Results 1 to 15 of 53

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine View Post
    You advocate having everyone everywhere armed at all times
    Little haggy's record remains unblemished by the slightest tint of accuracy.

    Back to the subject:

    A few weeks ago, I responded to one of little Haggy's questions with:
    http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...637#post153637

    The 1% of the law-abiding public they take hostage, who happen to be carrying a compact pistol or whatever, is what's to stop them. IF carry were permitted, which at present it isn't in most places.

    Tha advantage of concealed carry lies in the fact that most of the public is good guys. The number of bad guys (terrorists, rapists, school shooters etc.) is quite small in comparison. If EVERYBODY were allowed to carry concealed weapons, most still wouldn't, of course. But a few good guys would. So if terrorists take an airport hostage, it's likely that out of the thousand or so people inside, a small number (10 or 20 maybe?) will probably be carrying. And the terrorists would have no idea which ones they are.

    But they can be pretty sure of getting a bullet from an unexpected direction, maybe several unexpected directions... and there won't be much they can do to avoid it. Terrorists aren't afraid to die, but they DO want to complete their mission, whatever it is... and having a number of concealed shooters waiting for them to turn their backs, will very likely foil their mission. As a result, MAYBE THE TERRORISTS WILL DECIDE NOT TO TAKE THE AIRPORT HOSTAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE. And that' s the best of all possible results of allowing universal concealed carry.
    Apparently little haggy is hoping that enough time has gone by since then, that people will forget what I pointed out, and enabling him to pretend I hadn't said it at all. Unfortunately for him, it's still on the board.

    As I pointed out then, the right of law-abiding sovereign citizens to carry concealed weapons, gives them their best defense against people like the guy in Hillary's office right now. Better than police, SWAT teams, etc., whom the perp can identify, watch, and react to. All of little haggy's chronic bombast, namecalling, and subject-changing can't create a better one.
    Last edited by Little-Acorn; 11-30-2007 at 04:52 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums