On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:29:21 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:16:01 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:03:58 -0500, CRNG wrote:

Concealed weapons save lives
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161?localLinksEnabled=false


Interesting article if the facts are true. I'm going to guess that
if the movie house didn't have any sign, only a few would carry guns
on them into the movie house.

That is correct only 1-2% of the population chooses to be armed in most
States
The rest of the population is willing to do nothing and depend on luck,
the
police (who usually show up after the incident is over, or the hope that
those 1-2% who carry are around and will respond to save them too.


I guess then an argument could be made
that if someone had a gun, they could have shot the shooter. I
think this is a valid point. I guess we need to ask ourselves with
what happened in this movie house in mind, if we went to a movie or
concert or any venue with a lot of people, would we feel safer with
some people carrying a gun or not?

Frankly, I hope you don't feel any safer if you choose to be passive about
your own protection
And you should definitely not count on others saving your bacon for you
when
you are not willing to make the effort for yourself
After all, the expectation that people who carry will automatically stand
and respond is also a false expectation.
Our first duty is not to you but out ourselves and ours. Why should we
risk
ourselves, if there is a safe way for us and ours to get to safety.
After all, 97+% of the population CHOOSE not to arm themselves for their
own
defense.
That is a morally corrupt mindset.

And the answer the other side of your question ,turn it around
Since the only people one needs to fear are those with criminal intent,
why
would you feel less safe if there are armed law-abiding people around you
?



Valid questions. Agreed.. having a person (not a cop) carrying a gun
near by doesn't obligate them to use it for my protection. I guess
that's why I can't feel safer or not in this situation but I would
feel unsafer if I felt (or worst knew) a certain individual should not
have a gun had one.

Problem is that you have made some vague allusions to who should not have a
gun, that are so far pretty arbitrary
And just because I feel that a particular individual does not have a gun, or
is too stupid to express himself intelligently, or is a religious fanatic,
is not a justification to abrogate their rights UNTIL they actually do
something that justifies it
Preventive abrogation of rights is a nice wooly-warm feel-good concept
that does not survive the hard truth that if you start abrogating rights
arbitrarily, your rights can be abrogated just as easily


I agree.
Let me keep it brief here... Do you want gang members to be allowed
to " legally " carry guns?