Support for CA Bill AB357
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
From: San Jose
Support for CA Bill AB357
Hello Everyone,
I just wanted to bring this bill to the attention of all CA S2000 owners who are also gun owners. Please check this out and write to your CA State Senator and State Assembly Representative in support of this bill if you feel compelled to do so.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=347939
Here is a form letter I wrote personally that you are welcome to use for your own support if you want to. Just change the name of the politician, your name, and your city on the letter to reflect your own individual situation.
Dear State Senator (or State Assembly Representative "include name"):
I am writing in support of a very important piece of legislation that was introduced by California State Assembly Member Knight. This very important piece of legislation is AB357. As a voter who supported you in the last election, I would like to ask you to vote in favor of this legislation. It is time that the residents of the great State of California are granted the same 2nd Amendment rights as the vast majority of U.S. Citizens across this country and are allowed to carry concealed weapons if they go through an approved background check process and have been deemed responsible citizen gun owners.
I have discussed this matter with many members of my community here in (Your City) and, as responsible gun owners, we will all be keeping a close eye on this bill and whether or not you support it when it comes up for a vote. Your vote on this issue will naturally have an effect on our voting patterns in the future. This piece of legislation is very personally important to the responsible gun owning citizens here in (Your City) and across our great State of California. Please vote in support of AB357. Thank you for your time and I hope you have a great day.
Sincerely,
(Your Name)
I just wanted to bring this bill to the attention of all CA S2000 owners who are also gun owners. Please check this out and write to your CA State Senator and State Assembly Representative in support of this bill if you feel compelled to do so.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=347939
Here is a form letter I wrote personally that you are welcome to use for your own support if you want to. Just change the name of the politician, your name, and your city on the letter to reflect your own individual situation.
Dear State Senator (or State Assembly Representative "include name"):
I am writing in support of a very important piece of legislation that was introduced by California State Assembly Member Knight. This very important piece of legislation is AB357. As a voter who supported you in the last election, I would like to ask you to vote in favor of this legislation. It is time that the residents of the great State of California are granted the same 2nd Amendment rights as the vast majority of U.S. Citizens across this country and are allowed to carry concealed weapons if they go through an approved background check process and have been deemed responsible citizen gun owners.
I have discussed this matter with many members of my community here in (Your City) and, as responsible gun owners, we will all be keeping a close eye on this bill and whether or not you support it when it comes up for a vote. Your vote on this issue will naturally have an effect on our voting patterns in the future. This piece of legislation is very personally important to the responsible gun owning citizens here in (Your City) and across our great State of California. Please vote in support of AB357. Thank you for your time and I hope you have a great day.
Sincerely,
(Your Name)
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
No. Show me evidence that concealed-carry laws reduce gun violence and maybe I'll rethink it, but as far as I'm concerned, the solution to gun violence and fear in our communities is not to allow people to carry concealed weapons in public. Like taking off your shoes at the airport, it may make you feel safer, but it doesn't actually make society safer. You can't make a mistake and shoot someone by accident if you aren't carrying a firearm.
Quick2K
Quick2K
Registered User
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,284
Likes: 1
From: Modesto, CA
Originally Posted by Quick2K,Mar 1 2009, 10:47 PM
No. Show me evidence that concealed-carry laws reduce gun violence and maybe I'll rethink it, but as far as I'm concerned, the solution to gun violence and fear in our communities is not to allow people to carry concealed weapons in public. Like taking off your shoes at the airport, it may make you feel safer, but it doesn't actually make society safer. You can't make a mistake and shoot someone by accident if you aren't carrying a firearm.
Quick2K
Quick2K
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,666
Likes: 0
From: Georgia
Originally Posted by Quick2K,Mar 1 2009, 10:47 PM
No. Show me evidence that concealed-carry laws reduce gun violence and maybe I'll rethink it, but as far as I'm concerned, the solution to gun violence and fear in our communities is not to allow people to carry concealed weapons in public. Like taking off your shoes at the airport, it may make you feel safer, but it doesn't actually make society safer. You can't make a mistake and shoot someone by accident if you aren't carrying a firearm.
Quick2K
Quick2K
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
I still think that the most likely result of pulling your own concealed weapon on someone who's got a gun trained on you is the death of one or both parties. If someone's going to shoot you, they're going to shoot you and I doubt that in most situations you would have to time to reach for a weapon, load it, turn off the safety, aim and fire before you were shot yourself. Now, by attempting to "protect yourself and the ones you love" you have gotten yourself, or your companions, killed, even though you probably would have just lost your wallet and had to suffer the convenience of canceling credit cards and going to the DMV for a new license.
Some people seem to fantasize that they will be in a bank when a couple of armed robbers order everyone to the floor. You pull your concealed weapon and fire. Unless you manage to drop all the assailants with neat head shots (perhaps you've been practicing on Counter-Strike), someone's likely to end up dead. Maybe you, maybe the perp, maybe some innocent mother or daughter that is accidentally caught in the cross-fire.
Is having a concealed weapon a net social benefit, here? Or is it better to just allow the perps to make off with the Federally insured contents of the bank registers?
Having a gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone in your family will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner. In 1997 the FBI Supplementary Homicide report found that for every one instance of someone using a firearm in self defense (concealed or not), 43 people were killed in gun violence. More than 50% of all gun deaths are suicides, and in a household with a gun, a person is almost five times more likely to die by suicide than a person living in a gun-free home.
I don't wish death by firearms upon anyone, and your household firearm is more likely to inflict pain or death upon you or a family member than upon an unknown assailant.
That is why I said that carrying a weapon is like taking your shoes off at the airport. It may make you feel safe and powerful, but it doesn't actually improve security - at worst, it could make you less safe. Look at what happened with Plaxico Burress and his (albeit illegal) concealed firearm.
I understand that legal or not people will carry, but I don't want my society to be overrun with weapons.
Some people seem to fantasize that they will be in a bank when a couple of armed robbers order everyone to the floor. You pull your concealed weapon and fire. Unless you manage to drop all the assailants with neat head shots (perhaps you've been practicing on Counter-Strike), someone's likely to end up dead. Maybe you, maybe the perp, maybe some innocent mother or daughter that is accidentally caught in the cross-fire.
Is having a concealed weapon a net social benefit, here? Or is it better to just allow the perps to make off with the Federally insured contents of the bank registers?
Having a gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone in your family will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner. In 1997 the FBI Supplementary Homicide report found that for every one instance of someone using a firearm in self defense (concealed or not), 43 people were killed in gun violence. More than 50% of all gun deaths are suicides, and in a household with a gun, a person is almost five times more likely to die by suicide than a person living in a gun-free home.
I don't wish death by firearms upon anyone, and your household firearm is more likely to inflict pain or death upon you or a family member than upon an unknown assailant.
That is why I said that carrying a weapon is like taking your shoes off at the airport. It may make you feel safe and powerful, but it doesn't actually improve security - at worst, it could make you less safe. Look at what happened with Plaxico Burress and his (albeit illegal) concealed firearm.
I understand that legal or not people will carry, but I don't want my society to be overrun with weapons.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
From: San Jose
JmanS2K is exactly right. Having concealed carry laws that allow qualified, law-abiding citizens to carry concealed sidearms goes a long way in keeping everyone honest. Criminals can easily spot a cop in uniform while thinking about whether or not to perpetrate a crime. However, a criminal living in a state with CCW friendly laws will not be able to determine whether any citizen around them is carrying a sidearm or not. No criminal wants to get shot and no criminal wants to get caught.
Criminals will be able to acquire weapons and conceal them on their person whether it is legal to do so or not. It is the law abiding citizen who pays the price if the law doesn't allow them to carry weapons to defend themselves should a criminal act occur around them or to them.
If a situation like the Virginia Tech shootings where 33 people were killed and 15 injured in April of 2007 were to occur here in CA, the fallout would be immense. However, if a law abiding citizen who happens to be there that day has a CCW and is carrying, he might be able to save more than a few lives, his own included.
In a situation where deadly weapons are involved, calling 9-1-1 will allow the police and emergency services enough time to show up with the body bags. If the police don't show up soon enough to save your life, your family cannot hold them liable in a court of law for failing to prevent your wrongful death. So, logically, if the police are not held responsible for your personal safety, who is? That responsibility, my friend, falls squarely on your own shoulders. Knowing that, I'd feel a lot better if the law evened up the playing field between me and the crazies and criminals out there who are going to be packing anyway.
There is no reason why a properly trained, law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to carry a concealed sidearm on his person to defend himself or his loved ones should an unfortunate criminal act occur to him or around him. Let me leave you with a quote to drive the point home from one of the more notable thinkers in human history.
"When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred." - Machiavelli
Criminals will be able to acquire weapons and conceal them on their person whether it is legal to do so or not. It is the law abiding citizen who pays the price if the law doesn't allow them to carry weapons to defend themselves should a criminal act occur around them or to them.
If a situation like the Virginia Tech shootings where 33 people were killed and 15 injured in April of 2007 were to occur here in CA, the fallout would be immense. However, if a law abiding citizen who happens to be there that day has a CCW and is carrying, he might be able to save more than a few lives, his own included.
In a situation where deadly weapons are involved, calling 9-1-1 will allow the police and emergency services enough time to show up with the body bags. If the police don't show up soon enough to save your life, your family cannot hold them liable in a court of law for failing to prevent your wrongful death. So, logically, if the police are not held responsible for your personal safety, who is? That responsibility, my friend, falls squarely on your own shoulders. Knowing that, I'd feel a lot better if the law evened up the playing field between me and the crazies and criminals out there who are going to be packing anyway.
There is no reason why a properly trained, law-abiding citizen should not be allowed to carry a concealed sidearm on his person to defend himself or his loved ones should an unfortunate criminal act occur to him or around him. Let me leave you with a quote to drive the point home from one of the more notable thinkers in human history.
"When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred." - Machiavelli
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
From: San Jose
Quick2K, in your quote:
"In 1997 the FBI Supplementary Homicide report found that for every one instance of someone using a firearm in self defense (concealed or not), 43 people were killed in gun violence." --This statistic tells me nothing. Are you saying that if that 1 in 43 didn't use his gun in self defense, there would just be 44 people killed in gun violence? If this is a valid statistic, I want to know what parameters the FBI used in collecting these numbers and throwing them together to be used in some type of logical statistical data report. One of the biggest pet peeves gun owners have is how all types of gun control groups throw together bogus statistics to try and sell the public on gun control. And believe me, the FBI, like most law enforcement agencies, can be considered a very strong gun control group. They don't like the idea of ordinary citizens walking around with guns on the streets. People are harder to control that way.
"More than 50% of all gun deaths are suicides, and in a household with a gun, a person is almost five times more likely to die by suicide than a person living in a gun-free home." --If someone wants to kill themselves, they are going to find a way to do it no matter what. This statistic again tells me nothing. How about telling me what the ratio is of gun suicides to non-gun suicides regardless of whether or not guns are in the home at the time of the suicides? Don't forget to include the number of suicides that occur at National Parks, off of bridges or high rises, and any other place someone might possibly think of creatively killing themselves. That might actually be a more useful statistic in convincing me that guns are a menace and that no one should be allowed to own one.
A lot of gun control advocates are the biggest hypocrites. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is one of the biggest proponents of gun control in the country. However, she carries a gun herself. How do I know? She "forgot" she had it when going through the metal detector at the airport a few years back. I just love how politicians like her think that their lives are more important than those of their constituents.
The bottom line is this. If no one in the world owned a gun, I would be completely comfortable not owning one either. But if there is even one guy out there running around with a gun, I am going to want one to make sure he is kept honest.
"In 1997 the FBI Supplementary Homicide report found that for every one instance of someone using a firearm in self defense (concealed or not), 43 people were killed in gun violence." --This statistic tells me nothing. Are you saying that if that 1 in 43 didn't use his gun in self defense, there would just be 44 people killed in gun violence? If this is a valid statistic, I want to know what parameters the FBI used in collecting these numbers and throwing them together to be used in some type of logical statistical data report. One of the biggest pet peeves gun owners have is how all types of gun control groups throw together bogus statistics to try and sell the public on gun control. And believe me, the FBI, like most law enforcement agencies, can be considered a very strong gun control group. They don't like the idea of ordinary citizens walking around with guns on the streets. People are harder to control that way.
"More than 50% of all gun deaths are suicides, and in a household with a gun, a person is almost five times more likely to die by suicide than a person living in a gun-free home." --If someone wants to kill themselves, they are going to find a way to do it no matter what. This statistic again tells me nothing. How about telling me what the ratio is of gun suicides to non-gun suicides regardless of whether or not guns are in the home at the time of the suicides? Don't forget to include the number of suicides that occur at National Parks, off of bridges or high rises, and any other place someone might possibly think of creatively killing themselves. That might actually be a more useful statistic in convincing me that guns are a menace and that no one should be allowed to own one.
A lot of gun control advocates are the biggest hypocrites. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is one of the biggest proponents of gun control in the country. However, she carries a gun herself. How do I know? She "forgot" she had it when going through the metal detector at the airport a few years back. I just love how politicians like her think that their lives are more important than those of their constituents.
The bottom line is this. If no one in the world owned a gun, I would be completely comfortable not owning one either. But if there is even one guy out there running around with a gun, I am going to want one to make sure he is kept honest.