Should We Eliminate Concealed Carry?

Today’s media is saturated with pro and con comments about guns and whether we actually need them in our society. Gun control started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act as an attempt to get rid of the “gangster weapons” used during the alcohol prohibition days. Federal, state and private organizations continue implementing numerous gun restriction proposals to this day without solving our social violence problems.
Everyone agrees that gun violence is an actual threat in our society, but, no one seems able to apply a “real” solution. Regardless of constant “gun control” efforts over the last 78 years; the Unites States remains as the most violent nation on earth. Are guns the actual cause of our problems?
Anti-gun proponents argue; “guns were necessary in the early years of this nation, however, today we don’t need them anymore…let the police and military take care of our security needs; we are now a civilized nation…other countries experience less violence because they don’t allow gun owner freedoms that we have”.
This controversy continues to stir up emotional attention along with new laws; none of which have solved the problem. Pro-gun extremists want to remove all restrictions on guns and gun haters want to remove all guns from society…the solution lies somewhere between.

Anti-gun proponents will only help reduce the legal and illegal demand for guns by focusing on effective crime reduction. Excessive violence in this country has accelerated growth of concealed carry permit applications to over 8 million with no end in sight.
Gun use by criminals is not the issue…why are these offenses being committed?
Where are our civil leaders? They need to set politics aside and realize the solution to violence in this country is to go after the “gangsters”…not the “gangster weapons”.
In the meantime…Keep on packin dude.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Should We Eliminate Concealed Carry?

  1. Anonymous

    I wish there was some way to convince our government representatives that the logical solution is not the guns but the people who misuse them. anti-gun legislation only affects the every day citizen who is the only one that would abide by any restrictive legislation which is passed. the solution in my opinion is to give strict long sentences to those who use guns in the commission of a crime, this is with no early parole option. this would get them off the street for a period of time.

    thanks

    Like

    Reply
    1. Watchatree

      It sounds like you just found a gap in the maerkt there.All that’s needed is a bunch of nifty stickers and a mall operator who would like some free air time.The MSM may not like to report legitimate CCW use or the relationship between their sacred “disarmed victim zones” and mass public murdering sprees.How about a mall operator making safety one of the maerkting points of their mall:”We have the latest fire detection and fire fighting equipment, all of our staff are trained in first aid and using defibrilators, and we not only allow concealed carry , we positively encourage it…. show a CCW permit and get a free coffee & muffin at any of our coffee shops…”The MSM could ignore it if they like, but I bet it would work. and if the MSM try to decry it, then they’d better come up with the figures

      Like

      Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Love your product, and your comments. But you keep saying things like “…the Unites States remains as the most violent nation on earth…” as you did in this column. Not even close to being true. Check sources that keep records, and you will see that the U.S. is roughly in the middle of the pack of the world’s nations, in terms of internal violence, murder rates, etc. For instance the U.N. list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
    shows the U.S. is 108th down the list for intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population. Give us the respect we deserve, along with preserving our freedom to protect ourselves.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Ayyub

      nebraska bloggrass I am not aurging for a lot of security guards. You can do the math, but when you have a public place only a very small percentage of people have to have permit to have the place covered. Let me help you out though, if 3 percent of people have permitted concealed handguns, on average one out of every 33 people will be able to be their to protect themselves and others.

      Like

      Reply
  3. winston7

    “Should We Eliminate Concealed Carry?” Absolutely, for those of us who are mentally healthy and emotionally stable. After all, when seconds count the police are minutes away. That should mean a lot to each of us for our personal safety and defense and for our loved ones and our personal property. If we do not exercise our right to bear arms, and to carry for our stated (above) purpose of self defense, who are we really going to count on to provide that immedinate protection when we need it? Or, are we to wait for emergency services personnel to come clean up the bloody mess that some intruder or gang banger made out of our body? Hell no! And I do not want some semi-brain dead Senator or Congressman telling me I do not need to weaponize myself for their political gain. They can “stick it” for all I care because they are not upholding their sworn oath to preserve and protect my rights granted me in the Constitution and Bill of Rights… nor are they ensuring the Rule of Law is being fulfilled in the judicial system by letting criminals roam free by just smacking their hands as a penalty. This nation has become so upside down that its becoming the laughing stock of the global community.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Priyanka

      “More guns are bad. Less guns are good”Speaking of logic, this is known as a non sequitur…but I’m sure you aldaery knew that. This means you will also acknowledge that building an argument from this fallacious axiom (statement of truth) will inevitably result in a worthless mess.Nobody is suggesting that guns are magical amulets of protection. The absence of them guarantees the absence of certain life saving options. The presence of them, and thereby the presence of such options, may have saved lives. Maybe just one life…maybe many more. Aren’t the anti-gun zealots the first to trot out the “if it saves just one life” line?Kinda reveals the fraud, doesn’t it?”security should have had guns, and they should have had the courage”Yes…they should have. Shame they didn’t. Shame it took a bunch of dead people to figure that out. How many lives do you think you can save with a “should have”?-dk

      Like

      Reply
    2. Gleiza

      there is no evidence that a CCW hoeldr could have prevented such an act because EVERY mass shooting happens in a place that a lawful citizen cannot legally carry their gun… and if you think that a mall guard that makes $8 a hour is going to charge head long into a shooting, you are really smoking some good stuff…the only chance to stop a situation like that comes from one of the victims taking a stand. and if those victims are unarmed against a person with a rifle, they cannot make much of a stand.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s