<Human Events> "Who Should Not Carry a Gun?"

[Lotus222]

Who Should Not Carry a Gun? - HUMAN EVENTS

I just stumbled across this article, and didn't know if anyone had posted anything about it on the forums. If so, mods please feel free to merge or delete.

I don't know anything about "Human Events", but I read this article, and am not quite sure how I feel about it. Is this guy voicing his opinion, or is there a political agenda behind this piece? At first, it sounds like the author makes sense with his assumptions. Then I got to thinking... and these are nothing more than assumptions that may lead to misinformation.

What do you guys think?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[9MMare]

I dont agree with much of his second half of article.

It's our Constitutional right. Please see my sig for my opinion: Freedom doesnt mean safe, it means free.

Personally, altho it's a tired analogy, we are all in more danger from each other with our cars.


(This is not meant as a criticism of the OP...thank you, it was an interested read)

[archer51]

While I can agree with him, there are people I don't think should own, or carry a gun. Until they do something to disqualify themselves, what can you do? Along the same line, there are people who have no business driving a car, but as long as they can pass the test, until they do something that justifies the revocation of that license, we're stuck with them doing it.

[claude clay]

in my early years of open advertising, i had twice occasion to ask/tell a student to leave. it went to attitude--now i have a gun I'm gonna get 'him' and .now i can go anywhere and if someone says.... i'll..." so leave now or I'll phone to the COP your town that you are mentally unfit. they left and not long after i started working on referral only.
truth is--it is up to the Chief to determine a persons fitness, I'm just like the dude that teaches you to drive, not the one who pass/fails you.
and too much power ( my opinion) rests with the chief's when it comes to refusing. they need not justify their 'feeling' and if you are denied, their are avenues to contend....but they often take many months ( in CT it is close to 2 years) and you need a lawyer ($4000 and up) to exercise your 'rights.

and many have youthful records that may require----you guessed it---lots of money and a lawyer to get expunged.
the war on drugs has been a great social failure, but from the POV of those in power, it keeps their power.

[JohnInFla]

The author is a senior (founding?) moderator @ the forum site:

Defensive Handguns Forum

[msgt/ret]

I agree that there are those who should not own or even handle a gun just the same as those who do not belong behind the wheel of a car. But until they demonstrate a lack of judgment or responsibility who is to determine what rights they may exercise.

[Harryball]

While I can agree with him, there are people I don't think should own, or carry a gun. Until they do something to disqualify themselves, what can you do? Along the same line, there are people who have no business driving a car, but as long as they can pass the test, until they do something that justifies the revocation of that license, we're stuck with them doing it.

I have to agree with this....The only issue with the article I had was the fact that the author was so willing to abolish certain peoples rights. Just because you get mad easy or are just plain stupid, it doesnt mean you loose your rights...People need to be given a chance, if they fail, then they loose....

[GM]

While I can agree with him, there are people I don't think should own, or carry a gun. Until they do something to disqualify themselves, what can you do? Along the same line, there are people who have no business driving a car, but as long as they can pass the test, until they do something that justifies the revocation of that license, we're stuck with them doing it.

I totally agree 100%.

The author is a senior (founding?) moderator @ the forum site:

Defensive Handguns Forum

I find that hard to understand. And he is a NRA instructor too

[retsupt99]

We could say some very similar things about people who VOTE!
I'm just sayin;...

[adric22]

Well, the good news is that most of the people who should not own guns have already lost their legal right to do so by committing crimes.

[GunGeezer]

We could say some very similar things about people who VOTE!
I'm just sayin;...

+1, bigtime!

[9MMare]

Well, the good news is that most of the people who should not own guns have already lost their legal right to do so by committing crimes.

???

I'm pretty sure that's not stopping criminals. Anyone choosing to harm someone else or commit other crimes....CCW laws arent stopping them (or any other gun laws)

Maybe I misunderstood your post...if it was sarcasm, I apologize.

[Secret Spuk]

I think it stinks of elitism. Who is he or anyone to pass judgment on any one of us. In sum and substance creating subjective criteria for a person to be allowed constitutionally protected rights. In my opinion a suggestion to reinstate "Jim Crow" laws. Some of it obvious... Of course Criminals shouldent have guns... and people who announce they want to do away with themselves shouldnt have guns... But who is to say a person is prone to road rage?... Or that a person is not smart enough to take instruction. I think it's a laughable artical...

Spuk!

[hamlet]

Who Should Not Carry a Gun? - HUMAN EVENTS

I just stumbled across this article, and didn't know if anyone had posted anything about it on the forums. If so, mods please feel free to merge or delete.

I don't know anything about "Human Events", but I read this article, and am not quite sure how I feel about it. Is this guy voicing his opinion, or is there a political agenda behind this piece? At first, it sounds like the author makes sense with his assumptions. Then I got to thinking... and these are nothing more than assumptions that may lead to misinformation.

What do you guys think?

I think the article makes mostly makes good common sense.

As well, I'd add most people who are not in areas with repeated violence if they don't want to carry. It's a free choice in other words, works for some, not for others. "Know Thyself" .

----------------------------------------------------

Since the recent onslaught of new CCWs - which I think is good in general - I've also seen some picking guns out at stores like they were new video gadgets and asking questions that show they have no idea of what's entailed. For me and many here, buying a gun was just the first step, then training or much range time, learning about guns, about the Law, discussing things at forums like these - a lot of time, money and concentration, we know what we're doing but it took and still does hard work. It isn't a game or Reality TV.

I mean you have to know what's involved and commit to being responsible, knowledgeable and effective in use of a handgun and SD and Law - I'd say, if someone is not prepared to make that commitment, it's better for him/her and everybody that a secondary means of SD be used.

[dukalmighty]

I know people that are members of the NRA and they hunt,they will talk about the second amendmentment and how they support it,but then turn around and say you don't need more than 5 rounds in a rifle to hunt and or high capacity magazines should be for LEO/Military everyone else can get by with 10 round mags etc.Usually the People that shouldn't be carrying for various reasons at some point will do sumpin stupid like trying to make a Citizens arrest for a traffic violation,or get in a verbal argument over a parking spot and decide to pull their gun to make the other guy comply and move his car etc.