Open Carry, a good idea?

The simple fact is morons like you have been claiming dire calamity in every State that has approved open and concealed carry and it simply HAS NOT HAPPENED.

In fact violent crime is at a 50 year low.

That is correct, violent crime is down. Take it one step further, what is the cause of this effect?

In absolute honesty Wry, I have no evidence to draw a direct cause/effect relationship between more open carry, conceal carry, castle doctrines, and safe traveler laws with lower crime and and the lowest violent crime rate EVER RECORDED in the United States...but I can make a logical correlation.
.

In a recession, historically, crime rates rise...during this recession, crime is not just low...it is at the lowest rate ever recorded!
.

The anti-2nd Amendment crowd claimed for years that more CCW carried weapons on the street would turn America into a wild west shooting galery...and yet violent crime is at the lowest rate ever AND police officer deaths are ALSO at a 50 year low.
..

More guns, less crime, safer police.
.
What has changed?
.
Fact 1:

Nearly every state issued Concealed Carry permits by 2005.

Rtc.gif


Borrowed this with permission from Wikipedia here.​




Fact 2:

In 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, violent crime hit the lowest levels ever recorded in the United States:


According to the DOJ violent crime is also at an all time low:​


viort.gif

Violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005.​





Fact 3:

In 2008, according to the FBI, police officers killed in the line of duty were reduced to a 50 year low:


Fewer Police Officers Killed in Line of Duty in 2008

  • Dec 31, 2008
This year is ending as one of the safest years for U.S. law enforcement in decades. The number of officers killed in the line of duty fell sharply this year when compared with 2007, and officers killed by gunfire reached a 50-year low.








Based on their analysis of preliminary data, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF) and Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.) reported on Dec. 29 they found that 140 officers have died in the line of duty this year, a 23 percent reduction from the 2007 figure of 181. Other than 1996, when 139 officers were killed, 2008 represents the lowest year for officer fatalities since 1965, when 136 officers died in the line of duty.

This year's reduction includes a steep, 40 percent drop in the number of officers who were shot and killed, from 68 in 2007 to 41 in 2008. The last time firearms-related fatalities were this low was 1956, when there were 35 such deaths. The 2008 figure is 74 percent lower than the total for 1973, when a near-record high 156 law enforcement officers were shot and killed.


Fewer Police Officers Killed in Line of Duty in 2008 -- Occupational Health & Safety
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
mood_dirty.gif
 
Bertrand Russell was a coward.

What makes you so certain? Oh...

Anyone not willing to die for what's right is a coward. I would die to protect my kids, I would die for my freedom and the freedom of our fellow Americans, I believe that to be right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a coward.

Most parents would risk their life to protect their child, a nice spin but not an accurate or honest assessment of dying for ones beliefs. Dying for freedom? Interesting but likely not true. You mighty risk your life to protect you kids 'freedom' as in the case that a kidnapper had them in his custody, but I doubt you'd risk your life to step in if you were alone and saw a domestic violence offender beating his wife/gf, a stranger to you, with a baseball bat.
 
What makes you so certain? Oh...

Anyone not willing to die for what's right is a coward. I would die to protect my kids, I would die for my freedom and the freedom of our fellow Americans, I believe that to be right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a coward.

Most parents would risk their life to protect their child, a nice spin but not an accurate or honest assessment of dying for ones beliefs. Dying for freedom? Interesting but likely not true. You mighty risk your life to protect you kids 'freedom' as in the case that a kidnapper had them in his custody, but I doubt you'd risk your life to step in if you were alone and saw a domestic violence offender beating his wife/gf, a stranger to you, with a baseball bat.

You don't know me very well. I would have stepped in when I was younger and I sure as heck don't see why I shouldn't step in now that I'm older. Fact is when I read about what Ted Bundy did in one dorm with a baseball bat I pointed out that he never would have gotten away with it in my dorm, we all would have been on him. Let's face it, a baseball bat hurts, it can even kill but one man with a baseball bat and all those girls, there is no excuse for them not stopping him.

I want to be like the grandma in Australia that shot the privates off the guys that raped her granddaughter. She's my hero. :D
 
What makes you so certain? Oh...

Anyone not willing to die for what's right is a coward. I would die to protect my kids, I would die for my freedom and the freedom of our fellow Americans, I believe that to be right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a coward.

Most parents would risk their life to protect their child, a nice spin but not an accurate or honest assessment of dying for ones beliefs. Dying for freedom? Interesting but likely not true. You mighty risk your life to protect you kids 'freedom' as in the case that a kidnapper had them in his custody, but I doubt you'd risk your life to step in if you were alone and saw a domestic violence offender beating his wife/gf, a stranger to you, with a baseball bat.

And yet hundreds of thousands of Americans do in fact protect other peoples freedoms by joining the military, by becoming firemen or cops or emergency rescue workers. These people put their desire to protect others ahead of self.
 
Anyone not willing to die for what's right is a coward. I would die to protect my kids, I would die for my freedom and the freedom of our fellow Americans, I believe that to be right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a coward.

Most parents would risk their life to protect their child, a nice spin but not an accurate or honest assessment of dying for ones beliefs. Dying for freedom? Interesting but likely not true. You mighty risk your life to protect you kids 'freedom' as in the case that a kidnapper had them in his custody, but I doubt you'd risk your life to step in if you were alone and saw a domestic violence offender beating his wife/gf, a stranger to you, with a baseball bat.

And yet hundreds of thousands of Americans do in fact protect other peoples freedoms by joining the military, by becoming firemen or cops or emergency rescue workers. These people put their desire to protect others ahead of self.

When I was younger, I wanted to be a cop. Life kind of got in the way of that idea. Still you are right, there are millions of heroes out there. Bertrand Russell isn't one of them, nor is anyone who is not willing to die for their "beliefs".
 
We can only hope statistically that the gun nuts make up the .3 and the sensible are home safe with loved ones. I know that ain't politically correct but buffoons are buffoons no changing that.


"There are no recent statistics available but UN figures from 2000 showed for every 10,000 Americans, 0.3 were killed by firearms, compared with 0.01 in the UK where handgun ownership was banned in 1997.

In Switzerland where every man of military age is required to keep a gun at home as part of the country's civil defence policy, the number of deaths per 10,000 population was 0.05.

In South Africa it was 7.1 for every 10,000 people."

BBC NEWS | Americas | Q&A: US campus killings


http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
 
Last edited:
We can only hope statistically that the gun nuts make up the .3 and the sensible are home safe with loved ones. I know that ain't politically correct but buffoons are buffoons no changing that.


"There are no recent statistics available but UN figures from 2000 showed for every 10,000 Americans, 0.3 were killed by firearms, compared with 0.01 in the UK where handgun ownership was banned in 1997.

In Switzerland where every man of military age is required to keep a gun at home as part of the country's civil defence policy, the number of deaths per 10,000 population was 0.05.

In South Africa it was 7.1 for every 10,000 people."

BBC NEWS | Americas | Q&A: US campus killings


Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 by state. Definition, graph and map.

You know, if I had a gun, I could shoot that guy that's beating his wife with a bat. HMMM
 
We can only hope statistically that the gun nuts make up the .3 and the sensible are home safe with loved ones. I know that ain't politically correct but buffoons are buffoons no changing that.


"There are no recent statistics available but UN figures from 2000 showed for every 10,000 Americans, 0.3 were killed by firearms, compared with 0.01 in the UK where handgun ownership was banned in 1997.

In Switzerland where every man of military age is required to keep a gun at home as part of the country's civil defence policy, the number of deaths per 10,000 population was 0.05.

In South Africa it was 7.1 for every 10,000 people."

BBC NEWS | Americas | Q&A: US campus killings


Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 by state. Definition, graph and map.

Midcan, your statistics are 10 years old.

In 2000 Clinton had been president the preceding 8 years, the Assault weapon and High capacity magazine ban had been in effect since 1994 (six years) and waiting periods on handgun purchases were the order of the day.

To cut Clinton some slack, your stats are gun fatalities, not firearm homicides...a favorite trick for gun banners.

Likely two thirds of your total fatalities are suicides, and while tragic...a person who wants to kill themselves are going to kill themselves, as proven by Canada and Japan where handguns are rare yet suicides are higher than the US.
 
Last edited:
Many posters on this and other message boards have opined Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. Some posters believe Iran is an imminent threat to Isreal and our forces in the ME, and as such military action is necessary before Iran engages in aggressive action.
I simply ask, how do I, or anyone know for sure, that a person or persons carrying a firearm in the open are sane or sober? How do I know (in the example) my wife or my kids are safe when an unkown armed person is in their presence?
I don't. Would I, armed or not, confront someone so adorned? Not in terms presumed by some; I would make a call and ask uniformed officers to verify legal compliance and remove my family from the threat.
Note, before any police officer, deputy or other law enforcement offical is hired, they are given a complete background investigation, one aspect of which is the psychological examination. You or I have no such assurance that those who choose to display a firearm are sane or sober, and to advocate such behavior seems to me to suggest at the least the advocate may be a bit paranoid - not pyschotic or a sufferer of dementia praecox, necessarily, but even a bit of neurotic paranoia can be dangerous and unpredictable.

Wry ....i seem to remember in one of the threads on guns...a couple links showing that more innocent citizens are shot by the police than by gun owning citizens themselves......
 
We can only hope statistically that the gun nuts make up the .3 and the sensible are home safe with loved ones. I know that ain't politically correct but buffoons are buffoons no changing that.


"There are no recent statistics available but UN figures from 2000 showed for every 10,000 Americans, 0.3 were killed by firearms, compared with 0.01 in the UK where handgun ownership was banned in 1997.

In Switzerland where every man of military age is required to keep a gun at home as part of the country's civil defence policy, the number of deaths per 10,000 population was 0.05.

In South Africa it was 7.1 for every 10,000 people."

BBC NEWS | Americas | Q&A: US campus killings


Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 by state. Definition, graph and map.

Midcan, your statistics are 10 years old.

In 2000 Clinton had been president the preceding 8 years, the Assault weapon and High capacity magazine ban had been in effect since 1994 (six years) and waiting periods on handgun purchases were the order of the day.

To cut Clinton some slack, your stats are gun fatalities, not firearm homicides...a favorite trick for gun banners.

Likely two thirds of your total fatalities are suicides, and while tragic...a person who wants to kill themselves are going to kill themselves, as proven by Canada and Japan where handguns are rare yet suicides are higher than the US.

and take gang banging shootings out of there and it drops even more.....a lot more....
 
"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong; The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell

so you follow an anecdotal op with a quote from one person :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Maybe you ought to look up the definitions of anecdotal. Both items in the OP were from today's paper, as such they are verifiable.
My quote was in no way intended to modify/expand on the OP, it was directed at you, and the fools and fanatics who support openly carrying a firearm which is unloaded. Doing so is stupid - non-stupid liberals, conservatives and everyone in between understands it is stupid.
Stupid is as stupid does; hence the question: Open Carry, a good idea?

you realize verifiable has nothing to do with something being anecdotal right?
 
We can only hope statistically that the gun nuts make up the .3 and the sensible are home safe with loved ones. I know that ain't politically correct but buffoons are buffoons no changing that.


"There are no recent statistics available but UN figures from 2000 showed for every 10,000 Americans, 0.3 were killed by firearms, compared with 0.01 in the UK where handgun ownership was banned in 1997.

In Switzerland where every man of military age is required to keep a gun at home as part of the country's civil defence policy, the number of deaths per 10,000 population was 0.05.

In South Africa it was 7.1 for every 10,000 people."

BBC NEWS | Americas | Q&A: US campus killings


Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 by state. Definition, graph and map.

Midcan, your statistics are 10 years old.

In 2000 Clinton had been president the preceding 8 years, the Assault weapon and High capacity magazine ban had been in effect since 1994 (six years) and waiting periods on handgun purchases were the order of the day.

To cut Clinton some slack, your stats are gun fatalities, not firearm homicides...a favorite trick for gun banners.

Likely two thirds of your total fatalities are suicides, and while tragic...a person who wants to kill themselves are going to kill themselves, as proven by Canada and Japan where handguns are rare yet suicides are higher than the US.

and take gang banging shootings out of there and it drops even more.....a lot more....

Harry, you're full of bull shit. I'm beginning to believe your as stupid as Crusaderfrank.
 
so you follow an anecdotal op with a quote from one person :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Maybe you ought to look up the definitions of anecdotal. Both items in the OP were from today's paper, as such they are verifiable.
My quote was in no way intended to modify/expand on the OP, it was directed at you, and the fools and fanatics who support openly carrying a firearm which is unloaded. Doing so is stupid - non-stupid liberals, conservatives and everyone in between understands it is stupid.
Stupid is as stupid does; hence the question: Open Carry, a good idea?

you realize verifiable has nothing to do with something being anecdotal right?

Of course, You realize your claim my post was anectodal was bull shit; I simple pointed out it was not anecdotal; it was, is and remains a fact.
 
Seems the fools and fanatics have cut and run.

i can't speak for the others, nor do i agree with your description, but i got bored and went elsewhere.

have yourself tested for early onset alzheimer's, soonest.
there's help for you.

I thought I was alone on this one. LOL

Of course you're not, there are many fools and fanatics; you're simply one of the many.
 
Personally, I believe there are way too many guns in the US for any gun control attempt to work there.
Also, given the acceptance of violence in the USA (which is by far higher than in western Europe and propably on the level of Russia), even having gun control laws (which Russia in theory does) may not change that much.

However, one could certainly make it a bit harder for criminals to get hold of a gun.
 
Legally owning a weapon actually makes it more likely that one will obey the law.

There are many things that will get your license to carry revoked. It was made very clear to me by the State police that a license to carry is not a license to shoot and the list of infractions that will get your permit revoked is a long one indeed.
 

Forum List

Back
Top