Summations Only

What policy do you know of that covers ALL people? That's a ridiculous requirement.All I'm saying is, most people are not in danger so it follows that most people don't need to carry a handgun around.Doing so would make them seem paranoid and delusional. It is NOT rational to carry a gun as you stated earlier. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then. Can you reference someone (an average citizen) that needs to carry a handgun while walking around...?Even if you're a jewelry store owner, who tend to carry guns, they can instead hire a security person who's job requires them to carry a gun, to do the job.I don't see any scenarios where average citizens walking around the city need to be strapped. From your link:

quote:

---

The study found that people with cognitive disabilities such as mental retardation, developmental disabilities and cerebral palsy represented the largest group of victims.

---

Those people, the largest group of victims, shouldn't be carrying guns.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Enough people carry handguns. Also, just to be clear, this is dealing with your statement that those who did carry them were acting rationally. They are not. That's an interesting point, since we are also not seeing an increase in crime rates due to it. Which is what some claim will happen if less and less people carry guns.But, I don't know how accurate that staement is. I've seen the other angle (that more people are carrying guns) too being made, and if I'm not mistaken the number of people getting concealed weapons permits is increasing. If the "problem was solved" we wouldn't be having this debate. I'm all for people who's job it is for them to carry weapons to do so. I also have no issue with the jewelry store owner going thru the security training needed to be a gun-carrying-security personel and thus him/herself being a licensed security person.That's a far cry from citizens walking around with guns though. If that's your only reference of a person who needs a gun then we've narrowed it down to a small group of people. I'm all for that. If you think it's rational to hire a trained security guard for every mentally challenged person, and that's the world you think you live in, then I won't argue that with you. You're free to believe what you want. I don't see the need for that though.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

What you mean is we need more armed white citizens. No one wants to put more gun in the hands of people in black neighborhoods or hispanic neighborhoods where the crime rate is ridiculously high. Where they already have lots of guns. Putting more guns in the hands of the "good ones" isn't going to make those neighborhoods better or safer. Those neighborhoods need less guns.This is what those statistics forget to address, the fact that it's not poor people from violent neighborhoods who by in large are good people who they want to give more guns to, so their neighborhoods become safer. What the NRA wants is more white people to arm themselves to protect them against violent minorities from those poor neighborhoods who find themselves, often enough, in the position to break into a home and steal a tv. The law now says you can shoot that poor hispanic kid for trying to take your tv.Let's be honest here on who you want to see have more guns.- Oni

People in inner cities carry guns. They are at a higher risk of being murdered because no one is afraid to pull the trigger even if the other person has a gun too. This is where the highest homicide rates are. How can giving more people guns in these places make it safer? It just doesn't follow since, more and more people are already are acquiring more guns in these neighborhoods and the rate contnues to go up.However, in Manhattan, where you see strict gun laws, the rate has dropped. Harlem is now a safe neighborhood. Less guns makes things safer, crash.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Personal defense, due to their involvement in drugs, and whatever else. Personal defense from rival gangs, etc.These are people who are arming themselves for protection. No other citizens are more at risk of being shot than them.Do you believe they need more guns? Manhattan...- Oni

Ok, yes, that's true.What I'm pointing out is in the places with the highest homicide rates, where one is more likely to be shot by a gun, the answer to that problem isn't to arm more people. In fact, the opposite is true. I looked around and couldn't find those numbers. What is a fact is that NY some of the strictest gun laws in all of the US. NY Gun LawsAlso, Manhattan is the safest big city to live in. And this has all been in the last 20 years. More cops with guns on the streets and less civilians with guns OVERALL has I'm sure helped in the decline of crime and murder rates.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yeah, we get that. That's why there exists law enforcement. Criminals get their guns through theft. So eliminating their source works out best.If only the criminals have guns then it's that mush easier to spot a criminal. Everyone here seems to ONLY be arguing for stronger gun laws, not a complete elimination of every gun. Even in coutries like the UK, some guns are allowed for hunting. Which, can inturn be used to bear arms.There is your possible future. Can you live with that?- Oni

Let me guess, there will be blacks or hispanics in this neighborhood?Let me ask, do you live in these neighborhoods? Is your house in a safe area or do you live with the poor and violent minorities? You're allowed to own a hunting rifle in England.- Oni

It baffles me that you, a citizen of the US, know less about how the US works than the people taking a test to become citizens of the US.You should take a few classes on how your country and it's government works, I believe they call it High School? This is ridiculous to read from you, an American. Wow! You seriously don't know how any of this works. Which "states"...? All the states? Or just one states?- Oni

What Hamilton said in those papers - (and really, who cares what he said, it's 2013 - we, as a nation, can make our own decisions on how we want the country to run) - made sense when the standing army had muskets.However...Are you saying you should be allowed to own tanks, fighter jets, and high powered military weapons to defend yourself against an attack from the US military? Oh, and you should be allowed to own nuclear warheads too and missiles?- Oni

I hope you mean "North" Korea only.Just a quick question though, if those 2 nations are so aggressive and violent... How many wars have they started in the last 20 years?- Oni

Civil Rights Movement- Oni

It has to do with the means to actually get the guns. Who can and cannot own a gun. Background checks. Mental stability. Age limits. Closing off loopholes that currently exist with the gun laws, like what happens at gun shows (you can google that). Right, but who gets to own those weapons is very important. As it is there is no universal gun law in the US, it's all broken down into state laws. So that's one main focus.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Well couldn't we just do that? I'm not saying "let's do that" but we could do it, right? What's stopping us?It's 2013, we know a lot more than those goofy people from the past who wore wigs and ridiculous clothes and didn't have the internet. I mean, we HAVE the internent which means we have ALL the answers. Google could probably help us write a Constitution better than any other one...and it would be on Word so it would be checked for grammar AND spelling.We could definitely do a better job. I myself would like to see speech limited a bit. Instead of "Freedom of speech" I like "Freedom of some speech." just to control those who get "carried away" with their retoric. That's just me, you change whatever you want to change.What do you think?- Oni

Not true, Faith. Most of us completely understand that creationist are wrong. If anything, we understand your position better than you do because we can see where the errors are.- Oni