Reasons _not_ to get a Concealed Pistol License?

[NK777]

You do in fact seem to be conflicted PlayboyPenguin. You deny a moral code all the while displaying behavior that suggest you yourself were in fact born with a moral code. Of course now your going to again argue that you learned it all after birth. The first time you killed something (Ant, mouse, bird, etc.) I ask you how did it make you feel? You felt bad correct? You think you learned to feel bad? No sir that is your moral code you were born with that is telling you that senseless killing is in fact morally wrong. It has been scientifically proven that sane people feel remorse for murder! The only people who don't are insane or have been denying their moral code for so long that they have become numb to it.

 

[spengo]

You do in fact seem to be conflicted PlayboyPenguin. You deny a moral code all the while displaying behavior that suggest you yourself were in fact born with a moral code. Of course now your going to again argue that you learned it all after birth. The first time you killed something (Ant, mouse, bird, etc.) I ask you how did it make you feel? You felt bad correct? You think you learned to feel bad? No sir that is your moral code you were born with that is telling you that senseless killing is in fact morally wrong. It has been scientifically proven that sane people feel remorse for murder! The only people who don't are insane or have been denying their moral code for so long that they have become numb to it.

I dunno, I don't find that to be a very strong argument. By the time you are old enough to remember such an experience, you are certainly old enough to have been instilled with a morality of some kind. I do have my own moral code of a sort but I'm with playboypenguin that it was learned and developed rather than something I was born with.

EDIT: wait what the heck? I thought this thread was about concealed carry.

 

[NK777]

So your stating that you learned your emotions? I whole heartily disagree with that completely. Ridiculous you were certainly born with those.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Morality and guns have a rather long history. But then again I equate a great degree of morality with civilization.
Imagine if the immoral conquerers of Rome had to deal with firearmed opponents, like King George did?
I would imagine the result would have been similar, and Caesar would have stayed home and orgied in his baths.
Like it or not, the gun brought civilization and morality to a great many places, by providing equality in battle, and suppressing anarchy.
Equating it to survival of the fittest, it brought the mind and a sense of civility and justice to the fight.
No longer did the most physically superior rule the day. Tactics entered the equation and changed the game.
As far as morality and the law,...
It kind of depends on who wrote the law, and which side of it you're on!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You do in fact seem to be conflicted PlayboyPenguin. You deny a moral code all the while displaying behavior that suggest you yourself were in fact born with a moral code. Of course now your going to again argue that you learned it all after birth. The first time you killed something (Ant, mouse, bird, etc.) I ask you how did it make you feel? You felt bad correct? You think you learned to feel bad? No sir that is your moral code you were born with that is telling you that senseless killing is in fact morally wrong. It has been scientifically proven that sane people feel remorse for murder! The only people who don't are insane or have been denying their moral code for so long that they have become numb to it.

No, I learned a moral code and certain leanings were born into me that have been allowed to foster through hundreds of generations of "civilized" living. Trying to equate emotional response to morals is a dead end street. To a degree even your emotional responses are learned. You learn what makes you happy, what makes you sad, and what makes you uncomfortable. People raised in different cultures do not share the same emotional responses to the same stimuli. In cultures where killing for food is a way of life children do not suffer that strong feeling of sadness when an animal is killed. They have learned to equate the dying animal with food and happiness.

 

[NK777]

No, I learned a moral code and certain leanings were born into me that have been allowed to foster through hundreds of generations of "civilized" living. Trying to equate emotional response to morals is a dead end street. To a degree even your emotional responses are learned. You learn what makes you happy, what makes you sad, and what makes you uncomfortable. People raised in different cultures do not share the same emotional responses to the same stimuli. In cultures where killing for food is a way of life children do not suffer that strong feeling of sadness when an animal is killed. They have learned to equate the dying animal with food and happiness.

You agree then. You are born with a basic moral code and you just admitted it in plain text. Also you agreed that you are born with core emotions.

My example was senseless killing and the emotional response. Do not warp it into hunting for food because that is entirely different. Just the same as killing in self defense is clearly different then murder.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You agree then. You are born with a basic moral code and you just admitted it in plain text. Also you agreed that you are born with core emotions.

My example was senseless killing and the emotional response. Do not warp it into hunting for food because that is entirely different. Just the same as killing in self defense is clearly different then murder.

No, you must be reading something that is not there. I was not born with any moral code. I learned my moral code. Just as do people in other cultures. Some cultures have no issues with killing women who so much as disobey their father or husband. They would not understand you morals at all and would not have the same emotional response to such an event. You are not born knowing right from wrong. That is taught.

 

[cameronhu]

You agree then. You are born with a basic moral code and you just admitted it in plain text. Also you agreed that you are born with core emotions.

My example was senseless killing and the emotional response. Do not warp it into hunting for food because that is entirely different. Just the same as killing in self defense is clearly different then murder.

Actually, the science tends to support Penguin on this.

check out: http://www.feralchildren.com

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Actually, the science tends to support Penguin on this.

check out: http://www.feralchildren.com

Yes, modern science has almost always upheld the belief of learned morality. Inborn morality has always been a belief of more religious/philosophical crowds.

So trying to use morality to justify any stance, especially disobeying the law, is not a good way to go. Arguments in defense of the deed need to be stronger than that.

 

[NK777]

As I stated awhile ago we could probably discuss this forever and never convince each other, other wise. I believe that at the core of every human being in the beginning of their life there is some general core coding. You are born with core emotional responses to this code. You will forever deny this fact and that is okay just as long as you don't deny your moral code altogether.

I am no bible thumper and was raised pretty much devoid of such teaching so that is not where I am coming from. I do now believe in God however and have a tendency to agree with Christian ideas but with my eyes wide open. I do doubt that the bible is an accurate, perfect, account of historical events however. It has been translated many many many times and I believe the Roman Catholics chose to include and exclude what they wanted in it. Most people know or at least agree that the commandment "Thou shall not kill" is a misinterpretation. Most agree that what is meant by that commandment is that you should not murder or kill senselessly. Killing for food, self defense, defense of ones family, etc. is generally excepted to be justified.

I thought I was done with this thread days ago and wasn't going to respond to it anymore. I know I'm done with it now. No hard feelings here and FWIW I did really enjoy discussing this side topic.

I will address the original topic once more all be it repeating myself.

I do disagree with CHL permit law but being lawful I say get the permit if you believe in self defense and want to carry in public places. It is not worth the risk of losing your right to carry altogether so don't carry concealed without one. Know that you never need a gun until you need one desperately and if it's not readily accessible you will likely be victimized. If you are serious about protecting yourself, family, and/or the innocent and feel that you can make the correct choice should you be in a dire situation by all means apply for your permit and carry always. It is a large responsibility and you must carry safely and responsibly.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Comparing feral children in this debate is questionable at best. It is also a known fact that children raised without communication with other people suffer brain abnormalities. They don't develop normally. They weren't born that way, they don't grow right.
As long as there is civilization, morals will be connected to law. Laws will be centered around a moral code. Curiously, the oldest civilizations (in Arabia and eastern Asia) have had the harshest law(s).
Again, who's moral code is right is a matter of perspective.
To say that to obey or disobey the law is/should be based in morality itself is a mistake.
Does whether or not one obeys the law have moral consequences? Yes.
But when founding principles are subverted in the passage of a law, then the "moral" pendulum will swing the other way in restoring the principle that was subverted.
It is akin to passing a law to make an act illegal. The act done originally is exempt because the law came later, after the fact, "ex-post facto." If the gov't were to act without ex-post facto delineation, the moral issue would be further clouded, but the question would remain.
Was it amoral to commit the act or pass the law.
One has to decide for them self.

With the self serving record of our legislative and executive branches lately, I tend towards the belief that they are the ones that lack morals. Not the civilized society they are supposed to be governing. Laws these days are being written to address the criminal who should be incarcerated based on previous law.
The law, once applied (conviction) should be absolute.
And the body that administers it should be blind to influences outside the law.
That is the problem I have with judicial "empathy."

 

[cameronhu]

Comparing feral children in this debate is questionable at best.

I disagree. It's not a perfect test case, but if you are trying to determine whether someone is born with a stock set of morals or learns them, It's the closest you're going to come. Otherwise the argument is based solely on conjecture.

This argument:

It is also a known fact that children raised without communication with other people suffer brain abnormalities.

is after the fact. The argument I'm addressing is whether or not you are born with morals or learn them.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I disagree. It's not a perfect test case, but if you are trying to determine whether someone is born with a stock set of morals or learns them, It's the closest you're going to come. Otherwise the argument is based solely on conjecture.

You have to understand that conjecture is all a lot of people have when they so badly wish something is true that there is no evidence of actually being true. Arguing with them is like trying to counter faith with fact. They will hear none of it if it does not conform to their belief system.

is after the fact. The argument I'm addressing is whether or not you are born with morals or learn them.

And it is actually a gross misrepresentation. The way that was worded makes it sound like children raised without language suffer brain damage. That is not true. There brains just fail to develop in the the sections associated with language which leaves them deficient compared to normally developed children.

It all ends up back to the point we started where I said being "morally" right is not a valid reason to secretly break the law. As I already said, people have no real idea how most laws came about and no real knowledge at how disastrous true morality based laws have been throughout history nor how the very method they are using to defend their civil disobedience (claiming moral high ground) has been used for centuries to corrupt the law.

 

[hapuna]

Are there any good reasons _not_ to get a CPL? I haven't felt a strong need for one, but there have been times where it would have come in handy. If you're not planning on carrying on regular basis, is it worth it?

Would enjoy your thoughts-

Thanks.

The biggest thing is if you really need a firearm for protection all of a sudden do you want to wait for a cpl and wait 2 weeks to buy a gun. It could be too late.

 

[cameronhu]

The biggest thing is if you really need a firearm for protection all of a sudden do you want to wait for a cpl and wait 2 weeks to buy a gun. It could be too late.

That's a very good point, I hadn't thought of. Thanks!

 

[spider]

If you pull up to a stop sign, and you unholster your weapon and aim for the "O" and shoot, you probably shouldn't get a concealed.

 

[kj Plattner]

Why not get a CPL/CWP/CCL/etc?

1. You will never carry a gun in public.
2. In a confrontation you know you can out run the perp.
3. You have an armed body guard.
4. Your girlfriend/wife/whatever has one.
5. Driving the range you know your gun is UNLOADED and safely LOCKED in the trunk.
6. You are a democrat/socialist/whatever.

 

[Trlsmn]

Why not get a CPL/CWP/CCL/etc?

1. You will never carry a gun in public.
2. In a confrontation you know you can out run the perp.
3. You have an armed body guard.
4. Your girlfriend/wife/whatever has one.
5. Driving the range you know your gun is UNLOADED and safely LOCKED in the trunk.
6. You are a democrat/socialist/whatever.

7. The Police will be there anytime you need help.

 

[swoop]

7. The Police will be there anytime you need help.

Trlsmn, sometimes you are so right on!

 

[hapuna]

This kind of thinking always makes no sense to me. Should the officer be more concerned that he has pulled over someone that has proven to be a good citizen that passed a background/mental stability check who may or may not be carrying or someone that does not have a cpl and is carrying illegally? Really you think he should be worried about the law abiding citizen????

And That's Why I drive a car that's in My Fiances name. Shes got a clean Record. Well One ticket. and so if they run my plates it comes up clea.. Also I have a crappy driving record 10 pages long lol.. But U can not blame a Police officer for acting skittish when they first find out you have a CHL. like NK777 said Maybe your crazy and the cops dont know it. But for the most part cops are pretty cool about you carrying.