Flordia To Vote For Concealed Carry On College Campuses

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: NOTurTypical

i do get your point i just do not agree with it.....much like responsible gun owners lock their guns away that does not stop kids from finding them and shooting themselves

You don't agree with it?

Are drugs illegal in the United States? Y or N?

Do people who still desire to get high buy drugs even though they are illegal? Y or N?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: NOTurTypical

1. as there are more guns it is easier for criminals and those that are not allowed to get them....

2.there is more gun crime per capita than a country that has made guns illegal or at least harder to get

3.this may be the case but there is also a reason law enforcement are getting an itchy trigger finger and that would be because everyone they encounter could potentially be packing heat

1) Maybe, but the time where a law would have changed that was 50 years ago. Unfortunately, there is no shortage whatsoever of firearms in the hands of criminals in this country. Passing more laws won't make it more illegal than it already is.

2) Not necessarily. Our neighbor to the south, for example, would disagree. Furthermore, gun violence isn't uniform throughout the US, nor are rates of gun ownership. To that extent, there's a significant disparity in the gun-related violence rates of urban areas in the US as compared to rural areas, and despite generally having much stronger restrictions on firearms and lower rates of firearm ownership, urban areas also tend to have much, much higher rates of firearm-related violence. The US actually has a low rural homicide rate, and less than 8% of US homicides occur in those areas.

*Note that this is also why US gun owners don't 'get it', as you say. Its because gun violence generally isn't an issue throughout much of the US, contrary to what the media wants you to believe.

3) If that's the case, then its a problem with the police and their training and not an excuse to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Another debate over gun control in 'murka, eh?


The debate is over.

The guns are already here- almost as many guns as people.

You can pry them from our cold, dead hands- but there's enough ammo in circulation that it won't fix anything.


Criminals are the ones breaking the laws.
Anyone with a little know how and a pair of hands can make a firearm out of scrap metal- it's the bullets that are a pain to make. A clever criminal could take down a ten story building with less than a weeks pay worth of readily available materials- but your average criminals don't appear to be that smart.


When was the last time you heard of a school shooting on an armed campus?
If someone wants to go around murdering innocent people, making guns hard to get isn't going to stop that. If more people were willing to fight for their own lives, individuals murdering individuals would drop drastically- then you've only got the mass murderers to worry about.

Gun control in 'murka is a lost cause, and a lost debate. They're here already- the only way to undo that is to overthrow the population, kill anyone who resists, and do a building by building sweep to remove them... and that won't even get all of them.

Meanwhile, back on topic...

Allow the senior students and staff to arm themselves? You'll never see a school shooting get far, there.

Maybe you anti-gun people don't really know how much of a pain in the ass it is to jump through the appropriate hoops to legally carry a firearm concealed. It's easy to do it illegally, though- just stick a gun in your pocket. As a law abiding tax paying citizen, I feel as though the laws are set up to encourage criminals while discourage me.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: TinkerHaus

Yes but more people are victims of crime in Aus, and more people are assaulted in Australia, per capita of course, than in the USA.

it is like comparing apples and oranges....what kinds of crime are we talking about here...look at my last post and you will see the stats from your link...it is pretty damning ...violent crime here in aus is way way way lower than the US

No, check my link. Murder is lower, but assault, rape, robbery, etc, are all higher in Aus.

Again, murders tend to happen primarily in metropolitan areas. If we compared the rate of murder in metro areas between Aus and the US I wager they would be much closer. The difference is we have a lot more metro areas than you do.

well we will have to agree to disagree....i would wager that people in Australia feel much safer walking down the street at any time of day anywhere than people in America do....just the fact that people in the US feel the need to carry weapon when the leave the house to go pretty much anywhere is a telling statement in itself....

I.. linked you the data that says they don't. Data taken from actual interviews with thousands of people and not just how one individuals perceives it.. But, whatever. See what you wish.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I seem to remember quite a few people had your attitude when the castle doctrine and then stand your ground law went into effect.

People wailed it was going to be the wild west... Despite the press giving 24 hour coverage to any incident... It was not the shoot fest so many feared.

I doubt there would be many incidents in this case as well.

Well to me the US already seems like the wild west...the more shootings that occur the more people want to carry guns....its seems like a self perpetuating cycle

I can tell you for certain these shootings aren't being done by law-abiding concealed carry permit holders because criminals don't give a crap about being licensed. I know...hard to believe.

i have no doubt it is the criminal element that is causing the most problems...

i have a hard time wrapping my head around "more guns = less violence"

More guns, less innocent people being victimized by criminals with guns.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: NOTurTypical

i do get your point i just do not agree with it.....much like responsible gun owners lock their guns away that does not stop kids from finding them and shooting themselves

You don't agree with it?

Are drugs illegal in the United States? Y or N?

Do people who still desire to get high buy drugs even though they are illegal? Y or N?

of course they do...they do all over the world what has that got to do with concealed carry's in schools ?

a reply to: vor78

*Note that this is also why US gun owners don't 'get it', as you say. Its because gun violence generally isn't an issue throughout much of the US, contrary to what the media wants you to believe.

this is a valid point......i really have not spent enough time in the states as an adult to make my own mind up.....you are correct my beliefs come from media and available statistics which as we both know can be flawed and manipulated

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: NOTurTypical

i do get your point i just do not agree with it.....much like responsible gun owners lock their guns away that does not stop kids from finding them and shooting themselves

You don't agree with it?

Are drugs illegal in the United States? Y or N?

Do people who still desire to get high buy drugs even though they are illegal? Y or N?

of course they do...they do all over the world what has that got to do with concealed carry's in schools ?

That isn't the reason I said that. You seem to be thinking that making guns illegal for anyone to own will prevent criminals from having and using them. It won't whatsoever. The only people who will be hurt and who will follow that law will be the law abiding citizens.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: NOTurTypical

i do get your point i just do not agree with it.....much like responsible gun owners lock their guns away that does not stop kids from finding them and shooting themselves

You don't agree with it?

Are drugs illegal in the United States? Y or N?

Do people who still desire to get high buy drugs even though they are illegal? Y or N?

of course they do...they do all over the world what has that got to do with concealed carry's in schools ?

That isn't the reason I said that. You seem to be thinking that making guns illegal for anyone to own will prevent criminals from having and using them. It won't whatsoever. The only people who will be hurt and who will follow that law will be the law abiding citizens.

i think you misunderstand what i am trying to say.......to answer your question just making something illegal will not stop people from getting said illegal thing......just look what happened during the prohibition era ........

law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families there is no dispute there,my issue comes when people get the idea that more guns on the street means that it is safer...

there are so many other factors that make the gun issue so difficult,like the gap between haves and have nots,lack of proper fire arm training,nut jobs who want everyone else to pay because they hate themselves...just to name a few...

just to clarify to me more guns does not mean less crime,or less danger ...more means more not less....more guns on the street means more guns being used on the street.....i am on the outside looking in and that is how i see it

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Since you have to be 21 years old to own a handgun legally, then conceal carry would only be available to graduate students or professors.

Actually it depends on the state law. Federally it's 21 or over to BUY a gun from a Dealer, not private sale or from family.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families there is no dispute there,my issue comes when people get the idea that more guns on the street means that it is safer...

I already proved that idea false. In the US gun crimes have been dropping since 1990, and gun sales have been soaring. According to FBI statistics more guns do = less gun crimes.

PDF

just to clarify to me more guns does not mean less crime,or less danger

*in theory*

The exact opposite is true in reality. Gun crimes have been falling since 1990, while there are nearly 300 million guns in the United States today.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I seem to remember quite a few people had your attitude when the castle doctrine and then stand your ground law went into effect.

People wailed it was going to be the wild west... Despite the press giving 24 hour coverage to any incident... It was not the shoot fest so many feared.

I doubt there would be many incidents in this case as well.

Well to me the US already seems like the wild west...the more shootings that occur the more people want to carry guns....its seems like a self perpetuating cycle

I can tell you for certain these shootings aren't being done by law-abiding concealed carry permit holders because criminals don't give a crap about being licensed. I know...hard to believe.

i have no doubt it is the criminal element that is causing the most problems...

i have a hard time wrapping my head around "more guns = less violence"

For the sake of this example, you are a criminal. You want money for whatever. There are two man walking down the sidewalk. One man, who is armed, turns left down an alley. The other man, who is unarmed, turns right down an alley.

Which one would you rob?

originally posted by: WatchRider

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Since you have to be 21 years old to own a handgun legally, then conceal carry would only be available to graduate students or professors.

Actually it depends on the state law. Federally it's 21 or over to BUY a gun from a Dealer, not private sale or from family.

unless the laws have been changed, you are correct about the sell of guns.

here is the pertinent parts of the Federal Law. The sections of law cited are from Title 18 of the United States Code, e.g. 18 U.S.C. Section § 922(A) (4) (13)

4. Hand Gun Possession
a.A person under 18 years of age is a juvenile under Federal law and may not possess a handgun or handgun only ammo, §§ 922 (x)(2), (x)(3), & (x)(5), but exceptions exist, see Section C.11.

b.Possess - A person 18 years of age or older may possess a HG (pistol, revolver).

c. Purchase - A person 18 years of age or older may purchase a HG from a non-licensee (not a gun dealer) who resides in the same State as the purchaser.

d.Gift / Loan- A person 18 years of age or older may receive a HG as a gift or loan from a non-licensee who resides in the same State as the recipient.

e.Outside State of Residency - A person may not receive a HG from a non-licensee who resides in another State, except by: 1) Will or intestate succession, § 922 (a)(5)(A) giver, § 922 (a)(3)(A) receiver, or 2) Temporary loan or rental for lawful sporting purposes, § 922 (a)(5)(B), or 3)The non-resident may send or deliver the HG (see § 1715, HGs non-mailable) to an FFL in the receiver’s State for purchase from the FFL, § 922 (a)(2)(A).(unless the recipient State bans that type hand gun)

f.It is a felony violation to willfully violate the residency laws: § 922 (a)(5) transferor’s violation, § 922 (a)(3) receiver’s violation, up to 5 years in prison.

13.Transferring Personal Firearms (sell, give, loan)
a.A resident of a State may transfer a firearm to a resident of the same State.
1) But may not transfer a Hand Gun to a person under 18 years of age, § 922 (x)(1), 1 year or 10 years; see exceptions, § 922 (x)(3).
b. A resident of a State may not transfer a firearm to a resident of another State, § 922 (a)(5), 5 years, but ...
1) May transfer a firearm to a non-resident via a Will or intestate succession (unless recipient State bans that type firearm), § 922 (a)(5)(A). May loan or rent a firearm to a non-resident for temporary lawful sporting purposes, § 922 (a)(5)(B). May send or deliver a firearm to a non-resident (unless recipient State bans that type firearm) by first delivering the firearm to an FFL in the recipient’s State; the transfer would then take place at the FFL’s premises, § 922 (a)(1)(A).

and Floridia law

(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

In terms of the more guns equals more danger argument, I'd ask, does anyone think the proliferation of nuclear weapons amongst other countries outside the historic superpowers, such as Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea etc makes a nuclear attack more, or less Likely to happen?

It makes me quite nervous about the prospect with each new country. It's quite a simple principle. The more guns there are, the more likely it is that someone will be shot.

Having said that, I don't think that curtailing gun ownership in America is an option either. They have been so widely available for so long that any attempt at a ban would be ineffective and, at worst, dangerous. Responsible gun owner DO provide a necessary counterbalance, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

This is why its so different from here in the UK where guns are so much harder to come by that only a tiny percentage of even the criminal classes possess or would carry a gun, and even then only the "heavyweights" such as drug barons or bank robbers etc, not a guy you'd run into on the street, unless you were extremely unlucky.

This is why the two guys turning left and right down the alley analogy doesn't work here, but makes sense in the U.S.

originally posted by: WatchRider

Actually it depends on the state law. Federally it's 21 or over to BUY a gun from a Dealer, not private sale or from family.

that applies to handguns only, just to be clear, and a private seller can sell to someone 18 and older without issue.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: NOTurTypical

i do get your point i just do not agree with it.....much like responsible gun owners lock their guns away that does not stop kids from finding them and shooting themselves

You are free to disagree with our point. If you do not want to carry a gun because you think you might turn into a mass murderer when that guy on the way to school cuts you off, you are allowed to do that. But do not try to take it away from me because I trust myself. I own 2 pistols and an AR, went to Afghanistan twice and spent a total of 4 years in the Marine Corps, I have not shot at one person here in the US despite all your worrying.

Again, I repeat, you have my full support if you choose not to carry a weapon, but do not try to take mine away.

Now, the next time you go to work, keep this in mind: You, your wife,your mother and your father are all more likely to die on your way to work tomorrow than you alone are of being murdered. Put that into perspective for a minute.

originally posted by: waynos
In terms of the more guns equals more danger argument, I'd ask, does anyone think the proliferation of nuclear weapons amongst other countries outside the historic superpowers, such as Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea etc makes a nuclear attack more, or less Likely to happen?

It makes me quite nervous about the prospect with each new country. It's quite a simple principle. The more guns there are, the more likely it is that someone will be shot.

Having said that, I don't think that curtailing gun ownership in America is an option either. They have been so widely available for so long that any attempt at a ban would be ineffective and, at worst, dangerous. Responsible gun owner DO provide a necessary counterbalance, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

This is why its so different from here in the UK where guns are so much harder to come by that only a tiny percentage of even the criminal classes possess or would carry a gun, and even then only the "heavyweights" such as drug barons or bank robbers etc, not a guy you'd run into on the street, unless you were extremely unlucky.

This is why the two guys turning left and right down the alley analogy doesn't work here, but makes sense in the U.S.

Thank you, finally someone else can say this.

Guns are a part of American culture, they have been since this country formed. People were still hunting for their dinner less than a hundred years ago. You can't remove an integral and so deeply ingrained part of our identity. I believe laws have done a more than adequate job with keeping with technology. (Machine guns are banned, you can't own an artillery piece, they are heavily taxed and regulated, etc.)