Posted on 09/30/2003 6:01:19 AM PDT by SJackson
After a recent override in Missouri legislature, the state is set to see its right-to-carry laws go into effect Oct. 11. Those wanting to carry a gun in Missouri must clear a background check, take a training course, pay $100 and be at least 23 years of age. Individuals with recent felonies, certain misdemeanors and/or mental disabilities are ineligible.
The most common argument heard from right-to-carry proponents is that guns are necessary for self-defense purposes. After all, murderers, rapists and robbers all seem to have guns, so let's even the playing field, they say.
In a perfect world, guns would be used only for self-defense. In reality, however, guns get into the wrong hands, and people do bad things with them … very bad things, in fact. People who should never be able to own a gun in the first place occasionally slip through the cracks.
Under House Bill No. 349, those with permits will be able to bring their guns into public buildings-that is, buildings that don't post signs saying you can't bring guns into their facilities. (Shouldn't it be the other way around?) While you can't bring guns into government buildings, courthouses and police stations, according to the bill, stadiums with fewer than 5,000 seats are just fine.
That is where the newly enacted law oversteps self-defense into the territory of insanity.
It's understandable that one would want to have a gun in their home to fend off would-be intruders, but permitting guns into little league baseball games (assuming the game isn't at a school or church, two other no-goes) and the local Kmart store lacks common sense, if not humanity.
A drunken brawl at a baseball game ensues over an ump's call. At what point do you draw your gun in fear that the other guy will use his first? Same goes with road rage. A simple scuffle can take on a life of its own when (almost) anyone can carry a gun. As the saying goes, "kill or be killed."
The bottom line is that guns kill a lot more people than they save. How many gun deaths would there be if guns didn't exist at all? Or if mere possession of a gun landed someone a lengthy jail sentence? It would probably deter a lot of people from carrying guns, that's for sure.
Logic is absent on many of the stats given on the National Rifle Association's Website, www.nra.org. One header on the site reads: "more right to carry states, less crime." However, it seems hard to believe that having more people with guns would deter crime. After all, if guns are permitted in cars and in houses, they're all the more easily accessible for criminals, children and people in general who shouldn't have them in the first place.
The gun may help you when it's by your side, but who's to stop someone from taking it when left unattended? And who's to say the bad guy wouldn't somehow take the gun from you when you did try to use it?
How many stolen guns are used every year to commit crimes? Lots. School shootings in Flint, Mich., and Springfield, Ore. occurred with weapons that were easily stolen. How many murders would have never happened if guns were much more difficult to obtain than they are right now?
Perhaps if everyone in America was of stable mind and temper, this wouldn't be an issue. But as long as bad guys exist-as long as bad guys have guns, which will be as long as they can steal them or buy them-people will feel the need to defend themselves with guns.
Starting at the root of the problem, it would seem reasonable to get rid of all the guns currently in circulation, not permit the production of more of them.
The problem with guns seems to be the same as tobacco, booze and any other killer of thousands that makes billions: If it makes money, the likelihood of common sense taking precedence over dollar signs is close to nil, thus negating any chance of a nationwide ban on firearms ever happening.
Odds are that if all guns were slowly eliminated-banned, melted down, whatever-the problem with people dying from guns would eventually go away.
Eventually, cops wouldn't even need to carry guns. If guns were completely illegal, it would be a lot easier to tell which guy with a gun under the seat of his car or in his pants' pocket in line at the grocery store is a criminal: all of them.
So, let's just ban EVERYONE!
They do NOT "slip" through the LEGAL cracks.....they get them on the street. BIG difference.
Yeah Eric I agree. I hate those drunken shootouts at the little league fields that have occurred all over Texas since the CCW has come into effect.
What?
They haven't?
Oh. OK. Nevermind.
UGH. Who's to say a bad guy won't steal your car & mow down a bus load of nuns?
Let's just do away with The Constitution because something MIGHT happen.
BEHOLD! The mind of the defenseless
Oh, thanks for putting this up. I'll add it to my collection of "Post CCW Law veto-override articles."
Okay Eric, tell you what, let's put a sign outside your house that says "this house is a gunfree zone and there are absolutely no weapons on the premises" and see if the chances of your place becoming a target increases.
What you say is very true Eric. As a matter of fact I think it's already being done in the United States of Utopia.
The worst sports-fight I ever saw was at a municipal league softball game... both teams were composed almost entirely of policemen.
Shall we disarm the cops?
Some should be tested for numbness between the ears, and in the genital area.
Tell that to the German Jews circa 1939, bright boy.
L
The author is a certified mark - the odds in Britain are that if you have a gun, you are a criminal and are likely to get away with murder in self defense.
Odds in Autralia for gun ownership are the same. Most guns are owned by criminals who know that they won't have to face a death penalty for any murder they commit.
While unarmed law abiding citizens are arrested for putting up a minimal self-defense, armed criminals are tolerated with impugnity and face less punishment than their law-abiding victims. Call it white-mans guilt - only a society that feels the need for self-mortification could come up with such a backwards system of jurisprudence.
Eric should take a walk down to the gambling riverboats and use his brilliant deductions down there - like most "know nothing" liberals he talks first and thinks last. He can hone his finely tuned odds-making ability in the arena of real life - and lost his shirt.
The style appears to be prep for a 6th grade debate.
This sounds like something from a 9 year old kid.
This sounds like something from a 9 year old kid.
No offense, but how do you know it wasn't?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.