Subscribe to
Posts
Comments
NSLog(); Header Image

Concealed Weapons and Sex Criminals

I haven't applied for a concealed weapons permit here in Pennsylvania because I work from home. My gun is thirty feet from where I sit in my office (albeit across a hallway). Still, I've been thinking about getting one again simply for the times my wife and I venture to Pittsburgh (where getting lost and finding yourself in a bad neighborhood is quite an easy thing to do). This morning, Google's search-turned-RSS-feed (for articles that link to this blog) turned up this article.

I'm happy to say that I live in a state where the Pittsburgh local news runs a special news segment prior to deer season on choosing the best rifle. When I visited my grandma in Bedford, PA, I noticed a billboard advertising "Hunting for good real estate deals?" The image showed a female realtor, dressed in light camo, holding a rifle and peering into the distance.

But hey, according to the first commenter in the article linked above, people who carry handguns are just about the same as convicted sex criminals. Uh huh. šŸ˜›

9 Responses to "Concealed Weapons and Sex Criminals"

  1. Living in the UK talking about taking a gun with you when visiting a city is just plain scary!

  2. Martin said on December 20, 2006:

    Living in the UK talking about taking a gun with you when visiting a city is just plain scary!

    That doesn't make much sense. It's also my understanding that after the UK enacted some serious gun laws that removed a lot of your citizen's rights, violent crime rates rose dramatically.

  3. I think a good compromise is to simply open carry around these people. Might freak them out though.

  4. Eric, what you say doesn't make sense. The UK has a far lower crime rate, particularly gun-related homicide, than the US. In fact EVERY industrialized country does. The one thing they all have in common is they all ban guns. Guess which one country has a far greater per capita violent crime rate among the industrialized countries? It is the only one which does not ban hand guns? Yes. That's right--its this one. Every once in a while I hear about how owning a gun saved someone--like once a year. But every day I hear about someone who had access to a gun and shouldn't have had access, killing one or more people in cold blood. SMoke detectors would save more lives than gun ownership does, by orders of magnitude. And for every life a gun saes, its takes thousands. No otehr decision would even be hesitated to be made except for that sacred cow of gun ownership based on fallacious reasoning on the Consitution.

    I oppose widespread handgun ownership and I am ex-military. The 2nd Ammendment was for a time when one-shot muzzle loaders were firearms. If you want to own one of those, I say fine, because if you fail to restain yourself, you'll do little damage to my children, wife or me before someone can take you down. But modern weapons are too destructive to let just anyone own. Modern firearms must taken out of the hands of the masses to stop this carnage.

    And don't delude yourself into thinking you are safe from your government because you can own a gun. Bush has already cut deep into your rights without firing a single shot nor you unholstering your weapon. Modern war and politics are far different than the Founders imagined. You gun will not protect you in the future--it hasn't to date. It gives you a fals sense of power and security which make you vulnerable.

  5. DL said on December 20, 2006:

    Eric

    It's Erik. And it may be wrong of me, but I really have a hard time listening to the opinions (presumably based on research and fact) of a person who can't even spell a name correctly.

    DL said on December 20, 2006:

    The UK has a far lower crime rate, particularly gun-related homicide, than the US.

    Incorrect.

    DL said on December 20, 2006:

    In fact EVERY industrialized country does.

    Also incorrect.

    DL said on December 20, 2006:

    The one thing they all have in common is they all ban guns.

    And that's where you really get off track.

    This post was about one thing, and you're looking to get into a far different discussion. One that's been had several times on this blog already.

    This post is not the place for it. You're wrong - incredibly wrong - and I simply don't have the patience to do the research you've neglected to do.

    DL said on December 20, 2006:

    But every day I hear about someone who had access to a gun and shouldn't have had access, killing one or more people in cold blood.

    My dad used to have a sticker that said "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." Get it? In other words, criminals will always have guns. Taking guns from the hands of citizens leads to increased violent crime rates. Why? Because criminals - the ones with guns - are the people that commit crimes. And if they know the people they're attacking or stealing from aren't armed, they are a heck of a lot more likely to rob.

    Crime rates are lower in neighborhoods (here in the U.S.) where gun ownership rates are higher. It's not a coincidence - it's common sense. Criminals don't want to get shot anymore than anyone else does.

    DL said on December 20, 2006:

    And for every life a gun saes, its takes thousands.

    Do you enjoy making up statistics?

    DL said on December 20, 2006:

    No otehr decision would even be hesitated to be made except for that sacred cow of gun ownership based on fallacious reasoning on the Consitution.

    How about you look up the facts? Criminologists - many of which begin their careers as "anti-gun," instead come to the conclusion that gun ownership increases safety, gun bans decrease safety and increase violence, and so forth. Do some research.

    Perhaps I'm expecting too much of someone who can't bother to "research" how to spell my name.

    DL said on December 20, 2006:

    Modern firearms must taken out of the hands of the masses to stop this carnage.

    Again, criminals own guns. Criminals always will. They'll find a way to get them. Outlawing guns would only - and does only - increase the incidence rate of violent crimes.

    It's not complex logic. I'm hoping that repeating it a few times here will help it to sink in.

    I have a "Guns" category I encourage you to explore. Further off-topic comments on this thread are not encouraged, to put it one way…

  6. Apologies Erik. I'd understand if you delete this post to kill the thread, but I couldn't help myself.

    DL said on December 20, 2006:

    SMoke detectors would save more lives than gun ownership does, by orders of magnitude. And for every life a gun saes, its takes thousands. No otehr decision would even be hesitated to be made except for that sacred cow of gun ownership based on fallacious reasoning on the Consitution.

    You're really missing the point, DL. The Constitution isn't about ensuring safety, it's about ensuring Natural Rights. The Founders correctly recognized that people have an unalienable right to self-defense, just like they have a natural right to free speech and choice of religion.

    The very nature of American liberty makes our country less safe. We're a country founded by risk takers, who willingly traded safety for freedom, and people here have the opportunity to ruin their lives. It's their choice, and if you're uncomfortable with that, you're free to move elsewhere.

    There are places in Europe where you can be sure of a cramped subsidized apartment, free second-rate universities, free substandard health care, and criminalized hate speech. This makes me uncomfortable, because I'd rather live with danger and freedom in the wild west than rely on the government of one of these "civilized" nation's for my daily bread. YMMV.

    You also say you're ex-military, as if that makes your opinion on anything more relevant. It doesn't. I recommend you actually learn the law, because you'd know about 10 U.S.C. sec 311, "Militia: composition and classes". The United States Code is the highest law in the land, and it clearly states that

    "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and [...] under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

    The second amendment "shall not be infringed". I don't know how much clearer this could be. If you really have a problem with this, I would rather see you live elsewhere.

  7. Well I am not going to get into a gun debate.

    It's just that living in the UK I find the thought that anyone would even considering carrying a gun when visiting a city very strange.

    My nearest city is Brighton, whose population is I guess around 80k less than Pittsburgh, there is one neighborhood which is avoided by anyone that does not live there and travelling though it may make people feel slightly 'uneasy' but that is about all.

  8. DL if you are reading this take a lesson from me don't speak out your ass, that's the reason I'm not speaking out of "research", but personal experience the presence of a sidearm can cease tensions if use correctly.

  9. DL, you, my good friend, are an idiot you speak out of your ass and feel the need to toss in that your are ex-military, as if that makes you better than any one else. I don't feel the need to comment any further because "Eric" has already made you like like a complete and utter ass.


Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please abide by the comment policy. Valid HTML includes: <blockquote><p>, <em>, <strong>, <ul>, <ol>, and <a href>. Please use the "Quote Me" functionality to quote comments.