Dean Forster wrote:
> I ride a motorcycle, I daresay I know more than most
> exactly how unskilled drivers are these days. But
> what you're saying to me sounds like you can't trust
> your fellow man, he must be restrained *before* he can
> do anything bad. Keep in mind we're talking about our
> fellow citizens, they are not criminals by any stretch
> of the imaginagion. How can you ever think anyone
> will aspire to trustworthiness if they are never given
> the chance to prove themselves? I haven't raised a
> child, but i'm thinking that should be a basic axiom.
If we could teach all the people responsibility and trustworthiness, why would
we need firearms to protect ourselves in the first place?
>
> It seems to me you have the same kneejerk reaction to
> problems in this country that many do- legislate it
> away.
I didn't propose any legislation, you did. You proposed we allow more people
to carry concealed weapons. In this state anyway, that would require
legislation.
>
> This is where you confirm my idea that you're striving
> for absolute safety. Your chances of being hit by a
> stray bullet are much less than being hit by
> lightning. My advice: stay underground.
>
You are taking my words out of context again. I didn't say that the chances
of being hit by a stray bullet in my own home were high, I said that they
might be higher than being shot in my own home by a criminal.
> > Well, if everyone that wanted a gun was as
> > responsible as you, that might be
> > OK. Unfortunately there are an awful lot of people
> > out there that have little
> > or no sense of responsibility (but can feign that
> > they do) in whose hands a
> > hand gun is an incident waiting to happen.
>
> Please see above re: trustworthiness
>
And please note my objection to that argument.
>
> The vast majority of people who carry concealed
> weapons are ex military, ex law enforcement, or people
> who were raised with firearms and are intimately
> familiar with their safe use. But don't let that stop
> you from making sweeping accusations of and insulting
> an entire subsection of your countrymen.
Because some or even most of them are responsible doesn't mean all of them
are. Most of the people mentioned above already have permits to carry. You
propose we allow more people to tote weapons. That would increase the number
of irresponsible people walking around with guns. Those are the ones I am
refering to.
> You don't seriously propose that taking away rights
> from law abiding citizens to own firearms will improve
> the situation?
>
Here we go again. I say I oppose allowing concealed carry and you accuse me
of wanting to ban ownership of firearms. In every gun thread that has
appeared on this list, that has always been the firearm proponent's (dare I
say knee-jerk) reaction to any criticism of their position. But OK, here it
is again: Prohibition of firearms in this country would never work. It's too
imbedded in our psyche to get rid of. It's my opinion that we need to
aggressively pursue whatever measures do hold promise in order to aleviate the
problem of firearms violence in this country. I think allowing concealed
carry is a step in the wrong direction. I realize that we can not have an
ideal world, but that doesn't mean we cant have ideals, does it? In the ideal
world would we would not feel that we needed deadly force to protect
ourselves. Passing laws that increase the dependence of citizens upon fire
arms to protect themselves runs counter to that ideal.
Doug
