Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumMISSISSIPPI: Concealed Carry on college, in bars, and in courthouse is LEGAL.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-19/concealed-cary-gun/52082424/1More at link above.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...it will be before the anti's admit there wont be shootouts in every classroom...
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)That didn't seem to make any difference to them. I don't believe this will do any different.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...you know that....lots of other people know that, but anti's dont want to believe it and pretend it doesn't matter since they're only little colleges in fly-over country.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)University of Mississippi Police Chief Calvin Sellers says he supports the right to own firearms, but he still thinks Mississippi's newest policy could be a "bad law."
"I just don't like the idea of people having firearms in a classroom," he says.
And how about those doctors in Fla and their first amendment rights. Can't even ask a question without risking their career and a fine. I guess we're really headed in the RIGHT direction.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)They can not ask about fireams ownership status. Because, unless they think the patient is a danger to themselves or others, it's none of their damn business.
They can offer gun safety advice 'til the fucking cows come home.
And it never would have been an issue if some quack hadn't dropped a patient because she refused to answer the question.
P.S. Why is a legally carried gun in a University classroom any more of a threat than a legally carried gun anywhere else?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)to themselves or others? If so, I agree with you. Apparently they aren't allowed to ask that question. It's only a question. Nobody is forced to answer. Where is the distortion? And who was the quack?
Regarding the gun in the classroom, I agree with the police chief. A classroom isn't anywhere else. It's a classroom.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)If the person appears to be a danger to themselves or others, they should be taking appropriate legal steps, not wasting time asking irrelevent questions.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/07/robert-farago/family-doctor-refuses-to-see-gun-owner/
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...is the health of the INDIVIDUAL patient.
Answering questions on topics apart from those pertaining to the treatment of any illness or condition presented including those relating firearms ownership are secondary and optional for the patient.
In addition, firearms ownership should yield neither favorable nor unfavorable preferential treatment by a physician. Clearly, while advice is never a problem, questions sometimes are unwelcome.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There is no obligation to respond. If a physician is treating a teenager suffering from clinical depression, the presence of firearms in the home is highly relevant. Same as asking if prescription drugs are left lying around.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...but the problem came in when some physicians acted in such a manner as to make it clear if they didn't like your answer (or lack thereof) that they would cease to treat you over simple ideology.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But also seems like an over reaction by the state. Why do extremists always get to fuck things up for the majority of folk?
That old pendulum thing, I guess.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)It is an overreaction by the state, just as it was an overreaction by those doctors.
Sadly, we all know what happens when the state attempts to solve a minor issue with the sledgehammer of legislation.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Time for another celebration. 
Sorry about the redneck thing. Very inappropriate of me.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...this sub-thread resolved with so many positive waves.
-cheers- 
So what do have against rednecks? I'd love the opportunity to clear a drain with a shotgun!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have several close family members and friends who are rednecks. Salt of the earth people. I love them as individuals. As a group, I tend to differ with them politically and religiously. We tend to have different tastes in sport, literature, music and the arts. I also find their frequent intolerance of ethnic minorities and gays to be somewhat troubling.
I find it much easier to visit and be comfortable in their world, than they do in mine. Which is just fine.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts) and holiday.Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)"I just don't like the idea of people having firearms in a classroom," he says.
............how otherwise thoughtful people overlook ridiculous language like this when it comes to the gun restriction issue.
Since the fall semester of 2006, state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of the nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses) in Utah. Concealed carry has been allowed at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. After allowing concealed carry on campus for a combined total of one hundred semesters, none of these twelve schools has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft. Likewise, none of the forty ‘right-to-carry’ states has seen a resulting increase in gun violence since legalizing concealed carry, despite the fact that licensed citizens in those states regularly carry concealed handguns in places like office buildings, movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, churches, banks, etc. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.
"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” John Lott and David Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997);
“An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population,” William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000; Florida Department of Justice statistics, 1998; Florida Department of State,
“Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report,” 1998; Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September 2000; Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association
From the Students for Concealed Carry website.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Guess it must be a myth. No, you're right. Classrooms are the ideal place for guns. How backward of me to think otherwise.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)negative events w/regard to firearms at those colleges that permit them to be carried legally.
Edited to add: Your analogy fails because there are demonstrable negative effects from global warming, but NONE from carrying on campus. And of course all school shootings have taken place in "gun free" schools, vs NONE at schools that permit carry.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Many perceive the proliferation of handguns as an extremely negative effect on our society. The same way many people see the proliferation of nuclear weapons as a negative effect on global society. Same mentality on both sides of these issues.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Check actual crime statistics rather than checking how one "feels" perhaps? Isn't that what progressives love in all other areas - empirical evidence?
"Many perceive............."
Don't know about you, but I don't give a rats backside about what many willfully ignorant people "perceive".
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)He is a public employee charged with enforcing the law. His support is not needed and he is welcome to keep his opinion to himself. Speaking in his official capacity against a law is in and of itself indicative of very poor judgement and were I his direct superior, he would be getting a pink slip for Christmas.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Does the First Amendment not apply to public employees?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)As a private citizen.
The moment he makes such a statement in his official capacity, it becomes a completely different story.
His job is to enforce the law. His opinions on the laws can be stated as a private individual - not as a public official. His only position publicly should be that he will uphold his duties - that's it.
No different than the military for example. There are certain things you simply are not permitted to do while in uniform, but you're more than welcome to do them on your own time.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Police chiefs across the nation have voiced their opinions about guns and concealed carry. Their opinions are extremely important in contributing to the debate. If the generals can voice their opinions about Afghanistan, then a chief of police can sure as hell talk about safety issues. I listen to Charlie Beck pretty regularly on KPCC and he voices his opinions on all kinds of things, including guns in the hands of the public. Before him, Bill Bratton did the same.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Not when the law is settled. There is no "debate" over the law. The law has been enacted. Do you really not understand the difference?
Part of a general's job is public relations at times. Further, you will notice, none of them express dissent with the POTUS while in their official capacity. Ever. Its a good way to find oneself retiring a bit sooner than anticipated.
Just because some officials may violate professional ethics in no way gives others a pass to do so. I'm sorry you don't understand the differences here.
Would you be so quick to defend him were the law to have gone the other way, and have him advocate concealed carry on campus in violation of the law?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Still nonsense on his 1A rights, which I support, regardless of his opinion. I'm sorry you don't understand how the constitution works.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)A police officer in his official capacity can keep his personal opinions to himself. His personal time? He can say whatever he wishes.
As I said, would you still support him were the situation reversed? Do you support a teacher in his official capacity advocating religion or speaking against homosexuality? Of course not. We recognize that while in their official capacity, their job is to teach, and their right to free speech is not part of the job. In their private capacity they may say whatever they wish.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)As a group, they tend to be very uninformed, and their political views tend to mimic those who appointed them. As with any group, there are exceptions....
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)They are just the professionals. Don't get me wrong, I have no great love for armed professionals roaming the streets any more than armed civilians roaming the streets, but when an armed response is called for, I'll take the professionals any day. That's what they train for, what they are paid for and what they are sworn to do and in my experience, they usually respond pretty darn fast.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Good chiefs usually start out as patrolmen and good patrolmen sometimes graduate to chief. I'm not talking redneck political appointees or elected sheriffs with no LE experience, but professionals who have worked their way up.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)is usually an appointed position and it is a purely political one.
You can stuff that "redneck" crap in your nether regions. I for one am getting pretty sick of it. It is as offensive as n****r. Learn some respect.
Rank and file cops tend to support CCW.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)both Wyoming and Florida (couldn't vote in other states I lived in, so I never looked) elected sheriff started as patrolman, detective etc. That asshole in Arizona is the exception to the rule. Are you saying LA and San Francisco County's sheriff is a know nothing redneck or just in rural flyover places?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Doesn't mean there aren't some good ones in rural and metropolitan areas. It's just harder to get elected in a place like LA County if you have no prior experience. I guess I've spent too much time in some very rural areas, where the local police chief was in bed with the mayor and they ran everything, including the local drug business. Lee Baca is OK, in spite of some past controversies, but the LASD is somewhat unwieldy and needs an administrator and PR guy like Baca. I'm not familiar with the Bay area.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The scandal in my hometown when I was a kid was that the mayor and police chief were shaking down the local sex industry. The sheriff had about 15-20 guys to patrol an area the size of Massachusetts (with a lot fewer people).
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and I think small town police departments are more often problematic. More prone to nepotism, cronyism and other incestuous relationships. My own service was in the shire.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)there's plenty of that in major cities as well.
New York, Chicago, L.A., Philly, Detroit....
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and I wouldn't be surprised if it still goes on. But I have noticed considerable improvement in LA since the days of Darryl Gates and the Rodney King riots. The LAPD reached an all time low during the 90's. Very different today. I think the same happened in NYC too. Can't speak for the other cities you mention.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)The Chicago Chief of Police who was in the midst of filming a photo op when gunfire broke out nearby? He terminates the interview with, "I gotta run..." and zooms off in his armored SUV.
The girl reporter, naively assuming he went to the sound of gunfire, goes to the scene of the shooting to get a story. She got one.
"Ex-Cop Calls Jody Weis A 'Coward,' Says He 'Cut And Run' After Shooting"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/excop-calls-jody-weis-a-c_n_526807.html
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...but I am unable to think of any jurisdiction in the world where the police arrive fast enough to stop a crime.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm talking here about response times and LAPD is pretty damned quick to respond, as is NYPD. Both departments have improved 1000% over the last 20 years. Many thanks to Bratton.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Even if they were, they are under no obligation to actually DO anything to stop a crime or protect anyone.
By the time the cops find out an armed response is called for, an armed response is usually no longer needed.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)(1)Virginia Tech, (2)Columbine. In any event, the pupose is not to replace professionals.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Excellent reason to create and enforce statewide policy.
I mean, we could look at actual facts and stuff, or we could say "hey, right apply equally in public areas", but nah. Let us argue on how Cal feels.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)That normally doesn't bring in First Amendment issues.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Is there a special amendment that you are referring to or was it just a random thought on your part?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)There are some professions which face termination or loss of their professional credentials if they do not keep their opinions to themselves while in their professional capacity.
They do not, however, face criminal charges for their speech unless they violate a law in doing so (slander or libel for example)
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)He can, but he will face consequences for doing so.
It likewise doesn't bode well for a judge's career if he talks about his personal opinions on the guilt of a defendant in a current case he's on.
When was the last time you heard a psychiatrist blab about his client's problems? You probably won't, because that could lose him his license.
Can a public elementary school teacher preach the Bible to her students, telling them they're going to hell if they don't believe exactly as her sect does? Again, she can, but she'll probably lose her job.
Free speech has always taken a back seat to the professional and ethical standards of many professions.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)As long as he's OK with the contempt charge
That may well be the sole situation where one's speech gets him some time in jail. The courtroom has always been a slightly different situation though.
The rest are not violations of the 1st Amendment. The right to free speech only means you won't face criminal charges - says nothing about private consequences for not using good judgement.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Your right to keep and bear arms carries a responsibility to use those arms properly. When you don't, you are punished.
Yes, some areas can be considered a "no-guns-allowed" zone, but those areas must be strictly and narrowly defined and have damn good reasons for it as well as someone else obligated to provide security while in those areas.
Prisons? Excellent place to restrict carry of weapons. Makes perfect sense. However, there are people there to provide security. Outside those walls though, we do not restrict the law abiding.
Public areas where anyone can enter at any time? Nope - restriction in those areas is irrational as the only ones who will obey the law are those you don't have to worry about anyway.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'd love to see your research on that one. If you come to my home, I will shake your hand, you will not be entering with a gun and there will be no guns already present. Beyond that, you're gonna have to take the same risks most people take every day. I know, we're a bunch of crazy risk takers, breezing our way through life,
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Do not expect to be allowed to carry your pistol when walking among the prisoners in the yard.
If you are in the military, do not expect to be allowed to carry your personal weapon around during pretty much any official unit function, or even keep it in the barracks.
If you work for UPS, or most delivery services, do not expect to be able to carry a pistol while delivering packages, since they put worries about liability to the company over the personal safety of their drivers.
Regarding actual use of a gun to equal actual speech, police departments have rules regarding type and use of weapons, and an officer risks punishment if he violates those rules.
There are many places where a person's chosen job can preclude him from exercising his 2nd Amendment rights in relation to that job.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I think we could probably add a bunch more examples like Airplanes, government buildings, my house.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)a AD or ND could be a serious problem. Would you have to dry dock?
As for me, I draw the line at former VPs who don't pay enough attention where they point their loaded Perazzis.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Except of course those flare guns, which hopefully will never be needed. Off for some Xmas cheer now. Happy Holidays!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Otherwise an ideal location for a shootout. Just like boats and blimps.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)The aircraft cabin is not sealed. Air is pumped into the cabin at a rate faster than it can leak out and kept there by a coupe of isobaric valves that maintain a differential, typically 5.0 to 8.5 psi between the inside and outside.
The airflow is needed or you would pretty quickly use up all the oxygen in the cabin. It's not like a submarine. Most airliners can maintain pressure if the lose a passenger cabin window. The isobaric valves just close by that much.
Back in the old days, mechanics used to look for troublesome leaks, the ones that made noises and crews and passengers complained about, by looking for the nicotine trails left by the smoke.
Also, the reason that despite the normal leakage, you don't feel drafts is the air is all going out, not in.
There is still danger a stray round might go through a wire bundle, a control cable, or a hydraulic line, or something else important, but if you think you are going to get sucked out a window like "Goldfinger" you are sadly mistaken
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Damn, Brewster, your full of the most incredible information.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and it's really not an issue unless you open up several square feet of hole. A few bullet holes won't even cause a measurable pressure drop, let alone anything like explosive decompression.
This has been on Myth Busters, and they actually got it right.
P.S. Unless you know the particular model and mods of the exact aircraft you are on very intimately, hitting enough vital systems to cause a forced landing, let alone a crash, with a handgun, is on par with winning the lottery at any level. In other words, not really worth worrying over.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Makes you wonder doesn't it?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Corporations and special interest groups profit from fear mongering too.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)The 9-11 hijackers got what they wanted because the official training and government mandated policy was cooperate with the hijackers. You know, the same one they tell folks who find themselves getting mugged or robbed, "Don't resist. Just give them what they want."
Now, there is not a flight crew that will give up control of the airplane. There will be a fight, and no dumbass touchy-feely regulations will change that. This crap didn't happen in the Fifties when airline pilots carrying mail were routinely armed, even if it wasn't public knowledge. Some guy who had been driving B-24's over Europe a few years earlier likely knew something about what bullets do to airplanes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www.fas.usda.gov/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=460229&mesg_id=460604
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=460229&mesg_id=460591
What we have now is the kabuki theater where passengers being inconvenienced by a great show of mostly worthless procedures whose intent is to make stupid people feel better. The government is doing SOMETHING.
The next guy to stand up in an airliner and say, "This is a hijacking," will be attacked by a mob. Like humans have done for a very long time, when faced with a choice between slim and none, most opt for slim. Any not frozen with fear, will figure doing nothing means certain death, so struggling with the hijacker is viable option as there is nothing to lose and everything to gain.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)... because they wanted to keep some information about their family private.
I don't really like that law, but the piece of shit doctor who denied service to a family brought it upon his profession.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Why blame and condemn a whole profession for the actions of one individual?
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Hopefully it will be a lesson to other anti-gun doctors who want to play politics with medical services.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)
petronius
(26,696 posts)requirement, and after that and the background check I see no automatic reason to treat one public area differently from another. (I'm comfortable with specific gun free zones where the agency in question assumes responsibility for security and creating a 'sterile' area, and I can see a courtroom being in that category, but MS isn't wrong to decide differently - assuming "courthouse" includes the actual "courtrooms" )...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...i fail to see a problem with it.
Do you think a sober person with a firearm will somehow act different once he is around alcohol?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do I think a sober person with a firearm will somehow act differently once he is around alcohol? No, why would he?
Do I think a drunk with a bug up his ass might somehow act differently around guns? No, why would he?
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...I'll leave you to wonder why...
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Can't be drunk/drink in a bar with a gun... can't be drunk/drink elsewhere with a gun.
I was at a bar last night with my Glock 19 inside my jacket.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Where I live there's only one bar and nobody carries except maybe the local deputy, but he isn't drinking. Good to know gun toters are more law abiding than drivers. Maybe the parking lots should be restricted to armed and sober only.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)They generally say your CCW is not valid if you have been drinking.
So if you're carrying legally with a CCW, the moment you take a drink you are carrying illegally.
So not only does the person get busted for being drunk with a gun, but carrying without a permit.
petronius
(26,696 posts)and I'd hold off-duty LEOs to the same standard. Other than that, bars are fine...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Interesting mix. Bar full of unarmed drinkers and armed abstainers. Think I'll stay home and drink.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Or anywhere that barring legally carried firearms in a bar has stopped someone with criminal intent?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)It's not just some condescending buzzword. Something that is "statistically significant" has been shown definitatively to have been due to the cause of some variable contrast between a control group and a test group. Statistical significance is extremely important. Suppose you want to test the effectiveness of a medicine to reduce the likelihood of a heart attack. You design a controlled study of two groups of people. Group A takes the medicine, and Group B takes a placebo. Suppose that Group A has a lower rate of heart attacks than Group B. Is this due to chance, or the medicine? It would depend on the magnitude of the differing rates, the contrat of all other variables, and the population size of the study.
When dealing with issues requiring heavy use of probabilities, like gun control or crime rates, slight variations in results or swings both ways are expected - even when no variables are changing. And when other variables are also changing, the outcome may become more difficult to wade through to see the effect a variable of interest has on the test group. This where statistical significance becomes a useful tool for tracking the impact of changes.
Infact, statistical significance is the pirmary reason one discounts single or rare events when making policy decisions. Because just a few events cannot significantly change the statistical outcome of a population and thus the inspection of such events is deemed statistically insignificant.
This is your basic college statistics 101 type stuff. Look it up.
Or you could just keep quoting dead poets... 
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)As significant as the ironical intent of my post. Statistical significance gets bandied about a lot by toters in reference to how often they use their guns without good cause, or how many accidents they have, or how many kill themselves, or how many have bad days and start mowing down the neighbors, or how many normal people spot their hidden secrets etc.. But they don't like it when one points out the statistical insignificance of them ever needing to use a gun in self defense. In fact, I have asked that question many times and have yet to hear from anyone who has used it, except in a couple of dubious instances, as a warning flag at would be miscreants who gave them the evil eye or had designs on some of their stuff.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And unless and until local constabularies start using Starfleet-style transporters to beam in after 911 calls, some people will prefer to
have something handy in case they 'win' the crime lottery...
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Carrying a firearm may not help, but it does not harm anyone. Simple as that. Yes, there are those who commit criminal acts with a firearm, but that is not the same thing as simply carrying one.
Like it or not, rights are not predicated on what might go wrong if they are misused. The RKBA has been recognized by the USSC as an individual right and the only way that is going to change is by amending the Constitution - which has a less than zero probability in our lifetimes.
I'm sorry your side lost, but its time to accept it and move on. Bitch all you want about what you consider a bad call, but the game is over.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Unless it gets used. Simple as that.
It's not a game to me. It's not about winners and losers. It's about how we evolve as a society and about how we behave as individuals within that society. There are no time limits and scorecards. The process of evolution is fluid and open ended by definition. Man's time on this planet amounts to less than one percent of the time of the dinosaurs.
Question for you. What side do you think I'm on?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)I do not consider stopping a crime "misuse" and I don't actually give a damn about any harm caused to a criminal.
Yes, we would all like to see society evolve to a point where arms are never needed, however, one does not reach that point by forcibly disarming those who have done no wrong.
Perhaps when we reach a point that crime is so low that a kid shoplifting a candy bar is a national event, maybe we can consider general disarmament. Until then, you're expecting people to simply trust and believe no harm will come to them - even though facts point the opposite direction.
Guns are not a cure-all. They work for some specific situations. There is nothing wrong with people having to tools to address those situations.
As far as what side I think you're on? Generally anti-public use or carry, and you would like to see heavy restrictions based upon subjectively defined need. What is generally considered "anti-gun". Perhaps you do not wish complete disarmament, but you have stated you would like any public carry or use outlawed and any use in private to be strictly controlled.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)How do we arrive at that point? By more people carrying guns? Not in my opinion. By forcibly disarming those who have done no wrong? Not in my opinion.
Guns are not a cure-all. They work for some specific situations. There is nothing wrong with people having tools to address those situations.
Couldn't agree more. In fact, if I were a member of a SWAT team I would insist on carrying a gun. Most other situations I would consider the need statistically insignificant.
As far as what side I think you're on? Generally anti-public use or carry, and you would like to see heavy restrictions based upon subjectively defined need. What is generally considered "anti-gun". Perhaps you do not wish complete disarmament, but you have stated you would like any public carry or use outlawed and any use in private to be strictly controlled.
Wrong. Public carry should be based on objectively defined needs. I do not advocate outlawing any public carry. Considering the behavior foolish is very different from wanting to outlaw it. I appeal to common sense and finding solutions to reducing the mortality rate caused by handguns.
I think the proliferation of handguns and carrying them in public will eventually lead to them being banned. This is not what I seek. It is what I predict.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)A crime involving an immediate threat on someone's life, maybe, if other less drastic methods are unavailable. Can't think of any other kind of crime where the use of a gun might be appropriate, can you?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)"The RKBA has been recognized by the USSC as an individual right and the only way that is going to change is by amending the Constitution"
Three words: Plessy vs. Ferguson.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)My question was, "Have you ever in your life used a gun in defense of yourself or of some one else." Of the 19 seven answered, "Yes." One of them was a retired federal LEO and his use was while on duty so I didn't count it. There were six who used guns in defense. In each case their house had been broken into and the burglar ran away when he was confronted with by an armed resident.
Notice that I asked ONLY senior citizens. So the "ever in your life" easily covers a period of over 50 years. Yes, the probability of needing my gun for defense in any year is very small and on any day is extremely tiny. But as with anything where probability is involved as the number of trials increases so does the probability of a hit. It only takes a second to slip my Kel-Tec P3AT into my pocket, just in case my number comes up that day.
petronius
(26,696 posts)I'd call that one of those reasonable compromises we always talk about... 
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I go to a bar to socialize with friends, have a few drinks and maybe shoot some pool. If there are drunks around, I usually leave. If I see dudes with guns, I usually leave.
I co-owned a bar in rural Ontario many moons ago and we had three rules for getting kicked out, fighting, drunkenness and carrying a weapon. Worked out just fine.
petronius
(26,696 posts)with the exact same non-existent impact that such a person would have in any other venue.
Of course, I support the right of bar owners to make whatever rules they want in that regard for their own establishments...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But I might if I were the bar owner. Not because of the gun, but because I know that bars often attract people who, when they start drinking, become confrontational and belligerent and often pick on others for no reason. That, in itself, is enough for a bar owner to contend with, without having to think about the potential addition of a gun to the mix.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Understand - it was illegal to drink alcohol while carrying a gun before this law was passed. It is still illegal.
While the anti-gun folks like to tout this as a "guns in bars" law, what it is really about is "guns in restaurants".
Many restaurants, like Applebees, Longhorns, Red Lobster, Outback, Carrabbas, and countless others, serve alcohol. They often have an actual "bar" on the premises.
Prior to the passage of this law, any CCW permit holder carrying a firearm and choosing to go to such restaurants to eat would either have to leave their firearm at home or leave it in the car when they went inside. They shouldn't have to do that. They would not have to do that before eating dinner in a restaurant that doesn't serve alcohol, so why should they have to do that in a restaurant that does serve alcohol, since they won't be drinking (that was already illegal and still is).
There would not be much point in going to a "bar" with a firearm unless you were the designated driver.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)of their sales in alcohol then they must, by law, post a legal 51% sign at the entrence. The TABC permit is red for 51% and blue for less.
A CHL is not permitted( it is a felony) to carry in a 51% establishment.
This allows restaurants to sell alcohol, if they do not want to have CHL business then they post a 30.06 sign.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Guess us rednecks down in Texas aren't that backward after all...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Austin is one of my favorite cities in the world. A town I have spent a lot of time in and still visit often. I have friends all over Texas. I wouldn't describe any of them as rednecks. Why do you use such an offensive term to describe yourself?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x472307#472351
BTW, the offer referred to in that second link still stands- and I'm raising it to $500.
I *still* don't expect to be out a cent...