An armed society is a civil society?

**ejames01** · August-18-09, 04:42 PM

Drinking, Drugging and Guns would kill MORE!

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "You would be correct if people did not drink at sporting events."

Drinking and drugging probably kills more people than guns do.

cheddar bob · August-18-09, 04:48 PM

Little known to most people is the fact that in Michigan you are welcome to wear a side arm, in holster, in plain view, without a CCW.

**ejames01** · August-18-09, 07:12 PM

When I took my CPL class, the instructor said that open carry is pretty much an invitation for someone to shoot you in the back.

Originally Posted by cheddar bob

Little known to most people is the fact that in Michigan you are welcome to wear a side arm, in holster, in plain view, without a CCW.

ccbatson · August-18-09, 10:44 PM

Need for heightened security [[like an appearance of the President) must trump the usual process and liberty for CCW [[or carrying at all)...it is just common sense.

**smogboy** · August-18-09, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by ejames01

When I took my CPL class, the instructor said that open carry is pretty much an invitation for someone to shoot you in the back.

I can actually see some logic in this. If there's a band of thugs coming towards us, of course they're going to want to take down the person whom they perceive to be the biggest threat first.

ccbatson · August-18-09, 10:50 PM

I doubt very much that anyone would risk the consequences of shooting a stranger just because they are carrying.

**elganned** · August-19-09, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Peace through strength. Same reason US and Russia are now at peace with one another.

Quote: "Don't forget that scene in "Wyatt Earp" where he confronts a group of drovers just in off the range and forces them to check their guns until they leave town."

Hollywood writing history. That was put in there to appease the limp-wristed liberals.

Actually the incident is an historic fact; it did happen. Hollywood may have dramatized it, but they didn't invent it.

**elganned** · August-19-09, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Need for heightened security [[like an appearance of the President) must trump the usual process and liberty for CCW [[or carrying at all)...it is just common sense.

Advocates for gun-toting [[like ghettopalmetto) are not noted for their common sense approach.

**ejames01** · August-19-09, 06:58 AM

A bandit would. The person is with the gun at least has something of value worth $400-800 dollars.

Originally Posted by ccbatson

I doubt very much that anyone would risk the consequences of shooting a stranger just because they are carrying.

ccbatson · August-28-09, 12:42 AM

400-800 dollars with the risk of getting shot, arrested, etc?

**1KielsonDrive** · August-28-09, 01:31 AM

400-800 dollars is a LOT of money to some people. The risk of getting shot, arrested, etc? That happens every day, walking down the street, going to church, sitting on your porch, minding your own business.

**gibran** · August-28-09, 02:28 AM

I guess we can always shoot our way out of any argument

but how many of those we shoot will have health insurance to pay for their surgery

**gibran** · August-28-09, 02:34 AM

oh and limp wristed liberals +=+ Gandhi who brought down the British empire in India and Jesus who was strong enough to carry a cross...or MLK who was brave enough to get shot so that we can all see the absurdity of hate...but yes it takes a "real man" to start fights not some wimpy person who changes society for all...and stands up for oppression...and facing opposition chooses not to shoot his neighbor. I am for gun ownership, but I draw the line at bazookas, anti tank and assault weapons

**ejames01** · August-28-09, 06:11 AM

You need to stop posting at 1AM!

Originally Posted by ccbatson

400-800 dollars with the risk of getting shot, arrested, etc?

**oladub** · August-28-09, 08:40 AM

When Kennesaw, Georgia [[population 14,000 now) mandated that all heads of household own a gun, crime rates dropped and stayed down.

"The crime rate wasn't that high to start with. It was 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981," he said. According to the Kennesaw Police Department, the city's most recent crime statistics show 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 1998, or .243 per 1,000.
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

Morton Grove, IL, another suburb of a major city [[population 23,000), went in the opposite direction by outlawing hand guns just prior to the Kennesaw experiment. Morton Groveâ€™s relatively low crime rate went up by over 15% immediately after enactment of the ban [[12% more than surrounding areas) and has held pretty steady at just a tad below the national average ever since.

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ind...=285&Itemid=37

**rb336** · August-28-09, 10:06 AM

totally debunked by FBI crime stats. the two have virtually identical crime rates, some years Morton Grove is higher, some years it's Kennesaw. an increase of 3 violent crimes a year in either one would be in the tens of percents.

**ronaldj** · August-28-09, 08:14 PM

send lawyers, guns and money. dad, get me out of this. Warren Zevon.

Good thread, 1 Kielson Drive.

**ronaldj** · August-28-09, 08:27 PM

I think the correct term is "polite society". I could be wrong.

ccbatson · August-29-09, 12:10 AM

Sorry, I have to take the anti gun side again...with a major rational caveat at the end. Guns in the hands of individual citizens in 2009 at best allows an activity [[hunting) that is largely amoral [[unless the hunters are truly utilizing the spoils for utilitarian purposes [[food, clothing, etc). At worst, it puts innocent human lives unnecessarily at risk.

The caveat? Guns can't be controlled in such a way that doesn't favor violent criminals...Pandora is out of the box.