IMO This song defines our debate

[DWC]

&feature=player_embedded

I have saved the lyrics which is a well considered, lengthy, and accurate list of potential causes for violent, anti-social behavior.

No inanimate tool of any type that can be used to enhance violent, anti-social behavior is on that list. A list of those types of tools could be at least as long as the list in the lyrics.

Yet the conclusion is to remove access to one (1) type of tool; not correct the anti-social behavior which is the basis of all such violence.

Antis blame the tool. Pros blame the anti-social behavior.

I felt this song deserved a thread of its own.

===================================

• If It Were Up to Me• Words and Lyrics by:
• Cheryl Wheeler
•
• Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books
• Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks
• Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents
• Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearin
• Maybe it's the President, maybe it's the last one
• Maybe it's the one before that, what he done
• Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers
• Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers
• Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack
• Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack
• Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV
• Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family
• Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news
• Maybe it's divorce, maybe it's abuse
• Maybe it's the lawyers, maybe it's the prisons
• Maybe it's the Senators, maybe it's the system
• Maybe it's the fathers, maybe it's the sons
• Maybe it's the sisters, maybe it's the moms
• Maybe it's the radio, maybe it's road rage
• Maybe El Nino, or UV rays
• Maybe it's the army, maybe it's the liquor
• Maybe it's the papers, maybe the militia
• Maybe it's the athletes, maybe it's the ads
• Maybe it's the sports fans, maybe it's a fad
• Maybe it's the magazines, maybe it's the internet
• Maybe it's the lottery, maybe it's the immigrants
• Maybe it's taxes, big business
• Maybe it's the KKK and the skinheads
• Maybe it's the communists, maybe it's the Catholics
• Maybe it's the hippies, maybe it's the addicts
• Maybe it's the art, maybe it's the sex
• Maybe it's the homeless, maybe it's the banks
• Maybe it's the clearcut, maybe it's the ozone
• Maybe it's the chemicals, maybe it's the car phones
• Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings
• Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing.
• If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns.

==========================

Semper Fi,

[Oneka]

1. I saw this in another thread,

and wasted my time listening to the video.
I can hardly beleive the cognative dissonance, of listing off 67 potential causes of violent crime, many of them ridiculous,then offering up a gun confiscation, out of the blue, as if it were some kind of solution.

[DWC]

2. Exactly my point

Pro 2A folks hold the individual free citizen responsible for anti-social behavior.

Anti-2A folks hold an inanimate tool responsible for the individual free citizen's anti-social behavior.

IMO we individuals, not society and certainly not an inanimate tool, are responsible and individually accountable for our actions.

Semper Fi,

[Atypical Liberal]

7. Exactly. The song is largely one giant straw man.

Come on. UV rays?!?

Violent crime is a serious issue, and we need to spend some serious time and effort pointing out the real causes of violence. This song makes a mockery of that.

And of course the idea of "take away all the guns" is ridiculous. Firearms have been in existence for several hundred years. The modern firearm has been around for over 100 years. They ain't going anywhere.

[Starboard Tack]

3. "Antis blame the tool. Pros blame the anti-social behavior. "

I usually get called an anti around here, but I blame the behavior, not the "tool".
It's hard to come up with more anti-social behavior than carrying a concealed handgun. Maybe using it would be more anti-social.

Of course, those who carry are not concerned with either society or their behavior. They are concerned about their own personal safety and assuaging their fears. They self prescribe and the rest of us have no business knowing.

[Common Sense Party]

4. In what way is concealed carry antisocial?

an·ti·so·cial? ?[an-tee-soh-shuhl, an-tahy-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people: He's not antisocial, just shy.
2.
antagonistic, hostile, or unfriendly toward others; menacing; threatening: an antisocial act.
3.
opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society is constituted: antisocial behavior.
4.
Psychiatry . of or pertaining to a pattern of behavior in which social norms and the rights of others are persistently violated.

[Starboard Tack]

8. I guess you found the answers. All four.

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Let's examine the errors in your statement.

1.
unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people: He's not antisocial, just shy.

There is nothing that says that a person who carries a concealed firearm is unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people. They are simply prepared to deal with violent people with armed force.

2.
antagonistic, hostile, or unfriendly toward others; menacing; threatening: an antisocial act.

Just because a person carries a firearm so that they are prepared to use deadly force against violent criminals does not mean that they are antagonistic, hostile, or unfriendly towards regular people.

3.
opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society is constituted: antisocial behavior.

People who legally carry concealed weapons are extreme adherents to social order and the principles on which society is constituted, namely the law. People who lawfully carry concealed weapons are more likely to obey the law than people who do not.

4.
Psychiatry . of or pertaining to a pattern of behavior in which social norms and the rights of others are persistently violated.

People who lawfully carry concealed weapons are almost never involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime. This hardly makes them candidates for people violating the rights of others.

[Common Sense Party]

13. What you said. I find it jawdroppingly absurd that someone considers

CCW to be antisocial. Are there antisocial jerks who carry? Of course--there are in EVERY segment of the population.

But according to the definitions, as you have laid out above, the act of carrying concealed is NOT antisocial in any way.

[Starboard Tack]

27. I find it jawdroppingly absurd that you don't consider CCW antisocial

Let me explain

1. unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people: He's not antisocial, just shy.
Do you honestly think that it is normal and friendly to join with others socially while carrying a loaded gun? If so, then we come from completely different worlds and have a completely different sense of propriety.

2. antagonistic, hostile, or unfriendly toward others; menacing; threatening: an antisocial act.
Carrying a loaded firearm, especially a concealed firearm, into a social setting is inherently hostile. The only purpose for carrying it is to use it, if and when YOU deem necessary. The carrying of it is an extremely selfish action. The hiding of it is an extremely deceitful action.

3. opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society is constituted: antisocial behavior.
Most societies are based on mutually civil behavior, which does not include carrying guns for personal protection against other fools carrying guns.

4. Psychiatry . of or pertaining to a pattern of behavior in which social norms and the rights of others are persistently violated.
Well, this one speaks for itself. The key words here are "pattern of behavior". Some who carry do so on a regular basis, they think it is normal, they don't give a damn about society, only themselves and their personal safety.

Emulating the "bad guys" doesn't make them go away and certainly does nothing to improve society. The practice, not the law, of CC is regressive and those who have adopted it as "a pattern of behavior" should seriously question their motives. Those who think it is normal and healthy should seek professional help.

[ErikO]

31. Consider these responses

#1: I consider it antisocial to assault a group of people who have gathered for a social reason. When you gather with your friends or as part of a wider group of people that you don't know well, do you care who is wearing undergarments from the opposite sex if you don't? I feel the same way about someone carrying a concealed firearm who doesn't need to show it off - thereby keeping it concealed.

#2: Your answer harkens back to the Western Expansion when those who were armed carried openly and those who carried concealed were trying to hide in the ranks of those who scoffed at those who carried openly. Today, the social norm is to appear unarmed. There are laws in place that restrict WHEN use of a firearm is proper and when it will result in your inability to own firearms. Assuming that just because someone has a gun in their pocket they want to use it is not quite accurate. Everyone that I know that carries does so in case something goes wrong and they have to draw it. To do otherwise is to invite a charge of Brandishing or Attempted Murder.

#3: If two people are in the vicinity of someone that is looking to rob someone, the one that appears to be an easier target will be selected. I'm over 40 and in not very good shape. In that situation I would want to be carrying to even things up in case I were chosen as the easier target. The social setting you are talking about would probably not be a location that would be chosen, unless there was some expectation of the targets there being 'soft' or less likely to cause a problem for someone that sees themselves as a predator in that situation.

#4: I disagree. The carrier does care about the safety of those around themselves as well. Carrying a gun is NOT an easy choice due to the ramifications of using that gun. Everywhere except for Vermont and Alaska have some sort of mandatory training requirement that goes over the laws of the state that issues the CCW permit. The majority of that training involves the learning of the gun laws of the state that supplies the permit.

It is difficult to take into account the thought process of those who legitimately wish to cause another harm to get what they want. It is understandable to hold those who have decided to not be a victim to a similar light as those who would wish to do you harm. It is important to remember that taking the responsibility for being armed in today's society is nothing that is done lightly. If you have only been around those who carry a gun to do another harm I'm sorry you keep such bad company.

[Common Sense Party]

14. What? Name one.

Legal concealed carry fails every one of the definitions of antisocial behavior.

Nice try, but you lost this one.

[Starboard Tack]

17. It fits all of them.

Read the posts of AL, who always comes along to support my argument.
Check this little doozie
"People who legally carry concealed weapons are extreme adherents to social order and the principles on which society is constituted, namely the law."
Emphasis on the words EXTREME and SOCIAL ORDER.

This is the same guy who thinks it's OK to hold kids with toilet paper at gunpoint and it's OK to shoot or lynch would be robbers.

[Common Sense Party]

23. It fits absolutely NONE of them

and everyone sees that, except those who aim to be willfully obtuse.

[Clames]

5. Really? That hard for you?

Gee, how about the short list of rape, theft, murder, child abuse, torture, arson, animal abuse, hate speech, and vandalism?

[Atypical Liberal]

6. Being ready, willing, and able to defend yourself is not anti-social behavior.

It's hard to come up with more anti-social behavior than carrying a concealed handgun. Maybe using it would be more anti-social.

Self-defense is not anti-social behavior. There is nothing anti-social about being ready, willing, and able to defend yourself from people who would do violence unto you.

By your logic, anyone who trains in martial arts is likewise anti-social.

Aggression against the innocent is anti-social behavior.

Of course, those who carry are not concerned with either society or their behavior. They are concerned about their own personal safety and assuaging their fears. They self prescribe and the rest of us have no business knowing.

And of course, there is nothing wrong with this, either. There is nothing wrong with taking care of yourself as you see fit, and it's no one else's business how I choose to go about it.

[Starboard Tack]

9. Did I mention self-defense? No!

Apparently, you agree with me about CC being purely selfish and nobody else's business. That's my point, that it demonstrates a totally "Fuck you!" attitude toward society in general. Thanks!

[Atypical Liberal]

10. Self-defense with a weapon is still self-defense.

Did I mention self-defense? No!

You said:

It's hard to come up with more anti-social behavior than carrying a concealed handgun. Maybe using it would be more anti-social.

Carrying a handgun is being prepared for self-defense. Using it is self-defense.

Just like training in a martial art is being prepared for self-defense, and using it is self-defense.

Self-defense with a weapon is still self-defense.

Apparently, you agree with me about CC being purely selfish and nobody else's business. That's my point, that it demonstrates a totally "Fuck you!" attitude toward society in general. Thanks!

I don't really care if you think carrying a tool for self-defense is selfish or not, but it is nobody else's business. Whether I choose to carry a whistle, mace, a taser, stun gun, knife, or a handgun, as long as I do it lawfully that is my business and no one else's.

Also, having a "fuck you" attitude towards my personal property and how I choose to use it is not the same thing as having a "fuck you attitude toward society in general".

Furthermore, carrying a firearm does not harm society in general. In fact, people who lawfully carry concealed firearms are more likely to be good citizens than those who do not.

[DWC]

12. Concealed Carry is nobody else's business

That is why it is called Concealed Carry so that it will not become somebody else's business unless used to stop a violent attack.

An individual's personal decision to commit violent anti-social behavior absolutely

"demonstrates a totally "Fuck you!" attitude toward society in general"

Being prepared and capable to defend yourself and those in your charge against violent anti-social behavior represents the best and most responsible of social behavior.

Your "Herd Mentality" only works in a society willing to allow their weak to be overpowered by the predators in their mist.

Semper Fi,

[Atypical Liberal]

15. "That is why it is called Concealed Carry" LOL THREADWINNER n/t

[Starboard Tack]

16. If it were nobody else's business, we wouldn't be discussing it.

"Being prepared and capable to defend yourself and those in your charge against violent anti-social behavior represents the best and most responsible of social behavior."

What does that have to do with carrying a concealed weapon? Which "herd" thinks that way? I can't imagine putting my family in such danger that I would need to carry a gun, but if such danger presents itself, then I would definitely consider carrying and I wouldn't be hiding it either.

Stercus accidit!

[DWC]

18. Which "herd" thinks that way you ask.

IMO, the "herd" you apparently belong to thinks that way.

Simple example. You wrote:
"...if such danger presents itself, then I would definitely consider carrying and I wouldn't be hiding it either"

The fact is, if such danger presents itself, it will be too late for you to consider anything but trying to survive the attack by whatever means possible - just like sheep do when wolves attack.

I know that a group of sheep is called a "flock" rather than a "herd" but I am confident you get my drift.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

45. Is that what you learned in the Marine Corps?

That those who don't carry guns are sheep being led to slaughter? All of us who are not afraid of our fellow citizens to the point of carrying loaded guns everywhere are part of your "herd"? I definitely get your "drift".

[DWC]

51. Shepards, not wolves, lead sheep to the slaughter

As confirmed by the 2nd amendment, Peace Through Strength applies to individuals just as it applies to our Nation.

I learned those facts long before serving in the Unites State Marine Corps and, as a Marine, standing as one of America's "open carry" weapons.

I do not deride those who choose not to carry or even own firearms. At the same time, I will actively oppose those who would restrict my freedom of armed defense.

Semper Fi,

[Eleanors38]

34. So, "putting my family in such danger" is necessarily associated with CCW?

I give thugs and punks little credit for their thinking ability, but even they like to put the sneak on unsuspecting persons. Surely, you recognize that many attacks are perpetrated on folks who did not think they were "putting my family in such danger," CCW or no. As of this moment, someone could be ready to stick-up the coffee shop I am in, yet no one would suggest I was putting my family or myself in danger by patronizing a coffee shop.

On the other point about "hiding" a gun or not, you may have a point in thwarting crime by a display. But you also advertise your armed status which might draw unwanted attention by the more virulent thugs (though most would probably be thwarted). BTW, I saw an estimate of the number of folks in your "herd:" Some 8,000,000 fellow citizens.

[virginia mountainman]

19. My view on this....

If you don't see my gun, or more importantly, don't HEAR my gun, it simply is none of your business.

Legal guns are not the ones you need to worry about.

[Eleanors38]

35. "Legal guns are not the ones you need to worry about." Indeed.

[Starboard Tack]

37. I don't worry about guns, legal or illegal.

I don't want to see or hear your gun and unless you threaten me with your gun, it is none of my business. Fact is, we're having a discussion here and you and others admit to carrying concealed handguns. So, although it isn't our business, it is a topic for discussion and expressing opinions.
I don't condemn those who carry, I question their motives. Maybe you live in a part of the country where such behavior is considered normal.

[GreenStormCloud]

46. You do condemn those who legally carry.

In this very thread you have condemned them as anti-social.

[Starboard Tack]

47. I think "condemn" is a tad OTT

I question the motives. I don't condemn. I understand why some might carry. Your wife is an example. I don't blame her, after her prior experiences. In fact, I don't blame women who carry, in general. They are soft targets for predators. It's the men I don't understand, unless they are engaged in high risk activities. Maybe you could explain.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. With increasing age one is considered a soft target.

Further, violent criminals are not interested in fair fights. The will attack as two or more against one. They will use weapons. A gun goes far in equalizing the odds.

When you call us anti-social simply because we are prepared to use violence to defend against violence, then I consider that as condemnation.

[Starboard Tack]

54. I am prepared to use violence to defend myself.

I'm just not as prepared as you. That would mean leaping into a whole other realm of existence for me. I cannot imagine living in such fear of others.
I've found that with increasing age I get more respect rather than become more of a soft target. But I've never considered myself a target. I avoid swimming in shark infested waters.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Avoidance is the best first defense.

But sometimes one is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If that ever happens, I am ready.

[PavePusher]

65. You keep using that word "Fear". Your usage is incorrect.

Preparedness does not equal Fear.

[Starboard Tack]

71. Preparedness for the most unlikely of events is not fear.

Preparing for unknown strangers who are apparently out to kill you, so you need to carry a gun in order to kill them first is beyond fear. It is completely irrational fear, spawned by a very vivid imagination.
Seriously, don't you feel kinda ridiculous wearing a gun? Would you wear it open carry? If I felt I needed one, I wouldn't be hiding it. I would be doing it for a reason. Otherwise, I would be seriously questioning my sanity.

[PavePusher]

74. 1.3-1.5 million violent crimes per year.

That does not equate to "the most unlikely of events".

[Starboard Tack]

78. And how do you fit into those numbers?

Study the demographics of violent crime, do the math and you'll realize the likelihood of you being a victim is far less than the probability of shooting yourself, either by accident or in a moment of desperation. OTOH, you do live in AZ, where sporting a weapon in a fanny pack is apparently fashionable.

[PavePusher]

84. You are hanging your ignorance out in public view, and that is certainly anti-social.

I've already been one of those "demographics", so take the snotty attitude and shove it. Making correct assumptions about others over the internet is definitely not your forte. And no, those stats have been proven faulty time and again.

No-one I've ever heard of carries in a fanny pack here in AZ. We almost universally use proper holsters that protect the sidearm, hold it securely, and safely cover the trigger.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Good for you. Enjoy your "proper holster". Hope it makes you feel safer.

Wouldn't want to damage the old sidearm, would we. See, over here in big bad California, we almost universally don't carry guns around. We're all too busy getting high and surfin' and wearing adult diapers for protection.

[PavePusher]

96. Of course you don't.

See, over here in big bad California, we almost universally don't aren't allowed to exercise our Constitutional Right to carry guns around.

Your government doesn't trust it's Citizens. How odd. But I fixed your error for you.

[Starboard Tack]

100. You forgot the "loaded" and "concealed" parts.

Neither of which are guaranteed by the constitution. Nice try.

[GreenStormCloud]

85. That's only half the equation.

You are leaving out the magnitude of the loss if I lose that spin of the wheel. Since that loss is extremely severe, possibly infinite, then it makes since to carry. You act like any loss is trivial instead of possibly infinite. I am extremely confident that I won't shoot myself.

[Starboard Tack]

91. And I'm just as confident I won't need a gun.

I'm not saying that day could never come when I felt the need to carry, but if it did, then the loss would start in that moment. The very thought of routinely carrying for self protection would stop me in my tracks and I'd ask myself "What the hell am I doing walking down the street with a loaded gun? Has my life come to the point where I'm armed and ready to kill someone today? Is that the world I'm now living in? Nah! If it is, then go ahead and shoot me, because that is not the kind of world I want to live in."

[GreenStormCloud]

101. That's like saying, "I will wait until I get injured to buy insurance." N/T

[Starboard Tack]

103. I try not to get injured. I don't think about insurance.

Works pretty well. Almost seven decades and one broken thumb so far. And I don't live a sheltered life, by any means.

[GreenStormCloud]

105. May your good luck continue. N/T

[Straw Man]

62. Stunning.

I question the motives. I don't condemn.

The practice, not the law, of CC is regressive and those who have adopted it as "a pattern of behavior" should seriously question their motives. Those who think it is normal and healthy should seek professional help.

You don't call that condemnation? Then you are either a hypocrite or a fool. Or both.

[Starboard Tack]

69. You confuse advice with condemnation.

[Straw Man]

82. So it's both, then. OK.

[Straw Man]

61. Bingo!

I don't want to see or hear your gun and unless you threaten me with your gun, it is none of my business.

We have a winner! That's precisely right, and it precisely contradicts all your previous cant about "anti-social" behavior.

[Starboard Tack]

68. The fact that it is none of my business does not mean it isn't anti-social behavior.

I, personally, don't give a fuck what you do. What you do is on you. What others think about it is up to them.

Let me help you out here with a couple of examples Straw Man.

1. You go to a card game at someone's home and announce that you are wearing a gun and will keep wearing it throughout the game. One or more of the other guys objects. You either take it out to your car or you tell them it's none of their business and they ask you to leave.

2. Same situation, except you don't tell anyone. ie. you lie by omission.

In situation number one you are being socially honest, in number two you are being anti-social. Like someone with HIV fucking around without telling their partners. It's sneaky, deceitful and incredibly selfish.

[Straw Man]

83. What stunning illogic.

1. You go to a card game at someone's home and announce that you are wearing a gun and will keep wearing it throughout the game. One or more of the other guys objects. You either take it out to your car or you tell them it's none of their business and they ask you to leave.

2. Same situation, except you don't tell anyone. ie. you lie by omission.

In situation number one you are being socially honest, in number two you are being anti-social. Like someone with HIV fucking around without telling their partners. It's sneaky, deceitful and incredibly selfish.

But wait -- I thought it was no one else's business, in which case I have no obligation to tell anyone anything.

You have a curious worldview, I must say. Not telling someone something which is by your own estimation "none of their business" is lying by omission? How much information am I supposed to divulge to these card-playing cronies? Should I tell them if I am on any medications? Perhaps I should tell them of my sexual proclivities or what I had for breakfast. Certainly these things would have a bearing on our relationship -- at least as much as the fact that I may have a firearm on my person.

Would you care that you were playing cards with someone who was carrying a firearm? I wouldn't. What kind of people do you generally play cards with? Do your card games ever end in violence? Mine don't.

[Starboard Tack]

92. You, sir, epitomize the word "obtuse".

We obviously live on different planets. Enjoy!

[Straw Man]

128. Another non-response. Stay classy, ST.

We obviously live on different planets. Enjoy!

I live on Earth. What orb do you inhabit?

[Starboard Tack]

129. Water!

Makes it easier to put out fires. Glug, glug!

[GreenStormCloud]

86. You are wrong about "lie by omission".

I am under no obligation to tell anyone (Except law enforcement in some situations.) that I am armed. People know the law in this state and they know that a certain percentage of the people they meet will be legally armed. They are free to make their own guesses about me. The law requires me to not give them any clues. Silence in the absence of obligation is not a deceit as I have a right to privacy.

[Starboard Tack]

93. Of course, you are correct "by law".

And that seems to be paramount for you and many others. Legally, I don't have to tell someone I'm going to shoot them either. I don't break the law until I shoot them, unless, of course, I'm in one of those places where I can claim self defense and there are no witnesses to prove otherwise.
Point is, the guy who killed all those people in Aurora was under no legal obligation to announce his intentions beforehand, not even law enforcement.

[PavePusher]

97. You've now implied and insinuated that lawful carriers have criminal intent.

Yes, that's exactly what you did.

You are now round-filed. Have a good life.

[Starboard Tack]

102. No, they are just ready to kill. No criminal intent implied.

You carry a loaded weapon, you'd better be prepared to use it, or you're an even bigger fool than your would be attacker. BTW, your imaginary assailant is under no legal obligation to notify the cops before he attacks you with his hidden gun. If he's carrying legally, you'd better be a faster draw than him. Good luck with that.

[GreenStormCloud]

106. Why would I shoot another CCWer?

I am not going to place him in a situation where he has to defend himself so he won't have to draw on me.

A criminal isn't going to notify the cops before he starts an illegal attack so you are just being silly with that statement. However, by body language he is likely to telegraph his intentions. If I am alert to the situation I can be ready.

Yes, I am prepared to kill - IF THE SITUATION DEMANDS IT. Sometimes killing is both moral and legal.

[GreenStormCloud]

104. He carried illegally.

If a legal carrier had been present there is the possibility that the CCWer would have been able to stop the killer.

Regarding self-defense, it takes more than just a person's claim. The claim has to match the evidence. In all shooting the situation will be investigated. Among one of the critical things that will be looked at is the history of both people. The best indicator of a person's unknown behavior is their known behavior. Usually the situation is a CCWer (clean police record) calling the police (Making the call is a strong positive) and a dead guy with a weapon and a record of multiple arrests and convictions. The police will check the backgrounds of both people including interviewing friends, facebook page, etc, to see what kind of character they were.

[petronius]

87. Actually, it's more like going to a card game and not announcing that you have HIV

It's irrelevant, private, and not anyone's business - it's utterly absurd to claim that not announcing your private business to all and sundry is in any way anti-social, sneaky, deceitful, or selfish...

[Starboard Tack]

94. "all and sundry"?

Sorry, but I don't play poker in my home with all and sundry. If I did, then I would be too stupid to play poker, let alone use a gun.

[petronius]

95. Are you really going to pretend that this discussion (and your analogy) is

limited to events occurring in your home?

You know, I agree that in your own home you have the right to bar firearms or anything else, and it would be improper to go around your expressed or implied desires in that space. But your personal preferences in no way extend to the public sphere, and it's ridiculous to characterize the carrying of an inert object as sneaky, deceitful, anti-social or anything else, just because you personally don't like it. And, outside of your personal space (e.g., your home), the quiet and unobtrusive behaviors that others choose to engage in simply aren't your business, and nobody has any social obligation to announce their private details to all and sundry (which includes you)...

[Starboard Tack]

99. "it's ridiculous to characterize the carrying of an inert object as sneaky, deceitful, anti-social"

You left out the key word "CONCEALED"
And what does the object being inert have to do with anything? We are talking about CARRYING A LOADED GUN, not the physical properties of the gun. One is an object, the other is behavior. If you don't recognize a correlation between personal behavior and social behavior, then you are either in denial or being purposely obtuse.

[petronius]

108. I left out the word "gun" too, since the point applies to any object a person

might be carrying, privately quietly, and unobtrusively, in sight of others or not. It's really simple: personal private behavior is just that, so long as it doesn't directly infringe on other people. It's fine if you don't like it, but your disapprobation doesn't translate into it being sneaky, anti-social, deceitful, etc, etc. And, a personal private act (carrying something in one's pocket or purse) is not social behavior, no matter how you try to spin it.

It's clear to me: you dislike concealed carry, and for some reason you want to justify that dislike by trying (unconvincingly) to present CC as a dishonest behavior, a public interaction, and some sort of assault on social order. If you think I can't see that, then you're the one who's obtuse or in denial...

[Starboard Tack]

111. You don't seem to understand personal boundaries.

If you bring a loaded weapon within range of others, it becomes their business, just as much as yours. No different to getting in someone's face, except it's hard to sneak up that close without the person knowing.
If you think the behavior is honest, then you are deluding yourself. The only reason it is legal is because legislators realize how offensive, embarrassing and foolish OC is. But I support OC, because it is honest and may well be effective as a deterrent. Most people don't want to mess with someone who is armed. If they don't know, then the "thugs" are more likely to mess with you, which puts you in a situation where you have to choose, kill or be killed, or pretend you don't have a gun and hope the "thug" doesn't find it. I call that a lose-lose-lose situation.
It's not about whether I like CC or not. I don't do it. People around me don't do it. I'm commenting on the behavior of others, because anomalous behavior has always fascinated me.

[petronius]

113. Speaking of anomalous, your conception of personal boundaries is the most unusual

I have ever encountered. Likewise for your notions of private, public, (anti-)social, "honest" behavior, and the getting in of faces.

Seriously, I understand it just fine: the contents of my pockets, person, purse, and papers are my business; yours are yours; and everyone elses' is their business and not ours. You're free to dislike CC, to not do it, to distrust and avoid those who do, to ban it from your own property to your heart's content. But this elaborate structure you've built to justify your dislike is a logic-free house of cards...

[Starboard Tack]

114. Again, it isn't a question of me liking or disliking it.

If you are carrying a loaded weapon, that weapon is a potential threat to all within it's range. That, my friend is basic gun safety. Most of us, when we carry a gun, make sure that others within range are aware of each others weapons and where they are pointed at any given moment. That is basic gun safety.
There are fools out there today with little or no knowledge of gun safety, carrying handguns that don't have safeties installed. They think they are going to protect themselves from the "bad guys" and many of them couldn't protect themselves from shooting themselves in the foot. Read the posts in this forum and you'll get the idea. And most her on DU are the smarter ones, compared to the gun nut sites, where Darryl and his brother Dufus rule.

[petronius]

118. Like many other items, an improperly managed firearm can be hazardous. As a result, people

who possess/use/carry/transport these items have a responsibility to use care (basic safety, as you say). However, the mere possibility of that (very slight) hazard does not make the possession of items in this category anti-social, nor does the presence of them ordinarily become the business of any other person. If their presence isn't anyone else's business, then keeping them private isn't dishonest or deceitful. In fact, none of the characterizations of CC that you've presented in this thread have any reasonable basis in logic or the English language.

All we're left with is that you don't like CC, don't think it's necessary or a good idea, and perhaps don't trust those who do it - all of which is your undeniable prerogative.

As for the fools, they exist in every sphere - which is why I favor a comprehensive training requirement to go along with shall-issue CCW...

[Starboard Tack]

120. Indiscriminate CC is what I oppose, not all CC.

"the mere possibility of that (very slight) hazard does not make the possession of items in this category anti-social, nor does the presence of them ordinarily become the business of any other person."

Again, I agree about the possession being nobody's business, until you bring your firearm within range of others who are unaware of it's presence. That's all about public safety and common courtesy and respect.

[petronius]

121. I disagree, there is no "until" - mere presence is not a meaningful public safety issue, and

neither common courtesy nor respect imply any obligation to share any personal details (about firearms or anything else) with those whose business they are not...

[GreenStormCloud]

126. In most states a legal carrier has to pass state tests first.

I wasn't able to just get a pistol and start legally carrying. I had to have my background checked (Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.) take classes on self-defense law, conflict deescalation and gun safety, be fingerprinted & photographed, and demonstrate proficiency with a handgun of the class that I wanted to carry. That system has been hugely successful as demonstrated by the statistics that Texas gathers and posts annually.

Those tests are society's way of taking care of the safety issue. Here, those of us who carry have demonstrated that we are safer than the police.

The one's who are carrying illegally are the criminals and they are definately anti-social.

[Starboard Tack]

127. You should be safer than the police and definitely safer than the criminals.

They are even more anti-social than you guys, mainly because they shoot more people. However, not all states put you through such tests. A good psych test might be in order for civilians and cops. I guess the criminals get one for free, once they are incarcerated.

[DWC]

115. So do you think someone who is HIV Positive

Should either:
1. Never "bring a loaded weapon (themselves) within range of others, or
2. Wear a sign board that says "I'M HIV POSITIVE" when in public?

Semper Fi

[Starboard Tack]

116. No, they should let you know before you have sex with them.

Or before sharing a needle. That's called being within range. You obviously need to do your homework on HIV/AIDS.
Let me give you a better example. We often sail through waters where the US military conduct maneuvers, including missile tests. They don't target us, and we have no business knowing exactly6 what they are doing, but they have the courtesy to let us know that we are entering the danger zone and instruct us to standby until the tests are over. Being within the range of live munitions that are already primed and ready to fire is called being in the "danger zone". The danger zone of a knife is a few feet. A handgun is entirely different kettle of fish.

[DWC]

117. HIV POSITIVE people, according to you

Should not be required to wear a sign board stating that fact but "...should let you know before you have sex with them. Or before sharing a needle. That's called being within range. You obviously need to do your homework on HIV/AIDS."

A citizen who is legally concealed carrying will let you know when he/she deploys the firearm to stop a violent, anti-social criminal act.
You obviously need to do your homework on legal concealed carry.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

119. Too little, too late.

Most of us don't want to live in your private shooting gallery. I understand the legality. Doesn't make it right or wrong, good or bad. It is what it is. Sheer lunacy.

[GreenStormCloud]

107. So you wouldn't play poker at someone else's place?

You only play cards on your boat? You don't go to bridge clubs or poker clubs?

[Starboard Tack]

110. Either at home or a friend's place.

Not into clubs and I only play cards with friends, or friends of friends. In my world, I'm the only person who ever brings up the subject of CC. Whenever I mention it, my friends look at me askance, like maybe I've gone over to the dark side. I then have to explain my "bizarre" fascination with the phenomenon, having discovered it on DU. It's amazing how many are oblivious to this fad, just as I was till you guys educated me. Now I get to educate them. This includes a few friends I go shooting with, guys who've been around guns since childhood, but are not members of the NRA or other organizations. They just like to hunt or target shoot.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. You are comflating legal and illegal concealed carry.

I, and other posters, have shown the statistics that legal concealed carriers are extremely safe. It is extremely rare for us to abuse ur license to harm an innocent person. In fact, as a group we save more innocent lives than we take.

ILLEGAL carriers, on the other hand, include almost all of the violent criminals who carry. That is a strongly anti-social group that does carry for bad reasons.

[Starboard Tack]

25. What is truly amazing is that you believe all that.

You truly believe that by being legal and killing legally, it makes everything OK. You truly believe that you "save" innocent lives by shooting "bad" guys and therefore contribute to a better society. You believe that by contrasting yourselves to "violent criminals" we, the rest of humanity, should applaud you.

[hack89]

29. Legal CCW has not led to more shootings, injuries and death

so why don't you put aside the moral panic.

Your fear is not my problem - when you have hard facts we can talk about me and CCW.

[Starboard Tack]

38. Did I mention fear on my part?

Didn't think so. No moral panic either. If I had some fear issue going on then maybe I'd be thinking about carrying a gun too.
You want to talk hard facts or some bullshit statistics? Hard facts are that some people think it is normal to carry loaded handguns pretty much everywhere they go, just in case they need to shoot someone. Now, do you want to talk about the kind of fear that motivates them to behave in such a way? Or do you want to try to imply that I am afraid because I want to comment on such absurd behavior?

[hack89]

49. Hard facts = real data, not moral panic over other people's actions that you disagree with.

show me real harm. That is all that matters. If you cannot show me how CCW has led to more shootings, injury or death then it is irrelevant as to what motivates people to carry - they represent no actual threat to you and that is all that matters.

[Starboard Tack]

53. What's with the "moral panic" thing.

I see the issue as being neither a moral one, nor one deserving of panic. That's all in your mind. I see it as foolish, unnecessary and socially regressive, not immoral. It also indicates irrational fear of others, which is an unhealthy sign. Maybe that's where you feel the "panic" comes in, but not on my part. The fact that some who carry have permits is completely irrelevant to me. Handguns will be carried by those who want to carry them and those who carry kill thousands every year. That's the crowd you're in with.
You are right, it is no concern of mine, thankfully. I just find it bizarre.

[hack89]

55. Passing judgement on gun owners exercising a civil liberty based on your biases

with no backing evidence is the epitome of moral panic. You are the irrational one unless you can demonstrate a real threat to you or to society. You can't yet you go on and on about those fearful gun owners.

[Starboard Tack]

58. "Passing judgement" - WTF

Now you are sounding truly delusional. Talk about distortion and grandiosity. Moral Panic - Passing Judgement.

Why don't you show me one example of me going on about fearful gun owners. Most gun owners are not afraid. Only a small percentage are so afraid that they carry their guns around in public. Are you suggesting that those who carry are not afraid?

[hack89]

59. "I see it as foolish, unnecessary and socially regressive.." looks like a personal judgement to me.

I carry occasionally - I am not afraid. It is just a common sense precaution in some situations - a reality your biases blind you to.

[Starboard Tack]

63. If you are discretionary about carrying, as you say, then I have no issue with you.

My issue is with those who carry mindlessly and routinely, as though wearing a gun is no different to wearing underwear. I don't judge those people either. I question and challenge this specific behavioral trait, without condemnation.

[hack89]

64. OK - as long as you don't support changes to gun laws based on your views

As long as you understand you have no justification for additional gun control laws I have no problem with your views.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Killing in self-defense, while sad, is morally and legally OK.

If someone is threatening my life, or another innocent's life, then killing that person to save the innocent does improve society. It removes a violent predatory criminal that society is better off without. I don't care if you applaud or condemn me, I refuse to be a passive victim.

As long as I am a law-abiding productive member of society I deserve to be treated differently than the violent predatory felons that are among us.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Tell yourself that. You don't have to justify your actions to me.

It's your life, your choice and your karma. Good luck.

[Eleanors38]

36. I, for one, choose the limited purpose of self-defense...

"You truly believe that by being legal and killing legally, it makes everything OK. You truly believe that you "save" innocent lives by shooting "bad" guys and therefore contribute to a better society. You believe that by contrasting yourselves to "violent criminals" we, the rest of humanity, should applaud you."
________________

Who is advocating "makes everything OK?" Folks are killed and others will grieve. My self-defense policy is not social policy, it is personal self-defense against person(s) who threaten my life. As for "contrasts," I will let the rest of humanity make that judgment, even if "we" (you) are part of it. I am confident in humanity's collective judgment. BTW, so there is clarity here, if some store clerk shoots an armed robber, or a woman shoots a rapist-in-action, or a resident plugs a home invader, I will applaud him/her, as would this guy:

"Taking life may be a duty…. Suppose a man runs amok and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares capture him alive. Anyone who dispatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." -- Gandhi

[Starboard Tack]

42. What does being a store clerk or being a woman being raped have to do with you carrying?

If your life has been threatened, then you should probably carry. Otherwise?

[Eleanors38]

48. I don't wish to wait for a threat to me...

It's like awaking at 3 a.m. to a house hazy with electrical-burn smoke, then deciding to get insurance.

I guess I reallly don't see what you are driving at. Everyone has a responsibility to protect themselves and their loved ones, and you shouldn't wait for a threat to directly manifest itself. There is nothing anti-social about taking prudent self-defense measures.

[Starboard Tack]

52. So you follow all your family around to protect them?

Or do they all carry their own handguns? What I'm getting at is what makes you think you are a target?
Of course everyone has a responsibility to protect themselves and their loved ones. But with a gun?

[Eleanors38]

60. Since I have no family to follow (here in Texas), the question is non-applicable...

to me. Nothing makes me "think that [I am] a target," and nothing makes me believe that I will have a wreck leaving the coffee house, but I carry insurance (the monthly type) nonetheless. I'm glad you agree that everyone has a responsibility to protect themselves. I choose a firearm because those which might threaten me frequently have one, and because someone much younger and stronger (I'm 64) can do serious damage to me with a knife or club in any case, I want the capability to call and raise his bet. BTW, I can't run very fast, either.

Please note: In Austin last calendar year, the weapon of choice used by murderers was a knife; oddly, firearms trailed in the #2 position. The source below came from me in an earlier manifestation as "SteveW."

www.democraticunderground.com/117210959

[Starboard Tack]

66. So, again, I ask "What makes you a target?"

Do you fit some kind of victim profile? I have spent quite some time in Austin over the years and have many friends there, none of whom carry guns or knives. I love the city, the music, the friendliness and the night life. I'm a few years older than you and have never felt in the least bit threatened. Last time I was there was last year and I will be back next April, one of my favorite times of year.

[PavePusher]

70. This is perilously close to saying "But look what she was wearing!"

So, again, I ask "What makes you a target?"

I advise great caution with your ensuing comments.

[Starboard Tack]

73. What a crock!

If someone fits a profile, then they should take counter measures to ensure their safety. For example, if you are a hooker, or exotic dancer working in the rougher end of town, I would advise carrying. If you are engaged in gang activities or carry large amounts of cash or valuables, I would advise carrying. If you live in a really bad part of town, I would advise relocating, if possible, or maybe arming yourself. If the odds of you becoming a victim are statistically high, because of your lifestyle, then you might consider carrying. If you have already suffered violent attacks or threats, then you should consider carrying.

So, what makes you a target? Oh, right, you were afraid to walk through the streets of Manchester without your gun.

[PavePusher]

76. "If you have already suffered violent attacks or threats, then you should consider carrying."

So one should wait until one has already been a victim, before taking defensive measures to prevent becoming a victim....

Quick, secure the barn door, then help me round up all the loosed horses!!

Sigh.

[Starboard Tack]

79. You became a victim the moment you first walked out the door wearing a gun.

Quit imbibing the propaganda from the NRA and other RW fear mongers and you'll be just fine. Life really isn't all that bad.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. Really? What *demonstrable* harm comes from wearing a gun?

As my old algebra teacher used to say, show your work...

[Starboard Tack]

89. Do you think all harm has to be "demonstrable" to be real?

Like "I thought it was a good idea until the thug took my gun away and shot me with it."
Do you mean that kind of harm? Never happens, right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. Practical considerations aside, you seem to be veering into Robert Bork territory:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=335504#335606


Strange seeing Robert Bork's theory of moral harm espoused at DU

For those unfamiliar with it, Dan Baum's recent (August 2010) article in Harper's related this to the objection to open carry:

.....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....

[Starboard Tack]

112. Keep stretching. Mind yoga is good for you. LOL

"Robert Bork territory" - is that the new Godwin's Law?
I believe Bork also has two arms and legs, so he must be the same as me.
Bork is full of shit and your quote is ridiculous. This is neither a moral, nor a criminal issue for me. It is an intellectual issue and a public safety issue and a behavioral issue.

[Eleanors38]

77. Glad you liked A-town. Damn developers are turning it into Miami...

with all the condo construction (on S. Lamar all the way to Broken Spoke, it's zoned condos). Taxes, rents are sky-high, and there is little full-time work (and no-time work for old farts).

I have rarely felt threatened, except on 6th St. where, variously, some punky toughs tried to get something started by calling me "gay." I apologized, and informed them that I had probably dined on more p____y than they had even dreamed about. It confused them a moment, and I made my retreat. Lately, it's mainly smash-and-run gang-type initiation (probably 2 killed using this method of hand-fist murder). Don't go there much anymore.

As to targeting, I suggest you ask the average violent mugger/robber: Generally, they look for folks who are not situationally aware, older, slower, displaying skulking mannerisms, etc. I don't crawl into the average thug's head too much; avoidance being the best defense. But when folks younger and stronger than I are violently attacked by thug(s), I take a lesson. And augment my self-awareness strategies.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. "It's hard to come up with more anti-social behavior than carrying a concealed handgun...

...Maybe using it would be more anti-social."

I'd say using it to fight off someone using an unconcealed handgun shooting at you removes any anti-social onus. Do you think the victim in the following case should have "taken one for the team"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117272571

http://www.freep.com/article/20120917/NEWS05/309170030/Police-Detroit-man-shot-back-at-would-be-robbers-killed-teen?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs


Feel free to eschew armed self-defense on your own behalf. However, your opinion of others' choices for self-defense is irrelevant unless and until you endeavour to provide security for them.

[Union Scribe]

22. I'd say you should work on your imagination

if that's the most anti-social thing you can come up with

[MicaelS]

26. Since the whole point of carrying CONCEALED is

The fact the gun is concealed, just how do you know who is carrying, unless you are an expert trained in spotting weapons? The answer is you do not know. So you don't know who is "anti-social" and who is not.

[Starboard Tack]

28. You don't get it, do you?

You think this is a game of "Spot the gun if you can" and if you spot it, then you busted me for being anti-social.
You say " the whole point of carrying CONCEALED is the fact the gun is concealed" and that somehow makes it OK. Talk about obtuse. LOL.

It isn't anti-social as long as nobody knows I'm carrying. That's like saying "I'll never get lung cancer as long as my doctor never sees me smoking."

You guys who carry are in so much denial, it is mind boggling.

[ErikO]

32. It's more like if I don't smoke I will reduce my risk of lung cancer.

It's not anti-social as long as I am not performing any anti-social acts. Stupid people playing stupid games win stupid prizes; holding up a liquor store owned by an ex-cop, trying to rob someone at knifepoint who has a gun or pulling out a gun because someone made you mad are good examples of this.

Carrying a gun is just as anti-social as carrying a cell phone. It's not the tool, it's how the user uses said tool.

Anti-social behavior is constituted by action. If you don't know the difference between carrying a gun quietly in your pocket and someone exhibiting anti-social behavior you probably have never knowingly been around either. Behavior is action not a thought process.

[Starboard Tack]

40. "Carrying a gun is just as anti-social as carrying a cell phone."

Right. I wonder why the rest of us just don't get that. We must be really stupid.
Behavior is action, as you say, not a thought process. Wearing a concealed handgun is an action, not a thought process. Definitely not a thought process.
Good luck out there.

[PavePusher]

67. So, taking great pains to camoflauge one's defensive measures...

so as to not make the uneducated and unthinking nervous or obstructively inquisitive is now "anit-social"?

What is this, Bizarro-World? Black is white, up is down, words are all reversed in their meaning? NewSpeak Lives!!

George Orwell would slap you.

[Starboard Tack]

72. I guess you just answered you own question.

Interesting, the world's some of us create for ourselves.

[PavePusher]

75. Nice dodge.

Try again.

[DWC]

80. "It's hard to come up with more anti-social behavior than carrying a concealed handgun"

How about Rape, robbery, burglary, theft, murder, home invasion, assault, battery, arson, ...the list goes on and on.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

88. That's only 9. Keep going, you'll get there soon.

[trouble.smith]

24. Good thing it isn't up to Cheryl Wheeler.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Cheryl Wheeler is a hypocrite. She has no problem playing gigs in gun-friendly Vermont.

Which aligns her with most gun control advocates these days- a herd of slacktivists and keyboard commandos...

[holdencaufield]

39. If Cheryl Wheeler was attacked (heaven forbid) ...

... would she call a man with a guitar to come and protect her?

[gejohnston]

43. she could call for

[holdencaufield]

44. "*I'll* do the "thin'in'" around here!"

... "-And *don't* you for-git *it*!"

[jeepnstein]

56. Only if he has a Telecaster.

[PavePusher]

98. Wow, this thread just got a LOT shorter.

[DWC]

124. ?????? n/t

[PavePusher]

125. I round-filed the person accusing lawful owners/carriers of criminal intent.

When you do that, it hides all the subsequent responses to that poster as well (sadly, IMO. The previous version hid only that individuals comments.) and this entire thread is reduced to about 10 comments.

[DWC]

122. My Point Is Made.

The limiting or, in a perfect world, elimination of violent, anti-social behavior is a goal of any society.

Violent, anti-social behavior can be committed with or without tools of virtually limitless types and descriptions.

Efforts to limit or restrict any specific type of tool does nothing to change the anti-social behavior. They also restrict the rights and freedoms of those who do not commit violent, anti-social behavior.

People in a free society are free to make their own choices and must be held responsible for the choices they make.

Violent, anti-social behavior is not the fault of Society
Violent, anti-social behavior is not the fault of a tool - ANY Tool
Violent, anti-social behavior is the fault of the Individual committing that behavior.

Individual Rights = Individual Responsibility.

Semper Fi,