no policeman will discover it unless he does something to warrant attention. They aren't asking for approval, they certainly don't want carry permits.

4. Mistaken identity shootings are extremely rare, and need to be weighed against the crimes prevented to lend any credence to your argument. As a worst case scenario all this suggests is that carrying civilians ought to have police-style training. Well no, because that would be wholly inadequate. The vast majority of police have never fired their weapon in the line of duty, and don't shape up next to a sporting shooter in terms of accuracy (even under pressure). Anyway, the point is - simply being an agent of the state is not a relevant qualification for carry. An equally trained citizen must be allowed to carry on an equal basis.

5. I am not opposed to your arguments (at least, not entirely). They make a whole lot more sense in inner cities where people are so densely populated. Population density makes all pollution much more of an issue - and a speeding bullet is essentially pollution. In rural areas, gun control makes no sense. Even in semi-rural areas of populous states like NY and CA. In places like WY, AK, VT, NH, etc - there is simply no justification. Gun crime rates are so low that even a complete prohibition on all firearms would achieve practically nothing. Therefore, a federalist solution is called for. Different jurisdictions must be permitted to have policy representative of their needs and values. I therefore see little issue with an amendment which exempts the states from the 2nd amendment, while applying a complete prohibition on any firearms regulation from national government. We can all get along, there's no need to push a one-size-fits-all nationalist policy which crushes representation.

6. I am not opposed to compromise, so long as it is compromise in the right direction: compromise which allows us to both get our own way. However, I recognize the tendency of the prohibitionists to constantly push the goalposts back whenever a concession is made.

7. The desire to force one's policy on others through force is strong. Living under policy you find desirable is not enough for most, they want to force others to comply with their preferences. That's natural. Accordingly, it's very tempting for prohibitionists generally (on drugs, guns, whatever) to keep moving vertically up though governments: once they've forced everyone in their state to comply with their will they move onto the country, then the region, then the world. But it is the duty of all liberals (in a literal sense) to resist this urge, and to permit variety in policy across different jurisdictions. In an ideal world there would be no need for government and the individual could be perfectly sovereign - in the real world we ought to try our best to prevent the centralization of force into a single global actor, and instead opt to keep gopvernment as close to the individual as possible. That means states, that means local governments. That only means national governments in cases of extreme urgency (a military attack on the homeland, armed conflict between federal bodies, etc). I say this to the second amendment crowd also, who want to force laissez-faire on jurisdictions which don't want it. The 2nd amendment applied to the national government for decades, it was only applied to the states retroactively.

[hr][/hr]

Sorry for the rant. I'm in a cooperative mood. I just want us all to get along.

 

It's the individual, not the group, that has 2nd amendment rights, if they haven't been revoked to due unlawful behavior. So if that gang, whose picture you posted, all own guns gotten through straw purchases or other illegal means, then they don't have that right. Neither does anyone else who can't pass a background test, regardless of color. But I'm sure each of those fine young men in your picture wouldn't have a problem passing a background check don't you think?

 

My 2nd Amendment Rights aren't negotiable.

 

56%? Hardly an overwhelming majority is it?

 

How many more? There are already as many guns in circulation as there are citizens. Don't seem to be doing much good though, do they?

 

You would think so if the results were in your favor.