Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hog1

It's not a trap or anything Joe, but I am curious as to what part of the second amendment, or Constitution speaks the the "heavy regulation of gun ownership". I gave it a once over and did not notice that.

The expectation of heavy regulation is my opinion based on the language of the amendment and a very brief review of some of the cases interpreting it. Given that the language speaks of individual gun ownership being necessary due tothe collective need of a "well-regulated" militia, it is my opinion that a gun owner should expect there to be significant governmental regulations in place to ensure and protect the public's interest in a well regulated militia.

Originally Posted by Hog1

The second A also provides for the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". That is in addition to "a well regulated militia, and not subject to a collective interpretation of any kind, that I can see.

As I noted above, the individual right springs from and is given its reason d'etre from the collective need. There is substantial caselaw on this and the debate as to personal right v. collective right appears to go to the core of most 2A debates. As I understand it (again, based on a very cursory review of the law), the federal courts have generally held that the right to keep and bear arms is a "collective" right rather than an "individual" right.

Both from the language of the amendment and from the caselaw, I think it is pretty clear that, no matter what else is true about it, the "right to keep and bear arms", does not and was never intended to grant individuals unfettered and unlimited access to and/or owership of guns.

Personally, while I have no problem with lawful gun ownership, I am very comfortable with the government reasonably regulating their use and availability. As with all things subject to regulation, it is the "reasonableness" of it that comes into play.

For the record, I live in downtown Baltimore and, while my neighborhood is fine, some of the surrounding neighborhoods are kinda seedy. I have seen guns fired in public and often heard gunfire throughout the city. Quite frankly, the bad guys are walking around with semi and automatic weapons. Unless I go around with an unconcealed .50 cal., they pretty much got me outgunned. If I get into a situation where they intend me harm, owning or carrying a gun would not stop them from doing so. Further, it might only ratchet up their need to show that they're the big man and cause them to get even bigger guns.

To me, it is appropriate to both ensure that government does not have a monopoly on the use and ownership of guns and to regulate individual ownership of guns to ensure that the government can properly carry out its duty to protect its citizenry.

Enforce the laws on the books. Send anyone using a handgun in the course of a crime to jail for a significant amount of un-paroleable minimum time (to me, "use" includes brandishing the weapon). Send anyone firing an automatic weapon in an unauthorized manner to jail (generally, i got no problem with the ownership of automatic weaponry - it's the use of it that I object to). Send anyone who uses an automatic weapon in the course of a crime to jail w/o parole for a long time.

While it's true that people kill people - guns sure make it a lot easier. For that reason, their use and ownership should be "well regulated" (even if you're not in the militia )

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The expectation of heavy regulation is my opinion based on the language of the amendment and a very brief review of some of the cases interpreting it. Given that the language speaks of individual gun ownership being necessary due tothe collective need of a "well-regulated" militia, it is my opinion that a gun owner should expect there to be significant governmental regulations in place to ensure and protect the public's interest in a well regulated militia.



As I noted above, the individual right springs from and is given its reason d'etre from the collective need. There is substantial caselaw on this and the debate as to personal right v. collective right appears to go to the core of most 2A debates. As I understand it (again, based on a very cursory review of the law), the federal courts have generally held that the right to keep and bear arms is a "collective" right rather than an "individual" right.

Both from the language of the amendment and from the caselaw, I think it is pretty clear that, no matter what else is true about it, the "right to keep and bear arms", does not and was never intended to grant individuals unfettered and unlimited access to and/or owership of guns.

Personally, while I have no problem with lawful gun ownership, I am very comfortable with the government reasonably regulating their use and availability. As with all things subject to regulation, it is the "reasonableness" of it that comes into play.

For the record, I live in downtown Baltimore and, while my neighborhood is fine, some of the surrounding neighborhoods are kinda seedy. I have seen guns fired in public and often heard gunfire throughout the city. Quite frankly, the bad guys are walking around with semi and automatic weapons. Unless I go around with an unconcealed .50 cal., they pretty much got me outgunned. If I get into a situation where they intend me harm, owning or carrying a gun would not stop them from doing so. Further, it might only ratchet up their need to show that they're the big man and cause them to get even bigger guns.

To me, it is appropriate to both ensure that government does not have a monopoly on the use and ownership of guns and to regulate individual ownership of guns to ensure that the government can properly carry out its duty to protect its citizenry.

Enforce the laws on the books. Send anyone using a handgun in the course of a crime to jail for a significant amount of un-paroleable minimum time (to me, "use" includes brandishing the weapon). Send anyone firing an automatic weapon in an unauthorized manner to jail (generally, i got no problem with the ownership of automatic weaponry - it's the use of it that I object to). Send anyone who uses an automatic weapon in the course of a crime to jail w/o parole for a long time.

While it's true that people kill people - guns sure make it a lot easier. For that reason, their use and ownership should be "well regulated" (even if you're not in the militia )

Nice Post Joe,
naturally the interpretation of the 2nd A. has been the debate of sport for lo' these many years.
For the record, I completely agree with the regulation, and control of who gets a weapon in this country. As you alluded to, we have the laws on the books, and they need to be enforced. The justice system is letting us down.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Nice Post Joe,
naturally the interpretation of the 2nd A. has been the debate of sport for lo' these many years.
For the record, I completely agree with the regulation, and control of who gets a weapon in this country. As you alluded to, we have the laws on the books, and they need to be enforced. The justice system is letting us down.

While I agree, it is a good post...don't you agree that from 1776 to the when the first person started wanting gun control (I'll say 1929), that the country would have stopped all those people from owning guns? Are we so arrogant as to think that our society should change was has been generally accepted for over a century, and what this country was founded on? Why is it we seem to think we're better than what the ideals of the country stated?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by jsarno

While I agree, it is a good post...don't you agree that from 1776 to the when the first person started wanting gun control (I'll say 1929), that the country would have stopped all those people from owning guns? Are we so arrogant as to think that our society should change was has been generally accepted for over a century, and what this country was founded on? Why is it we seem to think we're better than what the ideals of the country stated?

I do not disagree with you Jsarno.
I also believe in the 2nd A as it is stated. I believe it clearly guarantee's the right to individual gun ownership in this country in plain language.
I do think additional......common sense must apply when determining that some people may not qualify for that privilege. Ex. violent criminals, etc. And, no I do not believe that we know better today, than the signers of the Constitution, what is right for this country.
Are you saying sometjhing different?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I do not disagree with you Jsarno.
I also believe in the 2nd A as it is stated. I believe it clearly guarantee's the right to individual gun ownership in this country in plain language.
I do think additional......common sense must apply when determining that some people may not qualify for that privilege. Ex. violent criminals, etc. And, no I do not believe that we know better today, than the signers of the Constitution, what is right for this country.
Are you saying sometjhing different?

OK, now you're starting to scare me. We have been on the exact same side of the argument over and over again.
I 100% agree with you. To me, once you do something completely moronic like kill someone, you should lose your rights in prison, and be given a certain amount of rights when you get out (if you even get out). I fully believe that if you are a violent criminal you should not be allowed to have a gun. But that doesn't have anything to do with the Tom, Dick or Harry that keeps their nose clean.
I agree with you about the plain language as well, but somehow someone is always thinking to change it or "interpret" it in a wierd way. That was my point.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

While I agree, it is a good post...don't you agree that from 1776 to the when the first person started wanting gun control (I'll say 1929), that the country would have stopped all those people from owning guns? Are we so arrogant as to think that our society should change was has been generally accepted for over a century, and what this country was founded on? Why is it we seem to think we're better than what the ideals of the country stated?

The founders were also okay with slavery, not letting women or men without property vote and, BTW, they were none to keen on that whole "standing army" thing. Are we arrogant to think those things are wrong?

The men of 1776 were radicals in there day b/c they refused to accept what they saw as Britain's betrayal of its own principles. We would be betraying them if we didn't look past the words and into the purpose.

As time goes by and society changes, the standards and realities of life change. In 1776, they didn't have automatic weapons or cities with multi-million populations.

Also, let's be clear - the "ideal" protected by the concept of "right to bear and keep arms" was protecting the citizenry from government's monopoly of power. In light of the events of their recent history, the founder's were concerned with the imposition of tyranny by a government and the citizenries inability to respond. Lexington and Concord occurred b/c the Brits were going to seize the public arsenal not b/c they were taking people's personal weapons(Hmmmm, last I checked, there isn't a "public arsenal" in Baltimore - well, except for a couple of street corners but that's just 'cause the clientele is armed to the teeth). While I respect this ideal, the world has changed significantly, and the specific threat that the 2A was intended to protect against does not exist in the same manner as it did two hundred years ago.

BTW - gun control didn't start in the 20 century. It existed from the beginning of this country and was prominent in the "Wild West". Many towns had strict gun contro (a' la "The Unforgiven"). Many towns were much more lax and the specific regulations varied from town to town but whoa unto you if you violated the local gun regs.

It is not arrogant to re-examine our governing principles, it is essential to do so. Otherwise, we end up like the arabian culture of the 17th and 18th centuries - A once progressive culture that was a beacon of human ingenuity, art and science that refused to reexamine itself and ended up betraying the very tenets it was founded upon.

It is not arrogant to reexamine our founding fathers actions, it is essential to uphold their ideals.

BTW - anybody see where I left my glock?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The founders were also okay with slavery, not letting women or men without property vote and, BTW, they were none to keen on that whole "standing army" thing. Are we arrogant to think those things are wrong?

You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.

BTW - gun control didn't start in the 20 century. It existed from the beginning of this country and was prominent in the "Wild West". Many towns had strict gun contro (a' la "The Unforgiven"). Many towns were much more lax and the specific regulations varied from town to town but whoa unto you if you violated the local gun regs.

Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc.

It is not arrogant to re-examine our governing principles, it is essential to do so. Otherwise, we end up like the arabian culture of the 17th and 18th centuries - A once progressive culture that was a beacon of human ingenuity, art and science that refused to reexamine itself and ended up betraying the very tenets it was founded upon.

While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.

It is not arrogant to reexamine our founding fathers actions, it is essential to uphold their ideals.

I absolutely agree. We need to be careful though.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.

Well, actually, the constitution had to be amended to permit blacks, women and unpropertied white men to vote.

Please trust me when I tell you that I am a firm believer in the Rule of Law and the Constitution as the touchstone of our society. Because of that, and b/c the founders were, in fact, a diverse collection of brilliant men, it is important to discern and "interpret" what they were trying to say and why they said it. The english language is a wonderful tool and can be very precise and clear. Unfortunately, some of its beauty is found in its flexibility and this can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. What seems plain to you may not seem so plain to others even though they are reading the same sentence. ("The car is quiet" - Does that mean its running quietly? That people in the car are quiet? Could be either - don't know out of context).

In the Bill of Rights the founders identified and succintly stated many timeless truths and guides. They did so, however, based on the world view of upper class propertied white men and used the english language in a manner in a particular way inherent to their education and class. Further, they made these statements in response to particular things going on around them. To say "it means what it says" about the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to emasculate the brilliance of our founders.

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc.

I believe, but am not certain, that the "everybody had guns and carried em everywhere" is a myth perpetuated by a variety of sources. My curiosity is peaked. Certainly, many towns had an armed populace (the Dalton Gang was shot to shreds by the locals). At the same time, I have read a couple sources that suggest the majority of western towns had pretty strict rules on gun ownership.

Originally Posted by jsarno

While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.

First, I am going to assume your gay president, sex punishable by death example is hyperbole based on the ridiculousness of the statement to demonstrate your statement that "just cause our society might feel its right doesn't mean it is". Such a scenario is simply not going to happen for any number of reasons. Essentially, it would require either the vast majority of the population aquiescing to trashing the Constitution, all judicial precedent and the imposition of martial law to suppress any dissenters.

In response to the argument that "just cause we think its right doesn't make it is" assertion - I pose the timeless question asked by Pontious Pilate - "What is truth?". Ultimately, as a society, we choose what is right for us. You say that just b/c we choose it, that doesn't make it right. Again, who does get to decide what is "right"? Part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it set forth a government in which "We the People" choose what is right for us. The checks and balances contained within it, the ability to modify it, and the basic governmental structure set out in it create a system that is not subject to rampant change but that can (and has) grown. In turn, the system thus created both allows and ensures that, ultimately, it is the people of this country who decide "what is right" for them.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
(just a little plug for the monarchist party)

[jsarno]

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;329356][QUOTE=jsarno;329329]You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.[Quote]

Well, actually, the constitution had to be amended to permit blacks, women and unpropertied white men to vote.

Please trust me when I tell you that I am a firm believer in the Rule of Law and the Constitution as the touchstone of our society. Because of that, and b/c the founders were, in fact, a diverse collection of brilliant men, it is important to discern and "interpret" what they were trying to say and why they said it. The english language is a wonderful tool and can be very precise and clear. Unfortunately, some of its beauty is found in its flexibility and this can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. What seems plain to you may not seem so plain to others even though they are reading the same sentence. ("The car is quiet" - Does that mean its running quietly? That people in the car are quiet? Could be either - don't know out of context).

In the Bill of Rights the founders identified and succintly stated many timeless truths and guides. They did so, however, based on the world view of upper class propertied white men and used the english language in a manner in a particular way inherent to their education and class. Further, they made these statements in response to particular things going on around them. To say "it means what it says" about the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to emasculate the brilliance of our founders.


[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc.[Quote]

I believe, but am not certain, that the "everybody had guns and carried em everywhere" is a myth perpetuated by a variety of sources. My curiosity is peaked. Certainly, many towns had an armed populace (the Dalton Gang was shot to shreds by the locals). At the same time, I have read a couple sources that suggest the majority of western towns had pretty strict rules on gun ownership.

[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.

First, I am going to assume your gay president, sex punishable by death example is hyperbole based on the ridiculousness of the statement to demonstrate your statement that "just cause our society might feel its right doesn't mean it is". Such a scenario is simply not going to happen for any number of reasons. Essentially, it would require either the vast majority of the population aquiescing to trashing the Constitution, all judicial precedent and the imposition of martial law to suppress any dissenters.

In response to the argument that "just cause we think its right doesn't make it is" assertion - I pose the timeless question asked by Pontious Pilate - "What is truth?". Ultimately, as a society, we choose what is right for us. You say that just b/c we choose it, that doesn't make it right. Again, who does get to decide what is "right"? Part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it set forth a government in which "We the People" choose what is right for us. The checks and balances contained within it, the ability to modify it, and the basic governmental structure set out in it create a system that is not subject to rampant change but that can (and has) grown. In turn, the system thus created both allows and ensures that, ultimately, it is the people of this country who decide "what is right" for them.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
(just a little plug for the monarchist party)

Again, you make good arguments. My initial point was about the slavery comment, not the voting comment. I actually feel that our founding fathers only wanted intelligent people to vote, and felt that not every person was smart enough to choose correctly. (IE: the electoral college was founded) I actually believe this to be true. South Park thinks that 25% of the world is "retarded", I think that percentage is slightly higher. So while we should all be considered equal, we all are not equal, some of us don't deserve to vote. Of course I expect that to met with a ton of resistance.

My homosexual president scenario is just an over the top scenario to help understand that not every idea is a good idea.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

For the record, I live in downtown Baltimore and, while my neighborhood is fine, some of the surrounding neighborhoods are kinda seedy. I have seen guns fired in public and often heard gunfire throughout the city. Quite frankly, the bad guys are walking around with semi and automatic weapons. Unless I go around with an unconcealed .50 cal., they pretty much got me outgunned. If I get into a situation where they intend me harm, owning or carrying a gun would not stop them from doing so. Further, it might only ratchet up their need to show that they're the big man and cause them to get even bigger guns.

I just needed to point this out...no matter if there were strict gun laws, or loose ones, those situations will still exist. The evil people of the world will still ignore them and find way to own those guns.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I just needed to point this out...no matter if there were strict gun laws, or loose ones, those situations will still exist. The evil people of the world will still ignore them and find way to own those guns.

Yes. Absolutely true.

For that very same reason, however, gun ownership does not guarrantee safety nor does it neccessarily enhance one's personal safety.

Given that the existence or non-existence of strict gun laws (or enforcement of the same) has no effect on whether or not evil people will use guns, the ownership of guns will not deter those same evil people intent on inflicting harm. I suggest to you, that those intent on doing harm with guns or those who could care less if they cause harm with guns will do so whether or not those around them are armed.

While owning a gun for home defense may protect you from injury in certain limited circumstances (A break in occurs, it does so in such a manner as to allow you sufficient warning to retrieve your weapon, avoid discovery and safely confront the burglar (i.e. make sure you don't harm those whom you would protect)). At the same time, I would argue that the inherent danger posed to residents and visitors by a readily available weapon with readily available ammunition is not insignificant.

As others have pointed out, however, it seems unlikely to me that someone intent on doing you harm by waylaying you will be deterred by thought you might be carrying a gun. It seems to me that, if someone is intentionally carrying a gun with intent to cause harm despite the possibility of governmental reprecussion, those people are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of you being armed. Rather, they will be more careful in their actions and, essentially, kill you before you have a chance to retaliate.

Further, for those who carry guns with a complete lack of concern as to whether or not they do good or evil with the weapons, the fact that you are armed will, again, be of no concern to them. In these cases you may see the danger approaching and prevent it prior to being shot by using a weapon (in this scenario, it doesn't even matter whether or not the weapon is concealed because the individual creating the danger is unconcerned as to anyone's safety including his). Given the unpredictability of these types, the greater danger is to those unaware that this person is present. You will simply be an innocent bystander dead without even knowing what hit you.

As I said, I got no problem with guns. They are simply tools -inherently dangerous, powerful, efficient with limited purpose - but tools nonetheless.

I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause - are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.

I believe that, generally, carrying a gun (and I have just so we're clear), rather than heighten one's personal security, actually dulls it by creating a false sense of security and, thus, lessening the truly important factors of personal safety - self and situation awareness.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. Absolutely true.

For that very same reason, however, gun ownership does not guarrantee safety nor does it neccessarily enhance one's personal safety.

Given that the existence or non-existence of strict gun laws (or enforcement of the same) has no effect on whether or not evil people will use guns, the ownership of guns will not deter those same evil people intent on inflicting harm. I suggest to you, that those intent on doing harm with guns or those who could care less if they cause harm with guns will do so whether or not those around them are armed.

While owning a gun for home defense may protect you from injury in certain limited circumstances (A break in occurs, it does so in such a manner as to allow you sufficient warning to retrieve your weapon, avoid discovery and safely confront the burglar (i.e. make sure you don't harm those whom you would protect)). At the same time, I would argue that the inherent danger posed to residents and visitors by a readily available weapon with readily available ammunition is not insignificant.

As others have pointed out, however, it seems unlikely to me that someone intent on doing you harm by waylaying you will be deterred by thought you might be carrying a gun. It seems to me that, if someone is intentionally carrying a gun with intent to cause harm despite the possibility of governmental reprecussion, those people are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of you being armed. Rather, they will be more careful in their actions and, essentially, kill you before you have a chance to retaliate.

Further, for those who carry guns with a complete lack of concern as to whether or not they do good or evil with the weapons, the fact that you are armed will, again, be of no concern to them. In these cases you may see the danger approaching and prevent it prior to being shot by using a weapon (in this scenario, it doesn't even matter whether or not the weapon is concealed because the individual creating the danger is unconcerned as to anyone's safety including his). Given the unpredictability of these types, the greater danger is to those unaware that this person is present. You will simply be an innocent bystander dead without even knowing what hit you.

As I said, I got no problem with guns. They are simply tools -inherently dangerous, powerful, efficient with limited purpose - but tools nonetheless.

I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause - are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.

I believe that, generally, carrying a gun (and I have just so we're clear), rather than heighten one's personal security, actually dulls it by creating a false sense of security and, thus, lessening the truly important factors of personal safety - self and situation awareness.

If I knew how to speak/write intelligently this is what I would say. Nicely done, Joe!

[love them hogs]

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin

I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with most of what you posted this statement is just plain wrong.Predators always pray on the weakest and pay very close attention to whom they prey upon.If you need proof just observe every living creature on the planet.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by love them hogs

While I agree with most of what you posted this statement is just plain wrong.Predators always pray on the weakest and pay very close attention to whom they prey upon.If you need proof just observe every living creature on the planet.

Human predators may or may not be animalistic in their pursuit. But I would agree with you that predators pay very close attention to there prey. It is for this reason that gun ownership likely does not prevent an attack.

For example, if the human predator is simply looking to waylay a weakling for a quick score, certainly they would chose someone who "appears" weak. In such a situation, only an unconcealed weapon will prevent an attack. Otherwise, the predator will likely pick based on the appearance and may be unlucky to draw someone who has a gun.

Even in the "prey upon those who appear weak" situation, however, a concealed weapon does not guarrantee safety. As long as we are doing the animal analogy here - How many predators announce their presence to the prey prior to the strike? Not many successful ones. (The cheetah stands up and shouts across to plain to the gazelle "Hey buddy - I'm on my way and your dead meat"). The "prey on the weak" type of human predators will use stealth and will likely have some type of weapon for intimidation purposes. Again, by the time the predator is upon you, you may or may not have time to draw your weapon and disable them. I would suggest that, generally, this is not a given and, depending on the situation, may result in the serious injury of those you are trying to protect. Okay, you killed the bad guy but he managed to kill/maim your wife/child during the exchange. A risk you're willing to take? Maybe. It all depends on how "good" a "predator" he is.

Quite frankly, the only way to ensure protection from this kind of "find a weakling" predator is to permit people to openly carry weapons. Not sure how I feel about that.

Also, I would suggest to you that not all human predator's seek the weak. Many are very human with very human desires and capabilities for thought. Thus, many human predators, the truly dangerous ones, seek a specific thing (money, to rape your wife or daughter, to exact revenge, to inflict pain upon you, etc.). These predators are more along the lines of hunters and they know that they need not attack the weak to succeed, attacking the strong at a weak moment will work just as well. You have a gun? Or you may have a gun? I don't care if you have a gun b/c I will attack you (again with surprise) at a point in time when you will be unable to use it. Hell, I will assume you are armed and plan my attack accordingly. (Your putting your wife's coat on her, I can see both your hands and will kill your wife if you move them out of my sight). In such a case, the fact that you may be armed has already been factored into my attack and is of no deterrent value.

In each of these scenarios, the only time a gun offers protection is when the predator is looking for a weakling, surprises someone who, instead, has a gun, AND the predator was dumb enough to let the prey access and use the gun. In this situation, if you do kill the predator, you are actually reducing the long term effectivenes of your gun by culling out the dumb predators and leaving more of the smart ones out there.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. Absolutely true.

For that very same reason, however, gun ownership does not guarrantee safety nor does it neccessarily enhance one's personal safety.

I am not saying it guarentees safety, just that it should not be taken out of my hands. If I think it makes me safer, then it does. I have an alarm system and it makes me feel safe, and I have a .45 automatic next to my bed...those two make me feel incredibly safe. To this point I haven't had to use either of them, and I hope it stays that way, but the point still remains those laws were put in place to allow me that safety...it shouldn't be taken away.

As others have pointed out, however, it seems unlikely to me that someone intent on doing you harm by waylaying you will be deterred by thought you might be carrying a gun. It seems to me that, if someone is intentionally carrying a gun with intent to cause harm despite the possibility of governmental reprecussion, those people are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of you being armed. Rather, they will be more careful in their actions and, essentially, kill you before you have a chance to retaliate.
I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause - are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.

Well, I do think it would deter the simple criminals...the "rookies" if you will. The harden criminals it won't deter, you are right. But when it comes to the guy that has no intention of using the gun other than to use it as a "fear" device, it will be a great deterant. But that's my opinion. Again I say, don't take the thought of safety or actual ability for me to be safe out of my hands by taking a gun out of my hand.