View Full Version : Guns on Campus
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/249646/thumbs/r-RICK-PERRY-TEXAS-GUNS-CAMPUS-large570.jpg
Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus, adding momentum to a national campaign to open this part of society to firearms. More than half the members of the Texas House have signed on as co-authors of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns. The Senate passed a similar bill in 2009 and is expected to do so again. Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who sometimes packs a pistol when he jogs, has said he's in favor of the idea.
Texas has become a prime battleground for the issue because of its gun culture and its size, with 38 public universities and more than 500,000 students. It would become the second state, following Utah, to pass such a broad-based law.
I remember a guy at UT-Austin who brought a gun to campus.
http://www*.chron.com*/disp/stor*y.mpl/firs*t100/96214*9.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/962149.html)
Peace
The NRA/Gun manufactures are dancing all the way to the bank. People tend to forget there is an economic side to all of this gun nonsense.
I'm sure college students will be every bit as responsible with guns as they are with alcohol. I know many are quite responsible - but there are still plenty of alcohol related deaths among college students.
Nice to see some more places allow access to effective means of self-defense for folks.
Nice to see some more places allow access to effective means of self-defense for folks.
Only effective if they know what they're doing with them. How many gun owners actually get appropriate training?
Only effective if they know what they're doing with them. How many gun owners actually get appropriate training?
If they intend to carry it legally and have a concealed carry permit they have already completed training in the use of deadly force.
I would suspect that even in Texas, prohibitions against carrying a weapon illegally will remain in place.
Time will tell. I was just recently thinking about all the college-aged alcohol related deaths. All the crazy things that guys this age do.......the raging hormones, the lack of sleep, the freedom from living at home that can make you do crazy things. Its pretty damn scary to think that some of these guys might also have guns.
Zigzagman
2-21-11, 10:40am
Will the campus bookstores be selling custom holsters with school logos?:0!
I assume that they will be restricted at sporting events? We just can't trust people in large crowds.:confused:
The idea that a society would actually be safer if everyone was carrying a gun and was prepared to use it to shoot their fellow citizens is truly verging on insanity. Kind of goes along with the logic that says reducing taxes is a good way to raise revenue.
We are in serious trouble on Planet Earth!!
Peace
In the picture, the gun is clearly not concealed.
I'm not sure about students (what is the legal age, anyone know? 18? 21?) carrying concealed on campus but certainly like the idea that professors (and hopefully that includes staff) would be able to.
The legal age for concealed carry permits in Texas is 21, although I believe the state legislature has made provisions for permitting active duty military personnel at 18 years of age.
Oh good. This is exactly what we need. Young, sleep deprived people who are under incredible stress, with raging hormones. Let's add guns to the mix. We have the alcohol. Now if only we can get them to drive in a not-all-that-experienced way, we'd have the trifecta! :(
Gee, I sure hope they carry into the local bars so they can 'protect' themselves there. :0!
And how wonderfully safe you know your daughter will be when she's out with this guy!
So it would appear that many are not so much against this because of location, but because of age (please correct me if i'm wrong). That makes me wonder, at what point should a person be considered an adult with all the attendant rights, duties and obligations associated with that distinction?
As someone who has taught at the college level I think allowing students to carry guns is about the most stupid thing I've ever heard. I don't know how this will play out, and we will see, but my guess would be far more deaths resulting from this than lives saved in 'self defense' circumstances.
And of course there is the intimidation factor that does not require any violence what so ever. How many instructors will give a kid an undeserved higher mark simply because they have shown themselves to have an aggressive nature. They don't even have to cross any legal lines to strike fear.
I once had a kid in class that was so high on drugs I had to call security to get him out. Oh goody if he had been packing a gun... Or even better if another student had just shot him dead on the spot for his highly erratic behavior....
If I were teaching in Texas now, the first thing I would do -after arming myself- would be to apply for jobs in other states.
Approximately 30 years of statistical analysis of shooting events in right to carry states show those concerns to be overblown if not paranoid.
There just doesn't ever seem to be any in-between or compromise on this subject. Seems like people who own guns believe that everyone/anyone should be able to carry a gun. I feel like the people who have guns feel so totally defensive about their own rights, and sometimes can't see clearly. What I'm trying to say is, for those of you who carry guns, can't you understand that there are many people out there who might "qualify" to carry a gun, but who can do major damage with it? Is assuming that everyone out there has your gun safety in mind, your responsibility, your common sense etc., a dangerous position to take?
There's a vote going on soon in the city near here as to whether people should be able to carry a gun into the big athletic stadium here.......where the Super Bowl will be next year. Great.......alcohol, guns, excitement, mania, anger at bad calls, fights.......all in one place.
No one has ever been shot in an athletic venue here that I know of........but you can believe that will change if anyone can bring a gun in.
But back to the guns on campus. Like I've said before, our country has become so concerned with individual rights, that its ignoring the good of the whole. Every year, some fraternity gets shut down at 2 of the big colleges in this state because of the trouble with hazing, alcohol, craziness. And you want guns in the equation now??
I can only shake my head in disbelief and fright.
Without individual rights, who determines what is good for the collective?
That's a good question Alan. I don't have the answer. But it seems that that question gets harder and harder to answer, the more people we have and the more rights they get that might bring harm to others.
If people believe in the right to bear arms because the constitution says so.....then I think they should just carry muskets and small canons. :)
When this "right" was written, I'm sure they had absolutely no clue that it would turn into what's going on today.
It always baffles me that we stick so vehemently to a set of rights that was written so long ago, in a totally different world.
It occurs to me that there are rights which are subject to legislation and rights which are not. I believe the individual right to be secure in your person and possessions and to defend yourself against aggressors falls into the latter category.
Why anyone would want to legislate away that right from responsible adults is a mystery to me.
But that's just it Alan.......there are so many people out there who aren't "responsible adults". I don't know how or where to draw the line.
I just wish we could defend ourselves on a more equal basis with each other that wouldn't lead to immediate death.
I wanted to add that I live near a city and every single day, someone is shot dead. Someone is robbed, someone is carjacked. Its a constant thing. I know many of these people aren't carrying a permitted gun, but some are.
Letting everyone have a gun seems to be like wanting every nation to have nuclear arms, just so we're all able to defend ourselves equally. Some nations are responsible, some are not.
I wanted to add that I live near a city and every single day, someone is shot dead. Someone is robbed, someone is carjacked. Its a constant thing. I know many of these people aren't carrying a permitted gun, but some are.
That's another reason to decriminalize law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves. Studies have shown that the incidence of murder, aggravated robbery & rape are generally reduced in right to carry states.
It occurs to me that there are rights which are subject to legislation and rights which are not. I believe the individual right to be secure in your person and possessions and to defend yourself against aggressors falls into the latter category.
Why anyone would want to legislate away that right from responsible adults is a mystery to me.
The responsible ones really aren't the ones I'm worried about.
That's another reason to decriminalize law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves. Studies have shown that the incidence of murder, aggravated robbery & rape are generally reduced in right to carry states.
I'm interested in this - but I couldn't find the stats to back it up - do you have a link or know of which organization did the studies?
I've long been interested in why crime in the States is higher than in Canada. I realize that there are too many variables to come to a definitive answer... but maybe there are some broad-stroke lessons. I was able to track down that about 2.3% of Canadian households possess handguns. A reduced subset of those households would have the right to carry the handgun in public. As I understand it, getting a permit to carry a handgun is very time-consuming and tricky. I also found that Canada's homicide rate is about 1.9 / 100,000 people, whereas it's 5.7 / 100,000 people in the States.
So it's not fair to say, as an international generalization, that carrying guns reduces violent crime. Maybe it works on a state-to-state basis, I don't know - I wasn't able to find that info.
On a personal level, I know several people who own guns (long guns, mostly). But they are not tools of protection against other people - they are for hunting, for protection against wildlife, or for sport (target practice).
I'd love to hear some insight on what is so different about the States that the violent crime and homicide rate is so much higher.
The responsible ones really aren't the ones I'm worried about.
Then I would suggest you consider that the people we're talking about, the concealed carry permit holders, have subjected themselves to background investigations and mandatory training classes in order to qualify for their permit.
They have done the responsible thing and, as a result, will not be subject to criminal charges for carrying their weapon on campus. Those irresponsible people who have not made the effort and who probably have been carrying weapons on campus grounds all along, are still breaking the law.
I'm interested in this - but I couldn't find the stats to back it up - do you have a link or know of which organization did the studies?
I've long been interested in why crime in the States is higher than in Canada. I realize that there are too many variables to come to a definitive answer... but maybe there are some broad-stroke lessons. I was able to track down that about 2.3% of Canadian households possess handguns. A reduced subset of those households would have the right to carry the handgun in public. As I understand it, getting a permit to carry a handgun is very time-consuming and tricky. I also found that Canada's homicide rate is about 1.9 / 100,000 people, whereas it's 5.7 / 100,000 people in the States.
So it's not fair to say, as an international generalization, that carrying guns reduces violent crime. Maybe it works on a state-to-state basis, I don't know - I wasn't able to find that info.
On a personal level, I know several people who own guns (long guns, mostly). But they are not tools of protection against other people - they are for hunting, for protection against wildlife, or for sport (target practice).
I'd love to hear some insight on what is so different about the States that the violent crime and homicide rate is so much higher.
My personal opinion is that here in the States, our violent tendancies have less to do with access to weapons, but rather are a result of the social engineering our governments (federal, state & local) have been involved in since the dawning of the New Deal. On an institutional basis, we declare whole categories of people to be 'victims' and are then surprised when they take the attitude that they 'need/deserve/have a right to' the 'work/possessions/achievements' of others by whatever means.
As for the stats, try Googling John R. Lott and David B. Mustard, 'Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns'. The Journal of Legal Studies, 26 (1997). That's a great place to start.
Alan......so there's alot more involved in a concealed carry permit, than just buying a gun?
Alan......so there's alot more involved in a concealed carry permit, than just buying a gun?
Absolutely!
Ok, enough of the NRA talking points. The purpose of a college education is an education. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting fellow students from psycho people.
I would suggest for those really interested in getting an education that they forget the "handgun" and concentrate on the books, or maybe your girlfriend, or maybe your frat brother, etc. The idea of carrying a weapon to campus is only for our political heroes. They like to push the "nanny state" and make sure we understand the constitution, promote themselves, and make a few headlines.
RIck Perry waving a gun in the air is nothing in this state - we're number last!
Texas has the highest percentage of adults and children without health insurance and ranks fourth in the percentage of children living in poverty. Texas has the lowest percentage of pregnant women receiving prenatal care in their first trimester. We spend less for mental health services per capita than any other state, and we’re next to last in Medicaid coverage of the poor and per capita Medicaid expenditures.
Our schools may be packed with students, but they are not producing the well-educated young workers the state needs. We are in the bottom 10 in state and local expenditures per public school pupil, while the high school graduation rate ranks 43rd. The percentage of Texans 25 and older with a high school diploma or higher is the lowest in the nation.
Texas racks up an unenviable string of No. 1s on environmental issues. It is tops in the nation in emissions of carbon dioxide, releases of carcinogenic pollutants into the air, toxic chemicals released into water and hazardous waste generated. At the same time, Texans are fifth in per capita consumption of energy.
Now, do you want to hear the bad news? :laff:
We don’t have any money. The Republicans spent it all. Every dime. And then they spent the federal stimulus money to cover-up their previous spending.
This gun thing is all about distraction for those that think guns are our Salvation.
Now let's all gather together and talk about our Second Amendment rights while Susie is struggling to reach the American Dream. This is what politics are all about.
Peace
Ok, enough of the NRA talking points. The purpose of a college education is an education. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting fellow students from psycho people.
I would suggest for those really interested in getting an education that they forget the "handgun" and concentrate on the books, or maybe your girlfriend, or maybe your frat brother, etc. The idea of carrying a weapon to campus is only for our political heroes. They like to push the "nanny state" and make sure we understand the constitution, promote themselves, and make a few headlines.
RIck Perry waving a gun in the air is nothing in this state - we're number last!
Texas has the highest percentage of adults and children without health insurance and ranks fourth in the percentage of children living in poverty. Texas has the lowest percentage of pregnant women receiving prenatal care in their first trimester. We spend less for mental health services per capita than any other state, and we’re next to last in Medicaid coverage of the poor and per capita Medicaid expenditures.
Our schools may be packed with students, but they are not producing the well-educated young workers the state needs. We are in the bottom 10 in state and local expenditures per public school pupil, while the high school graduation rate ranks 43rd. The percentage of Texans 25 and older with a high school diploma or higher is the lowest in the nation.
Texas racks up an unenviable string of No. 1s on environmental issues. It is tops in the nation in emissions of carbon dioxide, releases of carcinogenic pollutants into the air, toxic chemicals released into water and hazardous waste generated. At the same time, Texans are fifth in per capita consumption of energy.
Now, do you want to hear the bad news? :laff:
We don’t have any money. The Republicans spent it all. Every dime. And then they spent the federal stimulus money to cover-up their previous spending.
This gun thing is all about distraction for those that think guns are our Salvation.
Now let's all gather together and talk about our Second Amendment rights while Susie is struggling to reach the American Dream. This is what politics are all about.
Peace
Well it is your thread. If you've changed your mind about talking about it, that's alright with me. >8)
DocHolliday
2-21-11, 6:50pm
If people believe in the right to bear arms because the constitution says so.....then I think they should just carry muskets and small canons. :)
When this "right" was written, I'm sure they had absolutely no clue that it would turn into what's going on today.
It always baffles me that we stick so vehemently to a set of rights that was written so long ago, in a totally different world.
So by the same logic let's do away with free speech on TV, radio, internet, and modern printing presses, since they didn't exist when the 1st Amendment was written...
Well it is your thread. If you've changed your mind about talking about it, that's alright with me. >8)
Sorry for the distraction Alan but I would prefer to think that the biggest issue is having "guns on campus" not some constitutional right. Hardly anyone I know does not believe that we need to have some restrictions on guns. That is the issue, not some NRA stance on why we need "guns on campus" or "right to bear arms" but rather is it a good idea to put guns in the midst of young adults and while understanding that minds are being molded.
Admittedly I did take the opportunity to "bitch" about my State - I am proud of Texas but ashamed of Rick Perry.
Peace
Alan raised a really good point about social engineering. Maybe the point isn't whether or not you should be able to carry a gun to protect yourself - the point is why in the world is a university such a scary place that you believe you NEED a gun to protect yourself? If the stats Zigzagman posted are accurate, maybe what you have on your hands is class warfare. Armed class warfare, even. How do you go about solving that problem?
So it would appear that many are not so much against this because of location, but because of age (please correct me if i'm wrong). That makes me wonder, at what point should a person be considered an adult with all the attendant rights, duties and obligations associated with that distinction?
I am wholeheartedly against guns on campus in any way, shape or form; save those carried by law enforcement.
Regarding the question of when one should be considered an adult... current brain science indicates that the frontal cortex is fully formed by age 25. I believe that the privileges of being an adult - driving, voting, entering into contracts, etc., can be parceled out between age 16-25. Gun ownership would come at the end of this age range. So too would military service and any other occupation requiring gun use.
Alan raised a really good point about social engineering. Maybe the point isn't whether or not you should be able to carry a gun to protect yourself - the point is why in the world is a university such a scary place that you believe you NEED a gun to protect yourself?
I don't think it has anything to do with a university being a scary place. It's more about if you have a right to do something, why is that right infringed upon at certain locations?
In many states, legislatures have deemed it ok to carry a concealed weapon, after mandated training and background checks, everywhere but on state property or National parks, etc., without any indication of why they are special. Many states are now attempting to correct that deficiency.
I am wholeheartedly against guns on campus in any way, shape or form; save those carried by law enforcement.
Regarding the question of when one should be considered an adult... current brain science indicates that the frontal cortex is fully formed by age 25. I believe that the privileges of being an adult - driving, voting, entering into contracts, etc., can be parceled out between age 16-25. Gun ownership would come at the end of this age range. So too would military service and any other occupation requiring gun use.
What about voting? Should younger adults have the ability to vote on issues that you ban them from participating in otherwise?
Instead of making it a guessing game, Alan - tell us where you think gun restriction should exist - if at all? I think will help me to understand your opinions.
Peace
DocHolliday.......comparing the need for guns well over 200 years ago and now, and freedom of speech, etc., is quite another thing. I don't see why adhering to a constitution written over 200 years ago benefits anyone, if it can't change with the needs of the country. What's wrong with adapting the rules at some point, so that life can be safer/better for the majority of people? Like I said, I can't imagine the writers of the constitution feeling that the right to bear arms should be in there, if they could see the incredible amount of violence in the world now.
Sorry for the distraction Alan but I would prefer to think that the biggest issue is having "guns on campus" not some constitutional right. Hardly anyone I know does not believe that we need to have some restrictions on guns. That is the issue, not some NRA stance on why we need "guns on campus" or "right to bear arms" but rather is it a good idea to put guns in the midst of young adults and while understanding that minds are being molded.
Admittedly I did take the opportunity to "bitch" about my State - I am proud of Texas but ashamed of Rick Perry.
Peace
I'm not aware of anyone advocating a "need" for guns on campus, but then again I'm not an NRA member (just not a joiner, sorry). The issue is when does the state have the need or ability to infringe upon pre-existing rights? It's not about any individual exhibiting a "need" but rather the state justifying a "need" to take away a right.
Instead of making it a guessing game, Alan - tell us where you think gun restriction should exist - if at all? I think will help me to understand your opinions.
Peace
I'm actually good with many of the current restrictions on carrying weapons (note distinction between owning and carrying). Convicted criminals, mentally ill individuals and underage citizens should not be able to carry a weapon. In Ohio, persons convicted of domestic violence and even people who are delinquent in child support payments are forbidden to legally carry a weapon (including police officers). I have no problem with any of those restrictions.
In virtually all states, carry permits do not apply to bars and restaurants which serve alcohol. I'm okay with that too.
In order to get a concealed carry license in the State of Texas you have to:
1. Be 21 years old. (Members and former members of the armed forces must be 18.)
2. Have a clean criminal history, including military service and recent juvenile records.
3. Not be under a protective order.
4. Not be chemically dependent.
5. Not be of unsound mind.
6. Not be delinquent in paying fines, fees, child support, student loans, etc.
7. Be eligible to purchase a handgun by completing the NICS check.
8. Complete required training.
Federal law also requires you to be 21 years of age to purchase a handgun legally.
So, the specter raised of drunken, untrained 18 year olds legally carrying guns about campus is simply a red herring.
As to what happens when citizens are legally armed, well, the majority of the states in this country now issue permits to carry concealed weapons, and have for some time, and the streets are not running red with blood from violence committed by those who are lawfully carrying their weapons.
As to data, you might want to look at John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", U.Chicago Press, and some of the follow-on studies and analysis. If you are concerned with facts.
In virtually all states, carry permits do not apply to bars and restaurants which serve alcohol. I'm okay with that too.
It's like pulling teeth - footballs games? courtrooms, PTA meetings? At work? In the park?
The list is endless - what determines when we restrict guns? Could it be public safety?
Peace
It's like pulling teeth - footballs games? courtrooms, PTA meetings? At work? In the park?
The list is endless - what determines when we restrict guns? Could it be public safety?
Peace
Perhaps you could tell us what it is about those particular locations that would give the state a compelling reason to restrict an individual right.
DocHolliday.......comparing the need for guns well over 200 years ago and now, and freedom of speech, etc., is quite another thing. I don't see why adhering to a constitution written over 200 years ago benefits anyone, if it can't change with the needs of the country. What's wrong with adapting the rules at some point, so that life can be safer/better for the majority of people?
If you peruse the Constitution, which apparently some people now view as an unimportant dusty 200 year old document, you will find that it contains relatively simple procedures for amending the rules. Procedures which have been used many times since the document was written.
The NRA/Gun manufactures are dancing all the way to the bank. People tend to forget there is an economic side to all of this gun nonsense.
It's a pretty small industry. Smith and Wesson has a market cap of ~$229 million, ~$386 million in annual revenue, and ~1600 employees. Ruger is similar in size. That's small potatoes.
For context, Starbucks has a market cap of ~$25.4 *billion*, ~$11 *billion* in annual revenu, and 137,000 employees.
loosechickens
2-21-11, 8:02pm
Well....gee......clearly we can dispense with the guns and do little damage to the economy.....the one thing we really CAN'T afford to restrict would be our Starbucks habit.....now, I'LL drink to THAT!!!! :D
sorry, guys....just feeling a bit silly today......carry on.....
What about voting? Should younger adults have the ability to vote on issues that you ban them from participating in otherwise?
I would continue to allow voting at age 18.
Perhaps you could tell us what it is about those particular locations that would give the state a compelling reason to restrict an individual right.
Seriously Alan? A courtroom? Seriously? At work? You can't think of any reason we wouldn't want people to carry guns to those places? A football game? Really? Last time I checked, they serve drinks there. Or a PTA meeting? Or maybe a city council meeting, where emotions run pretty high? I can actually think of more places where carrying a gun would be inapproiate than places where it would be a good idea.
See maybe that's the crux of the thing. See, most clear thinking people would question the 'need' to carry a gun in most situations and can legitimately question the thinking abilities of those who think it's necessary to carry a gun to a political rally or a PTA meeting.
I've managed to live quite a few years without needing to carry a gun, as have my friends and family. This isn't the old west you know. People who think they 'need' to carry a gun, expect to use it, and that's what scares the rest of us.
It's a power play, pure and simple. And of course I'm excluding cops and such.
A person with a gun is loathe to compromise, or negotiate, or bargain, or even just turn and walk away when that's really the best choice.
Hey, I've got an idea. Let's let them carry concealed weapons into the state capitol. Then let's see what Rick Perry Thinks about it.
I havent' read all the posts closely, but I don't think any of the pro-gun crowd has addressed the 'intimidation factor' of aggresive students trying to influence instructors assigning grades, etc. I see that as perhaps the biggest negative every day factor of carrying weapons into classrooms.
I also see guns in classrooms being a negative in trying to recruit the upper-most qualified professors to Texas institutions of higher learning. You might get a few of the more fearful ones who will feel the need to carry, but not the real cream.
As to individual rights, we do not have absolute rights, but rather limited ones. There is free speech, but you can't yet 'fire' in a crowded theater. Where gun rights vs the rights of those who don't consider them safe everywhere will fall still has to be determined. Personally I'm glad it's going to happen in Texas and not my state.
The Constitution is not that easy to amend which is good but to make it look like it is easy to amend is a little deceptive. There are a number of methods for an amendment to be introduced but the big stumbling block is to get it passed. 3/4 of the states must approve it for it to become an amendment. In today's political climate that is next to impossible.
Admittedly I did take the opportunity to "bitch" about my State - I am proud of Texas but ashamed of Rick Perry.
Peace
I wonder if you know that you complain far more about the place you live than you celebrate it. If I disliked a place like you seem to, I'd get up and leave.
...As to data, you might want to look at John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", U.Chicago Press, and some of the follow-on studies and analysis. If you are concerned with facts.
I've been reading this board for 10 years now and would never say that those of a certain mindset are concerned with facts.
The Constitution is not that easy to amend which is good but to make it look like it is easy to amend is a little deceptive. There are a number of methods for an amendment to be introduced but the big stumbling block is to get it passed. 3/4 of the states must approve it for it to become an amendment. In today's political climate that is next to impossible.
I didn't say it was easy, I said it was simple. And that it has happened in the past.
If you attempted to remove the 2nd Amendment from the Federal Constitution, I suspect you'd have a bit of an uphill fight, as 44 States have individual 2nd-Amendment-like clauses in their State constitutions, and only a handful of states refuse to issue concealed carry licenses or make it particularly difficult for law-abiding citizens to get one.
http://www.nraila.org/maps/rtc.jpg
gimmethesimplelife
2-22-11, 2:00am
Time will tell. I was just recently thinking about all the college-aged alcohol related deaths. All the crazy things that guys this age do.......the raging hormones, the lack of sleep, the freedom from living at home that can make you do crazy things. Its pretty damn scary to think that some of these guys might also have guns.Agreed. Completely.
gimmethesimplelife
2-22-11, 2:12am
Perhaps you could tell us what it is about those particular locations that would give the state a compelling reason to restrict an individual right. Just curious, with occasional outbreaks of workplace violence involving guns, would you really support having guns in the workplace? At football games with emotions (and perhaps testosterone) running high, at stressful PTA meetings considering cut budgets for education, and in courtrooms where cases of some who might be considered less than stable are tried - you'd really be OK with guns being present? Rob
I wonder if you know that you complain far more about the place you live than you celebrate it. If I disliked a place like you seem to, I'd get up and leave.
You have no idea how frustrating it is to live in a wonderful place that has been taken over by people like Rick Perry, George Bush, Karl Rove, Phil Gramm, John Cornyn, David Dewhurst and the rest of the GOP crazies of the last 15 years. I said that if Rick Perry got re-elected that was the final straw but the DW and I have most of our family here and they are getting up in years so we just can't pick up and leave. I really do hope this extreme religious/conservative mindset will at some point change.
Peace
gimmethesimplelife
2-22-11, 2:27am
Another issue I have with the easy availability of guns in the US overall is that (supposedly) many of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the US and are smuggled into Mexico.....My take is that in some way, supporting easy availability of guns is casting a vote that all this cartel violence is OK, that I don't have a problem with it. (if anyone is interested, here is a good website regarding drug cartel violence in Mexico BUT BE FOREWARNED - parts are VERY graphic. www.borderlandbeat.com) Buried in here somewhere are stats about the origin of guns used by the cartels or alternatively you could google this. Call me a liberal (I am one LOL) but I am not OK with US guns being smuggled into Mexico to add to the bloodbath - also of some scattered totally innocent citizens - going on down there. Rob
Another issue I have with the easy availability of guns in the US overall is that (supposedly) many of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the US and are smuggled into Mexico...
You might want to look at that data more closely. While it is a handy soundbite, it isn't what it looks like.
It's trace data. When the Mexican government traces a firearm marked "made in the USA", they send the trace request to the BATF. An overwhelming number of those requests come back with positive hits in the database, which is as you would expect, since they were made here and sent through the distribution channel.
But they don't send up trace requests for those fully-auto AK-47s (made in Soviet bloc countries or China), or the RPG launchers and rockets, or the grenades. Even though the clear implication of people misusing the trace data is that Mexican mobsters are somehow choosing to smuggle full-auto AKs (which aren't made in America) bought in American gunstores (where they aren't sold), when they cost far less, and are easier to get, from some of Mexico's neighbors, and could simply be thrown in the back of the truck bringing the drugs up....
gimmethesimplelife
2-22-11, 2:52am
You might want to look at that data more closely. While it is a handy soundbite, it isn't what it looks like.
It's trace data. When the Mexican government traces a firearm marked "made in the USA", they send the trace request to the BATF. An overwhelming number of those requests come back with positive hits in the database, which is as you would expect, since they were made here and sent through the distribution channel.
But they don't send up trace requests for those fully-auto AK-47s (made in Soviet bloc countries or China), or the RPG launchers and rockets, or the grenades. Even though the clear implication of people misusing the trace data is that Mexican mobsters are somehow choosing to smuggle full-auto AKs (which aren't made in America) bought in American gunstores (where they aren't sold), when they cost far less, and are easier to get, from some of Mexico's neighbors, and could simply be thrown in the back of the truck bringing the drugs up....Fair enough, I will digest what you have said and do some more research.....Rob
Seriously Alan? A courtroom? Seriously? At work? You can't think of any reason we wouldn't want people to carry guns to those places? A football game? Really? Last time I checked, they serve drinks there. Or a PTA meeting? Or maybe a city council meeting, where emotions run pretty high? I can actually think of more places where carrying a gun would be inapproiate than places where it would be a good idea.
See maybe that's the crux of the thing. See, most clear thinking people would question the 'need' to carry a gun in most situations and can legitimately question the thinking abilities of those who think it's necessary to carry a gun to a political rally or a PTA meeting.
I've managed to live quite a few years without needing to carry a gun, as have my friends and family. This isn't the old west you know. People who think they 'need' to carry a gun, expect to use it, and that's what scares the rest of us.
It's a power play, pure and simple. And of course I'm excluding cops and such.
A person with a gun is loathe to compromise, or negotiate, or bargain, or even just turn and walk away when that's really the best choice.
Hey, I've got an idea. Let's let them carry concealed weapons into the state capitol. Then let's see what Rick Perry Thinks about it.
Peggy it's not necessary to attribute your thoughts to me, I'm more than happy to answer any reasonable question pertaining to this issue.
As I stated earlier there are legitimate prohibitions on a citizens ability to carry a concealed weapon, both by location and circumstance. I'm simply not interested in going down an endless list of specific locations, weighing the pros and cons of each.
The crux of this matter is that the various states have determined that their citizens have a right to do something as long as they meet a specific set of criteria. The question is, what guidelines/criteria should they use to restrict that right by location. If a citizen has a right to carry a weapon off campus, what compelling reason does the state have to restrict that right on campus?
Private businesses have the ability to restrict that right by simply posting a sign, the question is when does the government have that right? I can think of several examples such as bars, courtrooms, government offices, etc., where the government has a compelling reason to do so. I'd be interested in hearing others thoughts on that.
The other issue I'd like to address is the recurring theme among many of the posters on this thread that likens the carrying of a weapon as an offensive act when in actuality it is a defensive act when done legally. I think you're all looking at it through the veil of your own prejudices when sometimes a different perspective can be enlightening.
Just curious, with occasional outbreaks of workplace violence involving guns, would you really support having guns in the workplace? At football games with emotions (and perhaps testosterone) running high, at stressful PTA meetings considering cut budgets for education, and in courtrooms where cases of some who might be considered less than stable are tried - you'd really be OK with guns being present? Rob
I didn't say I'd be OK with any of that. Every private workplace has the ability to restrict guns by simply posting a sign. I believe the government has a compelling interest in restricting weapons at any location where alcohol is being consumed. The thing is rights, once granted, are not to be taken lightly. The government must show a compelling reason for restriction, otherwise it's not really a right.
You have no idea how frustrating it is to live in a wonderful place that has been taken over by people like Rick Perry, George Bush, Karl Rove, Phil Gramm, John Cornyn, David Dewhurst and the rest of the GOP crazies of the last 15 years. I said that if Rick Perry got re-elected that was the final straw but the DW and I have most of our family here and they are getting up in years so we just can't pick up and leave. I really do hope this extreme religious/conservative mindset will at some point change.
Peace
Well you DO have a beautiful, interesting place, I remember seeing photos of it.
Me, I love my neighborhood and they can't blast me out of it despite the the fact that it is plopped in the middle of a electric blue political entity, an urban core. I just consider the Other Side to be good foils for me in keeping my political analysis muscle flexed since they do come up with all kinds of silly stuff I have to work against.
And now we are involved in racial politics as part of our Aldermanic elections, oh joy. This young chick Alderman was supposed to be a new generation/new ideas/new blah blah blah but instead she's just pulling out old race baiting tricks.
Peggy it's not necessary to attribute your thoughts to me, I'm more than happy to answer any reasonable question pertaining to this issue.
As I stated earlier there are legitimate prohibitions on a citizens ability to carry a concealed weapon, both by location and circumstance. I'm simply not interested in going down an endless list of specific locations, weighing the pros and cons of each.
The crux of this matter is that the various states have determined that their citizens have a right to do something as long as they meet a specific set of criteria. The question is, what guidelines/criteria should they use to restrict that right by location. If a citizen has a right to carry a weapon off campus, what compelling reason does the state have to restrict that right on campus?
Private businesses have the ability to restrict that right by simply posting a sign, the question is when does the government have that right? I can think of several examples such as bars, courtrooms, government offices, etc., where the government has a compelling reason to do so. I'd be interested in hearing others thoughts on that.
The other issue I'd like to address is the recurring theme among many of the posters on this thread that likens the carrying of a weapon as an offensive act when in actuality it is a defensive act when done legally. I think you're all looking at it through the veil of your own prejudices when sometimes a different perspective can be enlightening.
Well Alan, on page 5 of this discussion Zig listed those very places, courtroom, PTA, work, football game, and you asked what in particular about those places warranted the restriction of guns. A question such as that would lead most to believe you found no reason to restrict guns in those places.
I guess I was wrong, or maybe you changed your mind between page 5 and page 6.
Well Alan, on page 5 of this discussion Zig listed those very places, courtroom, PTA, work, football game, and you asked what in particular about those places warranted the restriction of guns. A question such as that would lead most to believe you found no reason to restrict guns in those places.
I guess I was wrong, or maybe you changed your mind between page 5 and page 6.
And in that same post, he also said "the list is endless", which makes it kind of pointless to get drug into attempting a comprehensive answer.
Plus, I think you still may be missing the point. What is the compelling reason for a state to limit a right at any particular venue, but in particular a state college campus? That is the subject of this thread isn't it?
I said, well before you got into this conversation, that there are compelling reasons to restrict a persons ability to carry weapons. These are based upon individual circumstance and location. What is it about a college campus that should make it a criminal offense to engage in an activity that is perfectly legal off campus?
Edited to add:
By the way, this new forum gives members the ability to choose how many posts are displayed per page. Your page 5 is my page 3 and probably varies somewhat for each poster. Isn't it funny how some things you think you know aren't necessarily so?
Zigzagman
2-22-11, 10:07am
And in that same post, he also said "the list is endless", which makes it kind of pointless to get drug into attempting a comprehensive answer.
Plus, I think you still may be missing the point. What is the compelling reason for a state to limit a right at any particular venue, but in particular a state college campus? That is the subject of this thread isn't it?
I said, well before you got into this conversation, that there are compelling reasons to restrict a persons ability to carry weapons. These are based upon individual circumstance and location. What is it about a college campus that should make it a criminal offense to engage in an activity that is perfectly legal off campus?
I think you are missing the point :0! That being that there is no logical reason to allow concealed carry on a college campus. Colleges and Universities should provide an environment that is conducive with learning. That is the reason for code of conduct restrictions.
You know as well as I that this is a political issue by those on the right to distract and influence people that think exactly like yourself. The real issue in Texas is the 25B budget gap that is being masked by those that are responsible for it.
All Colleges presidents in Texas have said it was a terrible idea, all campus police, almost anyone that thinks about it would realize it has nothing to do with safety but rather an ideological statement.
Really dumb issues such as storage of the weapons, where, access have become the topic instead of an education - and we wonder why our education system is broken? Good Lord.
Peace
So which other rights do you think should be infringed, just because?
Zigzagman
2-22-11, 10:18am
Alan - this does not have to be a left/right issue. College campuses have restricted guns for decades. Only now that our political heroes have decided to make it "important", with no or little regard to anything else, is it even an issue. Not the question is what rights will campuses have to "restrict". Once again we get into the distraction game instead because of ideology much like most political issues. Does everything have to be political? Is this good government?
Peace
Alan and Bae,
I totally understand your feelings that YOU each are responsible people, have had training, etc. But can you really say that of everyone who carries a concealed weapon? You probably find yourself in the position of not being able to object to those people carrying a gun, because it affects your carrying a gun, right?
I just have no idea how we could ever sift through who is responsible, sane, reasonable, safe, etc. So the only option we have is to trust the people who test these people and then let everyone carry a gun anywhere, and just keep our fingers crossed that no one makes a deadly mistake?
We're not just talking about a big stick here.
There are so many crazies around who can act just the way they are supposed to, when they need to get something (a permit).
I guess that's what happens when we get so big in numbers and want so many individual freedoms........we have to have blanket freedoms that cover almost anyone, whether they can handle them or not.
Alan and Bae,
I guess that's what happens when we get so big in numbers and want so many individual freedoms........we have to have blanket freedoms that cover almost anyone, whether they can handle them or not.
But whats the alternative? Restrict all freedoms on the off chance that one might be abused?
A good analogy to guns would be vehicles. Vehicles require a license to operate on a public street. To get that license, the state sets training and testing requirements.
Similarly, the concealed carry permit (in most states) requires training and testing.
We accept that vehicles will have certain bad apples, but there are risks in life. Concealed carry is a similar proposition. I would argue a 2000 pound, 300 horsepower vehicle is more dangerous than a gun in many respects.
Alan - this does not have to be a left/right issue. College campuses have restricted guns for decades. Only now that our political heroes have decided to make it "important", with no or little regard to anything else, is it even an issue. Not the question is what rights will campuses have to "restrict". Once again we get into the distraction game instead because of ideology much like most political issues. Does everything have to be political? Is this good government?
Peace
I don't see it as a left/right issue. It's more a matter of whether or not there is a compelling reason to restrict a right.
I believe that in many cases there is a compelling reason, I just haven't yet heard a compelling reason to restrict this one, in this place.
I just have no idea how we could ever sift through who is responsible, sane, reasonable, safe, etc. So the only option we have is to trust the people who test these people and then let everyone carry a gun anywhere, and just keep our fingers crossed that no one makes a deadly mistake?
Cathy - from the data from several decades of widespread licensing in most states of this country, it seems that the system we have in place for providing for concealed carry licenses seems to be quite effective at sorting out the people you are concerned with.
A good analogy to guns would be vehicles. Vehicles require a license to operate on a public street. To get that license, the state sets training and testing requirements.
Similarly, the concealed carry permit (in most states) requires training and testing.
We accept that vehicles will have certain bad apples, but there are risks in life. Concealed carry is a similar proposition. I would argue a 2000 pound, 300 horsepower vehicle is more dangerous than a gun in many respects.
This is actually a very good analygy. On most campuses, the areas around the classrooms and book store/student union, are off limits to cars. You can't drive in the commons. It's a safty issue.
I don't see it as a left/right issue. It's more a matter of whether or not there is a compelling reason to restrict a right.
I believe that in many cases there is a compelling reason, I just haven't yet heard a compelling reason to restrict this one, in this place.
Well, we've given you several compelling reasons why this is a really stupid idea, brought forth by stupid people who are only pushing an ideological position. You just refuse to listen.
I certainly wouldn't want to be a professor in Texas with a law like this. Imagine trying to figure out who to pass along simply because they might be armed. I'm guessing you've never stood in front of a room full of stressed, sleep deprived calculus students who's college success depends on the grade you give them. Now let's add guns!
You haven't given a compelling reason why you think this is a GOOD idea.
Here's a good idea. Let's poll all the teachers in Texas and see if they think this is a good idea. They, after all, will be the ones facing the rooms full of armed students. I'm willing to accept what they want. Are you?
This is actually a very good analygy. On most campuses, the areas around the classrooms and book store/student union, are off limits to cars. You can't drive in the commons. It's a safty issue.
I would agree that most colleges limit vehicles on campus. It has nothing to do with safety, however, and everything to do with parking. I don't think weapons (other than tanks) require a 10 x 20 space to park.
I would agree students should not be able to drive tanks to class due to parking restrictions (even if they have the proper permit). Taking a glock to class, on the other hand, I'm all right with assuming they have met the applicable federal and state laws.
How many 21 year olds are taking beginning calculus? That's a red herring.
Well, we've given you several compelling reasons why this is a really stupid idea, brought forth by stupid people who are only pushing an ideological position. You just refuse to listen.
I certainly wouldn't want to be a professor in Texas with a law like this. Imagine trying to figure out who to pass along simply because they might be armed. I'm guessing you've never stood in front of a room full of stressed, sleep deprived calculus students who's college success depends on the grade you give them. Now let's add guns!
You haven't given a compelling reason why you think this is a GOOD idea.
Here's a good idea. Let's poll all the teachers in Texas and see if they think this is a good idea. They, after all, will be the ones facing the rooms full of armed students. I'm willing to accept what they want. Are you?
No, I'm afraid I wouldn't accept that. There's a word for a system of laws based on the transient whims of of a vocal minority, it's called tyranny.
The one thing we should expect of our government, be it Federal or State, is to be treated in a uniform manner. We're talking about legal adults engaging in a legal activity without any indication that they pose a threat to anyone else. You seem to be in favor of criminalizing these people for engaging in a lawful activity. It doesn't make sense to me.
I have in the past had restraining orders against people who had made credible threats against my life and the lives of family members. If I were in that situation today, and a professor in Texas, I would welcome my place of employment no longer being a gun-free zone where my stalker would know he could assault me with little chance of me being armed.
Taking a glock to class, on the other hand, I'm all right with assuming they have met the applicable federal and state laws.
I find that statement just beyond anything I can comprehend. Admittedly, I did attend college in the 70's after returning from Vietnam and just cannot grasp the present gun culture these days. That is not to say that I don't own guns or have any problem with gun ownership. But the idea that more is better seems very strange to me. I guess it is an age thing - I just don;t get it.
Rights? Rights? All of the sudden we need more gun rights? And this is because........ of Arizona? of the newly elected GOP? Please explain.
Peace
I find that statement just beyond anything I can comprehend. Admittedly, I did attend college in the 70's after returning from Vietnam and just cannot grasp the present gun culture these days. That is not to say that I don't own guns or have any problem with gun ownership. But the idea that more is better seems very strange to me. I guess it is an age thing - I just don;t get it.
Rights? Rights? All of the sudden we need more gun rights? And this is because........ of Arizona? of the newly elected GOP? Please explain.
Peace
I went to a high school where kid's brought their hunting rifles in their cars. Guns are an object to me, no more, no less. They should be respected, but not feared. I don't comprehend why a college classroom should have different laws than the rest of society.
Alcohol has frequently been brought up as a reason for college students not to have firearms. I would agree that alcohol and firearms don't mix. That's why we already have laws against that. Brandishing a firearm to get a better grade has been brought up also. Again, already against the law.
Finally, before you brand me as a gun toting lunatic. I've taken the concealed carry class, but haven't applied for the permit and have no immediate plans to carry one on a regular basis. I simply think it's a right people should have if they so choose.
Eggs and Shrubs
2-23-11, 1:29pm
Does anyone in the US take their weapons to church? If not, why not?
Does anyone in the US take their weapons to church?
Quite a few people do.
Does anyone in the US take their weapons to church? If not, why not?
Indeed, admittedly there are some dangerous people there. My mental image is of a "good ol' boy" putting on his Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes and making sure he puts his "protection" in his boot.
Another question I have often wondered about is - If you chew tobacco or that snuff stuff, do you bring your spit bottle inside the church or do you just swallow?
Peace
loosechickens
2-23-11, 2:10pm
didn't someone right on these boards (perhaps not in this thread, I can't remember) say that they even take their gun to their Women's Bible Study group? I believe it was in case some madman bursts in, was the explanation. I can't remember who it was, but certainly, people take guns to church. It's hard to know what Jesus would think of such a thing, but.........
Indeed, admittedly there are some dangerous people there. My mental image is of a "good ol' boy" putting on his Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes...
Odd. My mental image is that of Jeanne Assam at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, using her handgun to stop a rifle-armed mass murderer who was intent on slaughtering her fellow church-goers like lambs.
But, good way to marginalize, stereotype, and dehumanize folks, Zig. Well done.
But, good way to marginalize, stereotype, and dehumanize folks, Zig. Well done.
You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Thanks Man! (Obviously you have never been to Texas!!!)
Peace
Odd. My mental image is that of Jeanne Assam at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, using her handgun to stop a rifle-armed mass murderer who was intent on slaughtering her fellow church-goers like lambs.
But, good way to marginalize, stereotype, and dehumanize folks, Zig. Well done.
And if only someone had been prepared to stop the same shooter 12 hours earlier when he killed two and wounded two others at the local Youth With A Mission center.
Eggs and Shrubs
2-23-11, 2:53pm
Is there anywhere, or any situation, in the US where the carrying of a firearm may be considered inappropriate?
What is or is not inappropriate seems to be a judgement call, however it is generally illegal to carry a weapon in establishments which serve alcohol on premises and in federal buildings, to name a few.
Eggs and Shrubs
2-23-11, 3:03pm
What is or is not inappropriate seems to be a judgement call, however it is generally illegal to carry a weapon in establishments which serve alcohol on premises and in federal buildings, to name a few.
So it's OK in a church but not in a government building. Do you feel a bit unsafe and exposed when, say, applying for a driver's licence?
Is there anywhere, or any situation, in the US where the carrying of a firearm may be considered inappropriate?
Quite likely. I wouldn't regulate by location though, but by circumstance.
Drivers license are handled on a state level rather than federal, although the contempt with which their workers hold for the general public is about the same.:D
Eggs and Shrubs
2-23-11, 3:13pm
Strangely enough there has been a shooting incident in a school in Scotland today. Fortunately no-one was seriously hurt as access to firearms in Scotland is tightly controlled, even more so since the shooting at Dunblane 15 years ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12558772
So it's OK in a church but not in a government building. Do you feel a bit unsafe and exposed when, say, applying for a driver's licence?
I'll give you an example of concern. A few years ago, I was on a jury for a criminal case, which involved some brutal injuries, and a claim of self-defense by the defendant. The community was quite upset by the incident, and both parties had zealous supporters. The court room was packed during the trial. I am glad that the immediate parties to the affair were prohibited by state law from being armed in the courtroom, along with their upset supporters. I would have been quite happy had the judge and bailiffs been armed, *but they weren't*. We didn't even have a metal detector at the door.
When I showed up at the courthouse, I was armed, and as is required, I went over to my lockbox at the Sheriff's substation in the lobby, disarmed, and locked up my firearm. This is a bit troublesome by itself, as the boxes are right in the public area of the courthouse, and everyone coming and going gets to see you disarming and arming. At the time of this trial, I had a restraining order out against a fellow who was threatening to kill me. So once disarmed, I had a Sheriff's deputy walk me to the jury area entrance, both to provide some protection, and to prevent me from being contaminated by contact with advocates for either side.
This was not an ideal situation, as I was then all day in a room with lots of people, and no real controls or protection, and so I had a word with the judge about the problem. Luckily, I knew the judge and Sheriff quite well, and we worked out an acceptable solution, but I suspect Joe Random Juror wouldn't have been so fortunate.
I doubt there is a one-size-fits-all solution for all places and circumstances.
At minimum, in an ideal world, I would like to be able to carry my firearm any place a law enforcement officer can, as long as I am not party to some activity or controversy that would allow you to reasonably articulate some specific risk to others I was presenting that would justify reducing my ability to protect myself.
didn't someone right on these boards (perhaps not in this thread, I can't remember) say that they even take their gun to their Women's Bible Study group? I believe it was in case some madman bursts in, was the explanation. I can't remember who it was, but certainly, people take guns to church. It's hard to know what Jesus would think of such a thing, but.........
That was me. I feel as a group of women, we would be more vulnerable. I live in a town 30 minutes from the sheriff and no cell phone coverage (mountains in the way). I don't see how having a tool for protection is going against anything Christ Jesus taught.
hmmmmm H-work. I'm not religious in the least. But your last statement tells me maybe you're in the wrong Bible study group.
It would make sense that in your situation, you would want to protect yourself.........but I doubt Jesus would agree with the gun part.
hmmmmm H-work. I'm not religious in the least. But your last statement tells me maybe you're in the wrong Bible study group.
It would make sense that in your situation, you would want to protect yourself.........but I doubt Jesus would agree with the gun part.
This is the same Jesus who threw the moneychangers out of the Temple?
The same one who told his followers "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"?
Lawful self-defense is not against the Christian belief system.
The same one who told his followers "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"?
The modern equivalent would be to say, "go sell that leather jacket of yours and buy a Glock."
Religion and Guns........
Peace
CathyA, while distancing herself from religion by saying "I'm not religious in the least", proceeds to tell another poster that they are in "the wrong Bible study group", presuming to understand the poster's particular flavor of Christianity, and telling them they are incorrect. That's a bit much.
Is a Christian allowed to hire an armed security guard to protect their church?
Is a Christian allowed to call an armed policeman to respond to an attacker?
Is the use of force in defense allowed if done second or third hand at the behest of the Christian, so they don't tarnish their hands?
Are Christians stereotyped happy kumbaya-singing lambs to be slaughtered?
A fellow by the name of Aquinas talked over some of this. (Google "Doctrine of Double Effect".) He hasn't been on Oprah though.
hmmmmm H-work. I'm not religious in the least. But your last statement tells me maybe you're in the wrong Bible study group.
It would make sense that in your situation, you would want to protect yourself.........but I doubt Jesus would agree with the gun part.
I just don't understand your post. A Christian can't protect themselves with a gun? What Bible study group should I be in? Or do you mean "wrong study group"? Or that I'm not learning anything about the Bible from it or??? I just don't understand your point.
Strangely enough there has been a shooting incident in a school in Scotland today. Fortunately no-one was seriously hurt as access to firearms in Scotland is tightly controlled, even more so since the shooting at Dunblane 15 years ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12558772
See, what you don't understand is, life in the US is EXACTLY like you see on TeeVee. Shootouts and street gun battles everyday! In all places, churches, schools, PTA meetings, everywhere. In cities large and small, you can hardly get in your car without a car chase, or go to church without getting involved in a shootout.
Really, art is imitating life here. How i have managed all these years without a glock is truly amazing. No, we're not paranoid in the least! We need to be armed, and to the teeth!
Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll go watch the latest episode of 'Dr. Cop', or as I like to call it, reality TeeVee.
Nope, not paranoid, not us!
Nope, not paranoid, not us!
Seems to me the paranoia is in actuality to be found in the folks who insist, contrary to the overwhelming quantity of objective evidence, that law-abiding citizens carrying licensed firearms pose some sort of grave threat to public safety. (Usually accompanied with some vivid projections about how they fear they themselves would behave if armed, served with a side dish of marginalizing and stereotyping those they disagree with.)
Of course, paranoia comes from many directions. Some of us even think it's amusing when it's displayed so vehemently by those who fear the law abiding more than the people who may actually do them harm. Or maybe that's just me. :laff:
I don't watch TV, don't watch too many movies. My neighbors, meth dealers, have threatened my other neighbor. My neighbor goes to the same study as me. The sheriff has been called several times about the meth dealers in town (3 houses) but nothing has been done. It's a small town, the larger towns in the county get all the resources first. My brother's in-laws were shot down while on a camping trip, the police suspected they walked into a drug deal or something. When I was 12, walking home alone, a young man tried to get me in his car. Another car drove by so he left. I grew up in the Green River Killer era, bodies were found at many places I have been and spent time at. They are still finding bodies, one was found (about 10 years ago so not super-recent) nearby my best friends house. I certainly hope that I'll never need to use my pistol in self-defense but there is violence out there. I'd be kicking myself if I had a pistol, had the training, but didn't have it with me when I could have used it to protect myself, my family or my friends.
We love our guns in the US. Most people that love guns in the US suffer from a "small penis complex" or self-esteem issues. The idea to have a "big gun" is definitely a male thing. Although I know there are some women that feel the same I suspect a high testosterone level. I have no evidence to support this theory but it has been my observation. We have a terrible time with sexuality in the US.
Peace
Most people that love guns in the US suffer from a "small penis complex" or self-esteem issues. The idea to have a "big gun" is definitely a male thing. Although I know there are some women that feel the same I suspect a high testosterone level. I have no evidence to support this theory but it has been my observation. We have a terrible time with sexuality in the US.
What a load of offensive hogwash.
We love our guns in the US. Most people that love guns in the US suffer from a "small penis complex" or self-esteem issues. Peace
Perhaps bae's projection theory may be more widespread than I realized?
We love our guns in the US. Most people that love guns in the US suffer from a "small penis complex" or self-esteem issues. The idea to have a "big gun" is definitely a male thing. Although I know there are some women that feel the same I suspect a high testosterone level. I have no evidence to support this theory but it has been my observation. We have a terrible time with sexuality in the US.
Peace
LOL +1
Eggs and Shrubs
2-24-11, 2:25am
Of course, paranoia comes from many directions. Some of us even think it's amusing when it's displayed so vehemently by those who fear the law abiding more than the people who may actually do them harm. Or maybe that's just me. :laff:
Of course, the law abiding are not to be feared but what about the non-law abiding? If, as a consequence of reducing the number of firearms amongst the non-law abiding, the law abiding are prevented from having weapons. Is that not a price worth paying for greatly reduced gun crime? I believe it is.
The homicide rate by firearm in the US is 66 times higher than that in Scotland. The good people of Scotland seem to share my view.
I realise homicide can be carried out in a number of ways but the overall homicide rate in the US is still 4 times that of the UK. I would suggest part of the explanation is the easy access to firearms.
If, as a consequence of reducing the number of firearms amongst the non-law abiding, the law abiding are prevented from having weapons. Is that not a price worth paying for greatly reduced gun crime? I believe it is.
It comes down to core values, I suppose. A bit more freedom with a bit less security, or the other way around. Should we take away things from everyone that can be used irresponsibly (firearms, automobiles, whisky, cheese) to protect ourselves from the aberrant few? Or do we allow freedom of choice and accept the collateral damage? Either way we pay a price. My belief is that we lose more in the long run by ceding away little fragments of liberty to the state than we lose by the foolish or even evil choices of individuals.
Eggs and Shrubs
2-24-11, 10:40am
It comes down to core values, I suppose. A bit more freedom with a bit less security, or the other way around. Should we take away things from everyone that can be used irresponsibly (firearms, automobiles, whisky, cheese) to protect ourselves from the aberrant few? Or do we allow freedom of choice and accept the collateral damage? Either way we pay a price. My belief is that we lose more in the long run by ceding away little fragments of liberty to the state than we lose by the foolish or even evil choices of individuals.
I'm a bit more practical. The freedom I'm interested in is the freedom not to be shot. My liberty is not predicated on me having a more powerful weapon than my neighbour.
Furthermore, why are guns banned on campuses, places that sell alcohol or federal buildings? The right to bear arms has some limitations seemingly.
Of course, the law abiding are not to be feared but what about the non-law abiding? If, as a consequence of reducing the number of firearms amongst the non-law abiding, the law abiding are prevented from having weapons. Is that not a price worth paying for greatly reduced gun crime? I believe it is.
The homicide rate by firearm in the US is 66 times higher than that in Scotland. The good people of Scotland seem to share my view.
I realise homicide can be carried out in a number of ways but the overall homicide rate in the US is still 4 times that of the UK. I would suggest part of the explanation is the easy access to firearms.
You bring up some interesting points that are well outside the scope of this thread and probably deserves one of it's own. But as long as we're here, it occurs to me that there are many offshoots of this post that deserve discussion.
Several of them might be, the right of an individual to effectively defend themselves against violence from others, the nature of violence within different countries or local communities, the demographics of violence, the role of governments in fostering an atmosphere of violence, the breakdown of families and social order, the role of government in protecting us from ourselves, the inherent right of an individual to live life without undue restrictions, the role of the media in glorifying violence, etc.
Rather than discuss/demonize/restrict the tools of one form of violence, I think it would be more constructive to discuss the source of violence and how it can be minimized within communities/demographics where it is most prevalent. But maybe we're not yet ready for that discussion.
It's always easier to criticize the result than address the cause.
Alan, I might not have the same opinions as you do, but I do appreciate the way you seem open to talk about things. Seems like alot of people who are pro guns are extremely defensive and closed. I appreciate your approach to talking about things.
Eggs and Shrubs
2-24-11, 12:00pm
You bring up some interesting points that are well outside the scope of this thread and probably deserves one of it's own. But as long as we're here, it occurs to me that there are many offshoots of this post that deserve discussion.
Several of them might be, the right of an individual to effectively defend themselves against violence from others, the nature of violence within different countries or local communities, the demographics of violence, the role of governments in fostering an atmosphere of violence, the breakdown of families and social order, the role of government in protecting us from ourselves, the inherent right of an individual to live life without undue restrictions, the role of the media in glorifying violence, etc.
Rather than discuss/demonize/restrict the tools of one form of violence, I think it would be more constructive to discuss the source of violence and how it can be minimized within communities/demographics where it is most prevalent. But maybe we're not yet ready for that discussion.
It's always easier to criticize the result than address the cause.
An excellent post Alan.
Why is violence, in an era of plenty, so prevalent? I pose the question but can't begin to answer it.
By the way, I am not trying to make negative or cheap points for the sake of it. I'm a lifelong Americophile.
It is equally ridiculous to demand either perfect security or perfect freedom. I wouldn’t argue for either the freedom of the jungle or the security of the sheep pen. But I prefer a position closer to the libertarian side of the spectrum, risking the possibility of the occasional wolf over the near certainty of being herded around by sheep dogs. Are there limits? Certainly. But many of those university campuses that ban weapons also enforce speech codes aimed at protecting the sensibilities of various designated groups. Both are well-intentioned infringements on individual liberties, but infringements nevertheless.
As a practical matter, I don’t believe chipping away at one freedom can be done without diminishing respect for individual rights as a whole, and that there needs to be a compelling argument before doing so. And I don’t see that the margin of safety that might be gained by limiting weapons ownership to criminals is on balance worth it. I see confiscating weapons as attacking the symptom rather than the disease itself. If we are truly a more violent society than the Canadians or Swiss, than we need to talk about what we can do to improve the culture rather than indulge in the empty symbolism of taking weapons from people who would only use them responsibly anyway.
loosechickens
2-24-11, 1:24pm
I somehow in recent days have found myself wondering why many folks who are adamant about protecting rights when it is regarding the matter of gun ownership, yet seem to be against the rights of folks, such as the teachers, etc., in Wisconsin to retain THEIR rights to collective bargaining in the face of forces that are determined to take that right from them.
I've noticed in my "real life" on several occasions in this past week that people I know who are vociferous gun rights advocates, are just as vociferously against people having collective bargaining rights and the ability to negotiate the terms of employment with employers in general. And it really doesn't seem to have to do with the fact that they are public employees, because I asked specifically about collective bargaining rights among those in the private sector, and they were as adamantly against unions or the ability of workers to collectively bargain with employers as they were for folks in Wisconsin.
It was as though some prejudice against "unions" obscured the idea of "rights" in those cases, but "rights" was all they thought about regarding gun issues. The idea that "rights" might apply in both cases, so should be upheld just didn't seem to compute.
At first I thought that they were trying to balance the "rights" of all concerned, but in the gun issue, none seemed the least bit interested in considering the "rights" of the people who wanted to reduce, limit or otherwise impede their free rights to whatever and how many guns they desired. Yet they had no difficulty at ALL in agreeing with reducing, limiting or eliminating the "rights" of people to negotiate the terms of their employment. It seemed very strange to me, as though we were speaking two different languages.
And given that ONE of those people works in a non-union grocery store making several dollars an hour less than the grocery stores that are union pay......really perplexes me. Because that same person is ready to do war with anyone who would even HINT at curtailing any of his gun rights.
Do you guys have any insight into this?
I somehow in recent days have found myself wondering why many folks who are adamant about protecting rights when it is regarding the matter of gun ownership, yet seem to be against the rights of folks, such as the teachers, etc., in Wisconsin to retain THEIR rights to collective bargaining in the face of forces that are determined to take that right from them.
I've noticed in my "real life" on several occasions in this past week that people I know who are vociferous gun rights advocates, are just as vociferously against people having collective bargaining rights and the ability to negotiate the terms of employment with employers in general. And it really doesn't seem to have to do with the fact that they are public employees, because I asked specifically about collective bargaining rights among those in the private sector, and they were as adamantly against unions or the ability of workers to collectively bargain with employers as they were for folks in Wisconsin.
It was as though some prejudice against "unions" obscured the idea of "rights" in those cases, but "rights" was all they thought about regarding gun issues. The idea that "rights" might apply in both cases, so should be upheld just didn't seem to compute.
At first I thought that they were trying to balance the "rights" of all concerned, but in the gun issue, none seemed the least bit interested in considering the "rights" of the people who wanted to reduce, limit or otherwise impede their free rights to whatever and how many guns they desired. Yet they had no difficulty at ALL in agreeing with reducing, limiting or eliminating the "rights" of people to negotiate the terms of their employment. It seemed very strange to me, as though we were speaking two different languages.
And given that ONE of those people works in a non-union grocery store making several dollars an hour less than the grocery stores that are union pay......really perplexes me. Because that same person is ready to do war with anyone who would even HINT at curtailing any of his gun rights.
Do you guys have any insight into this?
Yes, somewhat. It has to do with the nature of rights. A right is something that is not bestowed upon you, it's something that is inherent. My right to own or carry a firearm doesn't mean that you have to support it, subsidize it or even approve of it.
A union's collective bargaining rights depend upon someone else paying for that entitlement and as such is not really a right in the inherent sense.
Comparing the two and considering them the same is faulty logic.
Yes, somewhat. It has to do with the nature of rights. A right is something that is not bestowed upon you, it's something that is inherent. My right to own or carry a firearm doesn't mean that you have to support it, subsidize it or even approve of it.
A union's collective bargaining rights depend upon someone else paying for that entitlement and as such is not really a right in the inherent sense.
Comparing the two and considering them the same is faulty logic.
I think you’re touching on an important point here. There are two conflicting views on what we mean when we talk about “rights”. The more conservative perspective views rights as something you’re born with that cannot be bargained, stolen or legislated away. The US Constitution is largely built around limiting the power of government to interfere with some specifically enumerated rights, and diffusing the power of government in general through a series of checks and balances on the general principle that concentrated power will nearly always be inimical to individual freedom. In this view, government can’t infringe on the right to bear arms because a right is a sort of moral principal that exists regardless of prevailing fashions in thought.
The liberal perspective takes what I consider a more political/legalistic view of rights as something government is obligated to provide its citizens. It might be in the form of goods and services, as with most entitlement programs; or it might be in the form of contractual obligations such as the power of collective bargaining. In this view, rights are something we agree on as a society, and are subject to negotiation as social needs or attitudes change.
Given those views, I think it entirely consistent for the conservative to view gun ownership as a “right”, but not collective bargaining for public employees. I find it less consistent for someone holding the liberal view of rights to insist that a power granted by the Wisconsin Legislature in 1959 cannot be withdrawn by the Wisconsin Legislature in 2011.
I am very supportive of the right of people to peaceably assemble, engage in speech, and negotiate agreements between themselves without coercion or fraud. So I am very supportive of unions, in general.
The devil is in the details though. My understanding is that coercion is involved under-the-hood of some of our current regulations.
I wish I was as articulate as some of you. I personally don't think we have any rights inherently. "Rights" seems to be something that were developed as societies developed.
Hopefully without offending anyone, I think people who have a really strong need to own guns are the personality types who don't like anyone telling them what they can or cannot do. Many of them are fierce about this. Its a very personal attack to them to be told what to do. Aren't unions just another group telling them what to do?
I wish I was as articulate as some of you. I personally don't think we have any rights inherently. "Rights" seems to be something that were developed as societies developed.
Hopefully without offending anyone, I think people who have a really strong need to own guns are the personality types who don't like anyone telling them what they can or cannot do. Many of them are fierce about this. Its a very personal attack to them to be told what to do. Aren't unions just another group telling them what to do?
Perhaps you could consider that the idea of inherent rights is one of the cornerstones of this country. Prior to our constitution, rights were something that were bestowed on the people by decree, and taken away with the next decree. The beauty of our republic is that for the first time in modern history, a nation was formed where certain rights are inalienable and cannot be granted or taken away on the whims of others. A Republican form of government is one that is constrained by the people, not the other way around as you would find in a Democracy, and the constitution doesn't grant us rights, it prevents the government from taking them away from us.
I would suggest a good reading of it for anyone interested.
Perhaps you could consider that the idea of inherent rights is one of the cornerstones of this country. Prior to our constitution, rights were something that were bestowed on the people by decree, and taken away with the next decree. The beauty of our republic is that for the first time in modern history, a nation was formed where certain rights are inalienable and cannot be granted or taken away on the whims of others. A Republican form of government is one that is constrained by the people, not the other way around as you would find in a Democracy, and the constitution doesn't grant us rights, it prevents the government from taking them away from us.
I would suggest a good reading of it for anyone interested.
The constitution was written over 200 years ago in a very different world. Completely different. Considering , from their public and private writings, that the founding fathers were fairly pragmatic in coming to this document, i doubt very seriously they would think everyone being armed to the teeth, from Church to supermarkets, as good idea.
There are no 'inherent' rights, not even life. Ask the 25,000 to 30,000 children who die each day from preventable causes. Rights, all rights, are granted to us by the state, which I will remind you, is us. We all got together and decided guns on campuses were a bad idea. Most right thinking people still think so. Take a poll of the citizens of this country and I think most, as in the majority, would agree. Certainly most who have kids at college or teach there would agree. This IS how things work in a civilized society. We don't let a few loose cannons decide our fates in the name of 'freedom' or the constitution ( as they see it) or any other trumped up bumper sticker reason.
I don't care how many times you quote the constitution, or blather on about your rights verses the rights of just about everyone else to be safe in the classroom, of feel safe in the classroom. The idea of students armed with concealed guns in the classrooms is just ludicrous. It's dumb, and juvenile, and just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And anyone who thinks it's a good idea to arm all the students on a campus, for that very reason , is suspect and need to have their head examined.
How paranoid are you that you think everyone needs to be armed just about everywhere. I'm in my 50's and I've lived in cities large and small, and been on plenty of campuses, and I've yet to see a shoot out, car chase/explosion, or any of these other teevee scenarios that some would have you believe we deal with just everyday. these things just don't happen on a regular, or even semi-regular basis. Only in the minds of these swaggering 'important people' do these things happen.
To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail, and to a man with a gun, every problem can be solved with it.
And no, just because it's a right to have guns doesn't mean we need to be armed to the teeth everywhere we go. Free speech is a right but there is the whole fire in a theatre thing. Yes, we have rights, but with restrictions. That's just the way it is in a civilized society. The rights of the one does not outweigh the rights of the many.
Well, I'm sorry I got sucked into this argument. It's political pure and simple. It's a distraction. God, guns and gays. Wow! How many times can we be fooled into this old argument. As long as it works I guess. And with republicans, it seems like they can be fooled over and over. They don't call them low information voters for nothing!
Actually, to be truthful, I'm a Texan. 5th generation. How embarrassing, and sad for my state.
You know Alan, I really know you truly believe in what you are saying, but I also know you are being duped. You're smarter that this. You're being used by the right for purely political purposes. They don't give a rats a-- about your rights. Try carrying a gun to their political rally or to their office. Well, a class room is the teachers office. Don't you have kids at University? Weren't your kids young adults once? Now, think of all the stories they told you of life/adventures at university...., after they graduated and moved on.
Peggy, a woman once asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the newly ratified Constitution was bringing into existance. His reply was "A Republic, if you can keep it."
If your attitude is indicative of the majority, it looks like we weren't able to keep it, which is a shame because when the minority is ruled according to the whims of the majority you're right, there are no rights.
On what our founders thoughts were on the issue of weapons:
“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
“What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
-George Mason, 1788
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1776
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”
-Noah Webster, 1787
“The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
-Samuel Adams, 1788
In fact, they were pretty much OK with everyone being armed most places, back then. Some of the colonies even required going armed to Church and public meetings. I could point folks at some academic research on the topic, if they are honestly interested in facts.
I do *so* love the new progressive meme of "the Constitution is an old moldy document that isn't relevant or appropriate to modern America". Pretty easy to see where that road leads.
loosechickens
2-25-11, 1:03am
I guess I have some trouble seeing "rights" as you describe, Alan. Because the "right" is only inherent insofar as a document (which can be amended at any time) says it is. Just as collective bargaining is a right because the Wisconsin legislature says it is, and then has the "right" apparently to rescind that right.
Why is the Constitution somehow absolutely sacred in something like "the right to bear arms", when many scholars have interpreted that right as a right for states to have militias, and only court decisions interpreting have broadened that? What about the apparently "inherent" right that people had when the Constitution was written, to own slaves? And that slaves were considered only a "fraction of a person"? Yet, when it was decided that was wrong, the Constitution was amended and all of a sudden, holding people in slavery was no longer a right, and former slaves were all of a sudden full human beings. And throughout much of the period of the life of our Constitution, women had no right to vote and were not considered full citizens, yet, voila, just an amendment changed that and conferred rights upon them.
Why is that supposedly "inalienable" right to own guns not just as amenable to amendment and change? If something is "inherent", then to me, it is something unchangable.......the color of your skin is inherent, your eye color is inherent, but your "right" to own guns, or your "right" to negotiate the terms of your employment are "rights" only because they have been conferred by some document or law, written by human beings, so presumably changable by human beings.
Inherent would seem to apply to everyone, everywhere.
Honestly, I see no difference. Only that when someone agrees with a "right", THEN it seems to be inalienable and unchangable, but when they don't, the "right" becomes something that can be changed, adjusted, etc. It does seem to be in the eye of the beholder as to whether something is a right or just a privilege that can be taken away at will.
thanks, guys for trying to un-murk this very murky question for me.....IMHO, don't think it succeeded, but I appreciate the effort.
loosechickens
2-25-11, 1:17am
of course, bae, I can't imagine that the framers of the Constitution, intelligent men that they were, had the slightest idea that the arms that THEY knew, capable, with effort of shooting one bullet at a time, I'm assuming, would morph into AK47s, machine guns, assault rifles, large capacity magazines, etc. Somehow, one thinks they would have been horrified at the firepower, if nothing else.
The framers of our Constitution thought a LOT of things that we think are ludicrous these days. We seem to be amazingly able to consider some of those things they thought absolutely correct, and others not. Who are we to even make that decision? Yet we do. Why one and not another?
It reminds me of the people who defend homophobic prejudice by "the Bible says", while conveniently forgetting their Sunday dinner of shrimp and lobster at the Red Lobster, wearing cotton/poly clothing, and no longer thinking it's fine to sell their daughters into slavery.
The point is......it's fine to consider something "inalienable", but then you'd have to think other things in that same document as "inalienable" as well, yet we don't. Why is that? I think it's more that many think if they yell "inalienable" loudly enough, everyone will agree, but when it's something not important to them, they're entirely willing for "rights" to be trashed, so long as it isn't the "rights" THEY believe in.
Who knows? I certainly don't. But I know it doesn't make sense to me. We either have rights or we don't, and it seems as though any rights we DO have, can be constrained, changed, amended or increased, depending on court decisions, people's changing opinions, new knowledge, etc.
How do WE know that if the founders could look at all the bristling weaponry of today that they wouldn't be horrified at the very idea and move to constrain that "right" as dangerous to society and needing to be changed?
Loosechickens - when the Constitution was ratified, private citizens could own and operate cannon armed naval vessels, the strategic weaponry of the day, capable of reducing a port town to rubble. Our Navy relied on such through the 1800s, which is one of the reasons we did not ratify the Treaty of Paris of 1856.
Furthermore, your understanding of the history of firearms development is a bit flawed. The claim that the framers would have been "horrified at the firepower" is not supportable.
Anyways, interested parties are welcome to contact me to pointers to scholarship on the matter.
The idea of students armed with concealed guns in the classrooms is just ludicrous. It's dumb, and juvenile, and just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And anyone who thinks it's a good idea to arm all the students on a campus, for that very reason , is suspect and need to have their head examined.
Wow. So much for debate.
And I don't think ALL the students would go thru all the steps of taking the training, passing the training, buying a pistol, applying for the permit, qualifying for the permit. All of those take time and money, lots of money. When I was in college, I couldn't afford my books let alone a $200-$500 pistol not to mention whatever the classes cost ($50-$200), and the permit ($35-$100). I'm guessing at the estimates but they all are expensive. So even if this law passes, not all the students are suddenly going to be armed.
How paranoid are you that you think everyone needs to be armed just about everywhere. I'm in my 50's and I've lived in cities large and small, and been on plenty of campuses, and I've yet to see a shoot out, car chase/explosion, or any of these other teevee scenarios that some would have you believe we deal with just everyday. these things just don't happen on a regular, or even semi-regular basis. Only in the minds of these swaggering 'important people' do these things happen.
Maybe I'm paranoid. Like I said, I don't watch TV but violence has happened to family members and to people in my communities. If more people carried, or if there was police officers in every corner, I wouldn't carry. It's expensive. It's heavy. I have to be more observant.
To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail, and to a man with a gun, every problem can be solved with it.
I in no way believe a gun can solve every problem. The first act of self defense is to be aware of your situation and remove yourself if you sense or see trouble. When we were on a long road trip, we stopped at a fast food place. We noticed trouble in the parking lot, a fight broke out. We went out the back door and high-tailed it out of there. We didn't pull out the pistol and start shooting.
And no, just because it's a right to have guns doesn't mean we need to be armed to the teeth everywhere we go. Free speech is a right but there is the whole fire in a theatre thing. Yes, we have rights, but with restrictions. That's just the way it is in a civilized society. The rights of the one does not outweigh the rights of the many.
I may have the right to be armed to the teeth everywhere I go. But I don't have a right to brandish my weapon, use it to intimidate, start popping people off at the movie theatre so I can get thru the popcorn line faster. There are legalities of the permit. If a permit holder does use the weapon in self-defense, the weapon is usually confiscated, a police investigation is began, the shooter often goes to court to determine if the shooting was justified. Just because you have a concealed weapon permit doesn't give you a free ticket to murder without justifiable cause.
Well, I'm sorry I got sucked into this argument. It's political pure and simple. It's a distraction. God, guns and gays. Wow! How many times can we be fooled into this old argument. As long as it works I guess. And with republicans, it seems like they can be fooled over and over. They don't call them low information voters for nothing!
I've tried to show my reasons for carrying. It is not political. Just for the record, I am not a republican. I'm 100% against the unconstitutional war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm against US Forces doing raids and taking old Enfields from Iraqi farmers, their sole protection. Disarmament of a people often leads to bad things for the people. What would have happened to the Nazis if the Hitler had not been able to disarm the Jews?
I guess I'm off to get my head examined. Because there is no way but anything but your opinion has any merit, credit or logic. I'll see you in the camps when all the evil guns are taken away.
How do WE know that if the founders could look at all the bristling weaponry of today that they wouldn't be horrified at the very idea and move to constrain that "right" as dangerous to society and needing to be changed?
Perhaps they might bother to look at actual data before going off claiming "bristling weaponry" was "dangerous to society"?
In this country only a handful of states now refuse to issue concealed carry licenses or make it particularly difficult for law-abiding citizens to get one. The trend over the past 25 years or so has been for states to issue carry permits. During this time, the streets have not been running red with blood from acts of violence committed by those who lawfully carry firearms. There isn't even any difference between the states with stringent training requirements, and states that simply issue permits to all of good character.
It simply isn't a significant problem.
http://www.nraila.org/maps/rtc.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Rtc.gif/300px-Rtc.gif
DocHolliday
2-25-11, 7:22am
of course, bae, I can't imagine that the framers of the Constitution, intelligent men that they were, had the slightest idea that the arms that THEY knew, capable, with effort of shooting one bullet at a time, I'm assuming, would morph into AK47s, machine guns, assault rifles, large capacity magazines, etc. Somehow, one thinks they would have been horrified at the firepower, if nothing else.
We have no idea what they may or may not have thought. Consider this, Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest inventors in American history, was one of the Founding Fathers. There was more than one type of firearm, even then: blunderbusses, pepperboxes, duck-foots, swivel-breeches, and the things they came up with to shoot out of cannons...
I guess I have some trouble seeing "rights" as you describe, Alan. Because the "right" is only inherent insofar as a document (which can be amended at any time) says it is. Just as collective bargaining is a right because the Wisconsin legislature says it is, and then has the "right" apparently to rescind that right.
Why is the Constitution somehow absolutely sacred in something like "the right to bear arms", when many scholars have interpreted that right as a right for states to have militias, and only court decisions interpreting have broadened that? What about the apparently "inherent" right that people had when the Constitution was written, to own slaves? And that slaves were considered only a "fraction of a person"? Yet, when it was decided that was wrong, the Constitution was amended and all of a sudden, holding people in slavery was no longer a right, and former slaves were all of a sudden full human beings. And throughout much of the period of the life of our Constitution, women had no right to vote and were not considered full citizens, yet, voila, just an amendment changed that and conferred rights upon them.
I think you may be interpreting the Constitution in a way that conforms to your desired meaning. Sometimes, a little context helps us see what we might miss otherwise.
Consider this quotation from a speech given by Frederick Douglass in 1860:
" Here then, are those provisions of the Constitution, which the most extravagant defenders of slavery can claim to guarantee a right of property in man. These are the provisions which have been pressed into the service of the human fleshmongers of America. Let us look at them just as they stand, one by one. Let us grant, for the sake of the argument, that the first of these provisions, referring to the basis of representation and taxation, does refer to slaves. We are not compelled to make that admission, for it might fairly apply to aliens — persons living in the country, but not naturalized. But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer — It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of "two-fifths" of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote."
You can read the speech in its entirety here (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1128) if you like.
It might also help if you were to consider the Constitution as an instrument that constrains government from violating rights rather than an instrument that confers rights. In each of the examples you've given, the Constitution did not give rights previously lacking, but rather confirmed through various ammendments that those inherent rights could not be infringed.
As for the nature of "inalienable" rights, I wouldn't consider the right to carry a weapon as such, although I would consider the right to provide an effective means of self defense to be so as part of the defined right to liberty.
Others may disagree, but that doesn't invalidate my premise that unless specifically prohibited by the Constitution, all rights are inherent. And furthermore, that rights are not something that government can give you, but are something that government can't take away.
In a state of Nature, red in tooth and claw, we don't really have any "rights". When you are alone, hiking across the Yukon, you have no right to life, or health care, or affordable housing, or education, other than what you can provide for yourself by your strength and wit.
Man however is a social species. Our precursor species are also social animals. We do not survive alone as individuals for long, we require the aid and support of our fellows. So even well before we were humans, we had society, and we had ways of operating together.
For the longest time though, we didn't really have any "rights", other than what we could enforce ourselves, or that the strongest among us allowed us. "Rights" codified by law came into existence thousands of years ago - the Code of Ur-Nammu from 2500 BC lays out some of the earliest written rights and responsibilities.
What is interesting about the creation of the United States is the advocacy of the progressive, liberal position that rights properly belong to individuals, and that governments are created to serve the people, and are given by the people only certain powers to carry out the necessary functions of government.
The claim some have made here that "rights, all rights, are granted to us by the state" is simply contrary to the spirit and the letter of the American Revolution and the philosophical and legal underpinings of our society.
Look at the 9th and 10th Amendments to that dusty old irrelevant Constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
loosechickens
2-25-11, 1:47pm
Thank you, Alan. This comment from you is very illuminating:
"It might also help if you were to consider the Constitution as an instrument that constrains government from violating rights rather than an instrument that confers rights. In each of the examples you've given, the Constitution did not give rights previously lacking, but rather confirmed through various ammendments that those inherent rights could not be infringed."
Although I still have trouble with some, such as then how did they somehow think the Constitution could be used to take away the rights of citizens, say, to buy and sell alcohol? But you make a good point, and I can see some of the murk clearing just for a bit, when I read your comments.
And, bae and others.....I freely admit that you guys know more about guns, from blunderbusses to assault weapons than I would ever even want to know, so perhaps the founders were just as much gun aficianados as you are. You've mentioned before on these forums, bae, that your expenditure for target shooting ammunition every year is more than we spend in total for everything in our life, so I bow to you and others of the "gun people" on such things. Maybe the founding fathers would be right in there at the gun shows with you, lovingly stroking all the weapons. Who knows? Certainly not me.
To me, the Constitution is used and abused, just as the bible is, to fit what particular people want to see it as saying. And that isn't likely to change. Just as the fact that each one thinks his or her particular interpretation is the "one true one".
When I see all the mostly untrammeled rights to guns in this country, I seem to see more the several thousand women who are killed every year by husbands or boyfriends, often with guns in fits of rage (in my own family, my mother's cousin was gunned down by her estranged husband many years ago, in front of her mother's house, with her last words being, "NO, Junior, don't"), or the some 500 children killed in the U.S. each year from guns in the home (just a few weeks ago, a pre-kindergartner in FL showed up at school with a loaded handgun in his pocket that he'd found in the glove compartment of his parent's truck).
When you look at the statistics of how many guns were used in self defense protecting a family from harm against "evildoers", the numbers pale in comparison with the people killed by accident, in fits of rage by family members, in road rage incidents, etc.
But........that's just my opinion. Those of you who are fans of guns and gun rights tend to see it differently. It's why it is such a huge point of division in this country. And not one that we are likely to come to any real agreement about here.
But I thank all of you for your comments. It's something that I have wondered for awhile, asked people I know in real life, and honestly, have to say that I've received more cogent and understandable comments here than from them. Much food for thought.
bae, a very thoughtful answer indeed.
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are rights as well, and presumably the very ones our students are reaching for at University. Ones that they paid quite a bit for. I can almost guarantee you the majority of students and faculty at universities across the country would feel these rights were being disparaged by a very few who want to pack heat everywhere they go including the classroom, dorm, dining facilities, etc.
Why not take a poll of the students and faculty at universities. Not right wingers at a tea party rally, but the very ones this would affect. I'm just betting this isn't high on their to-do list. In fact, I'll just bet it's only a hand full who are pushing this. Why? It's intimidation, and it's a distraction. It's god, guns and gays, that old trifecta of the right that they reliably trot out whenever they want to get the masses riled up. Gotta have an enemy, and with Obama's poll numbers looking up, and the economy slowly making it's way back, they need to keep the people worked up in a froth about something. For heavens' sake, they are down to criticizing the first lady for saying we should eat right and take care of ourselves!
LC is right. Our gun laws are the most liberal among industrialized nations. Why do you keep pushing for more? It's in this climate of gun culture where people feel free to bring guns to political rallies. Rallies of the opposing party, mind you. This isn't about protection. We aren't that stupid. We know it's not. It's about intimidation, pure and simple. Just as this pushing for allowing guns in the classrooms is about intimidation. Intimidation by the NRA and the right. And the people who are trying to push this are bullies. Bullies with guns.
You have the right to own a gun. Fine, keep your gun. But when you bring it into my space, your disparaging my rights.
You have the right to own a gun. Fine, keep your gun. But when you bring it into my space, your disparaging my rights.
How so?
You have the right to own a gun. Fine, keep your gun. But when you bring it into my space, your disparaging my rights.
The public space is not "your space". It is *our* space. The Supreme Court has written much about the distinction.
Feel free to limit my exercise of my liberties on your property. I don't expect to be able to hold a religious service in your living room without your permission, or to engage in political speech you disagree with on your front lawn, or to run a parade through your back yard, or to carry my firearm in your kitchen against your wishes.
However, in the public spaces, my rights are not subject to your individual whims and fears, nor does my exercising them "disparage" your rights.
bae, a very thoughtful answer indeed.
We aren't that stupid. We know it's not. It's about intimidation, pure and simple. Just as this pushing for allowing guns in the classrooms is about intimidation. Intimidation by the NRA and the right. And the people who are trying to push this are bullies. Bullies with guns.
You have the right to own a gun. Fine, keep your gun. But when you bring it into my space, your disparaging my rights.
First, if your talking points are going to revolve around the right wing extremists threatening others through their gun rights, it might be noted that intimidation is not limited to the right or the left. See attached http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7772968/threats_of_violence_rock_wisconsin.html?cat=62
Secondly, most states have laws against brandishing precisely to avoid the intimidation you describe.
Secondly, most states have laws against brandishing precisely to avoid the intimidation you describe.
Most states that issue concealed carry licenses intend for the weapons to be carried....concealed.
I wonder how exactly a concealed weapon, lawfully carried by a law-abiding citizen, manages to "intimidate"? Do some people have X-ray vision and psychic powers, and can see into the clothing and minds of their fellow citizens while strolling the village green?
And given the overwhelming amount data on the general lack of firearms misuse by those who carry lawfully, perhaps these "intimidated" folks are somehow viewing an alternative reality.
On a related bunny trail, about a year ago, on 2/22/10, it became legal to have your lawfully carried firearm in our national parks.
The anti-gun lobby predicted carnage, and blood on the trails, and people fearing to visit parks because of the bristling weaponry. You've seen the rhetoric above.
The result, a year later? No incidents, park visitations are up, and some people survived a grizzly attack in Denali because they were armed.
http://www.examiner.com/national-parks-in-national/guns-parks-rule-reaches-one-year-anniversary#ixzz1F0qkRJ6V
After reading the latest posts I am questioning if some people actually get a "gun orgasm"? It seems so important and so essential that we all can carry a gun and be able to kill someone if necessary. Huh?
Maybe we will be attacked as we walk down the street, maybe we will be attacked as we ride down the road, maybe just the idea of having a weapon that can kill someone makes us feel safe and secure?
I still think it is a sexual related thing - it seems that the gun is pretty much a phallic symbol for many? A power trip? Would Guns and Gays mix? Guns and alcohol? Guns and dating?
Peace
The public space is not "your space". It is *our* space. The Supreme Court has written much about the distinction.
Feel free to limit my exercise of my liberties on your property. I don't expect to be able to hold a religious service in your living room without your permission, or to engage in political speech you disagree with on your front lawn, or to run a parade through your back yard, or to carry my firearm in your kitchen against your wishes.
However, in the public spaces, my rights are not subject to your individual whims and fears, nor does my exercising them "disparage" your rights.
Yes it is our space. But what makes your right to pack heat trump my right to feel safe and comfortable in 'our' space? Why is your right to carry, a right, and my right to feel and be safe a whim or fear? Right there you are disparaging my rights. (to make light of, or trivialize)
Life and liberty. Two of my rights that are placed under your control when you insist on packing heat in 'our' space. And I don't know, or trust you, to put either in your hands. Your the one who's operating on fear if you think you 'need' a gun in the classroom, or at church or a PTA meeting. If you're carrying a gun, then you expect to shoot someone. And if you expect to shoot someone, you expect to kill them. Or, maybe you just want people to think you could kill them, there by getting the upper hand in any argument or disagreement. Either way, you are a danger I don't want in my /our space. And my rights to not be intimidated are certainly equal to, or even more than your rights to arm yourself to the teeth.
Most states that issue concealed carry licenses intend for the weapons to be carried....concealed.
I wonder how exactly a concealed weapon, lawfully carried by a law-abiding citizen, manages to "intimidate"? Do some people have X-ray vision and psychic powers, and can see into the clothing and minds of their fellow citizens while strolling the village green?
And given the overwhelming amount data on the general lack of firearms misuse by those who carry lawfully, perhaps these "intimidated" folks are somehow viewing an alternative reality.
No need for x-ray vision. I'd recognize the self important swagger anywhere. And these 'oh so responsible' people generally let you know one way or another that they are carrying. After all, what's the use of packing heat if you can't impress people with it?
Amazing, just amazing. And yet so predictable.
Most states that issue concealed carry licenses intend for the weapons to be carried....concealed.
I wonder how exactly a concealed weapon, lawfully carried by a law-abiding citizen, manages to "intimidate"? Do some people have X-ray vision and psychic powers, and can see into the clothing and minds of their fellow citizens while strolling the village green?
And given the overwhelming amount data on the general lack of firearms misuse by those who carry lawfully, perhaps these "intimidated" folks are somehow viewing an alternative reality.
BAE - I think you misunderstood my comment. We agree.
Most states already have laws against brandishing on the books to avoid the type of intimidation described in this thread. If the weapon is concealed, its impossible for it to be intimidating.
Zigzagman
2-26-11, 10:09am
We regress, each day, to the Wild Wild West. (http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/ut-chancellor-warns-against-guns-on-campus-1282757.html?cxtype=rss_ece_frontpage) :help:
Our conservative political heroes just love these wedge issues.
The head of the largest university system in Texas is taking aim at legislation that would allow concealed handguns on college campuses, saying more guns do not mean more safety.
Campus law enforcement officials, mental health professionals, faculty members, students and parents have all expressed their concerns that handguns on campus would create a more dangerous environment, University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa said in a letter to Gov. Rick Perry released Friday.
Supporters of the legislation argue that allowing concealed handguns on campus would create a safer environment, because carriers would be able to act in self-defense immediately and not have to wait for the police to arrive.
But Cigarroa said campus mental health professionals fear guns on campus would lead to an increase in suicides — the second leading cause of death among college students. Campus police are worried about distinguishing between "the bad actor" and people defending themselves when both have drawn guns. And with combustible materials present in science labs and hospitals across campuses, some have expressed concern that firing a gun in certain places "may have consequences well beyond what one may expect in other environments," the letter said.
"I must concur with all the concerns and apprehensions expressed to me, that the presence of concealed weapons, on balance, will make a campus a less-safe environment," Cigarroa said in the letter.
Peace
Ziggy, the fears you mention assume that weapons will be used inappropriately, plus, the wording used implies that everyone will be able to carry a weapon on campus, which is not the case.
The debate is whether or not the approximately 3% of Texans with concealed carry permits should be able to carry their weapons within the campus environment with the same impunity they enjoy off campus. A very large percentage of the student body would still be restricted from doing so simply because of age as the minimum age for a permit is 21.
As bae has pointed out several times, supported by several decades of data, the inappropriate use of a weapon by concealed carry permit holders is statistically insignificant. The issue seems to be more one of people of a certain mindset wishing to restrict an otherwise lawful activity based upon their fears and prejudices.
It's the same as requiring theater goers to be gagged prior to entry to relieve a fear that they might yell 'fire'. It's ridiculious!
BAE - I think you misunderstood my comment. We agree.
I was simply expanding on your observation, not disagreeing. Unless someone has Peggy's mystical swagger-spotting skills (skills that a large portion of extensively-trained specialist law enforcement officers have trouble mastering) concealed weapons, being concealed, don't scare the horses :-)
That is, after all, one of the whole points of the weapon being concealed.
I still think it is a sexual related thing
Well, for me it is a gender thing. I'm female and small, have arthritis and a bad back. A strong man can easily over-power me. A pistol only levels the field, gives me a fighting chance. It's insurance. I hope to never use it. I hope to never use my auto-insurance or fire insurance either. I hope I never, ever have to draw my pistol, outside of training and target practice.
I don't get a gun orgasm. I'd prefer not to carry. I'd prefer not to feel there was a need. It's a tool, not a sex object. Men I know who carry, I don't see them fondling their pistol or swaggering, or using it to intimidate. They are the type who don't need to impress anyone with anything. I'm mostly worried about keeping it concealed (women's clothing isn't always the best concealment, it's much easier to conceal a pistol on a man, in my opinion.) Sure, it's a tool that can kill, but so can a vehicle. I don't go driving down the street just looking for someone I can run over. I don't go down the sidewalk looking for who I can take out. "Packing heat" is for the movies. A pistol is not "burning" in the holster, just itching to be drawn and fired by all the legal concealed permit holders in America. Why would they go thru all the training, all the expense just to misuse their license and get their pistol & permit confiscated, get arrested, go to prison for misusing their weapon?
Ziggy, the fears you mention assume that weapons will be used inappropriately, plus, the wording used implies that everyone will be able to carry a weapon on campus, which is not the case.
The debate is whether or not the approximately 3% of Texans with concealed carry permits should be able to carry their weapons within the campus environment with the same impunity they enjoy off campus. A very large percentage of the student body would still be restricted from doing so simply because of age as the minimum age for a permit is 21.
As bae has pointed out several times, supported by several decades of data, the inappropriate use of a weapon by concealed carry permit holders is statistically insignificant. The issue seems to be more one of people of a certain mindset wishing to restrict an otherwise lawful activity based upon their fears and prejudices.
It's the same as requiring theater goers to be gagged prior to entry to relieve a fear that they might yell 'fire'. It's ridiculious!
so, what exactly is APPROPRIATE use of a gun on campus? In the classroom?
Re read what he wrote. Faculty, students, mental health of campuses, all DON'T want this. So who is pushing it? Not the faculty. Not the students. and not campus mental health. who then? Who has decided in their twisted mental gyrations that suddenly student should be armed? Have you asked yourself that? The NRA and right wingers who NEED A BOOGYMAN! They need an enemy to sic the peasants on. It's like they are all dressed up with pitchforks and no place to go.
Let me ask you this simple question. If the faculty doesn't want this and the students don't want this and the campus mental health says it's a really really bad idea, why are they pushing it? What purpose will it serve? Who benefits from this fight? Follow the money, and the power, and you have your answer.
so, what exactly is APPROPRIATE use of a gun on campus? In the classroom?
Re read what he wrote. Faculty, students, mental health of campuses, all DON'T want this. So who is pushing it? Not the faculty. Not the students. and not campus mental health. who then? Who has decided in their twisted mental gyrations that suddenly student should be armed? Have you asked yourself that? The NRA and right wingers who NEED A BOOGYMAN! They need an enemy to sic the peasants on. It's like they are all dressed up with pitchforks and no place to go.
Let me ask you this simple question. If the faculty doesn't want this and the students don't want this and the campus mental health says it's a really really bad idea, why are they pushing it? What purpose will it serve? Who benefits from this fight? Follow the money, and the power, and you have your answer.
That's a pretty broad brush to say none of the students or faculty want to carry a concealed weapon.
As far as purpose, it will allow those following the law to defend themselves with deadly force if necessary. Hopefully they never have to do that.
Let me ask you this simple question. If the faculty doesn't want this and the students don't want this and the campus mental health says it's a really really bad idea, why are they pushing it? What purpose will it serve? Who benefits from this fight? Follow the money, and the power, and you have your answer.
Have you taken a poll which would back up your assertion that the faculty and the students don't want this? And even if the majority didn't want it, is that a reason to restrict it? What if they decided they didn't want women or minorities or anyone named Peggy on campus?
Look Peggy, we all understand that you really don't like what you don't like, especially if its guns or conservatives. We've heard all this nonsense on every other subject where people are likely to apply emotion over reason. I enjoy debating you when you use reason, how about bringing some to the table.
We've heard all this nonsense on every other subject where people are likely to apply emotion over reason.
Is that the same as "We have “Europeanized” America"?
Guns are so damn lame - the loud bang, the thrill of a piece of lead, the expectation of witnessing the "death shake"?
I'm scared as hell, I am "Boss Hog", I feel the power. What does that bad person look like in your dreams?
I say "Chill Out" - you are into phallic symbols and that is about it.
Peace
Ninan; Dunlop (2006). Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders. Pennsylvania: Handbooks in Health Care. pp. 107. ISBN 1-931981-62-0. "Table 7-1 Names of Some Phobias...Unusual...Hoplophobia-fear of firearms"
You may wish to talk to your health care provider.
Like I've said "East is east and west is west and ne'r shall the twain meet." This discussion could go on forever and we would still be in the same place. Nobody is going to change their opinions, so why keep arguing?
This discussion could go on forever and we would still be in the same place.
It's not really a discussion though. A couple of people are intent upon engaging in character attacks, s******ing sexual putdowns, stereotype, and dehumanization, as is their pattern, while deflecting or ignoring any conversation of the data.
However, the discussion won't go on forever, and we won't remain in the same place. The general pattern in the United States the past few decades has been of increasing rights to self defense and access to effective tools to do so, and there are several recent Supreme Court cases laying down the law, and more in the pipeline. The majority of American states, as evidenced by their own Constitutions and laws, and participation in the Supreme Court cases, are supportive of this trend.
And during this time, the projective fears of those opposed have simply not come to pass.
Oh, *that's* too precious. The word s.n.i.g.g.e.r.i.n.g gets censored.
Welcome to America :-)
The general pattern in the United States the past few decades has been of increasing rights to self defense and access to effective tools to do so, and there are several recent Supreme Court cases laying down the law, and more in the pipeline. The majority of American states, as evidenced by their own Constitutions and laws, and participation in the Supreme Court cases, are supportive of this trend.
Straight from the "US Concealed Carry Association" - To exercise this uniquely American right, the right to keep and bear arms… requires you to make an unbridled commitment to carry your firearm with you everywhere you go, every single day.
Amazing state of mind.
Peace
After reading the latest posts I am questioning if some people actually get a "gun orgasm"? It seems so important and so essential that we all can carry a gun and be able to kill someone if necessary. Huh?
Maybe we will be attacked as we walk down the street, maybe we will be attacked as we ride down the road, maybe just the idea of having a weapon that can kill someone makes us feel safe and secure?
I still think it is a sexual related thing - it seems that the gun is pretty much a phallic symbol for many? A power trip? Would Guns and Gays mix? Guns and alcohol? Guns and dating?
Peace
"This is my rifle,
This is my gun.
This is for fighting,
This is for fun!"
Gee, all those years I was married and dating men I could have just gotten a bigger gun instead :-)!
"This is my rifle,
This is my gun.
This is for fighting,
This is for fun!"
Gee, all those years I was married and dating men I could have just gotten a bigger gun instead :-)!
I haven't heard that little ditty in years. Definately gives a different perspective on the phrase "****ed and loaded". :|(
Edited to add:
Due to an overly ambitious bad word filter, you'll have to fill in the blanks.
loosechickens
3-1-11, 2:57pm
ah....spartana....I remember that one.......you bring me back to being the mama of a newly minted U.S. Marine so long ago, and being treated to all those little ditties learned at Parris Island, plus new and inventive swear word strings from the drill sargeants, that he couldn't wait to shock his mama with.......
ah....spartana....I remember that one.......you bring me back to being the mama of a newly minted U.S. Marine so long ago, and being treated to all those little ditties learned at Parris Island, plus new and inventive swear word strings from the drill sargeants, that he couldn't wait to shock his mama with.......
That little ditty was kind of lost on the 4 women with me in a co-ed boot camp (and about 30 guys!) but it does bring up fond memories :-)! Alan, I think the word was "locked" not "****ed" and loaded he he he...
and Alan, I think the word was "locked" not "****ed" and loaded he he he...
Of course, you're right. But my version is punnier.:~)
Of course, you're right. But my version is punnier.:~)
That my friends is an example of a "gun organism". A female veteran talking about grabbing her crotch as she recites the "Rifleman's Creed" and the guys go wild!! Ya'll crack me up!! :laff:
Peace
That my friends is an example of a "gun organism". A female veteran talking about grabbing her crotch as she recites the "Rifleman's Creed" and the guys go wild!! Ya'll crack me up!! :laff:
Peace
Ziggy, it's more like once someone goes off on a ridiculious tangent, it's best to just make light of it.
By the way, what is a "gun organism"?
Ninan; Dunlop (2006). Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders. Pennsylvania: Handbooks in Health Care. pp. 107. ISBN 1-931981-62-0. "Table 7-1 Names of Some Phobias...Unusual...Hoplophobia-fear of firearms"
You may wish to talk to your health care provider.
Gee, I wonder what is the name of the paranoia that makes you thing you need to pack heat no matter where you are. Enemies under every rock and around every corner. I think that's just called general paranoia.
I'm sure your health care provider could supply you with the name. Not sure if there's a cure.
By the way, what is a "gun organism"?
Typo ;), I'm convinced that many of the gun toters get off just carrying their weapons, especially right after they load the bullets - just my hunch?
Used in a sentence- "Baby, let's go get a Lone Star but wait till I get my gun!!" :laff: (Aggie talking to his girlfriend)
Peace
Gee, I wonder what is the name of the paranoia that makes you thing you need to pack heat no matter where you are. Enemies under every rock and around every corner. I think that's just called general paranoia.
I'm sure your health care provider could supply you with the name. Not sure if there's a cure.
Actually, getting restraining orders and bodyguards sufficed for most of the cases, but thanks for caring.
Both my wife and I used to work in circumstances that made us the targets of very unpleasant, very violent, very revenge-oriented people. We still are, now and then.
Actually, getting restraining orders and bodyguards sufficed for most of the cases, but thanks for caring.
Both my wife and I used to work in circumstances that made us the targets of very unpleasant, very violent, very revenge-oriented people. We still are, now and then.
Yours is kind of a different case bae. But I'm guessing for most of those who think it would be cool to carry, it's just paranoid or that swaggering intimidation I mentioned earlier. Zig might be right ;) but, well, I'll just let you fellers discuss that one amongst yourselves.
Typo ;), I'm convinced that many of the gun toters get off just carrying their weapons, especially right after they load the bullets - just my hunch?
Used in a sentence- "Baby, let's go get a Lone Star but wait till I get my gun!!" :laff: (Aggie talking to his girlfriend)
Peace
Whoo Hoo! Let's get likkered up and shoot out some street lights! (see, I haven't forgotten my Texas roots)
Whoo Hoo! Let's get likkered up and shoot out some street lights! (see, I haven't forgotten my Texas roots)
It's great, huh Peggy? I can't wait to see what happens with the gun proposal by our political heroes in Austin.
Do you miss the Texmex and BBQ?
Peace
First, if your talking points are going to revolve around the right wing extremists threatening others through their gun rights, it might be noted that intimidation is not limited to the right or the left. See attached http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7772968/threats_of_violence_rock_wisconsin.html?cat=62
Yep, I'm a pretty liberal Democrat (heck I'd be a Socialist in the right circle of friends) and don't see why many people assume that if you support the current gun laws or choose to own and carry guns yourself, why you are branded as some sort of ultra right wing, fundamentalist Christian, gay hating, cross burning ,keep the women-folk barefoot and pregneant, neo-nazi Zealot. I got my NRA card in my right pocket and my PETA card in my left! Although I think my PETA card intimidates more people :-)! Remember to Barack the Vote says this Obama Mama!!!
That my friends is an example of a "gun organism". A female veteran talking about grabbing her crotch as she recites the "Rifleman's Creed" and the guys go wild!! Ya'll crack me up!! :laff:
Peace
Oh my! If that's all it takes to get men worked up I'll never have to wear make-up and high heels again - YIPEE!! :-)!
It's great, huh Peggy? I can't wait to see what happens with the gun proposal by our political heroes in Austin.
Do you miss the Texmex and BBQ?
Peace
I do miss the b-b-q, but I can make a mean b-b-q myself! You know, yanks just can't seem to get it right!
You know you are getting close to 'home' as you travel when you order breakfast and they ask 'you want grits or biscuits with that, honey?'
Eggs and Shrubs
3-3-11, 2:56am
What is the logic of banning the carrying of weapons in federal buildings? Why are there any limitations whatsoever?
The various State and Federal governments reserve the ability to restrict weapons by location and circumstance. For example, persons under the age of 21, felons and the mentally ill are denied the ability to receive a permit. Weapons are also restricted in locations where alcohol is consumed and within a court or other government office such as a school. I suppose the locations are chosen as a result of the potential for emotions to run a bit hot.
The result of that is all law abiding, trained and certified concealed carry permit holders will abide by the law, while those who are already carrying weapons illegally will probably continue to do so.
I've noticed that while this thread is devoted to the possible lifting of a restriction on the holders of proper permits in a specific location, the argument against seems to be one in favor of restricting all weapons, everywhere. Of course, in the end, this will only affect the people who abide by the law, and there's the rub.
Eggs and Shrubs
3-3-11, 10:21am
I suppose the locations are chosen as a result of the potential for emotions to run a bit hot.
Can't emotions "run a bit hot" anywhere?
Can't emotions "run a bit hot" anywhere?
Sure they can, and do!
Thankfully, statistics from the past 3 or 4 decades of liberalized concealed carry availability show that those people who have gone through the training/background check/permitting process have shown a near unanimous propensity to adhere to the proper guidelines for the use of deadly force, meaning that they are only used to protect themselves or others from serious bodily injury or death.
One could debate the ability for anyone to carry a weapon as opposed to the ability of a properly permitted person to do so, but they are not the same argument, nor is the former the subject of this thread.
Eggs and Shrubs
3-3-11, 11:00am
Sure they can, and do!
Thankfully, statistics from the past 3 or 4 decades of liberalized concealed carry availability show that those people who have gone through the training/background check/permitting process have shown a near unanimous propensity to adhere to the proper guidelines for the use of deadly force, meaning that they are only used to protect themselves or others from serious bodily injury or death.
One could debate the ability for anyone to carry a weapon as opposed to the ability of a properly permitted person to do so, but they are not the same argument, nor is the former the subject of this thread.
Near unanimous? How near is safe enough?
While we can never achieve a society where we are 100% safe, I would say that when the overall loss of life is diminished (as statistics show) in areas where concealed carry permits are issued, we are safer than we would be otherwise.
NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=3) -
In Florida, a state representative has introduced a bill that would impose fines of up to $5 million on any doctor who asks a patient whether he or she owns a gun. This is certainly a new and interesting concept, but I don’t think we can classify it as a response to Tucson. Jason Brodeur, the Republican who thought it up, says it’s a response to the health care reform act. A sizable chunk of this country seems to feel as though there is nothing so secure that it can’t be endangered by Obamacare. It’s only a matter of time before somebody discovers that giving everyone access to health insurance poses a terrible threat to the armed forces, or the soybean crop, or poodles.
Brodeur’s is one of many, many gun bills floating around state legislatures these days. Virtually all of them seem to be based on the proposition that one of the really big problems we have in this country is a lack of weaponry. His nightmare scenario is that thanks to the “overreaching federal government,” insurance companies would learn who has guns from the doctors and use the information to raise the owners’ rates.
The nation’s state legislators seem to be troubled by a shortage of things they can do to make the National Rifle Association happy. Once you’ve voted to allow people to carry guns into bars (Georgia), eliminated the need for getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon (Arizona) and designated your own official state gun (Utah — awaiting the governor’s signature), it gets hard to come up with new ideas. This may be why so many states are now considering laws that would prohibit colleges and universities from barring guns on campus.
“It’s about people having the right to personal protection,” said Daniel Crocker, the southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
Concealed Carry on Campus is a national organization of students dedicated to opening up schools to more weaponry. Every spring it holds a national Empty Holster Protest “symbolizing that disarming all law-abiding citizens creates defense-free zones, which are attractive targets for criminals.”
And you thought the youth of America had lost its idealism. Hang your head. :laff:
Peace
I can think of a number of scenarios in which I would be grateful for a properly, trained and licensed college student to be carrying when I am on campus
Rape Victim to Testify on Campus Carry Law
http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/2011/03/17/rape-victim-to-testify-on-campus-carry-law/
Now the Texas Legislature is going to want to arm kindergartners (http://www.twincities.com/ci_17881830) to protect themselves.
HOUSTON -- Three children were grazed by a bullet at Betsy Ross Elementary School in northeast Houston Tuesday. HISD police confirm a kindergarten student brought a loaded handgun to school and it accidentally went off when it fell from his pocket in the cafeteria. A single bullet grazed all three victims, including the 6-year-old who brought the gun. One 6-year-old boy was wounded in the foot, another 6-year-old boy was wounded in the leg and a 5-year-old girl was wounded in the foot. You sit back and watch. The gun nuts are going to say that stuff like this happens because people don’t have enough guns and that if we had more guns and fewer gun laws, stuff like this wouldn’t happen.
Peace
It's already against the law for that child to a) have a hand gun b) bring it into school. And Texas, like many states, has a law requiring firearms to be stored safely away from minors, and establishing criminal liability if the minor gains access. And requires retailers to provide written warnings concerning this policy.
What additional law would you like to see?
...it accidentally went off when it fell from his pocket in the cafeteria.
Note also that it is exceptionally unlikely that any modern firearm will "accidentally go off" from a fall. Generally, in news stories, this is simply a codeword for "someone was fiddling around with the trigger".
Perhaps if that 6-year-old had had some simple firearms safety instructional suitable for his age, such as the program I teach at preschools and elementary schools here, this wouldn't have happened. His parents were clearly negligent all-around.
If you have kids, at the very least teach them the following rules:
If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.
PM/Email me if you need materials for this instruction, or pointers to easily-available grant funding for this educational program.
Hey, the conservatives have ME convinced that the only solution to these events is to arm ALL kindergartners. Little Travis'll think twice about popping out his magnum when he knows his sandbox-mates have theirs at the ready.
Let's hope this incident doesn't cause Dems to lose focus and start grandstanding on kindercare gun control.
Peace
Let's hope this incident doesn't cause Dems to lose focus and start grandstanding on kindercare gun control.
Three children injured due to parental neglect, and you joke, and drag out partisan politics....
Shameful.
Three children injured due to parental neglect, and you joke, and drag out partisan politics....
Shameful.
No Joke. We have entirely too many guns available in this country. No regard for public safety just a constant rant and political agenda by the NRA to arm everyone in this country. Not shameful - stupid.
Peace
As I mentioned previously, it is against the law in Texas for that child to have access to a firearm.
You rant against the NRA, but it is the NRA that is our nation's primary firearms safety educational orginization, which has been administering a successful safety program for children since 1988, reaching > 21 million children.
Seen on A bumper sticker (with which I agree):
If guns kill people, do pencils make spelling mistakes?
Do forks make people fat?
Best, you know that was an inner city Houston school - That was an illegal gun...legally, permitted guns, trained, registered owners - Hello!!! Those are the folks who SHOULD have the guns in the grocery, in the church, and, yes, on the college campus if it is declared legal. That poor child had no idea what he had in his pocket. Momma or Daddy will be charged, I'm sure.
Best, you know that was an inner city Houston school - That was an illegal gun...legally, permitted guns, trained, registered owners - Hello!!! Those are the folks who SHOULD have the guns in the grocery, in the church, and, yes, on the college campus if it is declared legal. That poor child had no idea what he had in his pocket. Momma or Daddy will be charged, I'm sure.
Hi Dana, Sup??
I have no idea where the incident happened but I just know that it seems that everybody and their brother seem to think that they have to "carry" these days. I've never seen anything like it. I see our state lege making gun rights a priority and I simply don't get it. As I have said before I have nothing against guns - I probably shoot more things (varmits) than most people on this forum. We simply do not need more handguns. They serve no useful purpose in society.
Reasonable gun control does not mean anti-gun. We need to control weapons in this society - it truly is a jungle out there!! And I see no indication that it is gonna change.
Peace
Oh boy! On this we agree!
The freedom to "pack" nearly everywhere (unrestricted) does not speak to me progression. Instead, it's a backwards mentality stuck in reverse.
My husband sums it up best. "Firearms in Canada are for sporting, firearms in the US are for personal protection". When people associate firearms with nothing more than personal protection, it's high time change took place.
We simply do not need more handguns. They serve no useful purpose in society.
Which is clearly incorrect on the face of it.
Handguns are useful for formal and informal target shooting, hunting, self-defense, and varmint control, among other things. That's why they exist.
The freedom to "pack" nearly everywhere (unrestricted) does not speak to me progression.
Most states in the USA that permit concealed carry do not do so on an unrestricted basis, requiring verification of identity and age, performing criminal background checks, and ofttimes imposing training requirements. And if you look at the statistics from the past several decades here in the USA, abuse of firearms by licensed individuals has simply not been a problem.
Let's talk about restricted and unrestricted for a moment. Here in Canada in order to possess a firearm (legally), one has to take a course, pass that course, then fill out all necessary credentials related to owning, possessing, and purchasing a firearm. For restricted weapons- i.e. pistols, etc, one needs to further their status by writing another exam (specific to restricted weapon possession/ownership). Additionally, in order to possess/own restricted firearms one needs to sign up for, and be a current holder of a gun range membership pass.
Now, going back to requirements specific to the United States, can anyone (certain States) go into a sporting goods store/shop and purchase a firearm (pistol or rifle), then carry it around (non-concealed) no strings attached?
One of the major problems with guns in the US is theft. Even if you own guns legally you need to take the responsibility that goes with gun ownership and store them securely. Why do I say that. There was a break in locally and 20 guns were stolen. Those guns will end up in gangs and bad guys hands and who knows how many people will be harmed by them.
To add, here in Canada, guidelines related to the storing of both firearms and ammunition is strict. (Would have to get DH to weigh in on this further to elaborate specifics).
I'm wondering where the whole "I need to pack" movement/mentality started in the United States? When did the momentum behind "I need to have a pistol on me at all times no matter where I am" all come about? For how long has this been the case in the US?
To further add to what I've already mentioned, I see the movement to "pack" as a failed structure related to the ability of the United States (all States) to provide adequate security and safety to the overall general public. What exactly is happening in the United States to warrant packing?
Knives are legal anywhere, so, should we all start packing an 18" chef's knife with us (in plain view) whenever we leave our homes just because we can? I see packing as a reflection of hatred and anger and having something to prove, regardless of whether or not the person doing the packing is registered and qualified to do so. Seriously, I see absolutely no need for it. It would be like my husband packing a pistol to work with him. Why? For what? What would be the point in my husband doing that? What is the point in the US in doing that?
To further add to what I've already mentioned, I see the movement to "pack" as a failed structure related to the ability of the United States (all States) to provide adequate security and safety to the overall general public. What exactly is happening in the United States to warrant packing?
Knives are legal anywhere, so, should we all start packing an 18" chef's knife with us (in plain view) whenever we leave our homes just because we can? I see packing as a reflection of hatred and anger and having something to prove, regardless of whether or not the person doing the packing is registered and qualified to do so. Seriously, I see absolutely no need for it. It would be like my husband packing a pistol to work with him. Why? For what? What would be the point in my husband doing that? What is the point in the US in doing that?
And there is the whole problem. Nothing here warrants packing everywhere you go. The US isn't really some frontier society with shoot-em-ups on the streets. That's TeeVee and the perception of those who watch too much of it. Or those who isolate themselves and live in constant fear of 'the outside world'. Really, it's kind of paranoid thinking. It's not reality based thinking.
I think the reason it's been so much in the news lately is because there is a democrat in office, and a certain segment of our society, mostly republican based low information voters who are easily manipulated, are in fact being manipulated by the right-wing powers to get whipped up into a frenzy of false anger over a non-issue. It always happens during an election cycle or any time there is a democrat in charge. The democrats have never tried, nor do they want to, take everyone's guns away. They just want some common sense guidelines and controls not written by the NRA. Why some people fall for this schtick over and over is beyond me. I guess it's the same folks who listen to and believe Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. It's the 'ol 'they're coming after you' bit. Unfortunately, as with any fear based control, the subjects get used to the drill. Then the fear has to be upped and the whole thing is spun up even tighter. We have seen the ugly results of this with people feeling free to carry guns to political rallies, and political leaders talking about 2nd amendment solutions. It's a very very dangerous game they are playing, but I've come to believe they don't really care what the outcome is as long as they achieve their political goals. I'm sure it hasn't passed your notice that all this fear based political strategy is coming largely from one side of the aisle. What that says about the leaders, or the voters, I'll leave up to you.
But I hope all this doesn't keep you, or anyone else from visiting here. It really isn't a wild west show here and you can be perfectly safe.
Mrs-M, I can't speak for every state in the US, but of the several I am familiar with there is a waiting period, commonly 3 days, sometimes longer, to purchase a handgun. That is so that background checks can be performed. In my home state there is no such requirement for long guns.
Free, you are correct about gun theft being a major problem, but I don't think the guns most of us own are being used in many crimes. A few years back I did a little work with a group that sheltered kids who had left gangs and tried to help them integrate back into society. I don't recall the issue of stolen guns coming up specifically, but there was much talk about the weapons of choice in the gangs. If these guys broke into my house and stole my collection of various long guns and six-shooters I'm pretty sure those would simply be sold rather than used by the gang. There are no where near enough rounds-per-second coming out of my firearms to be of interest on the streets.
Thank you for the info on purchasing in the States Gregg. In Canada we also have what's called a "cool down" period related to buying.
From everything I'm seeing (and hearing), firearm purchases in the States has moved beyond what firearms should be intended for, for sporting. I think there's something really lacking in society where everyday common people (the general public) feel the need to strut around with a sidearm strapped to their sides (around the clock), or having one in their possession (in their vehicle) 24/7. It's completely and totally out of touch with what "normal" stands for. (It's abnormal). I'm glad we here in Canada aren't subjected to the same.
Take Ferrari owner, Adamson. His new car is capable of speeds in excess of 200 MPH, yet the legal speed limit states otherwise, yet because Mr. Adamson has the means to drive such a vehicle he feels he has the personal right (entitlement) to go any speed his little heart desires, anywhere and everything he pleases, at his own discretion.
In examining Mr. Adamson's behaviour, approach, and opinion, I see the same attributes present that I'm seeing with firearm ownership and possession in the United States.
As citizens we ALL have rights, but it doesn't mean that all rights should be exaggerated to the point where no restraint is present anymore.
Thank you for the info on purchasing in the States Gregg. In Canada we also have what's called a "cool down" period related to buying.
From everything I'm seeing (and hearing), firearm purchases in the States has moved beyond what firearms should be intended for, for sporting. I think there's something really lacking in society where everyday common people (the general public) feel the need to strut around with a sidearm strapped to their sides (around the clock), or having one in their possession (in their vehicle) 24/7. It's completely and totally out of touch with what "normal" stands for. (It's abnormal). I'm glad we here in Canada aren't subjected to the same.
Take Ferrari owner, Adamson. His new car is capable of speeds in excess of 200 MPH, yet the legal speed limit states otherwise, yet because Mr. Adamson has the means to drive such a vehicle he feels he has the personal right (entitlement) to go any speed his little heart desires, anywhere and everything he pleases, at his own discretion.
In examining Mr. Adamson's behaviour, approach, and opinion, I see the same attributes present that I'm seeing with firearm ownership and possession in the United States.
As citizens we ALL have rights, but it doesn't mean that all rights should be exaggerated to the point where no restraint is present anymore.
Are you implying that citizens, exercising a lawful right to carry arms are not showing restraint by doing so? Or are you implying that if I exercise my right to carry a firearm, I am not showing restraint by shooting people? If it's the latter, I can assure you that having carried a weapon almost daily since 1973, I have never brandished it in anger or harmed a soul by doing so.
Just like "Adamson", whoever he may be, I have several cars and a motorcycle that are capable of vastly exceeding the highest speed limits in this country, yet that doesn't mean that I feel I have a right to do so just because I can. I understand that that is against the law. I don't get the context in which you assume he feels a right to break the law simply because he can.
In the same vein, everyone who has gone through the permit process to carry a concealed weapon has been trained in the use of deadly force. Each and every one understands that the use of deadly force is only allowed in order to protect themselves or others from imminent harm.
And, the training seems to be quite effective since we have virtually no problem with permit holders using their weapons outside of those guidelines.
Of course, there are lots of people who carry weapons for the purpose of doing harm to others. Last week, in a nearby neighborhood, an armed burglar entered a home in the middle of the night and shot the homeowners dog as it alerted the household to his intrusion. Thankfully, this action caused the intruder to flee before he had a chance to get upstairs to the bedrooms. I'd hate to think of what fate may have befallen the family if not for that wonderful dog, as I'm not sure they had the ability to protect themselves otherwise. Although I don't know for sure, I'd be willing to bet that the intruder did not have a carry permit for the gun.
If you have a family that you care about, or perhaps you care about the safety of all people and know all too well that there are people like this intruder ready & able to do harm to them, must you show restraint in being prepared to do so in order to be considered "normal"? Am I the "abnormal" one for being prepared? I would hope not.
Being prepared "at home" is one thing, being prepared "outside the home" is another. What does it say about the society we live in today when everyone is walking around like gun-slinging cowboys from the 1800's? It's out of touch with the times.
What I meant by restraint is, we all have rights to certain things and to do certain things, but just because citizens have the right to possess firearms doesn't mean they should have the right to carry them outside of their homes (at their leisure). There is a time and a place for everything. Firearms on the street (outside of those who oversee the law- i.e. Police, Security, etc), IMO is unacceptable. (Wrong place, wrong time). There's a certain tone about that says- "try me". It's grandstanding plain and simple, unrestrained grandstanding, and it doesn't do a thing towards bettering the lives of anyone.
My husband is pro-gun owner and user to the nth. Even he says what's going on in the States in uncalled for and out of line. (Words from a responsible firearm owner who's been around guns since he was knee-high to a grasshopper). Again, just because you own a firearm doesn't mean you should be afforded the right to take it/pack it anywhere with you as you so please. It's a law that's been allowed to wander too far and for too long outside the boundaries of acceptance. What American folk need (who are against this) is a true leader, one who isn't afraid of focusing his attention on the matter and stepping on it "hard" with the sole of his shoe, thus ending this mockery of gun-ownership and redirect it towards the way it should be, firearms left at home.
I have had a 9mm pointed at my head and it is not any fun. If I were packing it would not have done me any good. I have been in 3 bank robberies. The last one was the most scary. Three men burst into the bank I was managing one with a shotgun stood at the door and one of the others went down the teller line pointing his pistol at the tellers to get their money. The other came over to my desk and pointed his pistol at my head and told me not so polity to hang up the phone.
Even after such an experience I feel no need to carry a firearm. There are just too many firearms in the US. The majority of the killings done in Mexico are done with weapons purchased legally in the US.
Hi Freein05. That's very scary. I totally agree, allowing anyone and everyone to pack isn't going to make your streets safer or people safer. It just pollutes an already polluted system that much more.
Being prepared "at home" is one thing, being prepared "outside the home" is another.
Just out of curiosity, why is that? What is it about leaving the confines of your house that changes? Would you say that it's ok in your home, but not ok in your car, or while hiking through the woods, or while sitting in a park watching your children/grandchildren play? What changes that dynamic?
Again, just because you own a firearm doesn't mean you should be afforded the right to take it/pack it anywhere with you as you so please. It's a law that's been allowed to wander too far and for too long outside the boundaries of acceptance.
A couple of points on this:
1. There is no law that allows you to take a gun anyplace you please, but there are various laws, on a state by state basis, which de-criminalize doing so as long as certain pre-conditions are met.
2. Based upon the number of states which have de-criminalized the possession of weapons outside the home, I'd say that it is well within the boundaries of acceptance.
I get the feeling that some folks here believe that the act of carrying a weapon is an aggressive act. In my experience, knowing many people with concealed carry permits, that is not the case.
I'd like to respond to few comments in this thread:
1. The US constitution says nothing about firearms being for sporting purposes. I don't think the authors of the document had sporting purposes in mind when they drafted it.
2. If someone feels the need to carry a weapon discretely (or in socially appropriate manner), why do you find that so offensive? There have been few incidences where CCW holders have caused any problems. Not to say it doesn't happen, but trained individuals with weapons don't seem to be the problem.
3. I saw a comment that Mexico is getting a majority of it's firearms from the US. Do you have a cite for that? They certainly aren't getting the rocket launchers and grenades from legitimate US sources. Even if that's correct, you are implying that we need additional laws in place to combat that. It's already illegal for US guns to be in Mexico. Why do we need additional laws to combat that problem?
Just want to say that I'm really enjoying talking about this with everyone. Aside from it being a learning experience and great insight as to how things work in another country (aside from ours), it's great sharing our thoughts and feelings on the issue even if we do have varying degrees of acceptance and comfort related to the topic.
Originally posted by Midwest.
1. The US constitution says nothing about firearms being for sporting purposes. I don't think the authors of the document had sporting purposes in mind when they drafted it.I'm not here to surmise, but yes, it's obvious the authors of the document didn't have sporting in mind when they drafted it. (Probably why so many on this thread are against it). My opinion of the constitution which allows this, it's as a$$ backwards as those who drafted it. Outdated and out of touch it is. Additionally, I'm uncomfortable and would be uncomfortable around anyone who views firearms as a means of personal protection (first and foremost) over and above just being a means of sporting enjoyment. It says nothing positive about society and it's way of thinking.
I've said my piece.
Question for all those who "pack" here. You are driving around town and someone displays road rage against you, is the first instinct to take the cowardly path and draw your pistol to defend yourself? Is that what packing is all about in the States? How about if they decide to just unroll the window of their vehicle and open fire on you? Guess you're out of luck then hey? I'm gobsmacked by not only the asinine constitution behind such a ruling but even more so, the stupidity of those packing thinking they're untouchable (invincible) all because they have a pistol strapped to their side.
According to the ABC report 3 out of 4 guns used in crimes in Mexico were purchased in the US. Arizona Leeds the states in the number of guns used in crimes in Mexico. The article sites the easy gun purchase laws in Arizona as the reason for this. I believe money is the reason dealers and manufactures lobby government for lax gun laws to make money pure and simple. They could care less what harm the weapons sold are doing as long as they are making money.
I volunteer in the visitors center at the state park near me. Last fall a young man and his wife came in and wanted information on the hiking trails. I give the information to him. He than asked if he could carry his hand gun on his hike. I advised him he could not and by state regulations and it was illegal to have a firearm in a state park. I did not report it to a ranger because the guy was really scared of the wild animals in the park. We have some bears which are for the most part harmless and if you wave your arms they run away. We do have some man eating squirrels.
My point is this guy was really scared probably from watching too much reality TV and really felt he needed to be armed.
"A shocking new report obtained by ABC News says that as many as three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico and recovered and capable of being traced can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S. The numbers bolster complaints by Mexican officials that the country's unprecedented bloodshed – 28,000 people have died in drug-cartel violence since 2006 – is being fueled both by the U.S. appetite for drugs, and by American weapons. "
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mexican-crime-american-guns/story?id=11574583
I see the movement to "pack" as a failed structure related to the ability of the United States (all States) to provide adequate security and safety to the overall general public. What exactly is happening in the United States to warrant packing?
The United States is not Canada. What works for Canada may not work for the United States.
Knives are legal anywhere, so, should we all start packing an 18" chef's knife with us (in plain view) whenever we leave our homes just because we can?
Packing is not the same as carrying in plain view. Owners of a Concealed Carry Permit must conceal their pistol. It must not be seen or shown. It must not be brandished except in the case of self-defense.
I see packing as a reflection of hatred and anger and having something to prove, regardless of whether or not the person doing the packing is registered and qualified to do so.
?? I carry to protect myself and my young children. I do not hate anyone, am not angry with any one, and don't have anything to prove. I do know that some people are unstable or wish to do harm or take advantage of others, so I want to have a tool for protection. I hope I never, ever, ever, ever need to pull it out of it's holster, except during training. I also hope I never, ever, ever need to pull out my auto insurance card, use my local ER, use the fire extinguisher, etc, etc. But if there was a need, I would be glad to have them.
Seriously, I see absolutely no need for it. It would be like my husband packing a pistol to work with him. Why? For what? What would be the point in my husband doing that? What is the point in the US in doing that?
I guess criminals in Canada only go to residential homes, never to places of business or commerce. The "point" is protection.
From everything I'm seeing (and hearing), firearm purchases in the States has moved beyond what firearms should be intended for, for sporting.
Firearms have never just been for sporting in the United States. From the very beginning of the country, firearms have been for civil disobedience, revolution, protection, hunting (hunting for food, not sport), farming (critter control). There has been sport with firearms but sporting has never been the overreaching purpose of firearms manufacture. Canada may be different, but there was no "move" in the United States.
I think there's something really lacking in society where everyday common people (the general public) feel the need to strut around with a sidearm strapped to their sides (around the clock), or having one in their possession (in their vehicle) 24/7. It's completely and totally out of touch with what "normal" stands for. (It's abnormal). I'm glad we here in Canada aren't subjected to the same.
I don't strut. You would not be able to tell one person carrying from another person not carrying. If someone is strutting, and making it obvious they have a weapon, they are not properly trained and will probably lose their right to carry, for doing something stupid. Anyone with a license has to act responsible. If someone gets a driver's license, do they go barreling down sidewalks, taking out pedestrians, because they can? Would they not pay the consequences, be liable for all injuries and damage and also certainly lose their license to drive, go to court, be convicted, serve time, pay fines and fees, etc, etc. The owner of a concealed weapon permit is no different. There are stipulations of the license, it's not a free for all.
There's nothing wrong with having my pistol with me at all times. Do I not keep a 1st aid kit, spare tire, maps, bottled water, diapers in my car at all times. What's so strange about having my self-defense tool with me at all times as well? I've posted before, I don't want to be in a position where I had wished I had my pistol but didn't have it. I'm not out looking for opportunities to use it. In the first hint of trouble, I am out of there if possible. I posted before about our family leaving a fast food restaurant when a fight broke out in the parking lot. We hurried our kids out the back door, got in our car, and left the area as quick as possible. We didn't even belt the kids in until we got out of the parking lot and stopped somewhere else to belt them in.
[Disclaimer: I have never been a member of the NRA, I have never voted for a Republican president. I don't watch TV, many movies (mostly documentaries if anything) or news broadcasts. I don't strut and have never pulled my pistol outside of it's holster besides at home for maintenance or at the range for practice or training.]
One thing that's really starting to irritate me with this thread is the denial, denial as in- little to no events/situations to report related to those who are registered gun-owners and law-abiding citizens. (My butt)! Here, read.
http://www.kpho.com/news/15179045/detail.html
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/10/11/20081011roadrage-ON.html
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Police-ID-victim-in-interstate-shooting-99764414.html
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/justice/apx-AZRoad-Rage-Sentence_50896033-03122011
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xi384e_road-rage-incident-turns-into-road-rage-shooting-near-san-tan-mall_news
Page, after page, after page, after news report, after news report, after news report.
Question for all those who "pack" here. You are driving around town and someone displays road rage against you, is the first instinct to take the cowardly path and draw your pistol to defend yourself?
No
Is that what packing is all about in the States?
No
I'm gobsmacked by not only the asinine constitution behind such a ruling....
I believe that most, if not all, of the free world would not consider a constitution that limits government power over their citizenry to be asinine.
...but even more so, the stupidity of those packing thinking they're untouchable (invincible) all because they have a pistol strapped to their side.
That perception is not matched by anyone I know, but thanks for your input.
My opinion of the constitution which allows this, it's as a$$ backwards as those who drafted it. Outdated and out of touch it is. Additionally, I'm uncomfortable and would be uncomfortable around anyone who views firearms as a means of personal protection (first and foremost) over and above just being a means of sporting enjoyment. It says nothing positive about society and it's way of thinking.
I believe the writers of the Constitution were brilliant. The Constitution set up an unique government that gave men liberty and freedom. It is not backward or old fashioned in my opinion. The United States has not followed the Constitution fully since around the 1900's. What a nation we would be if we had followed it. But for those in the United States who do think it is outdated and needs updating, there are political ways to change it, that have been set in the very Constitution itself.
Question for all those who "pack" here. You are driving around town and someone displays road rage against you, is the first instinct to take the cowardly path and draw your pistol to defend yourself?
No, the only time I will draw my weapon is to protect the life and limb of myself or my children, or a stranger in obvious need. Road rage is annoying, but not enough to take one's life over. And not in the stipulations of the concealed weapon permit. If one did so, they would most likely lose their pistol and lose their permit, be arrested, jailed, go to court, be convicted, etc, etc. Why would one waste all the time and money spent purchasing a pistol, training and license fees (none of which are cheap) only to lose the ability to protect themselves afterall by acting out in anger and revenge?
My first instinct would be to swear, then get out of the way (protect myself and my children), take down license number, call 911, find a police station, fire station, etc.
Is that what packing is all about in the States?
Um, no, it is not. As others have noted again and again in this thread, there is very little, almost nil, problems with those who legally carry. Someone who pulls a weapon during a road rage incident is most likely not licensed or trained.
How about if they decide to just unroll the window of their vehicle and open fire on you? Guess you're out of luck then hey? I'm gobsmacked by not only the asinine constitution behind such a ruling but even more so, the stupidity of those packing thinking they're untouchable (invincible) all because they have a pistol strapped to their side.
Yeah, I'd be out of luck. I mostly carry in the event of rape, car jacking (I have children strapped into the back seats, so a concern of mine. Take the car, but give me my children, kind-of-thing), wild dogs (several viscous dogs in my town), drug deals (my brother's inlaws were killed while camping--several couples have been murdered by camping not 15 miles from my house). A employee took a young child into the men's restroom and raped her at a thrift store I've shopped at all my life.Things like that. I guess those things don't happen in Canada.
According to the ABC report 3 out of 4 guns used in crimes in Mexico were purchased in the US. Arizona Leeds the states in the number of guns used in crimes in Mexico. The article sites the easy gun purchase laws in Arizona as the reason for this. I believe money is the reason dealers and manufactures lobby government for lax gun laws to make money pure and simple. They could care less what harm the weapons sold are doing as long as they are making money.
I volunteer in the visitors center at the state park near me. Last fall a young man and his wife came in and wanted information on the hiking trails. I give the information to him. He than asked if he could carry his hand gun on his hike. I advised him he could not and by state regulations and it was illegal to have a firearm in a state park. I did not report it to a ranger because the guy was really scared of the wild animals in the park. We have some bears which are for the most part harmless and if you wave your arms they run away. We do have some man eating squirrels.
My point is this guy was really scared probably from watching too much reality TV and really felt he needed to be armed.
"A shocking new report obtained by ABC News says that as many as three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico and recovered and capable of being traced can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S. The numbers bolster complaints by Mexican officials that the country's unprecedented bloodshed – 28,000 people have died in drug-cartel violence since 2006 – is being fueled both by the U.S. appetite for drugs, and by American weapons. "
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mexican-crime-american-guns/story?id=11574583
Read the article carefully - "A shocking new report obtained by ABC News says that as many as three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico and recovered and capable of being traced can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S. "
Of the guns they can trace, 3 out of 4 came from the US. Where did the ones they couldn't trace come from? Mexico is scapegoating the US for their inability to control crime and gun control advocates are using the situation in Mexico to further their gun control agenda. If we want to help Mexico, we should control the border.
One thing that's really starting to irritate me with this thread is the denial, denial as in- little to no events/situations to report related to those who are registered gun-owners and law-abiding citizens. (My butt)! Here, read.
Page, after page, after page, after news report, after news report, after news report.
Where, in any of the links you gave, does it report either the shooter or the victim having a concealed weapons permit? I looked at all of them and couldn't find that info.
My opinion of the constitution which allows this, it's as a$$ backwards as those who drafted it. Outdated and out of touch it is. Additionally, I'm uncomfortable and would be uncomfortable around anyone who views firearms as a means of personal protection (first and foremost) over and above just being a means of sporting enjoyment. It says nothing positive about society and it's way of thinking.
I've said my piece.
If living in a free country is a$$ backwards, I'll take it. For the record, I don't feel the need to carry every day, but I support those who do.
I also support the rights of Canadian's and Mexican's to have what I consider over reaching laws regarding fire arms. Your country you do as you wish.
One thing that's really starting to irritate me with this thread is the denial, denial as in- little to no events/situations to report related to those who are registered gun-owners and law-abiding citizens. (My butt)! Here, read.
http://www.kpho.com/news/15179045/detail.html
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/10/11/20081011roadrage-ON.html
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Police-ID-victim-in-interstate-shooting-99764414.html
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/justice/apx-AZRoad-Rage-Sentence_50896033-03122011
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xi384e_road-rage-incident-turns-into-road-rage-shooting-near-san-tan-mall_news
Page, after page, after page, after news report, after news report, after news report.
As H-work pointed out, none of your examples point to a person lawfully carrying a concealed weapon being involved in those incidents.
While it may have been lost in the discussion, this thread is about persons with valid permits carrying guns, not about the people who don't.
Does anyone have any examples of where legal carry actually did make the difference? I've seen real life stories involving home intruders and an occasional off-duty officer kind of story but I can't recall any involving a civilian carrying a legally concealed weapon in public.
Bad guys will always get guns from somewhere. If you take the guns away from the law abiding citizens, the bad guys will be the only ones armed and they will run amuck. Take Australia for example...
I am no great lover of firearms. Maybe it’s the association with my military service. Maybe it’s the memory of a few discommodious mornings in duck blinds. Maybe its all those bad movies. But just because I don’t like something, even if it can be dangerous in the wrong hands (mine, for instance), doesn’t create a reflexive desire on my part to keep it out of everyone else’s hands. I’d be more concerned about the unjustified curtailment of our liberties, than whatever marginal risks I’m subjected to by licensed weapons.
Maybe there is such a thing as American Exceptionalism. Maybe there is a qualitative difference between a country that allows its citizens to decide for themselves if they want to carry a gun and a country that empowers “Human Rights Tribunals” to prosecute speech they deem offensive. Maybe a history that involved writing our own constitution rather than wait peaceably for our imperial masters to grant us independence colors our ways of thinking. Maybe a belief that laws should be aimed at limiting the powers of government to interfere with (frequently stupid) individual decisions and a belief that any freedoms individuals exercise require justification to society at large will always be mutually incoherent. For myself, I’ll take the risk of the occasional stray round over a smothering barrage of Pecksniffian solicitude for my safety.
My mind always wonders back to how much higher your chances are to be killed by a car in the wrong hands than by a gun in them. The stats I ran across in a quickie Google were 2005's. 30,694 gun related deaths vs. 43,443 vehicular deaths. The comparison serves no practical purpose
To be honest I was surprised at the number on the gun side, I thought it would be lower, but well over half were people taking their own lives. The number does include suicides as well as gang drive-bys, mafia hits and hunting accidents. Suicides really don't count in my mind when someone is making an anti-gun argument because people would find another way if a gun were not present. As proof, 53% of suicides used a gun, 47% found another way (in 2005, New England Journal of Medicine) although there is a valid argument that guns rarely require time between a first and second attempt where the person may change their mind. Anyway, the figure I found said there was an average of 46 people per day committing suicide with a gun so approximately 16,790 gun related deaths in 2005 were people taking their own lives, not acts of violence against others. According to the National Safety Council there were 630 accidental shootings resulting in death in 2005. That leaves a maximum number of 13,299 people that could have been killed by guns during crimes or other violent acts.
I don't know how many people commit suicide by wrecking a car so there isn't a way to take that number out. It is probably pretty small. We do know that approximately 39% (16,885) of the vehicular fatalities in 2005 involved alcohol (AlcoholAlert.com). Drivers distracted by cell phones and/or texting while driving almost certainly make up a significant part of the remaining fatalities, but I could not find exact numbers for 2005. Either of those is, IMO, criminal and apparently most states agree.
What's it mean? However you want to spin it, if you take the suicides out of gun deaths and your chances of getting killed by/in a car are a little over 3 times your chances of getting killed by a bullet.
I am no great lover of firearms. Maybe it’s the association with my military service. Maybe it’s the memory of a few discommodious mornings in duck blinds. Maybe its all those bad movies. But just because I don’t like something, even if it can be dangerous in the wrong hands (mine, for instance), doesn’t create a reflexive desire on my part to keep it out of everyone else’s hands. I’d be more concerned about the unjustified curtailment of our liberties, than whatever marginal risks I’m subjected to by licensed weapons.
Maybe there is such a thing as American Exceptionalism. Maybe there is a qualitative difference between a country that allows its citizens to decide for themselves if they want to carry a gun and a country that empowers “Human Rights Tribunals” to prosecute speech they deem offensive. Maybe a history that involved writing our own constitution rather than wait peaceably for our imperial masters to grant us independence colors our ways of thinking. Maybe a belief that laws should be aimed at limiting the powers of government to interfere with (frequently stupid) individual decisions and a belief that any freedoms individuals exercise require justification to society at large will always be mutually incoherent. For myself, I’ll take the risk of the occasional stray round over a smothering barrage of Pecksniffian solicitude for my safety.
I respect your opinion but I have to disagree with your assessment. I invite you to watch the documentary "Winged Migration" which has been on PBS in my area lately. It will re-enforce your opinion about duck hunting!
I live in a rural area and on my daily walks I always know when the hunting season starts. When you begin to see the animals moving in the open you know that it is usually breeding season and their guard will be down. Us humans like the advantage especially because our time is limited and need to make the kill on "our time".
I grew up hunting, my Dad ( an Army Colonel ) made sure that me and my brother were indoctrinated with the manly sport of hunting. Deer, rabbit, dove, turkey, squirrel were all there for our consumption. My brother and I practiced with our 22 for hours - lighting a match across the bridge with our 22, etc.
I have fond memories of deer camp, the poker, the whiskey, the male camaraderie. My Mom griping for years that we were never home for Thanksgiving becuase of deer season!!
That was then, this is now. IMHO, our society was much more civil in many ways - I know it depended on your ethnic group ,etc. but for me those days were pretty much like "beaver cleaver".
Today is a different story. Not sure why but guns permeate our society. From driving down the highway to work, to ladies having a gun in their purse, to a drunk redneck having one in his boot, to a yuppie packing in his glove-box. In Texas, you can pretty much expect a large percent of the population to be carrying either legally or illegally. I would hate to be a cop these days but they seem to have adjusted with their attitude of just TAZ the guy and not take a chance.
A totally different world from when I grew up.
I don't really think that we should arm ourselves to protect us from our neighbors. I don't think it is a a positive thing to have a gun available at all times. It makes the world more dangerous and that is not my idea of the kind of world I want.
More books and less guns will make this planet a safer place!!!
Peace
iris lily
4-21-11, 11:54pm
I... barrage of Pecksniffian solicitude for my safety.
I have no I dea what that is, but I'm in awe of your command of language. Pecksniffian. Off to look that up.
H-work and Alan, Re: The last link I supplied, the shooter was questioned then released. Self-defense. I'm thinking he was properly registered and qualified. (Trained as you say).
loosechickens
4-22-11, 12:20am
Gosh, I guess the United States just has a much larger population of "bad guys" than folks in Canada or Europe, since we seem to be fearing them behind every tree, getting ready to attack us.
One wonders what people in those other countries do to avoid all those rapists, carjackers, home invasion criminals, and general attackers. They seem to feel safe in THEIR countries. But, we sure don't. Either they have a lot fewer "bad guys" or WE have a serious "skeered" problem. ;-)
I guess I'd have more interest in being armed if I hadn't experienced two different life threatening situations, (one in Guatemala in 1979, one in Nicaragua in 1993), in each of which, I could have been armed to the teeth, "packing heat", concealed or unconcealed, and it wouldn't have helped me a bit, but might well have gotten me killed. Because in one case, I was taken completely by surprise, and wouldn't have had the few seconds necessary to draw a weapon, and in the other, was sound asleep to be awakened by someone leaning on my legs, and pointing a 45 at me.
I just don't have the faith that many here seem to have, that somehow they will be "protected" from criminals if they are armed. I know better, from experience. Maybe it's because I understand too well how easily that idea that being armed equals "protection" can be proven incorrect, for me to have a lot of faith in it.
Originally posted by Loosechickens.
Gosh, I guess the United States just has a much larger population of "bad guys" than folks in Canada or Europe, since we seem to be fearing them behind every tree, getting ready to attack us.
One wonders what people in those other countries do to avoid all those rapists, carjackers, home invasion criminals, and general attackers.It's tough LC. When we open up the door of our homes we have to make a mad dash to our vehicles, running erratically from side to side to avoid whizzing bullets, then once in our armour-plated and bulletproofed vehicles, all is well. When we arrive at malls and the parking lots of large retailers, SWAT teams and sharp-shooters cover us while we make our way inside. Shop and store owners have loaded guns on the ready, even pointing them at you (just in case), and don't dare reach into your purse or wallet too fast otherwise- BANG! You're dead! No sir-ee Bob. Here in The Great White North everything isn't all as rosy as people think.
Hmmm, makes me think, Canada, the "second largest nation in the world" ranks "7" on the list of top 10 safest places to live. (The US didn't make the list).
Yeah, but the Constitution says.......
LC. I admire you for your bravery and strength during those occasions. I would have had a "pants-full" and probably would have expired out of fear.
Gosh, I guess the United States just has a much larger population of "bad guys" than folks in Canada or Europe, since we seem to be fearing them behind every tree, getting ready to attack us.
One wonders what people in those other countries do to avoid all those rapists, carjackers, home invasion criminals, and general attackers. They seem to feel safe in THEIR countries. But, we sure don't. Either they have a lot fewer "bad guys" or WE have a serious "skeered" problem. ;-)
It's not so much that we have a "skeered" problem. It's more that we have a serious crime and violence problem compared to other industrialized countries.
Somehow, we've managed to take the lead among our contemporaries in percentages of children born to single mothers and divorce rate. I think that about 40% of all live births in the United States are to single mothers. I'm not a sociologist but I'm under the impression that has a negative impact on society.
Plus, through our refusal to treat all people equally (under the guise of protecting them), we've managed to grow multiple generations of "victims", who many people believe can never succeed in life left to their own devices, and as a result have no qualms about using violence as a means to an end. Political correctness even forces us to condone a culture of "thugs" and "gangsters" as valid life choices.
Perhaps if we had structured our "Great Society" a little better we wouldn't lead the world in violent crimes and this entire thread would be moot. But since we didn't, maybe we should just carry on and ignore the problem while lamenting the result.
It's not so much that we have a "skeered" problem. It's more that we have a serious crime and violence problem compared to other industrialized countries.
Somehow, we've managed to take the lead among our contemporaries in percentages of children born to single mothers and divorce rate. I think that about 40% of all live births in the United States are to single mothers. I'm not a sociologist but I'm under the impression that has a negative impact on society.
Plus, through our refusal to treat all people equally (under the guise of protecting them), we've managed to grow multiple generations of "victims", who many people believe can never succeed in life left to their own devices, and as a result have no qualms about using violence as a means to an end. Political correctness even forces us to condone a culture of "thugs" and "gangsters" as valid life choices.
Perhaps if we had structured our "Great Society" a little better we wouldn't lead the world in violent crimes and this entire thread would be moot. But since we didn't, maybe we should just carry on and ignore the problem while lamenting the result.
OH! so it's the LIBERALS fault we have gun 'toten single mothers! Well that explains it. Thank you alan. Just curious, does anyone have the statisticis on how many times these registered and trained gun packers have felt the need to use it? How often are they drawing it on the citizens? How many times have they shot folks? How many people have you shot allen? How many have you shot bae?
OH, Mrs.M. I surely hope you have armed guards at your church and schools, cause, you know, those are well known hot beds of unrest and crime! And I wonder how you carry on political rallies without the threat of armed violence to keep your politicians in line.
Alan - I agree with your post! Anyone familiar with Ruby Payne's work? She is an educator and an expert on teaching children of poverty. The cycles of generational poverty have a direct link to the rise of children born to single mothers. Why the rise in numbers of crime, dropouts, drug use, child abuse, violent crime? because nobody has to meet any standards anymore. Have a baby, drop out of school. That' ok. We'll give you a place to live, foodstamps, give your kids breakfast and lunch at school. Not to mention health and dental care. And the men, where does that leave the young men? They dropout, don't have to be responsible for anybody. They can't be successful in school or learn a trade. Public high schools quit teaching the trades so that all people could become college educated. They don't have any drive to do anything but be a "babydaddy" and wear their pants hanging low on their a$$e$. You think I'm just a bigot? No! I'm smack in the middle of this land of section 8 apartments full of low or no achievers. That's where I work. I teach those kids to read while thier genius parents are spending the grocery money on new tats and bling. Then they take junior to the barber shop and have cool designs shaved into his little mohawk stricken 6 year old head. Why would you do that to a perfectly good little boy? Anyway - whew! think I might need to retire!
What does this have to do with guns? All the juniors and babydaddies who don't have jobs and are jackin' cars - We need the right to be legally armed for self defense, not to mention shooting the occasional threatening skunk or poisonous snake.
I see the people Catwoman describes as victims. Victims of our (the US) ineptitude and indolence. We have allowed the situation to fester to where it is today. Where young girls become the family bread winners through fertility and another baby just means a bigger check. I think these people are caught in a cycle that almost no one can escape on their own. From my relatively advantaged, lilly white vantage point it looks like a cancer. Every generation is a little more hopeless than the one before. That hopelessness and desperation spread outward and bore deeper into communities as time goes on. Desperate people with no opportunity will lash out. I would. What matters when you have nothing to lose?
Its thankfully never happened to me, but I'm sure a gun pointed at you is intimidating regardless of who is holding it. I don't think anyone here that carries for protection really wants to shoot someone else. The hope of everyone I know that carries is that the other person/people will turn tail and run for the hills as soon as the gun is drawn. That is intimidation and its not all that different from why gang members and other thugs carry guns.
Its time for everyone to admit that you can't take away all the guns from everyone. Legislation and law enforcement can only remove guns from the law abiding members of society. Even if you could collect and destroy every gun ever made there would still be knives, baseball bats, tire irons, cordless drills, rolling pins... Lets just stop the ridiculous bickering about banning a simple tool and turn our efforts toward solving the real problem. Do that and the issue of gun violence will take care of itself.
H-work and Alan, Re: The last link I supplied, the shooter was questioned then released. Self-defense. I'm thinking he was properly registered and qualified. (Trained as you say).
Mrs-M, the last link video didn't load on my computer, it only shows a black screen, so I can't comment on it, not trying to ignore your post.
OH, Mrs.M. I surely hope you have armed guards at your church and schools, cause, you know, those are well known hot beds of unrest and crime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
I said way earlier in this thread, I didn't know about students being able to carry in school, but I sure wish teachers would have that option.
Thank you alan. Just curious, does anyone have the statisticis on how many times these registered and trained gun packers have felt the need to use it? How often are they drawing it on the citizens? How many times have they shot folks? How many people have you shot allen? How many have you shot bae?
How many times have you driven your car? How many times have you been in an accident? Do you have car insurance? How many years have you had it? How often have you had to use it? Like Alan, I have been carrying a gun for over 30 years - both for my job and for personal protection. I, like most here who "pack heat", have never had to use it, and probably never will. I have also driven a car everyday for the past 30 years and have never been in an accident, never had to use my insurance, and probably never will. That doesn't mean I will give up my insurance just because I have never had to use it. Same with medical insurance. Never really had to use it and hope I never will. And I don't carry a gun because I am a paranoid person any more than I carry car or health insurance because I live in some horrible dread of a car accident or cancer. It's just nice to have those things in the event I ever need them - same with a firearm.
And yes ZigZagman - I carry my gun in a hot pink purse :-)!!
loosechickens
4-22-11, 3:10pm
Well, Alan, you might want to look at statistics of children born out of wedlock in such places as the Scandanavian countries, which are not exactly hotbeds of violence to make "out of wedlock" into a big source of criminals.
Now, generational poverty, as Catwoman says (although I believe she has less understanding of the systematic forces that continue to ensure it, despite liberal efforts to try to level the playing field for poor kids), that I can agree with. Generational poverty is a HUGE problem in this society, as is discrimination, inequality and a host of other things, not to mention racism, alive and well. All those things have a lot to do with the feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and a feeling of not having "skin in the game" of society that expresses itself in the bling, tats and short term thinking of many in the underclass.
And because our system is really set up to benefit the few at the top at the cost of the many at the bottom, that isn't likely to change, despite liberal efforts to increase opportunities for poor kids. Multi-generational poverty and the dysfunctions that go along with that, ARE a big problem, and one, which unless we figure out ways to provide better education, more opportunities for success, less racism and discrimination, and a more level playing field that isn't tilted from the beginning to advantage those with the most to begin with, we're probably still going to have it.
SO......we do live in a violent society. In fact, the violence in our society resembles that in countries, mostly in the Third World, with huge inequalities, large portions of their society in the underclass, and not a lot of opportunity for those folks.
Who are the societies without a lot of violence? Such as our neighbor to the north, Canada? They have large populations, Canada has a lot of immigrants.......why not so much violence? Could it be that the dreaded "socialism" of things like universal health care, less poverty, more equality of opportunity, have anything to do with it? Actually, could the atmosphere of not living in fear have anything to do with it? Even in this country, despite all our fears to the contrary, most people will never face an armed and violent criminal, a stranger kidnapping their child, or any of the other bogeymen that frequent our daily thoughts.
Our society is sick. And when we compare it to other developed democracies, this becomes really apparent. However, we are also arrogant, tend to believe that how WE think is correct and any other country's way of solving problems is inferior to ours, even when those countries have solved problems that seem intractable to us. It's as though, especially in things like health care, that we run around and talk about how impossible it is to provide care for everyone, how we just can't afford it, and are singing, lalalalalala as loudly as we can to avoid seeing or hearing that other countries don't even have this problem any more.
Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Are we fearful because our society is violent, or has our society become violent because of endemic things in our society that we could correct if we weren't so afraid? Who know.....certainly not me......
loosechickens
4-22-11, 3:22pm
Catwoman, yes I am very familiar with Ruby Payne's work, (my husband worked for many years with that population, both in jobs training and adult education) but surely, if you are, you recognize that she comes to a very different understanding of the problems of generational poverty than you seem to have absorbed from reading her work.
In fact, those outlooks and viewpoints you hold of the people you describe are exactly what her work fights AGAINST. And her work shows very well exactly why and how those behaviors come about, why they are rational and even expected results of the situation in which people mired in that underclass, and how to move from blaming them for not being like us, to understanding the forces that act upon them, and find ways to communicate with and reach understanding and achieve results with such populations.
Honestly, it's time to go back and re-read Ruby Payne, because your post shows exactly what she is working to change in attitudes toward the poor. She is a brilliant woman, and I have the greatest respect for her work. And if you did, and really grasped what she teaches, I don't think you could ever write about the parents of your kids in school in that way, which is close to opposite of what she says. Her whole thrust is to eliminate that judgmental, discriminatory, dismissive and blaming, and move to understanding that reactions that you describe are actually very rational and expected results of living in that world, and how we can move from the way YOU are seeing these people, to ways of seeing and interacting that actually make a difference.
loosechickens
4-22-11, 3:32pm
For those who might not be familiar with Ruby Payne and her work, and because I think that the generational poverty in this country is part of what leads us to have such a violent society, that makes the middle class in this country fear the "violent poor" so much, which fuels our need for guns, guns, guns, for protection, and the way our society is organized perpetuates this generational poverty, it probably IS important to begin understanding it, because it, and the inequality of opportunity that drives it, as well as the ways it is perpetuated, hold the keys to why we are not more like Canada in our crime figures, gun violence and other things.
From Wikipedia on the "culture of poverty"
"Another theory for the perpetual cycle of poverty is that poor people have their own culture with a different set of values and beliefs which keep them trapped within that cycle generation to generation. This theory has been explored by Ruby K. Payne in her book A Framework for Understanding Poverty. In this book she explains how there is a class system in the United States where there is a wealthy upper class, a middle class, and the working poor class. These classes each have their own set of rules and values which differ from each other. In order to understand the culture of poverty and how the poor class’s set of rules tend to keep them trapped in this continual cycle Payne describes these rules and how they affect the poor class. Time is something that is treated differently by the poor; they generally do not plan ahead but simply live in the moment which keeps them from saving money which will help their children escape poverty. Payne expresses how important it is when working with the poor to understand their unique cultural differences so that one does not get frustrated but instead tries to work with them on their ideologies and help them to understand how they can help themselves and their children escape the cycle. One aspect of generational poverty is a learned helplessness that is passed from parents to children and on down the line. This learned helplessness can be explained as the ideology that there is no way for one to get out of poverty and so in order to make the best of their situation one must live in the moment and experience what they can when they can. This leads to people spending money right as they get it and teaches children to do the same which also creates a trap for children keeping them and their children in poverty. Another important point Payne makes is that leaving poverty is not as simple as acquiring a lot of money and moving up but also includes giving up relationships in exchange for achievement. This helps to explain why the culture of poverty tends to keep families in poverty from generation to generation as this is the culture they know and the relationships they have are all within that class."
This was in the news today. If he has a concealed weapons permit you would think he would know how to store his weapon properly!
"The father of the 2 1/2 year old boy called 911 on Wednesday and said the child had somehow accessed the gun and accidentally fired the 9 mm semiautomatic weapon, killing 33-year-old Julia Bennett. Miramar Police said the father, who has not been identified, has a concealed weapons permit for the firearm.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_mom_shot_toddler
Negative - feathered friend - Ruby Payne teaches us how to teach and reach children of poverty not how to fix their parents. Yes, how to educate them to hopefully help them out of this situation. Methinks your perception is to make RPayne agree with your viewpoint.
Originally posted by loosechickens
Generational poverty is a HUGE problem in this society, as is discrimination, inequality and a host of other things, not to mention racism, alive and well. All those things have a lot to do with the feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and a feeling of not having "skin in the game" of society that expresses itself in the bling, tats and short term thinking of many in the underclass.......
....the systematic forces that continue to ensure it, despite liberal efforts to try to level the playing field for poor kids
....Canada has a lot of immigrants.......why not so much violence? Could it be that the dreaded "socialism" of things like universal health care, less poverty, more equality of opportunity, have anything to do with it?
Loosie, I hear what you're saying, generational poverty is a huge problem, one that the government cannot fix. The more government spends on the problem, the more widespread it becomes.
The one thing that is most effective at alleviating generational poverty is the presence of a strong family. Children born into two-parent households have a much better chance at escaping poverty than children born into single parent households. Unfortunately, our social programs and policies encourage single parent households. They don't level the playing field, they ensure that people sit on the sidelines forever. Generational poverty has increased by leaps and bounds over the last 50 years because it's too easy to remain comfortable in that state.
If you want to give liberals credit for the social engineering efforts that keep people in the throes of poverty, I won't disagree with you. The intentional breakdown of the nuclear family and rewarding poor choices have been the hallmark of those efforts.
You're right that Canada and other European countries don't seem to have the same social problems that we do, and I believe that our racism has played a strong part in that. The fact that we segment our society by race, all in the interest of celebrating cultural diversity, prevents us from just being Americans. It seems to me that Canada is filled with Canadians. We, on the other hand, have African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, etc., and we celebrate this while refusing to acknowledge the barriers they place between the populations. Forcing people to think in terms of race and engaging in identity politics has hurt us over the long run.
But we're not going to change any of that. Even as we see European society beginning to try and deal with the problems of culture based identity politics, we'll not see the parallels. To acknowledge it might mean that we've been wrong for a long time. Nope, that's not gonna happen.
The one thing that is most effective at alleviating generational poverty is the presence of a strong family. Children born into two-parent households have a much better chance at escaping poverty than children born into single parent households. Unfortunately, our social programs and policies encourage single parent households. They don't level the playing field, they ensure that people sit on the sidelines forever. Generational poverty has increased by leaps and bounds over the last 50 years because it's too easy to remain comfortable in that state.
Alan, Happy Easter, Earth Day or whatever you say...I think this was the idea back in the 50's and 60's but the demographics of this country have dramatically changed. The children of us boomers have pretty much abandoned the social stigma of single-parent households. The change was a slow progression as the country turned more right-wing since the 80's.
But we're not going to change any of that. Even as we see European society beginning to try and deal with the problems of culture based identity politics, we'll not see the parallels. To acknowledge it might mean that we've been wrong for a long time. Nope, that's not gonna happen. Agreed - don't eat too many Easter Eggs and Plant a Tree!!! !Splat!
Peace
LC - As far as my understanding of Ruby Payne's work - the comment that you didn't think I understood what she was really undertaking - is what led me to make my most recent comment. Think about that for a minute: you are diminishing my comments by saying I don't really understand - I have studied Ruby Payne extensively, her body of work can be interpreted to support the comments you made if you are not trying to put her actual research to practical use, as in - in the classroom everyday. There's a lot of theorists out there who have a lot to say - I'm more of a doer. Its really like putting a small bandaid on a gaping, blood-seeping wound though. Until people quit justifying the destruction of the family and the diminishing of the role of men in the family - this is going to get worse. Actually, it is not going to get any better because at the end of the line - It means someone will be dependent on someone in the government for food, shelter, et. al. That means somebody gets to hand out the goods to somebody who will vote for them. And - I'll just go ahead and say this - this is what I believe - At the top of this pyramid is the fact that people don't depend on or believe in God anymore. The dissolution of the nuclear, church-going family is going full steam ahead - social progressives are driving the train. Where is it taking us?
Good day to everyone.
H-work. I did some searching for another news article on the recent Phoenix Arizona road rage incident and found a news report and video (all in one). Hoping this one displays.
http://www.kpho.com/news/27492110/detail.html
I totally agree with you about affording teachers the legal right to carry, that, or, (and/or both), adding to school security- specially appointed armed school marshals. I think that would be a beneficial and positive step in the right direction.
For reasons unknown, Fickes got out of his truck with a gun and approached the Dodge truck in front of him, police said.
The man in the Dodge, who also had a gun, got out of his truck and shot Fickes multiple times, police said.
The circumstances that led up to the shooting were not known, but witnesses said it might have been a road-rage incident.
Longtime neighbors of Fickes said the shooting was not surprising because he was known in the neighborhood for having a short temper.
"He has never really been understanding or kind, so that does not really surprise me. We have been here for 15 years and we did have a couple of instances with them throughout that 15 years, but we learned to keep our distance from them," said a neighbor who did not want to be identified.
It still doesn't say if either had a concealed weapons permit, in either the article or video. As soon as Mr. Fickes got out of his vehicle with his handgun out, in clearly a non-self defensive position, he was breaking the law. If he had lived, he would have lost his handgun and would be arrested. He would never be allowed to have a concealed weapons permit again (if he ever did hold one), no matter what state he tried to apply in.
The other driver was cleared. He was clearly acting in self defense.
http://lezgetreal.com/2011/04/trans-woman-brutally-attacked-at-baltimore-mcdonalds/
One more reason to carry...
loosechickens
4-23-11, 12:00am
"They don't have any drive to do anything but be a "babydaddy" and wear their pants hanging low on their a$$e$. You think I'm just a bigot? No! I'm smack in the middle of this land of section 8 apartments full of low or no achievers. That's where I work. I teach those kids to read while thier genius parents are spending the grocery money on new tats and bling. Then they take junior to the barber shop and have cool designs shaved into his little mohawk stricken 6 year old head. Why would you do that to a perfectly good little boy? Anyway - whew! think I might need to retire!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catwoman, I think that the above comments, which seemed (to me) to be dripping with disgust, classism, possibly racism (don't know the racial makeup of your students' area), and an attitude of "aren't they awful", is what made me think that the understanding of Ruby Payne's work might be imperfect.
You may not have meant it how it sounded, and perhaps you don't let your attitudes toward this population affect how you treat their children, or interact with the children's parents, but Ruby Payne surely emphasizes that if you don't have understanding of the dynamics of the cycle of poverty and poverty behaviors, you won't reach that population, and with understanding, it's unlikely that you would have the degree of disgust that seems to come through in your comments.
Hey, I'm glad you're in there trying to help kids. And, honestly, I don't even want to think of the misery those kids would be living in if it weren't for liberal programs, although I can appreciate that from your point of view, you think the liberal programs that have attempted to help people in poverty have contributed to the problems. Although I think one could go back to the plight of the poor a hundred years ago, or during the Depression to see that as bad as it is today, it's nothing compared to the misery then before programs of assistance. But.....we're never going to agree on that, so no point trying.
I realize that it's handy to blame "liberals" for everything wrong in this country, or for we liberals to blame "conservatives" for every ill, but both of us are needed. Our country faces endemic problems, a growing underclass, a middle class under attack, and a top few percent who are doing better, and better, and better as the years go by.
We have only a short period of time to turn this bus around before the U.S. becomes a nation with a small, really rich top elite, a disappearing middle class, and an ever increasing underclass, perfect banana republic territory, as opposed to the countries that are really succeeding in quality of life for their citizens. We really do have to choose at this point what kind of a country we want. Do we want an "every man for himself", let the weak fall by the wayside, or do we want to have a society that sees that we are all in this together, and what strengthens the quality of life in this country for the largest number of people, is likely to be one where we all take some responsiblity for our brothers, and where we all contribute to the common good so that the U.S. once again has good schools, enviable roads and bridges, excellent public libraries, and good access to quality health care for all. I prefer the latter, even though I'm enough of a "winner" in the present society to make it just fine in the "every man for himself" kind of world.
Perhaps it really is a glass half full/glass half empty, kind of thing where viewpoint colors everything, and the divide is so great in basic worldview that we are doomed. I hope not, but sometimes I'm not so sure anymore. The middle has not held, and participants seem ever flung toward the edges of one side or the other. Sometimes I really despair and think we are a society doomed, because of this huge divide, to end up a second rate nation.
And honestly, when I look at some of the behavior among the most "religious" of us, I'm not sure that LESS "God" and more "ethics, kindness and compassion" would serve us a lot better than more religion. Especially with fundamentalist thinking (of all kinds and in various religions), that sees everything in black and white, religion sometimes seems the problem, not the solution, again, JMHO
No, Loosechickens, I meant it exactly as it sounded. I'm talking about BEHAVIOR. Behavior crosses racial lines -Disgust, yes. I am disgusted by these behaviors. Child Abuse disgusts me. When a parent is a druggie, When a mom puts her young children at risk by housing yet another, welfare- babydaddy without putting their well-being even before her own, I'm disgusted. Classicism - no, that's just a liberal hot potato buzz-word right now to throw at someone who is telling the truth about this situation. I'm pointing out real-life, true behaviors. If the parents weren't trapped in the cycle of generational poverty, yes, these kids would have a chance. How to change that? I can't fix the parents. Teaching character education is now part of my job. That is something increasingly not taught at home.
Ethics, kindness and compassion are fundamental things I take from my God - the beginning of ethics, kindness and compassion as far as I am concerned.
It is quite simple, It is FUNDAMENTAL, Black and White - Do the right thing. Over the years, the lines between right and wrong disappeared, became gray and blurred with everyone trying to let everything be O.K. Then the buzzwords changed. People who believed in and lived by absolute rules and laws were deemed Judgemental. Theorists, Academia and liberal pundits delight in portraying southern, fundamentalists as hay-seed dummies. Its a tactic to diminish others and their beliefs - aided by a willing and prejudiced main stream media. Things weren't meant to be so complicated. God left a good set of rules to live by. People complicated things by making multitudinous, twisted interpretations that would justify their choices, lifestyle and viewpoint.
I'm not offended by your saying my remarks show disgust. That's true, the neglectful, selfish and abusive behaviors of adults children are supposed to look up to and depend on disgust me.
I am offended by the notion of racism being a factor. I have a blended, inclusive family of my own that I adore.
Classicism is just stupid, I'm a working stiff from a blue collar family.
I appreciate your passion in defense of what you believe in strongly - me too likewise.
This was in the news today. If he has a concealed weapons permit you would think he would know how to store his weapon properly!
"The father of the 2 1/2 year old boy called 911 on Wednesday and said the child had somehow accessed the gun and accidentally fired the 9 mm semiautomatic weapon, killing 33-year-old Julia Bennett. Miramar Police said the father, who has not been identified, has a concealed weapons permit for the firearm.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_mom_shot_toddler
This kind of article always seems a bit sensationalist to me and should be compared with statictics about "how many kids were killed in accidents or by their parents accidentally backing over them or some such thing". As far as being a responsible gun owner, I agree, the weapon should have been put where the child couldn't reach it just as you would do with toxic cleaners in your home, electric outlets, and any other hazard to a child. I mean, you wouldn't leave a power drill or chainsaw plugged in and laying a round the house with a child would you? You wouldn't leave the swimming pool fence open so the kid could drown? Leave the keys in the car or the car running while little johnny play3ed in the car? Would you walk away from the running lawn mower and leave johnny sitting near by? Lots of hazards in the home that kill kids everyday - a handgun accident is an easy one to avoid compared to most.
Well I am in the process of cleaning my gun for church tomorrow. I don't want to have a dirty gun in church. (Those ex military on the boards know what I mean.)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.