Talk:Guns

As a Republican, it is heartening to see that your position on gun control seems reasonable. Though we disagree (as I would like to see even less regulation), I want to comment you on a reasonable and thoughtful position on this issue.

A stance that neither side of this issue will like

When it comes to guns I am split between both sides. I believe that we should honor the constitution in that we have a right to bear arms, but times have also changed. We are no longer dependent on militias to protect our country. Also, society has become more inclined to violence. My stance is that everyone should have the right to bear visible arms in public after they have somehow proven maturity (age, emotional, mental, social, etc.), a clean criminal record, and the understanding of how to properly/safely use and store firearms. If people can see that others have firearms, they can account for the fact that someone is armed in how they act around them. However, I also believe that only law enforcement and military personnel should carry concealed weapons. I can understand that there needs to be some "hidden protection," and I feel that the likelihood of a gun carrying bystander defusing a situation with guns is just as likely as he/she could worsen that same situation. Basically, I feel that not only do I have a right to bear arms but I also have a right to know when others are, too. Yes, I have thought about how the bad guys will always have contraband weaponry. Also, I am aware that criminals are more cautious of robbing or hurting people in homes when they could have guns in the home, but having dogs of any type and security system stickers (even if there is no security system) are also effective deterrents to crime. I would argue that dogs and stickers present less of a threat to people (especially young children and immature teenagers) than guns. Am I right in believing that no one on either side of the gun issue would like my stance?--Anhhung18901 22:41, 5 December 2005 (MST)

First of all, the reason for reserving the right to bear arms to the people isn't for the national defense, it's for the defense of the people from the government. Remember, that the authors of the constitution had just overthrown their legal sovereign, George III, in an armed rebellion. If the people are armed, the government has a different set of options available to it than if we are not.

I've heard this repeatedly but find it a bit of a fantasy that a population would be able to defend themselves against the U.S. Military with shotguns, rifles, and handguns. I'm pretty sure the Iraqi and Afghan military had less restrictions on weapon bearing than we do and they didn't fare so well. Is this sentiment really believed?--pashdown 12:20, 13 January 2006 (MST)

If it came to it, I'd rather have a shotgun than nothing! Dilvie 11:30, 17 March 2006 (MST)

I'm not sure it is necessarily a fantasy. The strength is in the numbers, and the military is small compared to the number of citizens. At one point, the majority of adult male citizens owned firearms. The Iraqi and Afghan militaries may have had access to better armaments, but they were very small groups. I think gun ownership is a good way to prevent the need to protect ourselves 'from the government'. --Esk 00:26, 26 March 2006 (MST)

Secondly, attempting to disarm the people discards the advantage of good people outnumbering bad people. Prohibiting concealed carry, makes it too easy for a bad person to look around and decide with some confidence that he is the only armed person in the vicinity. It doesn't take a lot of citizens carrying concealed, to vastly change the risk profile for someone in the armed mugging business.

Thirdly, by abandoning our arms, we would be abandoning our responsibility. The cops simply can't be everywhere all the time, and when some nutcase decides to shoot up a commuter train (as Colin Ferguson did on Long Island), the thing you need most of all is a rational person who is also armed and able to stop the perpetrator. Ferguson was able to reload twice, before the people on the train realized that he wasn't going to stop, and that they had nothing to lose by jumping him. In Israel, the terrorists have pretty much given up trying to shoot people in crowds, because they're usually killed by armed civilians before they manage to wound more than one or two people.

If you're not comfortable carrying a weapon to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your community, then don't. But by the same token, don't presume to make the rest of us join you in shirking that responsibility. Some of us will carry in the open, some concealed, and I won't be second-guessing somebody else's choices in this matter.

First, it is nice to hear from somebody about my stance. While we disagree somewhat, it helps to actually communicate.

In response to your whole idea that I want to disarm everyone, I don't want to take away all firearms from people - just the concealed ones.

When it comes to people with guns helping out, let me quote myself: "I can understand that there needs to be some "hidden protection," and I feel that the likelihood of a gun carrying bystander defusing a situation with guns is just as likely as he/she could worsen that same situation." You're right that there are good people who carry guns, but one bad person can negate the good done by many good people. Also, law enforcement and military personnel are trained to use firearms in volitale circumstances, and I doubt that as many civilians would recieve such training. Thus, they are more likely to worsen the situation than law enforcement and military personnel who have been trained.

In response to your nutcase on a commuter train scenario, I don't have a problem with civilians carrying visible firearms into such areas. Just because their firearms aren't concealed, does mean that the firearms lack functionality. Maybe if the nutcase sees that people (even just one person) have guns, then he/she would not act violently. People bearing visible arms would serve as a great deterrent.

Finally, I think that people can defend themselves and others by carrying visible firearms like they could with concealed firearms.

By the way, I went pistol shooting with my family last week. However, if you assumed that I don't go shooting often, you're correct.--Anhhung18901 17:31, 30 December 2005 (MST)

I don't live in Utah, but if I ever need to leave Texas, I would consider Utah as my residence. I would like to point out that concealed carry is more important than unconcealed carry. Doubt in the mind of a would-be criminal is a good deterrent, since criminals prefer "soft targets". In particular, I believe that if at least 20% of women carried concealed handguns, the crime of rape would go away. Without the 2nd Amendment, the rest of the document is just wishful thinking. --HowardLeeHarkness Texas Certified Concealed Handgun License Instructor 08:56 04 January 2006

safety legislation

There's lots of possible safety measures to add to guns to prevent all sorts of accidents (for example, at a bare minimum: trigger locks). Why these safety measures are not mandatory boggles my mind. What's your position on that? Crypticfortune 09:48, 25 July 2006 (MDT)