Federal appeals court tosses state ban on carrying concealed weapons (Page 3)

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I don't think of it as "fear".  I don't carry a spare tire because I "fear" getting a flat.  I carry it in case I get a flat.  Much in the same way I don't fear getting attacked at all, I just carry in case I do get attacked.

See, that's the statements that concern me.  When either side says things like that.  If you are not able to look at data, no matter how large the sample, and at least acknowledge there could be another answer, is a problem to me.

All that data you reference.  That tells me NOTHING about Tony's specific situation.  It does not say without a shadow of a doubt that if Tony's friend (or Tony) had a gun, the situation would have been better.  Your data does not say if the thugs in this situation had a gun it would have been worse without a shadow of a doubt.

Both sides take a specific example and speculate on what could have made it worse/better.

I don't mind taking data and saying the "significant trend is..  such and such".  But to say there is NO other answer?  Goes against statistics/data and science.  It's being close minded only to just the data that you want to hear.  I take those opinions with some skepticism.  I trust the opinion MORE of someone who at least/acknowledges understands the points of the opposition and sticks to their opion regardless.  At least I know they considered it and weighed it out, rather than just dismiss it because there can't be any other answer than the one they have.

Spare me you feigned outrage over law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional rights.

So I say be open to both side of an argument, listen and consider both sides, at least acknowledge them before making an opinion -  I also said that both sides like to take specific situations and spin them to their side and I'm arguing wrong?

BTW, not sure if you read any of my other posts/threads.  I'm pro gun rights and looking at getting another and teaching the wife.  I never mentioned taking away gun rights.

I was bringing up the point that people love to play "what if" in a specific situation and spin it for their side.  BOTH sides of the gun laws do it.  It concerns me that just pointing out what both sides do in situations like this, you assume that I'm out for taking away gun rights, and the anti gun set think I'm out to arm everyone - when I said neither.

OH, and BTW - directing me "look it up yourself" then pointing me to threads/sites that you would like to read that presumably back your side of the argument is a bit contradictory, no?

That's funny...

What have I made up my mind about again?

Are you SO pro gun rights that you blindly argue with another pro gun rights person who NEVER even suggested  restricting gun rights and offer up nice snarky comments like that?

Maybe alienating those on your side isn't the best strategy?  I could be wrong.

I really can't understand this at all. Do you know yourself so little that you don't know how you would react in a situation?

Do you have any idea the amount of liability you take on carrying a fire arm? If you are actually involved in a shooting, how long do you want to explain to the cops why you thought it was justified. How much do you want to explain to a jury of your peers if they think it was justified? How long do you want to be in civil court, how much are you willing to loose in civil court?

Gun or no gun, I can't imagine having to kill someone justified or not. In traffic the bird most certainly flies, and I will get into a shouting match from time to time... but the last thing in the world I am ever going to do is get in one carrying.... there is no way in heck that I am going to explain to a police officer how we got into a shouting match and I pulled over and just wanted to get into a fist fight but then thought he might actually kill me so I had to shoot him. You want to explain that one to a criminal jury? You want to explain that to a civil jury? Are you willing to put your freedom on the line? Are you willing to put your families livelihood on the line? Do you have so little self control that you can't  trust your self in a situation to not actually shoot someone?

If the answers to any of those are yes, then I suggest carrying is not for you. Me personally, I don't care about the law, or a civil jury... If I am ever forced to kill someone, I have to know there was no other choice, I played no part in the situation, and I actually feared for my life... and no that isn't some line I learned to recite... I would have to believe it.

I just get irritated by the notion that some how a gun turn everyone into a blood thirst big shot that wants nothing more than to see how big of a hole his new hollow points are going to make and he is going to find out the first person that lips off to him.

I know all that and I know myself.  And sounds like you know yourself.  But do you have that much confidence in EVERY legal firearm carrier?

I'm just speculating that it may not be too far fetched that SOME people may be looking for trouble or looking for an excuse to use it - I don't think that's a stretch reasonable speculation.  I never said anything remotely like your last paragraph nor did I say we needed to take away their rights to have one even if they aren't as reliable as you or I. 

I was just stepping back and looking at the entire argument and how the anti gun rights proponents may see it and making a general commentary on how both sides sometimes argue on the issue - mostly the spin issue.  I see flaws in both arguments.  That being said, I'm pro gun rights.

But that is the point... this isn't a privilege... it's a RIGHT. People can not have their rights taken, they can only forfeit them. So this isn't an issue of how do we make this privilege work. That's like saying let's take away free speech on the "fear" that someone might say something we don't like.

The point is, people are law abiding citizens, we have free will. And if we screw up, or break the law, then we pay the price. Speculating all day about "what if" does nothing.

Over 10,000 people die every year in a car due to alcohol. Why are bars open till 2:00am? Where is the outrage? Tony want to argue that drunks might go on a shooting spree... why are there bars? Why is alcohol EVERYWHERE you go? Well... that's because plenty of people can go out and get drunk all the time responsibly... and we all know how important it is to society for people to be able to get drunk responsibly.... yet people die every year from something completely avoidable.

But every time a gun takes a life... oh heck, let's examine America's love affair with guns and put more laws on the books. Vehicular manslaughter usually gets your a couple years in prison... if that.... because hey... that could have happened to any of us right? I mean who among us hasn't driven when they should not have after all.

The point is, it is a right and that is it. We just have to deal with it, just like we deal with a lot of things. I know you are not saying ban them, but trying to say there are reasons why it might be a good idea to see the other side... well, repeal the 2A and then there would be a reason.

Exactly...  100% right. 

Preaching to the choir.

Well then I will continue...

I'm not anti alcohol. Everyone can go out and get as loaded as they want... but alcohol itself MAKES you irresponsible. The recent case of the NFL and domestic violence... "but if he didn't have a gun, she would still be alive"... but let's not focus on DV, or the fact that the vast majority of all DV involves alcohol, let's just focus on the gun. And then the NFL and drunk driving... the team has cars for rides. The league gives cars for rides no questions asked... and of course they can afford a cab... but they were out getting hammered which is not even a right... where is all the outrage?

Alcohol cost this country more than all illegal drugs combined. 80% of all crimes involve alcohol. Domestic violence, drunk driving... where is all the out rage for a substance than many enjoy but some use irresponsibly that takes innocent peoples lives???

All I'm saying is it is the same thing as firearms. It is just a thing that some people use irresponsible, or even with criminal intent. Yet nobody calls for more laws on the books when a drunk driver kills someone, or more restrictions on alcohol when it is involved in a crime... the big difference is that alcohol isn't a RIGHT protected by the Constitution where as fire arms are.

I agree with your points and it's not nearly at the same scale, but over the years, people have called for, and gotten strickter DUI laws.  I have seen the limit get lowered and lowered over the last 20 years where you can't even have two glasses of wine and legally drive right away.  Bars used to serve indescriminatly, now they are supposedly held accountable for over-serving...  You can be held accountable if someone leaves your house intoxicated.

Again, not to the same scale, but I think it's not totally correct to say there hasn't been call for change and strickter laws inforced for alcohol.

No not "none"... but most certainly the same scale... look at how often alcohol is involved in tragedy and how many protests there are to do something about alcohol compared to the same with firearms.

Yes, MADD had an impact. DUI laws are much stricter, penalties higher... but they are still a joke. If you wanted to actually stop it you could. Europe has mandatory 5 year prison sentences for DUI. Care to guess how many DUIs they have compared to us?

And again, I'm not down on booze... just because John can't drink it without beating his wife does not mean I should be restricted from getting plowed and acting like a fool from time to time.

But to buy a drink legally, all I need to be is 21. Then that's it.. I could be dying of liver failure and had 10 DUIs, but I can still buy a drink... but to be able.. to be ALLOWED to exercise my constitutional right... I have to apply for it, fill out some paper work, wait for a few days or so, then if I want to actually carry it in public I have to have training, pay for a permit, give a bunch of information, and if I commit any crime I will have my right revoked. Show me another Constitutional right you have to jump through all those hoops to exercise.

And with this topic at hand... people are having a cow that people in IL. are being given the right to actually exercise their Constitutional right.

I'm confused.  You say "certainly the same scale"?

People come down on gun ownership and guns at a scale WAY above that of drunk driving deaths even though alcohol related injuries and deaths outweigh firearm injuries and deaths 10-fold.

To me, the scale of reaction and public outcry is WAY out of wack for the amount of injuries and cost related to alcohol vs firearms.

My bad, I thought you were saying the opposite.

I was being generous. I only say it for context. There are other things used irresponsibly that take a lot of lives that people don't seem to get too worked up over... but for some reason, evil scary, black firearms just have to go.

Heck, if you want to talk about same scale and carelessness, Throw in texting while driving.  Not much different than Drunk Driving in my book.

That's not what I said.  If you commit, I believe it is a felony offense (it's been awhile since I read the law), the police are required to check your immigration status if there is a question of whether you are here legally or not. 

The judge's ruling doesn't make it a free for all.  My last sentence was in reference to states where permits are "may issue" and are extremely hard to get such as NJ.  Reasonable restrictions (although contrary to the 2A) are prudent to greater acceptance.  Tony, no one is forcing you to have or carry a gun.  This ruling isn't going to start some all out war in the streets.  The right to keep (own) and bear (carry) guns is provided for by the 2nd Amendment.  If you disagree with that, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I'll certainly respect that.