How does being allowed to carry a concealed weapon

I'd like evidence that it stops anyone.

 

You already showed you made it more difficult, and have not shown that it saved so much as one life.

 

which is why he said abortion, and not murder.

 

Abortion sir is the ter.inatiln of a human life without due process and not as part of the prosecution of a war. That makes it murder.

 

What you should be worried about is not the guns crossing state lines, but rather the bad people that are the ones who do bad things with guns.

 

nope. abortion is the termination of a fetus.

 

Which is a human life unless its being carried ina horse.

 

Buying the gun requires a background check....how many would you like?

 

In OH, the background check you undergo for a CCW is rigorous enough to count as a background check for a firearm.
Walk into the gun store, slap down the CCW and the money, walk out with the gun.

 

and it isn't murder

 

Let me see if I understand.

You, and most typical law-abiding folks, happily go get your background checks to prove to the world that "Hey, I can be trusted!". Awesome.

How many murderers and criminals do you think a) are legally in possession of a gun in the first place and b) would even consider carrying a CCW license if one was in every box of Cheerio's and c) would decide not to murder someone because they don't have a CCW/background check

Honestly, what are you suggesting here?

Criminals don't obey the law. That's kind of what makes them criminals.

- - - Updated - - -

No but that's a great idea.

Maybe like a punch card or something.

 

Yeah the point I'm trying to make is that you go through a background check when you buy a gun, then he wants ANOTHER background check to be able to carry the firearm.

Maybe we should have like 5 background checks just to be sure the other 4 weren't wrong.

I don't know what all the hype about background checks is anyway, since NICS is wrong as often as it's right.

I realize there are some states where having a CCW means you don't get the follow up background checks for each firearm purchase, but the lack of critical thought in the arguments they present is staggering.

 

1. America is gun-crazy.
2. Politics does not necessarily equate to efficacy. (Strange bedfellows, poor decisions... etc.)

 

So what do you do with states with widely varying requirements?

 

The same we do with driver's licenses--honor them while they are visiting. Driver's licenses don't have identical requirements either.

I'm not saying that if I get a CCW permit in FL and move to NJ that I should automatically get a NJ CCW permit. I'm saying that if I have a CCW permit in FL, I should be able to travel nationwide with it being honored nation wide.

 

As always.

- - - Updated - - -

Honor them for as long as they are in the state. like a driver's license.
If they MOVE to the state, them like a driver's license, they have to get one issued by the state they moved to.

 

That's 52/yr.
This represents what % of the guns in the US?

Yes.. protect them from all the the gun-related crime that justifies further restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.

 

Neither was killing a Jew in Germany by the mid 1930's or an African American in 1830.

 

So what would convince you 104—208-- more?
Do you know the first safety rule for firearms?
To save you hunting Google I’ll tell you—After use remove all ammunition from the gun.

Quote--Yes.. protect them from all the the gun-related crime that justifies further restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.

Sorry, I stupidly believed that was a police job. I hear they are quite handy with their guns too.

 

Invalid comparison. A fetus, attached to a woman's body is in no way comparable to an adult.

 

I see you fully understand the 52 accidental shootings by toddlers represents the misuse of an exceptionally tiny, approaching a statistical zero, percent of guns.
What sort of legislation do you believe this near-statistical zero percentage justifies?

Apparently so; Constitutionally, the police have no responsibility for your protection and will almost certainly be absent when you need them.
And so, if the criminal use of firearms in the commission of violent crime is so high that it justifies the further restriction of the rights of the law abiding, it is then impossible to soundly argue that said law abiding people have no need for a gun for use on their own defense.

 

I think anyone capable of thinking objectively about this gun issue can accept a couple things more or less as facts.

More guns = more overall gun crimes/violence.

No guns = More personal vulnerability.

It comes down to individual preference.

 

It's simple, you can protect yourself and your family wherever you travel.

 

One- people shouldn't have to take a course in law to live, but our laws are so vastly complicated now that nobody (even lawyers) understand all of them. To make the law change at every state line is to multiply that stupidity by 50. We already have 5% of the worlds population and 25% of it's prisoners. We several have people doing hard time in prison for importing lobster in plastic boxes in stead of wooden ones. It's pretty hard to say that the system and police are going to protect you, or even that they won't be the ones who will harm you.

Two- people can get attacked anywhere- thus the need of self defense does not appear and disappear by location. Illinois and Chicago have the toughest gun laws around- and the highest murder rate in the nation.

I wish that were not true- but it is. Regulation is more often the problem than the solution.

 

Neither is a three old child comparable to an adult but we don't permit you to murder one....