Carrying a Gun is About to Be Legal - What???

Hiya Guys and Dolls,

In my home state a new law is about to be passed Conceal and Carry. Which means the general public will be allowed to carry a gun for protection. Is this the answer to a rash of shootings that have taken place?

Is handling the situation leaning towards carrying a gun for protection instead of having stricter gun laws? I think this new law is insane. Now all it takes is for someone to get hot under the collar and with a gun in their possession they can shoot someone where they stand.

I think all it does is promote more shootings. So if someone rubs them the wrong way they could easily pull out their gun and blow them away. It opens the door to more people that would never dream of shooting someone to do it!

Do you think this is the right way to go and is the answer to number of people dead at the hands of a gun owner?

Lips

I am with you lips.  Wisc. just passed the law last year.  Now everywhere you go there is a sign on the door that shows NO GUNS allowed inside.

It doesn't make sense to me, but from what I understand Wisc was one of the last states to pass it.  I think Illinois is the last.  All the other states already have it.

medtrans

The last thing America needs is more guns, yet alone to be allowed to carry them around. sheeesh

            Oh  man,  don't even get me started.  This is  just taking it way too far.  This is such an exploitation of the 2nd amendment .    In Florida we have a concealed weapons law and that "stand your ground law"  which is like  self-defense on steroids IMO.  You guys are familiar with the high profile case going on in Orlando?  Case in point.  Anyhow it seems there are some interesting statistics about the use of that law.  I read where dozens of people have been shot and the person with the (concealed weapon) had started the altercation,  shot, possibly killed the other person and then tried to claim self-defense bullsh**.    I won't apologize for my liberal views,  I just think that with over 270 million legal guns in this country already,  we don't need people carrying them around,  some of whom are just spoiling for a fight. 

I agree with all the above.That's all we need,people walking around like it's the wild west again.
We need less guns not more.There's already too much violence in the States.

I agree with all mentioned here.

Im also very curious how they think it will help people defend themselves? How does the situation in which you can shoot in self defense look like? I doubt you could shoot someone if you see him only drawing a weapon, right? If you cannot shoot someone before he points a gun at you, than common sense says you're probably already dead, and also if someone has a gun in his hand than he didnt do anything wrong until he starts using it...

Aside the fact that more guns on the streets can never be a good thing, I dont think they can ever regulate carrying a gun so that it really benefit the common people in any way.

I think I've said it before and I still believe it: more guns = more shootings.

Johnny is right; more guns = more shootings.  It certainly makes me think twice about visiting USA again. 

It is a strong statement to make to never want to visit America and it is that type of media hype that causes pandemonium. It puts in peoples minds that every corner there is a gun wielding maniac ready to blow your head off if you look at them wrong. It is not the case. There has been reports in the news that are cataclysmic but we haven't reverted to the old west yet that I am aware of.

Every state has the carry and conceal law and have not heard of any repercussions of common folk killing each other as a result. I don't however own a gun though the law tells me I can carry one. The laws are set up where you will end up in prison if you protect yourself therefore its a no win situation. But if someone broke in my home in the middle of the night I most likely wish I had a gun to protect my family.

However I do believe that any person with a history of mental illness or repeated criminal charges should not be permitted to carry a gun.

As already explained most states already have conceal & carry laws. I own a gun and my family has always had guns as collectors, hunting etc. The conceal & carry law is a relief in that it allows us to legally carry a gun for protection. I don't personally walk around packing all the time but theres security in knowing that Im not committing a crime to protect myself. I for one consider myself to be civilized and if this prevents anyone from booking a ticket to the good ole USA then its your loss! Chances are you were among a gun toting crowd on your last visit and you made it out alive. Go figure.

I think it is the worst thing they could possibly do. Being in law enforcement it is only going to make my job much more difficult. If I now pull someone over and they are carrying a gun instead of it being an automatic threat I have to keep in mind that the public in fact to allowed to carry. It it will only bring on a lot more problems and chaos.

I've had my CCW for years, totally normal out where I live to see 9 m's on the hip and gun racks on the trucks....  I don't even bat an eye when I'm at the gas station or grocery store and I see someone carrying one. 

Just my personal opinion, but I feel much more safe knowing that there are responsible gun owners in my area and if I was ever put in a situation like Gabby Gifford's or the movie theatre shooting, I can about guarantee less people would have been harmed and killed.

I know you can find just about anything on the internet, but crime rates have considerably dropped where people are required by law to own a firearm:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts

iMO gun control is a must. And issuing should become more strict. But guns are only a part of the problem.

Main streem Medias play the crucial role and the tremendous violence shown is not helping the cause. You guys in USA are being bombarded with news about crime , shootings which always gets the biggest coverage. Its what "sells" and tends to get blown out of proportion just to be more interesting to the viewers, but also to create fear.

And just an interesting fact to share, Canada actually has more guns per person than US but their crime rate is significantly lower... Just turn on the news in Canada and ull notice the difference...makes you really wonder.

I also recommend you to watch Micheal Moor's film : "Bowling for Columbine" for which he got the Oscar.
 

I think Texas has a similar law or maybe it's the same. All I know is that I had to go to Texas for  a couple of weeks for work a couple of years ago. I kid you not it seemed like everyone I came across had a gun on them or in their glove compartment in their car.

I understand where you're coming from on that but don't you think you are already at risk whether guns are legal to carry are not? It's not like they aren't accessible. If you pull over a bad egg chances are they've got a gun illegally. I consider myself a stable person so just because I can now carry a gun doesn't mean I'm going to rough up the police. I do get what you mean though and you're out there risking your life.

I am really surprised about the ignorance displayed here by those who think "Gun Control" is the answer to reducing violence.

"What will you do, when someone robs you?"

"Call the police"

"How will you do that, when the thief has shot/stabbed you and you are laying on the ground dying?"

"Um"

"Exactly"

There are hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners in the USA. Yes, there's always a media frenzy when some nit wit uses their gun in an irresponsible manner, you'll notice that when the gun owner DOES use their gun in a responsible way, you never hear of it unless the criminal is killed or injured.

For years the media has pounded on the "Evils" of gun ownership. They never mention the possession of guns with criminals and how those people pretty much ignore the laws. No, it's the "Responsible" gun owners who are demonized, THEY are evil for wanting to protect their lives, home, possessions and family.

How DARE they think THEY should do so!!

Remember that "Assault Weapons Ban" that was the law of the land in the USA? Here's something to read:

According to studies of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, the ban had little effect on reducing gun crime. A Department of Justice study by Roth and Koper of the original ban points out,"We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim."

In addition, the study says,"At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders."

Think of that, "A modest fraction" of all gun murders. Funny thing is, most murders are committed with HANDGUNS and not "assault Weapons" (Which did account for 1-6% of all shootings) Go figure.

Oh and also, regarding the ban, Columbine would have still occurred as they (ahem) didn't use "Assault weapons" They used handguns...Go figure.

Oh, and let's kind of look at those who were behind those shootings.

Assumption 1: Mass murders like that in Newtown are generally committed by people who are severely mentally ill.

This assumption ignores the fact that people with mental illness are not likely to be violent. It also ignores the fact that mass murders include acts of terrorism, mob and gang violence, and acts of revenge. Yes, some mass murders are committed by people with serious mental illness, but it is likely that most are committed by people who are not. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of research about multiple or single murders of strangers by people with psychotic conditions in the United States, but research elsewhere suggests that such events take place at a rate of 1 per 14 million population. In contrast, stranger homicide in the United States takes place at a rate of 140 per 14 million population. Obviously, stranger homicide by people with psychotic conditions is both rare and a small proportion of all such murders.

Assumption 2: These events reflect widespread inadequacies in the mental health system.

This assumption ignores the progress that has been made in mental health care over the past 50 years. Frank and Glied's Better But Not Well documents the fact that more people are getting better mental health care now than ever before. Of course, there continue to be significant inadequacies in America's mental health system, but our nation has come a long way since the beginning of the community mental health movement in the 1950s. There do appear to have been some cuts in public mental health services in recent years that may have reduced access to mental health services, but America's mental health system is simply not as terrible as it is frequently portrayed. And it is likely to improve further through health care reform and the growing emphasis on "recovery" and "person-centered care."

Assumption 3: There are specific changes in mental health policy and practice that could reduce the incidence of mass murders committed by people with serious mental illness. Recommendations include:

    Increased coercive interventions including both involuntary inpatient and involuntary outpatient commitment

    Easier admission to inpatient treatment and longer lengths of stay

    Requirements that mental health professionals report dangerous patients to criminal justice authorities

    Outreach to, and voluntary engagement of, people known to be seriously mentally ill who have dropped out of treatment

    More housing for people with serious mental illness

    More community mental health services generally so as to increase access to treatment

    Increased support for families with frightening mentally ill family members

    More screening for mental disorders in primary health care, schools, and social services

    Earlier intervention

    More primary prevention interventions

    Expansion of the mental health workforce.

The belief that coercive interventions with people who have serious mental disorders should be used more frequently is highly controversial. There are critical questions about:

    The rights of Americans who have psychiatric disabilities to live freely in the community if they have not committed a crime or manifested danger to self or others

    The long-term impact of involuntary incarceration of people with mental disorders

    The effectiveness of court mandated treatment in contrast to outreach and voluntary engagement programs

    The assumption that increased coercion will reduce the incidence of criminal violence by people with serious mental illness.

In conclusion, there's no solid answer that we have about how to reduce the mass killings. We can look at various answers, but when it comes to removing rights, then that's an area no sane politician dares walk into.

Finally, Zuga, your claim about Canada having more guns is wrong. here's the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Then again, the firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population is 10 times higher in the US compared to Canada, with the number of guns being around 3 times higher in the US compared to Canada.

That's one thing which "Some" anti gun owners point too. Did you know, if they removed the amount of suicides from the "Death by firearm"  then you'd find that having a gun in the home, is LESS dangerous. But then, they don't like that truth to come out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/guns-suicide_n_3240065.html

More than 19,000 of the 31,000 deaths from guns in the United States in 2010 were suicides, far more than the number of homicides or unintended shooting deaths. The overall suicide rate is rising so rapidly that it now outnumbers deaths from car crashes. Most recently, health officials noted a startling spike in suicides among middle-aged Americans: they have jumped by 28 percent from 1999 to 2010.

Personally, I don't have a gun. Knife? Yep (Dads old K-Bar knife) and if I ever got so despondent abut life, I could easily down enough of my blood pressure pills to do the trick. Why would I need a gun to do that?

True, but if you remove the suicides and consider only the homicides by firearm is "only" 7.2 times higher in the US compared to Canada. (The number of suicides by firearm is 3.5 times higher in the US compared to Canada).

Seriously though, let's take into consideration MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS!!!!  Every single mass murderer who has shot up a school, public area, or movie theater has had mental health issues.  In most cases, they were known as well as documented.  Where was the ball dropped?!  Who's responsibility is it to make sure that someone who is clearly off their rocker does not have access to weapons?  In most of these cases, their weapons were obtained from their own homes from a family member who admitted they were aware that the murderer had mental health issues.  It's not rocket science.  If someone seems a few beans shy of chili, DON'T LET THEM HAVE ACCESS TO A FIREARM!!!

There will be always arguments about this topic, but honestly, I am not sure that bringing more guns to the table will lower the number of shooting and victims. I do however understand the need of protecting yourself and your family. One thing I know for sure, I would just make it more difficult for anyone to get the permit for carrying and owning a gun, and make a mandatory psychological evaluation, and maybe, just maybe it would prevent some of those horrible things.

Couldn't agree more Zuga. Everything that happens in the US becomes a news media frenzy. We are in a big fish bowl and it is dissected, chewed on and spit out until it is blown massively out of proportion.

Lips

Ah, I know this will be mostly a US v everyone else, but.....guns just aren't the way, outside the hands of trained officials (and those citizens rigorously vetted and trained)
If you REALLY feel in order to feel safe, that a fireplace poker by the door, a bat under the bed or two loud large dogs aren't enough to keep you and the kiddies safe, you REALLY might want to move the kiddies.

My 2 bark-a-roos won't let a soul in the front door where I've not the time to phone the authorities, grab something big and heavy or leave the premises. I don't ever want to be in the position where I'd have to go out and shoot someone in the living room. And I'd NEVER want to live anywhere where people carry them on the streets.
'Excuse me, got a quarter?'
BLAM
'whups'

I know that I am in the minority on this board, but I feel the 2nd Amendment is a very important and useful one.  It was not written for hunting, but for protection.  Many people don't like guns and don't want guns and I respect that, but I own guns and I assume I always will.