An armed society is a polite society

[billh58]

Oh really?

Fact-check: Various studies suggest that being armed increases your chances of getting into a confrontation.

• Nine percent of Americans report signs of "impulsive angry behavior" (such as breaking things and getting into fights)—and say they own a gun.

• Drivers who carry guns are 44 percent more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77 percent more likely to follow them aggressively.

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10 percent increase in homicides.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Note: Sources for the statistics available at the linked page (URL-linked highlights in article).

When the right-wing gun lobby pushes through their "constitutional carry" insanity, it will be refreshing to know that potential felons with a CCW will be allowed to roam the country looking for victims while carrying their precious, and drivers with road rage tendencies will use our national highways while armed and dangerous. Current background checks do not uncover sociopathic mental issues. Hate speech alone does not kill. Hate speech while armed can, and does kill.

The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the right-wing's poster boys in the SCOTUS, does not automatically bestow the right to carry a gun in the public venue. That is just a extremist gun owner's wet dream.

[guillaumeb]

1. If an armed society is a more polite society,

Trump would not be President-elect.

His ignorance and various other pathologies would have immediately made voters reject him.

[billh58]

2. Great observation!

Protecting the Republic from tyranny, AND electing Trump don't exactly point to compatible outcomes do they?

[guillaumeb]

3. No, and allowing people with literally no training to carry guns

never leads to good outcomes either. Almost as if the NRA wants to see more violence so that the NRA can convince more Americans of the necessity of being armed at all times.

Great for weapons manufacturers and their paid lobbyists. Not so great for the majority of Americans who do not have a gun, nor for the many gun owners who are at more risk of gun violence merely by having guns in the house.

[lastlib]

10. My response to that: Somalia.

Where every snot-nosed twerp able to walk was carrying an Uzi during their civil war, Somalia was probably the least-polite place on earth.

[guillaumeb]

11. An excellent observation.

More people carrying weapons inevitably means more people using those weapons.

[flamin lib]

4. When I wore a younger man's cowboy boots I went to as many

honky tonks and flirted with as many women as any of my friends. Never once had to defend myself. Had a couple of friends with various colord belts in Karate. Seems they had to defend themselves at least twice a month.

Funny how that works out . . .

[billh58]

6. Yep, funny how someone becomes

six feet tall and bulletproof when equipped with a false sense of superiority. The old saying "discretion is the better part of valor," is very true, and when confronted with a "fight or flight" situation, the wise choice is almost always flight.

[flamin lib]

8. Won my last fight by 40 yards . . . nt

[billh58]

9. LOL!

A friend of mine used to say, "I can run faster scared than you can mad."

[Truth321]

5. Only the government can be trusted with guns

[billh58]

7. Not sure that I would agree

with that statement, but I understand the emotion behind it. When you get right down to it, "the government" is us, and is made up of ordinary everyday Americans just like you and me. The FBI agent, the cop on the beat, the soldier, sailor, airman, national guardsman, are all part of the fabric of our society.

"Trust," as we have heard so often, is not given freely and blindly, but is earned over time. The right-wing gun lobby insists that we "must" trust all CCW holders just because they have passed a weakly structured "background check" which only means that they have not been caught doing anything illegal. A background check does not investigate an applicant for spousal abuse, alcoholism, mental disorders, or any of a multitude of potentially disqualifying conditions for gun ownership.

The real issue is why do I have to "trust" someone I don't know to carry a gun on the same sidewalk that I use just because they are paranoid or apprehensive? Those emotions in and of themselves would be reason to make me wary of such people.

For the most part, the minority of Americans who own guns can be trusted to keep their precious at home. Public carry -- not so much.