Why do so many on DU seem to be against concealed carry?

[Moral Compass]

70. Let me ask an alternate question...

Why are there so many on DU that avidly support gun rights including concealed carry?

I'm not comfortable around people that are carrying because of many things: the potential for accident, escalation of arguments into armed violence, my feeling that I'd better watch my step around someone packing, and just generally not wanting to live in an armed society.

The barriers to license are very low in most states and I don't know if they include any sort of psychological testing. Some of those I know that have CCL's I'm perfectly comfortable around. There are several I know that their being armed creates fear in me. These guys and gals are not quite right in the head, but they're armed. I think they'll be okay, but I'm grateful that my workplace doesn't allow guns on the premises.

Sometimes, when it comes to guns this site sounds really right wing. Since it is okay at DU to curse and directly attack the person not the argument--it gets nasty quickly. The gun folks seem to have, for lack of a better term, a hair trigger temper when it comes to guns.

Right now is an especially bad time to support CC and other 'liberties'. There are a lot of people that are very upset about what just happened. My wife, my daughters, and I have all cried at the thought of these small children being gunned down by a deranged psychopath. It is only natural that there will be calls for restrictions on magazine size, ammunition type, and assault weapons. None of these laws would affect CC. It's really hard to carry a Bushmaster and conceal it--the long coat is an obvious give away.

These calls for action are all part of the national grieving. I've become pretty inured to these mass shootings, but this one really got to me.

Ultimately, we also will have to talk about mental health and our society deciding to close our mental hospitals. It sounds like there were ample signs that Adam Lanza was a very troubled young man that had shown a capacity for violence for many years. His mother was a gun enthusiast and would take her children shooting. This was, as is so clear now, a recipe for disaster and it cost her her life. Then it cost 26 others their lives. We will also have to talk about ultra-violent video games that objectify the enemy and teaches people how to react quickly with deadly violence. The Army and Marine Corp use violent video games to train now. Do you think that is any accident?

What Nancy Lanza was doing was analogous to training an arsonist on how to set fires. She'd told a young man that baby sat Adam that he should never turn his back on him (I'm astounded that he took the job) when Adam was 9 or 10. So, she taught him to shoot. Unfortunately, he learned well. Does that make sense to anyone reading this?

Legislation can only help somewhat. But it could help. If he'd had only a revolver or a bolt action hunting rifle then how many more would be alive today? These weapons that we can all carry if we wish are designed for mass slaughter. There will be many more incidents like these before we can, as a society, come to a viable action plan.

This can't be addressed with a single law. The problem is, unfortunately, multifaceted.

The argument we will have to have will be about competing rights. Your right to feel comfortable while armed vs. right to not be surrounded by armed people. The rights of the mentally ill to walk free vs. the right of society to protect it's citizens from the inevitable meltdowns of the mentally ill... The rights of the avid gamers against the rights of society as a whole...

We've got a lot to talk about you and me and everyone else here.

But remember this--your rights to swing your arms ends at the point that you impact my jaw. Actually, your rights to swing your arms ends when I feel threatened by your swinging arms. I feel threatened by being surrounded by people bearing weapons of mass death.

Ultimately, this conversation ends up in only one place. We will either restrict gun ownership or we will go the way of countries that have very weak governments and uncivil societies: Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, the Congo... It is our choice. Heinlein turns out to have been an idiot. An armed society is not a polite society. It is a deadly society.