I dont need a permit to defend my life, my property, or the lives and property of my friends and associates.

Either "what would HAVE happened if concealed carry..." or... "what WOULD'VE happened if concealed carry..." would work.
NOT, NOT, NOT....
"What would OF happened if concealed carry..."

I don't understand the point gun nuts make when they say that having a weapon on them will stop crime. Do you understand that if you kill someone else while trying to stop the bad guy you are responsible for the innocent bystanders death? I have been trained in the military and know how to, fire, clean, and fully operate many kinds of weapons. On top of that I have been in situations where I have had to fire my weapon back at people who were trying to kill me. I am uncomfortable carrying a firearm in the states because of the sheer destruction I would continue to cause by using it in stressful situations. What makes you think that average joe american is more qualified then I to stop an armed gunman, I know who is; the police. All conceal and carry people are alike, they are the wanna be heros who have never been in a major stressful situation that feel they know what they are doing, when in all reality they don't and only serve as a tool to get more people killed.

G.H.

You seem to have a major false premsie in your argument, that being the use of a firearm in defense of life or property will somehow always result in "kill[ing] someone else while trying to stop the bad guy."

And again: "I am uncomfortable carrying a firearm in the states because of the sheer destruction I would continue to cause by using it in stressful situations."

What? How do you reason that using a firearm for personal defense will inevitably result in innocent deaths? All one has to do to disprove this argument is imagine a scenario where it is you, alone, assaulted by a lone perp. In this instance, if you cannot defend yourself then who can?

The amount of training or professionalization of the police is moot when they cannot be on the scene at the moment your life or property is threatened.

This argument you are making is utterly ridiculous, and frankly, it's tired and worn; people have been arguing in terms of the "training" of the police versus the "indiscretion" of the average man for years. The fact is, it's a completely untenable argument.

You may also want to think twice before using military experience as a lynchpin in your argument, for example when you say something like:

"I have been trained in the military and know how to, fire, clean, and fully operate many kinds of weapons...What makes you think that average joe american is more qualified then I to stop an armed gunman" you are committing two gross errors in argument.

First, is the total conceit as if the government provided training is the only thing that enables one to properly defend themselves. Beyond being just a conceit, it is also easily defeated. What if I take a Personal Weapon Defense Course or an Enhanced Concealed Carry course? I have training now as well, correct? What if I am retired or reserve military, or am an off duty cop, do I simply lose my ability to adequately defend myself simply because I am not operating as an active agent of the State?

Second, you might want to consider that military and other State sponsored combatants don't exactly have the best track record for discerning use of firearms. Look at what happened with Blackwater in the Nisour Massacre. How many "average joes" hose 17+ unarmed civilians? Same thing with the atrocities only now be recently exposed in Afghanistan and Iraq by Stryker soldiers (and realistically, probably many others): how many "wanna be heroes" here in the states use their personal weapons to murdern innocent children and old men for nothing more than blood lust?

Training counts for a tinker's damn in terms of principle or ethic. Yet, you sit in a self-appointed point of moral superiority simply because you have received the State's training, as if this is the qualifier for personal defense. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people who carry personal firearms don't cause one ioata of the death and destruction the trained and "qualified" do.

Vae and Kendall

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

The ultimate hinge point that my argument comes down to is that the average person is ill equipped to respond in a stressful situation. Here is also what I am trained to do, in battle drill one alpha, you flank the enemy while having a support by fire. During all of the training the main thing that we were being taught was safety so we do not kill our friends. In the chaos of battle it is easy to kill your own men because of many types of factors and that is what we trained to stop. The average American in a given situation will usually act irrationally and providing them with a weapon will only make the situation worse. What I propose is a very high stress environment to train people who want to conceal and carry and actually show them what it is like. Force them into the life or death situation and make them understand that no matter how many times they fired at a paper target, staring a man down at the end of a barrel is a whole different matter.

I do not presume to be on a high horse for the training I received. I sit on a plethora of knowledge that allows me to make assertions based on the skill level I attained and first hand experiences I have gained.

This whole argument is based on the thought process that average people are not Rambo or Die Hard or Dirty Harry. They are normal individuals who do not understand that having a weapon on your person is not protection, it is destruction. That is the main purpose of the weapon, and when it comes down to it; I would prefer a person who is professionally paid and trained to be using it while I am in the area.

btw Kendall the link to the walgreens case was error 404 not found.

 <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

Theres where the line gets drawn, in that, I agree you should be able to own guns and keep them in your house. The problem is when it is around the general public that I have a problem. Thankfully the man that jumped over the counter was the robber and not an innocent bystander. Kudos to the employee that did that, but the simple fact is how much do you trust a stranger to be shooting a weapon at another person with a weapon while you or your kids are in the area. And on top of that, during one of the most stressful situations in their life. If thats going to be the case, privately owned stores that allow people to conceal and carry need to issue bullet proof vests for their customers while in the store.

The true problem is crime, and I propose education and programs to help the poor and criminals. Not more guns and conceal and carry permits so I or kids can be in the general area when massive shoot outs occur.

You already live in a police state because of the patriot act, just because their isn't cops on every corner doesn't mean that your rights are slowly being degraded to bring the illusion of security. How about caring less about the 2nd amendment and more about the 1st by using it to re-appeal the patriot act and forcing government to extend the bill of rights for every american against companies. i.e. Monsanto, Walmart. While you keep arming yourselves companies keep buying more and more of the government and shaping it into something that suits their needs rather then the working class or poor's needs.

I agree that any person who makes the decision to carry a firearm should have proper instruction and education in handling it. It is their right to have the means of self protection and not be forced to solely rely on "officials" to provide that protection. 

I have also been trained to handle firearms and have actually used them in a combat situation several times, kudos to the 82nd airborne, but I'm not about to say someone else doesn't have the right to be able to protect himself/herself if he/she chooses to. Make the training and certification required to attain a CCL better and thorough. I'm all for better educating people on how to handle a firearm. But a campus is no safer than any other place in which a CCL can be utilized. So why not campus too? Unless you don't think a citizen should be allowed to carry, period?

It may be true that some may not be up to the challenge of operating firearm in a stressful situation like being attacked by a violent criminal. But the mere doubt of a person not being able to is justification enough to leave that person without sufficient protection in case, God forbid, such a situation presents itself? Then what's the alternative? Just let them be at the mercy of the criminal?

There's no way in knowing who will be able to handle the stress successfully even with intense military training. But a person having the means alone is quite the deterrent.

I personally do not rely on law enforcement to protect my fiance, which is why I trained her and signed her up for a CCL class. I respect law enforcement and what they do but there's no way they can be everywhere every second. For the most part, they react to crimes that have been committed rather than stop them while they're being committed. I'm a little more at ease knowing my 5'4" fiance has got the equalizer at her side when I'm not there.

 <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

3rd ID and 10th mtn DIV here. I was in an infantry company attached to 82nd (i think white falcons) while I was in 3rd ID. Well I guess that I do believe that citizens should not be allowed to carry. It all comes down to how some one reacts in a stressful situation and the more guns out there in peoples hands provides a bleaker situation to get out of when the firing starts. The question is, has your fiance been shot at and is predictable when reacting to fire. Also are you prepared that once she starts firing she then will draw fire upon herself and position. Tracers work both ways, so does the muzzle flash. I would be more open to conceal and carry licenses if its just the people who have them are the ones involved when shoot outs take place. The problem is you can't stop the stray bullet and you cant get back someones life when they had nothing to do with the fire fight in the beginning. Lastly there needs to be comprehensive training almost to the point of emotional scaring to explain to people what they are signing up for.

If you are so adamant in “protecting” yourself buy a bullet proof vest, thats what protection is. Or mace, it works just as well and is very effective. If you want to carry a weapon around you need to be responsible for two things. 1. Saving peoples lives in a situation much like the Walgreens posting that Kendall submitted. Or 2. The deterioration of the situation and further destruction and deaths that ensue when using your fire arm does not work to diffuse the situation. So basically being the Walgreens employee who stopped the robbery, kudos. But if more people die returning fire during a shoot out you should be responsible for murder, if some one dies, because you help further the situation.

And there is a major chance of killing innocents because of it becoming a highly stressful situation and no one knows how people will react. Simple math states that the more weapons in the possession of people you will have more deaths because thats what fire arms are made for; to kill; not protect.

 <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

correction 2ID 3BDE.........dyslexia.

Nice, I was with white falcons. When were you attached? I don't think by people being allowed to have a CCL will result in a full blown gun battle erupting on the streets. CCL's are allowed now, and we never see that. So I think to make that assertion is false. And I'm merely pointing out that the right should be carried over to college campuses because I believe the ban on campuses itself seems to be arbitrary. 

1. How many people have been shot at and are predictable under fire? There's no way of knowing even in a combat unit much less private citizens, and I again believe the notion of a full fledge street gun battle is too extreme of a what if scenario to really even consider.

2. Am I prepared that once she starts firing that she will draw fire on her position? - Again, I think your making it out to be like a situation in Iraq or something as if my fiance will be taking on the drug cartel. My concern is her walking down the street alone and being assualted or her being car jacked, etc. Nor am I thinking of her seeing a robbery taking place across the street and her running in to save the day with her gun.

I don't understand your alternative to a citizen's ability of have a gun. You think a person is incapable of handling one especially under the circumstances in which they would have to use it. But the alternative could be their death or rape unless they're lucky enough to have law enforcement around to stop it. There isn't any reasoning to taking a person's right to bear arms other than your subjective viewpoint that guns are dangerous and people aren't responsible or capable enough to have them.

And I have to point out again, that CCL's are allowed and people do carry, yet, we haven't see gun battles in the streets erupting in which the citizens who carry these guns are accidentally shooting other civilians. So why would one assume this sort of thing would happen if allowed on campuses? I know my campus already allows us to have our weapon in our vehicles, but how drastic of step is it to allow it a step further?

There have been studies that show a direct relation in a drop of violent crime in places of high gun ownership among the private citizens. I believe the deterrence alone is significant.

Guns are dangerous and they are bad. But you can't disinvent them. So to disallow citizens to have them while only criminals can fully utilize their advantages is in itself way more dangerous, I think.

Good points Marcos, especially about the states with high numbers of gun owners. The evidence is overwhelming that where personal carry is prevalent, crime and particularly violent crime, is significantly lower than in other states with gun controls in place.

And G.H. you still never addressed the point I made in my first post about trained combatants wantonly killing innocents or consistently having high levels of 'collateral damage.' This totally blows a hole in your argument that training will provide a predictable behavior model for someone under fire.

Actually, one could make the argument that having been exposed to the rigors and stress of combat, a veteran soldier will be MORE likely to engage in using a weapon in public because of his training that has been so-called "stimulus-response conditioned."Please understand I am not making this argument myself, but the logic you have been using could be turned around to form such an argument. Something to keep in mind.

Besides, for the overwhelming majority of human history, the individual did not live underneath a state. Even professional combatants throughout the ages have fought as warriors outside the paradigm of the Nation State.

It has only been in the last three centuries that the State has established a monopoly on the use of armed force, i.e. the national army with soldiers, provided with State standards of training and indoctrination. Prior to this, individuals armed themselves as they pleased and employed force to protect themselves and their property without the purview of a State apparatus.

In these past times and places, for example in early colonial America, how do you account for the lack of massive gun battles in the streets or other violence amongst citizens? They were armed many times, and the State's activity in this area was minimal, yet the spontaneous violence and innocent death you keep warning of did not materialize.

In the end, the strongest argument is what Marcos has advanced:  you cannot predict who will behave "correctly" in a violent situation, and in so far as you are unable to, you must presume the citizen will be in possession of their faculties and use their weapon only for defense. To not do this, you are assuming culpability and inability to exercise a right prior to the citizen actually doing anything to warrant such a conclusion.

If you use this thought process, then not only would the 2nd Amendment be moot, but so would the 4th, 5th and many other aspects of our law.

 <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

This was in 2007 we were at COB Calahan. The Stryker guys who had the Indian head patch. Took one of your guys patrols during the day and did missions at night.

Marcos

1 Any exchange of gunfire can result in death and thats what I am against; the possible deterioration of a situation. You cant take back what has already happened (the stray bullet, the wrong response to a situation). The result is you are either a hero or a murderer because you are responsible for every bullet that leaves your weapon and should also be responsible if using that weapon made the situation worse.

2 Mace is just as effective – and your response might be that what if the bad guy has a gun, if its pointing at you, your already too late. Pulling out your weapon is the same roll of the dice as pulling out Mace would be.

3 Yes I do feel that the average American is incapable because the majority of people refuse to understand the implications and responsibility that goes along with carrying a weapon. And it is true that there is also a mindset that people who have a CCL and carry a weapon are bombarded with images of Dirty Harry and Rambo........ saving the day with their weapon. But the truth is most people who are trying to be Heros are the ones that get people killed.

4 This is not a situation for citizens accidentally shooting other civilians this is the conscious decision to carry a weapon and fire that weapon. The response of people who get shot at and have a weapon on them are, fight, or flight. Having a weapon in your hands when being shot at produces a more likely version that the person will shoot back.

5 Gun ownership has dropped violent crime: I believe that the statistic is referring to people owning and storing weapons at home. And yes go ahead, Have all the weapons you want in your house – more power to you. But the problem arises when you decide to take that weapon into the general public. I do not want to dis invent weapons I would just prefer that they not be around me or my future kids while I'm out in public.

By the way, I will own guns, eventually. The difference is I will keep them locked up securely at home.

Vae

1 Trained Combatants: the reason I didn't respond is that it is a small number of people you quote to me. Your argument is a generalization of the military. Thats why I didn't feel the need to address your point. Did Marcos and I kill any innocents during our tours, no, because we are the majority of people who don't do that while serving. To better explain to you how your argument came across: Timothy McVeigh and the guy who did the Norway shootings were both Christians and because of the atrocities committed we can assume that all Christians kill people. We all know this is untrue, and thats why I took offense to your argument and did what I felt was appropriate; ignore it.

2 stimulus-response conditioned is exactly the reason I choose not to carry a weapon. I understand that I am more likely to hunt people down and kill them when they have ill intent towards me with a weapon.

3 You cannot apply the 17-1800s to the present day. In colonial times people did not have hand guns as frequently as they do now. Also death shocked people, there is too big of a change from colonial times to the present day to present a valid point.

Lastly

“In the end, the strongest argument is what Marcos has advanced:  you cannot predict who will behave "correctly" in a violent situation, and in so far as you are unable to, you must presume the citizen will be in possession of their faculties and use their weapon only for defense. To not do this, you are assuming culpability and inability to exercise a right prior to the citizen actually doing anything to warrant such a conclusion.”

And given the current situation, if the person decides to use the weapon for “defense” because you stated above you cannot predict who will behave correctly in a violent situation, then that person is now either a hero, if no one got killed, or a murderer if someone dies because that is what the person signed up for in the first place when they made the conscious decision to use a weapon.

Vae

 1 Trained Combatants: the reason I didn't respond is that it is a small number of people you quote to me. Your argument is a generalization of the military. Thats why I didn't feel the need to address your point. Did Marcos and I kill any innocents during our tours, no, because we are the majority of people who don't do that while serving. To better explain to you how your argument came across: Timothy McVeigh and the guy who did the Norway shootings were both Christians and because of the atrocities committed we can assume that all Christians kill people. We all know this is untrue, and thats why I took offense to your argument and did what I felt was appropriate; ignore it.

Yes, exactly. That was the point of me making this observation, to highlight that these are generalizations that produce fallacies. When you say something to the effect that "the average American is incapable of responding correctly in a stressful, violent situation," you are committing the same fallacy you just took the time to explain! You just proved my argument.

 2 stimulus-response conditioned is exactly the reason I choose not to carry a weapon. I understand that I am more likely to hunt people down and kill them when they have ill intent towards me with a weapon. That's scary. As I said before, I was making this proposterous arugment to demonstrate how ludicrous the entire notion of the state divining who and who is not capable of carrying weapons for defense is. I was not actually expecting anyone to take it seriously. Have you considered that it is actually the fear you have of YOURSELF, i.e. of "hunt[ing] people down," that leads you to have such a pessimistic view of your fellow man? The old phrase 'speak for yourself' seems pretty apt.

 3 A You cannot apply the 17-1800s to the present day.  B In colonial times people did not have hand guns as frequently as they do now. C Also death shocked people, there is too big of a change from colonial times to the present day to present a valid point.

A) Why not? Are we not still human? Do we still not have crime and those who use violence?

B) First, that is not true. Second, even if it was, more men had personal weapons of one sort or another than they do now. If not a handgun, most gentlemen carried swords or a knife, and this only was more common teh farther back in history you move.

C) Death shocked people? What exactly is this suppossed to establish? Are people still not shocked by death? How do you qualify this? Even if you could, it is irrelevant to the argument. My right to self defense does not in ANY way rest on to what degree people are "shocked" or not about death. A crime is a crime, and I have every right to stop a criminal from harming me or stealing my property.

 Lastly

 “In the end, the strongest argument is what Marcos has advanced:  you cannot predict who will behave "correctly" in a violent situation, and in so far as you are unable to, you must presume the citizen will be in possession of their faculties and use their weapon only for defense. To not do this, you are assuming culpability and inability to exercise a right prior to the citizen actually doing anything to warrant such a conclusion.”

And given the current situation, if the person decides to use the weapon for “defense” because you stated above you cannot predict who will behave correctly in a violent situation, then that person is now either a hero, if no one got killed, or a murderer if someone dies because that is what the person signed up for in the first place when they made the conscious decision to use a weapon.

Now you are not even being coherent. What exactly are you trying to saying? If the person doesn't use a weapon for justifiable defense then they are a murderer? Agreed, and totally obvious. The question is, if someone decides to become a murderer and go on a spree, how do you limit the damage they will inflict when you have disarmed all of the peaceable and sane citizens who are not murderers?

Throughout this entire thread, you have consistently trapped yourself in your own false logic and ignored the fallacies running rampant in your reasoning, even when people call them out repeatedly.

As I said before, if you reject the right someone has to self defense based merely on what they MIGHT do wrong, then you have to reject presumption of innoncence, and most all of our Amendment rights, along with the ideology behind our limited, repulican form of government.

If you don't believe in personal liberty, then at least just come out and say it, instead of veiling it by making statements such as people can have all the guns they want in their home, but can't defend themselves in public, etc.

This is the facade that every statist totalitarian hides behind: feigning concern for their fellow man when in actuality you simply have not the least amount of respect for your fellow man. You disrespect your fellow man and fear him as you do yourself, and come to the conclusion that he is not fit for liberty.

The User Interface has been Microsoft Office 2010 tweaked to provide more visible work surface, and yet there are Office 2007 now tabs in the ribbon that completely hide MS office 2010 the work surface. For Outlook 2010 example, the "File" menu will open Microsoft Office a web-page-style layout that covers the entire window: it offers basic menu items on the left, some large-button Office 2010 download categorical options in the middle, and then refreshes Microsoft outlook the huge space on the right with large buttons for tOffice 2010 trial he basic features. Instead of menus and sub-menus it is now more like navigating Microsoft outlook 2010 a web site. After a little bit of time looking at the Office 2010 Ribbon and Menus, you'll start to understand Office 2010 product key exactly what's been done to Office this time Office 2010 around.

This question is very contradiciton. It will be the topic of a lot of <a href="http://www.example.com">essay writers</a>  

This question is very contradiciton. It will be the topic of a lot of <a href="http://www.essaywriters.net/">essay writers</a>  

Since the law applied only to citizens already authorized to carry under Oregon law, college campuses failed to become the breeding grounds of murder which panicked opponents predicted five months ago.