# Armed civilians



## kgoffin (Aug 29, 2012)

Armed citizen "saves the day" using a gun.  It's almost like guns are just tools in the hands of either good people or bad people.

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/customer-shoots-robber-dead/nRLjK/


----------



## Takai (Aug 29, 2012)

kgoffin said:


> Armed citizen "saves the day" using a gun.  It's almost like guns are just tools in the hands of either good people or bad people.



That's because they are.


----------



## kgoffin (Aug 29, 2012)

Exactly! Sorry, my sarcasm for anti gun crowd didn't come through there, and the quotes were a quote from the police in the article.  Most of the time when I see articles about CCW it is people freaking out about how society is about to regress to the "wild wild west" and acting as though responsible gun owners have less impulse control than a 5 year old who just slammed a bottle of mt. dew.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 30, 2012)

Speaking for myself, it isn't the majority of CCW people I worry about.  It is the ones who do not have the mental proclivity to hold that weapon of life and death.  My best friend carries.  Got no issue with it.  He's responsible and never pulls his gun in anger.  He also trains to upkeep his skills. Then I have a friend who likes to fantasize about using his gun.  He looks for excuses.  He has no bussiness carrying and I fear one day he will hurt someone or be hurt.  He also rarely trains in firearms.  Then there was a nieghbor of mine.  Six blocks from the house, she gets into a car accident.  She cut a guy off.  The guy was visibly upset, but not threatening her.  However, she read threat into his upset and shot him 5 times.  She is now doing time for manslaughter.

People are people.  That means you get the responsible and the irresponsible.  Using the last two instances in the above paragraph would not be a good reason to revoke conceal and carry for my best friend.  There might be things that can be discussed which in the end would slow the procurement of firearms for those not able to handle the responsibility.  However, using limited examples on either side then demanding an absolute doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Carol (Aug 30, 2012)

" A dead robber on the scene" and the accomplice -- not the citizen -- will be answering to the felony murder charge.  Somewhere, Coop is smiling.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 22, 2012)

I believe Jefferson stated that "an armed society is a polite society".  I'm in full support of trained, law abiding citizens being armed.  Throws a monkey wrench in the plans of the bad guys.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 22, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I believe Jefferson stated that "an armed society is a polite society".  I'm in full support of trained, law abiding citizens being armed.  Throws a monkey wrench in the plans of the bad guys.



I think it was Robert Heinlein, a noted science fiction author.  But the sentiment is a good one.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2012)

While I don't recall Jefferson mentioning anything about the politeness of an armed society, he did specify that it was a generally safer society.  Safer from criminals, invading armies, and governmental tyranny.

In my research, I've come to conclude that an armed society isn't necessarily any more "polite."   Politeness is a result of everyone understanding the potential consequences of their actions.  There are many reasons why the consequence of "death" may be accepted.  Historically, in the U.S., there were times when the *potential *consequence of death as a result of criminal action was far less sure that the *certain *consequence of starvation or immediate loss of livelihood from inaction.  In other words, "He *might *shoot me but I'm *sure *to starve if I don't rob him" has a certain definable weight.  Another historical reasons that the potential consequence of death may be accepted is the general lack of hope.  During 18th-19th Century Ireland, most of the young men and young women were socially disenfranchised and were more or less doomed to never be a landholder and always at the bottom of the social ladder.  Non-heir men were sometimes called "boy" throughout their entire life, for instance.  At that point you kinda think, "Live fast, die young."  Another historic reason is the general believe that life is cheap and you're likely to die young anyway.  This was pretty common among the inner-city poor of the 19th Century and, in fact, is still common today.  Yet another reason to ignore the potential consequence of death is if the loss of social status would be intolerable.  This didn't just apply to Landed Gentry engaging in duels, it applies to street gangs and every social strata in between.

Lots of other reasons, of course.  Money, politics, religion, etc.  You get the idea.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

