joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic
Okay, so here's a question. Does concealed carry makes us safer as a society or more endangered? And by society I mean law abiding citizens. Criminals or perpetrators getting killed by people lawfully defending themselves does not make a society less safe. People abusing a law, or citing it as a reason for acquittal post a criminal action when they were not engaged in lawful conduct, is still typically prosecuted so there is no loophole for killing or a right to commit murder. Does empowering a criminal element with the ability to know the public is otherwise unarmed a good thing for society or a bad thing, to add some context look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act which was enacted by a politician commonly known to be in league with criminals, who is popularly believed to have enacted the law to aid his criminal associates. If you so believe society should go about unarmed, are you willing to wear an item that clearly identifies you as an unarmed individual as well as have sign in front of your home that says you unarmed, and bear the consequences of criminal proescution if you are found to be armed by way of a first degree felony?
The first flaw in your question is that society is ALL PERSONS within that society. Which includes those found previously guilty in a court of their peers of doing some wrong against or towards society. It even includes those whom are not citizens of that particular government (i.e. illegal immigrants). You may wish to revise this part to simply show 'US Citizens in good legal standings with the government'.
Now, 'Does concealable carry firearms make us safer'? Well, how do we define each of the main concepts of this sentence? An I'm being in all honestly here. What is the definition to 'concealable carry'? There are quite a number of definitions across the entire nation. And what exactly are we 'safer' from? There are plenty of people that killed themselves in years pass that show the gun in their hand really DIDN'T make them safer. After that, how do we measure the concept? And this is were it becomes questionable and guess work. When there is an auto accident multiple groups try to determine what cased the accident. They check the driver, the vehicles and road conditions even when the cause seems pretty evident. Numerous studies over fifty years have given us a better understanding to make vehicles safer and more likely to keep the passengers safe during and after an accident. Through regulation, laws, and public demands, auto manufactures have made their products safer for massive use on our nation's roads. An does all this knowledge, mechanical changes, and even road laws stop accidents from happening? No. But how many more people would be injured or dying if we did nothing to combat the problem? Far higher than we do now.
But the number of studies for firearm usage and safety is metaphorically an ant hill compared to the Mr. Everest that makes up auto studies. The first problem is securing funding from a source or sources that do NOT have a conflict of interest. Second is to find a credible set of researchers to perform the study. Third, the final report would need to be credible and open for re-testing by others. Fourth, other studies would need to be performed to study a variety of other concepts. And this forms a better understanding of the subject matter. This is not just physics and chemistry in play, but also psychology.
For example, ABC three years ago, conducted a study with Bethlehem, PA police department. The nature of the study and its results can be seen HERE and HERE. Now, many of the commenters state "Oh, I would not be dumb enough to fall for that crap, I'm a much better shooter" or "Those gloves and helmet make it hard for anyone to use their arm and shoot" to the "This is all a setup by some liberal media to take away our second amendment rights and leave us defenseless / allow the criminals to have guns".
Whether you agree or disagree with the study's data and concluding thoughts is not the point of my argument. Its that a study of this kind is not an easy thing to test in the first place! How do you create a study to test how likely an individual with basic firearms training will handle themselves in a dangerous situation; but do so in a SAFE and CONTROLLED environment were all persons walk away relatively uninjured? It really is not that easy. We are honest that those using firearms handle them safely and in a controlled state, right?
We already have knowledge, as the abc study explains of medical knowledge of what the body and mind does do during a 'fight or flight' situation. We also have the psychological knowledge of how the human brain handles the 'fight or flight' situation. What we really do not have, is the ability to replicate the study several times over (each carried out safely and in a controlled state) with individuals given different levels of training and placed in the same situation(s). There by creating a rather vast sum of knowledge we can tap to form a more educated argument on the nature of your original question.
So why don't we do this? Well, I think the 'Gun Nuts' and 'Control Nuts' are afraid that such knowledge would benefit the nation to the extent of better gun control laws. I'm not arguing for MORE or LESS gun laws; but for BETTER laws based on reasonably sound and well tested knowledge. If it was determined that a concealable carry firearm places one in a 'false sense of security' and places them in more trouble than if they did not have a firearm. Then we might weigh the decision on how often to allow a portion of the population to have them. If such studies explained how much knowledge / training needs to be initially taught and how often those skills need to be 'updated' might tell us how such laws need to be written to allow those US Citizens in good legal standing with the government to carry concealable firearms.
So we can remain as we are now and make arguments based wholly on fear and ignorance. Or we could honest study the heck out of this subject matter and determine in great detail the possible answers to the questions that lay before us. It will take courage and knowledge for these studies to be performed and validated as credible evidence. Courage and Knowledge is the opposite of fear and ignorance.
|
RE: Concealed Carry In Florida - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread