Re: Gun Control
States which have decided to allow citizens to carry firearms in public have a choice between what's called open carry (having the gun visible, much like a police officer) or concealed carry.
The benefits of conceal carry is the criminal doesn't know if you're armed or not. You're more likely to have your gun taken from you, if the criminal knows where it is. Also, criminals tend to attack people they consider to be easy targets. Suddenly finding a gun pointed at them may cause them to stop their actions.
The second benefit is the criminal may be wary of even attacking a person without a firearm, because they can't tell who has one and who hasn't. More people can benefit from the deterrent effect without having to carry.
The main problem with what the newspaper did is now criminals, who are seeking a source untraceable firearms, knows which homes to rob. They can watch the home, learn when the inhabitants are least likely be home, and break in. Just in case someone is home, they will be coming in armed and ready to kill.
Another problem is a woman hiding from a stalker or ex-husband may now have her name and address searchable, if she acquired a firearm permit to protect herself and her children.
Finally, any deterrent effect for the neighborhood is now canceled, because criminals know which homes are gun-free zones.
Law enforcement already know who the gun owners are and where they live. If those gun owners do anything which make them a potential danger to society (being convicted of a felony, found mentally ill, etc.) then they'll send a SWAT team down to collect the firearms.
Ironically, the good gun owners (who legally registered their firearms, obtained permits) are punished by what this newspaper has done, while the bad gun owners (criminals who don't register their firearms) have benefited.
Originally posted by matapule
View Post
The benefits of conceal carry is the criminal doesn't know if you're armed or not. You're more likely to have your gun taken from you, if the criminal knows where it is. Also, criminals tend to attack people they consider to be easy targets. Suddenly finding a gun pointed at them may cause them to stop their actions.
The second benefit is the criminal may be wary of even attacking a person without a firearm, because they can't tell who has one and who hasn't. More people can benefit from the deterrent effect without having to carry.
The main problem with what the newspaper did is now criminals, who are seeking a source untraceable firearms, knows which homes to rob. They can watch the home, learn when the inhabitants are least likely be home, and break in. Just in case someone is home, they will be coming in armed and ready to kill.
Another problem is a woman hiding from a stalker or ex-husband may now have her name and address searchable, if she acquired a firearm permit to protect herself and her children.
Finally, any deterrent effect for the neighborhood is now canceled, because criminals know which homes are gun-free zones.
Law enforcement already know who the gun owners are and where they live. If those gun owners do anything which make them a potential danger to society (being convicted of a felony, found mentally ill, etc.) then they'll send a SWAT team down to collect the firearms.
Ironically, the good gun owners (who legally registered their firearms, obtained permits) are punished by what this newspaper has done, while the bad gun owners (criminals who don't register their firearms) have benefited.
Comment