Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 108 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Idle speculation (and pie-in-sky!) - assuming the same rules re when and not to be able to defend self (ie, no open season for flagrant firearms discharge, vigilantiism etc) - how might crime be affected, armed crime of course primarily?

I firmly believe in ''an armed society ........'' tho I know it makes the Brady bunch have blood pressure issues :wink:
 

·
1951 - 2011
Joined
·
496 Posts
Hello. Assuming that the carriers actually would use their weapons when they had to and were adequately skilled, I think that violent "street crime" would drop significantly and probably would continue downward as the predators were either disabled or "permanently rehabilitated."

Another nice thought or wish would be that anyone involved in committing a violent felony or home burglary and suffered injuries or death from their intended victim(s) would not be able to sue...nor would their survivors.

Best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,213 Posts
You mean everyone everywhere all the time?

I think all but the most base, vile, stupid people would stop committing violent crimes. I don't think it would ever go away completely, but many people who understand nothing but physical force would not be nearly so bold.

The other thing is, no one would think a darn thing about it. If everyone had a gun handy at all times it would honestly be no big deal. There'd be none of this ridiculousness we have now, or at least not nearly as much of it.

Of course owning a gun doesn't mean you have any sense. How many times have I read "Look, I own a gun, but I think DEADLY ASSAULT WEAPONS SHOULD BE BANNED" or something else equally repugnant. But if you had to actually use it for something, I think the levels of hysteria and lies we see now would plummet. You can't tell lies about guns to people who know something about how they actually work.

I wrote a million years ago a paper wherein we had to describe a law we would pass if we were a member of Congress. I was back in, I dunno, 7th-8th grade. My suggestion was that everyone male over the age of 18 who was not religiously opposed to it, or medically unable, a criminal, or insane should carry a government issued .38 caliber or bigger revolver on their hip at all times. If you were female it was an option unless you were military then it wasn't. I futher suggested that current and former members of the military should be required to take thier service rifle with them everywhere they went. In short I had an elaborate set of rules for a compulsory armed society. It was 12 pages long, typed. I was about 13 or 14 at the time.

Of course now I think that's not the right approach to things, but Mr. Bailey held my paper up as THE example. I remember the only comment he wrote on it:

I don't agree that you should pass out weapons to people who might not want them, and you never explained how you would pay for this program. Still, your idea makes more sense than what real Congressmen come up with.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Another nice thought or wish would be that anyone involved in committing a violent felony or home burglary and suffered injuries or death from their intended victim(s) would not be able to sue...nor would their survivors.
Amen Steve. I almost desperately want to see that become mandated nation wide. Nothing galls me as much as some slimeball or his family, trying to sue the good guy.

Get shot committing a proven felony - tough dodo - rights become very diluted by default - and including in particular a right to bring a civil action. Oh I wish.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ahh Euc - well I did say I was ''Pie-in-sky'' :wink: but yes - everyone not debarred from carry - meaning the vast majority of populace - to give a true armed and polite society.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
46 Posts
I agree with Stephen. I think we would see a dramatic reduction in street crime.

I VERY much agree that anyone involved in a violent felony should never be alowed a plaintiff's seat in a court room where the actual victim would be on trial. I don't understand how these things ever happen, though we certainly know it happens. :confused:

Sometimes we move ahead, and sometimes we move completely backward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I remember seeing something on TV some years ago about a town somewhere in America that had a city ordinance or something requiring all households to have at least one firearm. The crime rate in this town was zero. As for criminals and their families suing the good guy, well, that's why I'm all for tort reform.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
TEXXD said:
I remember seeing something on TV some years ago about a town somewhere in America that had a city ordinance or something requiring all households to have at least one firearm.
I heard that, and the county next to them had an ordinance that every household had to own a fishing pole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
NC recently passed a law that if a woman is the victim of a violent crime she is informed by the police of her option of obtaining a CC Permit and how to go about it. She is not "pushed" to get one, just informed it is an option she should consider. I think it's great!
Now, if only we could get rid of slimy lawyers who sue to good guy because the BG had a "bad childhood and was the victim of his upbringing." :aargh4:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,964 Posts
Stephen A. Camp said:
Another nice thought or wish would be that anyone involved in committing a violent felony or home burglary and suffered injuries or death from their intended victim(s) would not be able to sue...nor would their survivors.

Best.
More than a thought here in Florida - it is the law.

Further, if such a suit is brought, the criminal must pay your legal expenses. If the criminal has a lawyer, that lawyer has to pay.

Matt
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,537 Posts
It seems the more that carry, the lower the crime rate. No matter how you look at it, that's a good thing. To bad so many of our elected officials are blind!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
Beyond the crime issue, I think we would indeed become a more civilized society. Why? Because these days it seems that few people are willing to correct poor behavior by some one they don't know. Thus, kids think it is fine to play their car stereos so loud that it rattles home windows. People yak up a storm in the library. Etc. I don't advocate for a minute that buffoons deserve to be shot, but if said offenders decide that poor behavior with a gun is warranted, they will be promptly "corrected" by anyone nearby who doesn't wish to perish. My feeling is that the underlying attitude of society would change from "What are you going to do about it?" to "I better behave myself if I want to see the sun come up tomorrow."

Having said that, you couldn't just hand out guns. Children would have to be brought up in a home that educated them on proper firearm handling and safety, as well as the consequences for endangering others. Responsibility and accountability would be stressed. Firearms would be seen as nothing more than another tool, as opposed to a source of empowerment.

It might be interesting to make firearms training a non-negotiable prerequisite for obtaining a driver's license. One would have to demonstrate competence with a tool that, if mishandled, could cause a death, before moving on to a larger and more powerful tool that, if mishandled could cause a LOT of deaths.

There would definitely be a lot of issues that would need to be addressed, perhaps with the assistance of the Swiss, but it's interesting to think about.

SSKC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
Euclidean said:
My suggestion was that everyone male over the age of 18 who was not religiously opposed to it, or medically unable, a criminal, or insane should carry a government issued .38 caliber or bigger revolver on their hip at all times. If you were female it was an option unless you were military then it wasn't.
I have a problem with this. I prefer automatics.:biggrin2:

Euc, I know it was a long time ago, but do you recall your logic in exempting females?

SSKC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
I like the idea of everybody being armed. But the problem that I see is that there are a lot of people scared to death over fireamrs in general. Wether it is a pistol, shotgun or a rifle of some sort, people will be terrified of them. As that is human nature (to be scared of something that could be deadly).

The US just needs to get tuffer (sp?) on stupid lawsuits. wether it is people suing McDonalds for spilling coffee on your self and getting burned or a criminal suing somebody that shot is A** in self defence.

What scares me the most is protecting my wife from a criminal that is intend on doing her harm and me going to jail for it or getting sued by the criminals family (because he will be dead) for a wrongful death suit.

Hopefully that makes sence to everybody...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
I wonder? There was a time in history when everyone could carry wether it was a gun, or before that a sword or a club! Man's nature hasn't changed. If everyone were armed( I'm for this by the way) there would still be crime. The criminal would trust in his ability as we trust in ours. As a former LEO I believe that the only cure for the kind of stupidity that is being displayed by criminals in this country wouldhave to start inside(attitude) or finish from the outside(bullet). My community lost a good cop this past week when an 18 year old BG shot him in the face and neck. Then the BG shot himself. You can't protect a fool from himself. So we must protect ourselves and not worry about what others will think when we do it .
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
46 Posts
Crime certainly would not stop should we become an armed society.

There would always be the element of unstable individuals, or those who feel they are better trained than regular people and can pull off their crime du jour. However, facts are showing us now that since more people have armed themselves, crime is on it's way down in many areas.

I used be fairly against the idea that this would actually happen. A lot of lawmakers and LEOs had the same feeling, but they know that this is working. Of course, it's a shame- our society should operate in a peacable fashion without arming the general population, but we are past that point- we have to realize where we're at, and what has changed with the times.

Several years ago when Michigan was changed from a "may issue" to "shall issue" I wrote a column where I voiced my opinion that this is not the way, and that this would almost certainly lead to a significant amount of shootings due to road rage and other heated confrontations. This has not happened. I think a decent few saw the video here the other day where the sheriff explained to us the difference this has made, and how many LEOs wrongly assumed the worst would happen. Now- where I was once mildly opposed to the average citizen being armed- I realize that the BG's aren't giving up on commiting crimes and using guns to do it, that this is making society safer, that the individuals that carry are responsible people with good training and instruction and that it really is not only a right to carry a firearm, but a responsibility.

I think we're reaching a point where much of society is realizing this. Don't quote me on this figure, but I believe over 80,000 CPLs were granted in Michigan alone last year. Of course, just as there will always be some violent street crime no matter how armed the country is, there will always be a group that doesn't understand what I now understand. Fortunately, we have the Constitution- and from now on, I will be armed and safe. Just be reasurred in the fact that more and more people are coming around to the idea of an armed society, on some level or another everyday.

edited- realized I had gone off longer than I thought I was going to. upon viewing my message, i decided to add break it up a little bit, so it didn't seem too... uh, rambly, i guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
BCurry1 said:
I heard that, and the county next to them had an ordinance that every household had to own a fishing pole.
Just as there's no crime in the first town, there probably aren't very many fish in the other. :blink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
I think the crime and shootings related to drugs wouldn't change, maybe less innocent bystanders, but then again maybe not. The one positive thing more armed people would do is make criminals more likely to think twice about random acts of crimes against people. I don't think it's a secret that a criminals biggest fear is an armed would be victim. Hey maybe we should listen to criminals for once:yup:

That being said, I'd say the majority of people would not carry even if no permit is necessary. That's just how society has become.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
The is the possibility that the number of two-time offenders would decline. 'Specially if basic marksmanship was taught in school. :image035:

mm
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
46 Posts
Roger that!
 
1 - 20 of 108 Posts
Top