I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

Not very good with logic, eh?

More matches and blow torches = more fires

More cars with unregulated safety = more car deaths

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

Almost every single gun in the US was lawfully owned at some point.

[Anonymous]

Starting to think that DC should have its own stand your ground law. It needn't be a permissive as in Florida, but enough that a street punk thinks twice about carjacking, assault and armed robbery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

Not very good with logic, eh?

More matches and blow torches = more fires

More cars with unregulated safety = more car deaths

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

Almost every single gun in the US was lawfully owned at some point.

The more sane law abiding citizens with guns, the greater the odds that a criminal will face consequences outside of the current “catch and release” criminal justice system. So, yes in those instances there would be an increase in gun violence.

If you don’t like people having guns then go to a country where they are not allowed or get both houses of Congress to pass the legislation with the appropriate majority and the 3/4 of the states needed to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Until then people will do what the need to do to remain safe in an increasingly dangerous and lawless work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

Not very good with logic, eh?

More matches and blow torches = more fires

More cars with unregulated safety = more car deaths

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

Almost every single gun in the US was lawfully owned at some point.

I’m great at logic. I don’t corrupt my analysis ab initio by deciding that guns are bad and every use of them is wicked, evil “violence.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Including the criminals!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Including the criminals!

They get them by default.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Including the criminals!

They get them by default.

Yes, at a minimum the court system should fine criminals that use guns an amount equal to what law abiding citizens have to pay to obtain a CCW permit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starting to think that DC should have its own stand your ground law. It needn't be a permissive as in Florida, but enough that a street punk thinks twice about carjacking, assault and armed robbery.

Law-abiding voters a sitting ducks under the current system and our criminals are extremely aware of it. See the story from earlier this week of the carjackers returning to taunt their victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This you OP? Or not yet?

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-man-facing-charges-after-shooting-two-men-who-allegedly-robbed-him-police-say-northeast-crime-gun-violence-robbery

No indication in this story that he had a carry permit.

CCW won't matter if you're just taking revenge on someone who robbed you. Notice how his gun didn't help him defend himself.

Does DC have a gun range for these guys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.

Not very good with logic, eh?

More matches and blow torches = more fires

More cars with unregulated safety = more car deaths

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

Almost every single gun in the US was lawfully owned at some point.

I’m great at logic. I don’t corrupt my analysis ab initio by deciding that guns are bad and every use of them is wicked, evil “violence.”

No, your analogies were crap.

And I didn’t decide that “guns are bad and every use of them is wicked, evil ‘violence’”. Strawman.

I don’t want to ban guns. I want common sense gun laws. As any responsible gun owner would support.

[Anonymous]

“Common sense”

These rare difficult times my friend.

These days we can’t even agree on the definition of “woman” though it was common knowledge a few years ago.

:shrug:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Common sense”

These rare difficult times my friend.

These days we can’t even agree on the definition of “woman” though it was common knowledge a few years ago.

:shrug:

How about Swiss gun laws - we like that level of “common sense”?

[Anonymous]

US has more than enough gun laws already. Convicted of a crime using a gun then get an extra 20-25 years added to the sentence. Problem with criminal gun violence drops drastically.

Of course need the police to arrest and prosecute rd to prosecute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Your obvious Freudian slip is 100% correct - gun control does nothing to take away guns from the people who shouldn’t have them.

It’s only about punishing the people who follow laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

Sorry but the data says otherwise. The more guns, the more gun violence.

I was in a large building in northern Virginia a few weeks ago that probably had 200,000 guns and 5,000 people shopping for guns.

According to your histrionics, none of us should have even survived being there, with that many guns on hand. How is it even possible we all lived?