Guns, Carried Openly or Concealed, Threaten Our Safety

[jpak]

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-people-be-allowed-to-carry-guns-openly/guns-carried-openly-or-concealed-threaten-our-safety

No. Guns carried in public by private citizens—open or concealed—threaten public and private safety.

The example of Meleanie Hain tragically illustrates the folly of trusting one's personal safety to gun carrying. In 2008, Hain gained nationwide fame when she brought her loaded Glock pistol to her 5-year-old daughter's soccer game in Lebanon, Pa., scaring the other soccer moms, who complained to league officials and law enforcement. Hain had a permit to carry her pistol concealed, but chose to wear it openly. Soon after the game, her permit was revoked due to her actions. Hain had her permit reinstated by the courts and then sued the sheriff who had revoked it for a million dollars. She continued to carry openly—becoming a hero to open carry advocates.

[Read America's Gun Culture and Its Effect on the 2012 Election.]

Responding to the judge who returned her permit yet urged her to stop carrying a gun openly to soccer games, she replied, "I know he'll be disappointed...But a gun-free zone says it's an easy target." According to a Harrisburg Patriot News editorial, Hain apparently considered "her sidearm to serve as a deterrent for would-be terrorists or mass murderers or others who might bring their own weapons to harm her, the young soccer players or other fans."

This belief is common among those who carry handguns—open or concealed—in public, but has little resonance in the real world. At least 402 victims have been killed in 32 states since May 2007 in non-self-defense incidents involving private citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns, according to the Violence Policy Center's Concealed Carry Killers online resource. (These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg since most crime data regarding permit holders is secret. As a result, the VPC tally is taken primarily from news reports.) This includes 20 mass shootings, 11 dead law enforcement officers, and 31 murder-suicides.

<more>

[gejohnston]

1. the VPC tally

includes non gun deaths and suicides where the permit would be irrelevant. Even when they pad the numbers, they get 100 per year?

[iverglas]

27. and everybody here

loves to ignore suicides that are MURDER-suicides, where the murder itself would be extremely unlikely to have been committed absent a firearm to make easy work of both deaths. One really does not see a lot of suicide-homicide by suffocation incidents, as I've often pointed out.

The permit would be irrelevant?

Really? Try the other way around. The fact that somebody uses a firearm to cause a death is not relevant to the question of whether they should have had a permit to carry the thing around in public?

Suicidal people really do, not infrequently, decide to gussy up their demise with a little publicity or some company in death. That is infinitely harder to do without a firearm. And the fact that someone with a permit to carry a firearm around in public has used their firearm to commit suicide just gives me the willies, personally, to think that such a person was given permission to do that.

[rl6214]

29. "the murder itself would be extremely unlikely to have been committed absent a firearm"

And what proof do you have of this?

[iverglas]

37. it's called

a brain. And using it.

[rl6214]

126. It's called opinion

and like assholes, everybody's got one.

[gejohnston]

32. really?

loves to ignore suicides that are MURDER-suicides, where the murder itself would be extremely unlikely to have been committed absent a firearm to make easy work of both deaths. One really does not see a lot of suicide-homicide by suffocation incidents, as I've often pointed out.

IIRC, stabbing is very popular in Japan, and they have a major problem with it.

The permit would be irrelevant?

Examples of "CCW holder hangs himself" is irrelevant to the issue.

Really? Try the other way around. The fact that somebody uses a firearm to cause a death is not relevant to the question of whether they should have had a permit to carry the thing around in public?

If you actually read through the list, a firearm is not even used in many cases.

Suicidal people really do, not infrequently, decide to gussy up their demise with a little publicity or some company in death. That is infinitely harder to do without a firearm. And the fact that someone with a permit to carry a firearm around in public has used their firearm to commit suicide just gives me the willies, personally, to think that such a person was given permission to do that.

You have been watching too many US cop shows.

[iverglas]

36. read through the list?

YOU try reading what I SAID.

If a person is suicidal, I don't really care what means they ultimately used to commit suicide.

A suicidal person was given permission to wander around in public with a firearm.

Thankfully, not where I live.

[gejohnston]

41. of course I read it.

I read exactly what you said.
Write your MP and tell him or her to keep up the good work.
Oh yeah, if the lists are "secret", how would the people who send these newspaper clips, or the clips know they are CCWs?

[Meiko]

74. How

are you going to know whether or not a person is suicidal when they are issued a permit?

[iverglas]

75. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO KNOW

whether anyone anywhere ever is suicidal, unless you happen to know them intimately or they happen to walk up to you on the street and inform you that they are about to drink hemlock.

Or homicidal. Or delusional. Or psycopathic or sociopathic. And you may know that somebody is, but nobody else would have a clue. And so on and on.

What in the bleeding hell do any of you imagine my point is?????????????????

Honestly. Cereally. Are you all really just pretending?

[Meiko]

78. There is no need

For you to be rude. I simply asked a question. You don't carry a gun do you?

[ManiacJoe]

2. The VPC makes the NRA look like a good data source.

Jpak, even you known better....

[GreenStormCloud]

3. That 402 includes 100 pure suicides.

Over 50 people who killed only themselves, many of whom didn't use a gun but used other means, are included in that tally. Do you really think that a person who ODs on sleeping pills would not have done it if he had not had a CCW?

From the VPC web site: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwtotalkilled.pdf

Michigan
# Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Name Not Provided
SUICIDE
Date: Between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010
People Killed: 43
Circumstances: Between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010, Michigan State Police report
that 43 Michigan concealed handgun permit holders took their own lives. In their annual
report, the Michigan State Police do not release the victim’s name, the exact date of the
suicide, nor the type of weapon used in the suicide.
Source: “Concealed Pistol Licensure Annual Report, July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010,” Michigan State Police,
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/2009-10_CPL_Annual_Report_343621_7.pdf.
-----------
Michigan
# Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Name Not Provided
SUICIDE
Date: Between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009
People Killed: 28
Circumstances: Between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009, Michigan State Police report
that 28 Michigan concealed handgun permit holders took their own lives. In their annual
report, the Michigan State Police do not release the victim’s name, the exact date of the
suicide, nor the type of weapon used in the suicide.
Source: “Concealed Pistol Licensing Annual Report, Statewide Totals, General Information, July 1,
2008–June 30, 2009,” Michigan State Police,
------------
Michigan
# Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Name Not Provided
SUICIDE
Date: Between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008
People Killed: 29
Circumstances: Between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008, Michigan State Police report
that 29 Michigan concealed handgun permit holders took their own lives. In their annual
report, the Michigan State Police do not release the victim’s name, the exact date of the
suicide, nor the type of weapon used in the suicide.
Source: “Concealed Pistol Licensing Annual Report, Statewide Totals, General Information, July 1,
2007–June 30, 2008,” Michigan State Police,
--------
48+28+23=100 So 100 of VPC's 402 "kills" are pure sucides. That is about 25% of their total. There are other ways the VPC pads their numbers but that is the most glaring. Many of the other numbers counted as kills are also suicides.

[iverglas]

28. simple question

Do you think it's a good idea for suicidal people to have permission to carry guns around in public?

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Are you a fan of "Minority Report"?

I'm assuming that you catch the movie reference.

Can the government tell who is and isn't suicidal? Is that a proper function of government?

[iverglas]

46. no idea what it is

A movie, I gather.

Can the government tell who is and isn't suicidal?

Uh, no.

Do you think that just maybe this was my point?

[GreenStormCloud]

47. It was one of my points also.

Others here will catch the movie reference. In the movie there is a way to tell who will commit a murder and when so people are arrested for crimes they will commit in the future.

Since the government can't tell who is and isn't suicidal, how can they know whom they should deny or revoke their license? If the politician revokes all licenses they will be removed from office by the voters. Numerous politicians here have lost elections over opposition to concealed carry. Most notable among them was Ann Richards who was governor of Texas. She lost election to George W. Bush over that issue.

[iverglas]

48. try asking the right question

Since the government can't tell who is and isn't suicidal, how can they know whom they should deny or revoke their license?

Since no one can tell for sure whether anyone is suicidal (or suffering from a variety of other psychological disorders, or the owner of a hair-trigger temper, or just plain rotten), why would anyone be permitted to wander around in public with a firearm?

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Because the voters in a democracy demand it.

I edited my above post to include the answer. Please check it.

[iverglas]

55. really?

Got proof?

Did the voters in the US demand that their country invade Iraq?

I'm sure we can all think of a few more questions along that line.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Proof is easy.

Look at the election results. Look at all the states that have gone shall-issue. They went shall-issue because the voters elected shall-issue candidates to office.

[iverglas]

63. apparently answering questions is much harder

[GreenStormCloud]

51. The best perdictor of future behavior is past behavior.

...or suffering from a variety of other psychological disorders, or the owner of a hair-trigger temper, or just plain rotten

Such people usually get in trouble with the judicial system early in life and acquire a criminal record. I a person has a clean record they are likely to continue to keep it clean. Texas publishes the statistics on people with CHLs who are convicted of crimes. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

You will notice that the conviction rates for CHL holders is far lower than the general public, especially for crimes of violence. In 2009 there were 406 convictions for AGG ASSAULT W/DEADLY WEAPON but only four (4) by CHL holders. There were 406 murder convictions but only one (1) by a CHL holder.

Judging a person's risk by their previous behavior has proven to be extremely successful here.

[iverglas]

56. oh sigh

The best perdictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Yeah. Especially when it comes to suicide.

Somebody who commits suicide once is pretty much guaranteed to do it again.

As for the rest -- oh look, another mulberry bush! --

You will notice that the conviction rates for CHL holders is far lower than the general public, especially for crimes of violence.

I notice a number of things.

The first is that there has never been proof that those figures are reliable.

The second is that the rates had bloody well better be lower. Because, and on this you are right -- a criminal record is a good predictor of future criminal behavour, holders of permits have BY DEFINITION not already been convicted of crimes. In addition to being, on average, older than the general adult population, not likely to have committed crimes for which they have not been convicted (I just do doubt that yer average big-time drug trafficker or small-time drug dealer, for instance, is going to apply for a permit), etc. etc. etc.

Round and fucking round and round.

[oneshooter]

81. And you have proof that the " facts and figures" put put by the RCMP are reliable?

Lets see it. The Texas DPS handles all CHL issues. That is the Texas Department of Public Safety. If you have issues with the information they issue then contact them here.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/

Or if you have umbrage with just the CHL information.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm

Meanwhile you may want to find proof that the information issued by your very own RCMP and government is correct.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ileus]

59. Well stated.

[Straw Man]

61. Couldn't believe you were going there, but you were.

Since no one can tell for sure whether anyone is suicidal (or suffering from a variety of other psychological disorders, or the owner of a hair-trigger temper, or just plain rotten), why would anyone be permitted to wander around in public with a firearm?

Yeah, the world is just teeming with people who are one rude word away from a homicidal/suicidal freakout. And it's shocking what we permit them to do: drive buses, fly airliners, perform surgery, handle nuclear materials... The potential for disaster is enormous! Makes one wonder how we all manage to sleep at night.

[iverglas]

64. if you say so

Yeah, the world is just teeming with people who are one rude word away from a homicidal/suicidal freakout.

Nobody else seems to have done, but hey, good on ya, you go.

And it's shocking what we permit them to do: drive buses, fly airliners, perform surgery, handle nuclear materials

You're seriously suggesting that there is not hugely more oversight of the people who do all of those things than there is over what's his name wandering around the mall with a gun?

And you betcha, bus drivers included.

[Straw Man]

67. Ah, so it's OVERSIGHT you want.

You're seriously suggesting that there is not hugely more oversight of the people who do all of those things than there is over what's his name wandering around the mall with a gun?

Pardon me for thinking that you wanted to ban the practice outright. You didn't seem to have much faith in oversight a few posts ago.

Since no one can tell for sure whether anyone is suicidal (or suffering from a variety of other psychological disorders, or the owner of a hair-trigger temper, or just plain rotten), why would anyone be permitted to wander around in public with a firearm?

Keep on moving those goalposts. Eventually you'll run out of stadium.

You betcha.

[iverglas]

68. it must be the time of night

The woolly-headedness around here is becoming suffocating.

A major REASON why I OPPOSE allowing people to wander around in public with guns is that THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT.

Cripey cripes.

Bus drivers are tested, have to have special licences, are limited in the hours a day/week they may drive the buses and are visible to the general public as bus drivers and observable by the general public as they drive their buses, and have employers that oversee their work and ensure they comply with the hour limitations, observe them to make sure they are not drinking or doing drugs and are subject to civil and criminal liability if they fail to oversee the drivers properly, etc. etc. etc.

And that's just bus drivers.

Joe at the mall with his gun? Not so much, eh?

Pardon me for thinking that you wanted to ban the practice outright.

Sorry you've confused yourself, but you had it right the first time. And where I am, the practice IS banned outright, except for individuals who need to carry firearms in the course of specific types of employment.

You didn't seem to have much faith in oversight a few posts ago.

Since no one can tell for sure whether anyone is suicidal (or suffering from a variety of other psychological disorders, or the owner of a hair-trigger temper, or just plain rotten), why would anyone be permitted to wander around in public with a firearm?

I'm afraid I can't possibly follow your mental process in that one, but I'll try to help.

There is no oversight for me to have faith in.

That was my point.

Clearer?


typo

[Straw Man]

76. Yes, it must be.

A major REASON why I OPPOSE allowing people to wander around in public with guns is that THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT.

Really? So the background check that I had to undergo to obtain a handgun permit was a figment of my imagination? The background check that I undergo whenever I purchase a firearm is an illusion? The criminal and civil codes that circumscribe any and every action I may take with a gun are just are pure fairy tales?

Bus drivers are tested, have to have special licences, are limited in the hours a day/week they may drive the buses and are visible to the general public as bus drivers and observable by the general public as they drive their buses, and have employers that oversee their work and ensure they comply with the hour limitations, observe them to make sure they are not drinking or doing drugs and are subject to civil and criminal liability if they fail to oversee the drivers properly, etc. etc. etc.

Oddly enough, I don't see anything in there about psychological screening for suicidal tendencies. That was the topic. Remember?

There is no oversight for me to have faith in.

You said, "no one can tell for sure whether anyone is suicidal" -- in other words, effective oversight of mental state is impossible. You say you want oversight, yet you deny that it would be effective. Is there some other way to interpret that? Please enlighten me.

[iverglas]

84. I've just never heard

of "shall issue" bus driver licences, let alone "shall issue" bus driver jobs ... or of bus drivers driving their buses around malls without anybody knowing they were there ...

On the other hand, I've never heard of drug/alcohol testing for people licensed to wander around in public with firearms in the US.

Do you take buses much? I do. Intercity buses are common modes of transport here, and we're a pretty mobile bunch. At the local terminal, I see the boss types in their glass booth above the waiting area. I see the drivers interacting with one another and supervisors. I see all the forms they fill in and checks they do. (And I go through metal detectors, and hand-scan and a hand-luggage search). I hear them get radio/cellphone calls from supervisors on the highway.

It's called oversight. Maybe you could look it up.

And if you even want to start on surgeons, or pilots. Is oversight adequate in every instance? It's not perfect. Name me a human system that is.

You said, "no one can tell for sure whether anyone is suicidal" -- in other words, effective oversight of mental state is impossible. You say you want oversight, yet you deny that it would be effective. Is there some other way to interpret that? Please enlighten me.

Jezus Christ, man, do you want to make yourself look this thick?

There is NO oversight of people wandering around with firearms in the US. There is NO screening process to determine their suitability, apart from determining that they are not ruled on one or two very very very basic points. There is NO regular or intermittent or even single contact between any oversight authority and the individual until it comes time to renew a licence.

Yes, this is similar to driving -- except that drivers actually do at least have to pass a test. And there are drunk-driving spot checks all the time and all over, where I'm at. And speeding radar. And red light videocameras. And there are cops on the road who can actually see the vehicles and drivers, and monitor their behaviour, and take action against non-compliant behaviour. And the drivers know all that. And none of that is analogous to someone walking around with a pistol in their fanny pack.

So I don't know how many different ways I can say this.

Permitting someone to wander around in public with a firearm creates a situation where there is NO POSSIBILITY of oversight. Not of mental state, not of law compliance, not of criminality, not of ANYTHING. Not before or after the permission is given.

And that is a very good reason why IT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. People should not be permitted to wander around in pubic with firearms. What can you possibly not be grasping here??????

[Straw Man]

87. It seems there's much you've never heard of.

I've just never heard

of "shall issue" bus driver licences, let alone "shall issue" bus driver jobs ... or of bus drivers driving their buses around malls without anybody knowing they were there ...

Really? So the licensing authorities in Canada have complete discretion to deny a bus driver license to anyone, even if the person meets all the published criteria and passes the standard test? "Shall issue" means the license cannot be denied to someone who meets the criteria. Is that not the case for bus drivers where you come from? Shocking, just shocking.

Jezus Christ, man, do you want to make yourself look this thick?

There is NO oversight of people wandering around with firearms in the US. There is NO screening process to determine their suitability, apart from determining that they are not ruled on one or two very very very basic points.

Self-contradiction in adjacent sentences: from "NO oversight of people wandering around with firearms in the US" to "NO screening process apart from..." So there is some oversight. You might not consider it adequate, but even you can't pretend there isn't any. Or maybe you can: I can't speak to your mental acuity.

Permitting someone to wander around in public with a firearm creates a situation where there is NO POSSIBILITY of oversight. Not of mental state, not of law compliance, not of criminality, not of ANYTHING. Not before or after the permission is given.

See above. Oversight was exercised before the permit was granted. Oversight is exercised when the permit is renewed. Oversight is exercised whenever a firearm is purchased. Any serious transgression of law or adjudication of severe mental illness triggers instant suspension of the permit and mandatory confiscation of firearms. Sounds like oversight to me.

Aren't those goalposts getting heavy? Feel free to plant them anywhere. Apparently that's the way the game is played up there in Bieberland.

[iverglas]

91. oh, for fuck's sake

Really? So the licensing authorities in Canada have complete discretion to deny a bus driver license to anyone, even if the person meets all the published criteria and passes the standard test?

Yeah, that one's especially funny.

I'm the one constantly trying to educate people around here to the fact that there is a right to a driver's licence ... and constantly being told it's a privilege. R.O.F.L.

The published criteria and standard test are not "be 16 and have no criminal record". The basic driver's licence test comes first. Then the training course. Then the special driver's licence. Then the whole job interview process, probation, on the job training ... Just like for carrying a gun around in public in the US!!!

So there is some oversight.

I urge you again to find a dictionary. It's possible you'll need to look up "equivocation", too.

Any serious transgression of law or adjudication of severe mental illness triggers instant suspension of the permit and mandatory confiscation of firearms. Sounds like oversight to me.

Yeah. Especially if nobody knows about the mental illness or catches you committing that crime ...


Yeeeesh.

[Straw Man]

93. I love it when you talk dirty.

I'm the one constantly trying to educate people around here to the fact that there is a right to a driver's licence ... and constantly being told it's a privilege. R.O.F.L.

The published criteria and standard test are not "be 16 and have no criminal record". The basic driver's licence test comes first. Then the training course. Then the special driver's licence. Then the whole job interview process, probation, on the job training ... Just like for carrying a gun around in public in the US!!!

Nice dodge, but the issue wasn't what criteria exist, but whether the issuing body has complete discretionary authority to disregard the criteria and deny the applicant, as they do in "may issue" states. But thanks for playing.

I urge you again to find a dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oversight

Let's see: a : watchful and responsible care b : regulatory supervision

OK, sounds to me as if there's oversight. Oh, you don't agree that it's sufficiently "watchful" and "responsible"? Well, that would be an opinion, wouldn't it? And the last time I checked, opinions don't have the status of facts.

It's possible you'll need to look up "equivocation", too.

Oh, goody! We're playing "Word of the Day"! Shall I also look up "adumbrate," "fractious," and "querulous"? Learning is such fun!

Perhaps you had a point you wished to make?

Yeah. Especially if nobody knows about the mental illness or catches you committing that crime ...

So we're back to prescient law enforcement as the sine qua non. Whatever floats your little authoritarian boat.

[Meiko]

77. Nobody?

And where I am, the practice IS banned outright, except for individuals who need to carry firearms in the course of specific types of employment.

So where you live nobody carries a gun except for those people you mention? Where do you live may I ask...

[iverglas]

82. if you have a question that addresses something I said

feel free to ask it.

If you want to make up some shit question and pretend it has something to do with something I said ... well hey, feel free to do that too.

[Straw Man]

90. You must be a lot of fun at parties.

if you have a question that addresses something I said

feel free to ask it.

If you want to make up some shit question and pretend it has something to do with something I said ... well hey, feel free to do that too.

I mean with the sparkling repartee and the scintillating wit and all.

Do you have this response on speed-dial?

[Meiko]

98. Nasty mouth too

Big surprise...you didn't answer the question.

[hack89]

99. She's Canadian. Apparently they have no criminals there.

that's why the only people with guns are "individuals who need to carry firearms in the course of specific types of employment. "

[iverglas]

100. are you attributing that statement to me?

that's why the only people with guns are "individuals who need to carry firearms in the course of specific types of employment. "

If so, and it's perfectly clear that this is what you and the rest of the mob are doing, then I suggest you all barbecue it to a turn, and stuff it in your gobs and swallow it whole.

Because I said no such thing, and you all know perfectly well I said no such thing, and we all know what a sin it is to say things that we know are not ... accurate.

[hack89]

101. Sorry - didn't realize you supported the public ownership of handguns and other weapons. Sorry. nt

[Meiko]

105. Thanks

I kind of figured it out after looking through the thread...she? oh God.

[iverglas]

102. TRUTH, not that I expect anyone to do anything

except injure themselves when they fall over it.

It was in the post I am replying to, which so many people have been hurting themselves trying to pretend was something it wasn't. Ah, just like the good old days.

Pardon me for thinking that you wanted to ban the practice outright.

Sorry you've confused yourself, but you had it right the first time. And where I am, the practice IS banned outright, except for individuals who need to carry firearms in the course of specific types of employment.

I was more or less asked whether I wanted to ban the carrying of firearms in public.

And I replied that where I am the carrying of firearms in public IS BANNED.

So is smoking pot, thanks to our charming neighbours.

Now that I have told you that smoking pot is banned, I'll bet five of you will come along and start yapping that what I said was that no one in Canada smokes pot.

Since I'd be laughed out of Canada if I said that, well, go ahead and try.

... Does anybody really know anybody who hasn't smoked pot, generally quite a lot of it? Nobody's managed to get me old mum to try a toke yet ...

Anyway, I don't know anybody who carries a gun around in public, and if anybody were doing it, it would be in my neighbourhood. The one attempted robbery at the 7-11 on the corner that I heard details of involved a keychain-type penknife and a clerk who laughed so hard he could barely call the cops and was still laughing when he told me about it 10 minutes later.

Yes, there are stickups in Canada in which people use guns. I detailed all the gas bar holdups in Ontario that google news found me for a couple-year period a while back. A dozen maybe, I forget.

But the practice of carrying guns around in public is generally banned. You know, outlawed. Not allowed. No shall-issue licences. No may-issue licences except to people whose employment meets the requirements in the firearms legislation, or who spend a lot of time wandering around in the wilderness where there are lions and tigers and bears. Banned, with little narrow exceptions. Get caught carrying a firearm around in public without one of those little narrow exception licences -- like, you weren't sitting in an armoured truck at the time -- and you're in big serious trouble.

I'd ask whether that's all cleared up in your noggins now, but it would be a rhetorical sort of question. I doubt that it was at any time unclear, and I doubt that anyone will acknowledge that it is clear now.

[hack89]

108. Thanks for the clarification

from this I take it you have no problem with private ownership of handguns as long as they remain on private property.

[iverglas]

111. oh yeah, you got it

Kinda like I have no problem with people beating their dogs, as long as they do it on their own property ...

[hack89]

113. So you do not support the private ownership of handguns?

does that mean that only ""individuals who need to carry firearms in the course of specific types of employment. " should own hand guns?

[iverglas]

117. you've been here for over seven years

Unless you have a genuine traumatic brain injury, in which case I suggest you develop a good card index system to make up for your faulty memory, you know all the answers to all your questions.

I am not your card index system.

But for this little twist: no, the individuals in question should not (and do not, unless under a totally different licence as a sports shooter or collector) own handguns. Their employers own handguns (under a licence for businesses that require firearms in the course of their activities), and they are licensed to carry them in the course of their employment.

It ain't really that hard to grasp, although I guess I should make allowances for how strange and exotic it all sounds to somebody trapped beyind those forcefields along your borders.

[hack89]

119. It is not like you are known for the clarity of your posts

I will put you in the "ok to own and keep handguns on private property" column - that seems to jibe with what you are trying to say.

[iverglas]

121. actually, it's about as far out of tune

as it could possibly be, but you do what you like!

[hack89]

123. So this sentiment is actually true?

that's why the only people with guns are "individuals who need to carry firearms in the course of specific types of employment. "

It would appear we have eliminated every other possible combination in the past hour or so.

[iverglas]

124. sometimes

ya just gotta shake yer head, answer the phone and accept the Friday afternoon work dump, and wander off. Shaking yer head.

Just in case anybody is easily confused, the "quoted" bit in your post isn't anything I have ever said.

[hack89]

125. I know - that's why I specifically used the word sentiment

do you agree with that sentiment? Should private ownership of hand guns be banned?

[PavePusher]

120. It's Jello. Let it go.

[sarisataka]

69. So by a similar standard

why should anyone be allowed to drive in public?
I have known more than one trucker who was killed by a suicidal driver. They go head on into a truck on the freeway thinking the bigger truck will protect the driver. Wrong, but the suicidal person is dead so they don't really care.

[iverglas]

70. more than one?

Two?

What were the rates for suicide-homicide by motor vehicle in the US last year?

Come to that, what were the rates for suicide by motor vehicle in the US last year? Homicide by motor vehicle?

I'll be expecting you to hork up the rates for accidental death by motor vehicle last year now.

Then we'll compare the number of miles the average person in the US travelled by motor vehicle / number of motor vehicles within crashing-into range the average person encountered in a day last year to the number of firearms the average person spent time in company with ...

And we can always talk about the cost/benefit analysis of allowing people to drive vs. allowing them to carry guns around in public. Things like how many people have no choice but to carry a firearm in order to get to work and earn the money to support their families ...

I know what any honest, reasonable person would conclude from such comparisons.

[sarisataka]

85. Two personally

about 8 other incidents, not all resulting in death. It is often missed and gets reported as the 'confused driver'

The point is, if we are to limit something based on what 'may' happen where do we want to draw the line... To those two families it was a very big deal.

I have buried several people who were under 30 and victims of drunk drivers. If the driver survived they seem to get out of jail in 3-7 years. Had a gun been used, how long? Yet we do not restrict people who 'may' become drunk drivers. If fact even if you kill a person with a car, you can take a class and get your license back in a rather short time.


My point is if we are to restrict something based on what may happen, would not restricting drivers (in order to get to work and earn the money to support their families ... necessary shopping, all other trips must be approved my the local manager of transportation safety) have a greater a greater benefit than restricting gun owners? Or does it make sense to acknowledge what may happen and take steps to reduce that possibility of occurrence, placing trust in people who, as yet, have done nothing wrong?

[iverglas]

86. Huh

And I know two people personally who have been killed by firearm.

And I only know two people who own firearms.

Yet we do not restrict people who 'may' become drunk drivers.

Yeah, but you know what we do?

We have police on the roads looking for drunk drivers. We have roadside spot checks. We have other oversights that are good for detecting drunk drivers: radar for speeding, for instance. We have massive public education campaigns.

If the driver survived they seem to get out of jail in 3-7 years. Had a gun been used, how long?

What, like if somebody was target shooting and a bullet went into a house and killed a kid? I dunno. How long?

Construct your analogy and let me know.

If fact even if you kill a person with a car, you can take a class and get your license back in a rather short time.

Maybe where you live. Sentences may sometimes not seem adequate where I live, but that just sounds ludicrous.

Yet we do not restrict people who 'may' become drunk drivers.

I'm not talking about restricting anybody. I'm talking about prohibiting the carrying of firearms in public.

And where I'm at, and in other smart jurisdictions, we do "restrict" some classes of drivers likely to become drunk drivers -- specifically, young and new drivers. Seriously restrict. Zero blood alcohol. Limits on times of day and nature of passengers. For a couple of years, I think. Interesting, eh? More measures to provide for effective oversight.

My point is if we are to restrict something based on what may happen, would not restricting drivers (in order to get to work and earn the money to support their families ... necessary shopping, all other trips must be approved my the local manager of transportation safety) have a greater a greater benefit than restricting gun owners?

Feel free to put together an argument to that effect. Seems danged silly to me, but there you go.

In a society organized around the motor vehicle, motor vehicles, and driving motor vehicles on the public highways, are essential to many people's lives. The actual rate of death and injury, when the number of miles driven / number of vehicles a person is in proximity with are factored in, for instance, is minuscule.

You continue to go off topic here anyway. I have never claimed that people are widely endangered by a small fraction of the population having permission to wander around with firearms, and a fraction of them actually doing it at any gien time.

I'm saying that the risk is high enough to outweigh the zero benefit, and that worse than zero benefit, there are other types of harms that make the benefit negative.

The harm to the fabric of a society of some people wandering around with firearms in public, and other people having no choice but to have those people in their public spaces without even knowing who they are, is just plain unacceptable.

Or does it make sense to acknowledge what may happen and take steps to reduce that possibility of occurrence, placing trust in people who, as yet, have done nothing wrong?

This has fucking NOTHING to do with "trust". Nobody "trusts" a stranger to do anything. You don't trust the stranger on the corner to look after your baby for a couple of hours. You don't trust the stranger on the bus to housesit for you for a couple of weeks. You don't go down the street handing out your housekey to the first 10 people you encounter. Well why the hell not? Don't you trust them??

It has to do with risk management. And there is not the slightest reason in the world to CREATE a risk when there is no benefit generated and multiple harms caused even apart from the specific risks.

[GreenStormCloud]

112. There is a benefit.

For those of us who are armed, if a criminal attack happens to us we can fight back very effectively. We don't have to passively submit and hope for a chance to run away.

My wife has twice used her concealed gun to scare away a would-be attacker, no shots fired. After those two events, about three weeks apart, at the same place and time of day, there was never another incident. I suspect that word got out among the thugs on the street that she was a dangerous target and to be left alone.

[hack89]

114. So the "actual rate of death and injury" due to drunk drivers is low enough to be acceptable

because after all we are a society organized around cars. OK - but we are not organized around alcohol. Is the risk of alcohol on society (not only drunk driving but its contribution to other violent behavior like spousal or child abuse) high enough to warrant the prohibition of alcohol? Or is that rate of death and injury acceptable?


What is the "actual rate of death and injury" due to gun owners legal carrying in public? Do you know? Do you even care?

[iverglas]

115. a week full of mulberry bushes

I'm familiar enough with the harms done by alcohol that I would agree to give up my very occasional glass of red wine in favour of a ban -- if it would work. It won't. Case closed.

Guns are not alcohol.

What is the "actual rate of death and injury" due to gun owners legal carrying in public? Do you know? Do you even care?

Do you read?

I think I made it pretty clear in my post that I don't care.

Civilized societies do not behave this way. Period.

In addition, intelligent societies do not raise the risks of harms occurring this way.

And I don't prefer to base major policy decisions on short-term, incomplete data analyzed badly.

[hack89]

116. So it is not about facts or evidence but simply "feelings"? At least you are honest about it. nt

[iverglas]

118. not my cup of tea

but since you're the only one talking about "feelings" here, I figured it would be right up your alley. Enjoy!

[hack89]

122. I am glad you decided to come back to the gungeon

the other gun grabbers don't have your wit and spirit. You are fun to interact with.

[sarisataka]

128. I don't know about hack89

but I'll take the Muppets any day of the week

[OffWithTheirHeads]

4. Oh bullshit!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Perhaps this would help

[OffWithTheirHeads]

11. Probably more useful than telliing me that guns are bad.

Guns, like hammers, can be used for bad purposes.


that does not make guns bad.

[iverglas]

30. I'll bet somebody has told you that guns are bad

Why don't you go find them and spew your nonsensical vitriol at them?

Doing it here just makes you look kinda silly.


(Just in case anybody with a finger on the "hide" button is looking at this, please look at the two posts above the one I am replying to in this subthread. My comment is mild and relevant.)

[PavePusher]

17. There isn't enough in the whole world..... n/t

[jenwilson]

6. I love how the NRA tries to spend shooting around 5 year-olds is a good thing

They're completely wacko.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. She didn't fire any shots around the five year olds.

She merely had the gun on her hip, in a holster.

You can put the strawman back in the barn.

[RegieRocker]

9. Yep only military, police and criminals should have guns.

[iverglas]

31. that's kind of a silly thing to say

Did you think it up all by your own self?

[RegieRocker]

133. It's rather ignorant to think it's silly.

Did you think that up all by yourself? I wouldn't be proud of yourself.

[sarisataka]

8. Check your spell check

the title line makes no sense.

And where in the article did it mention the NRA?

[Meiko]

10. I carry a gun everyday

and just about everywhere I go. No one around me even knows I have a gun, and that is how it should be. The weapon would only be used if I felt my life was in danger and only then if I had no way to escape. How is that a danger to anyone except the fool trying to harm me. There are more and more people carrying guns these days and nobody around them will even know it.

As far as the lady with the Glock. She was within her rights to openly carry her gun. Why she chose to do so is anyone's guess. It would not have been my first choice but that's me. She endangered nobody by doing so. It was the overreaction by a bunch of soccer moms that stirred things up.

[Starboard Tack]

14. She carried OC as a deterrent

What's your reason for hiding your gun? Do you oppose OC?

[Meiko]

15. No I don't oppose

open carry, you see it quite a bit here in Arizona. Concealed is my preferred method of carry. People don't get all worked up because they see a gun and it is not as easy for someone to try and take my weapon.

[iverglas]

33. who are you?

How does anybody else in the world know you're not suffering from a delusional illness that prompts you to violence, or just a psychopath whose smooth words conceal a burning hatred of women or minorities?

We don't.

Why did the woman in issue choose to affix a firearm to her body while attending children's sports events?

Because she's either insane, if she truly believes she's doing it to protect them from terrorists, or she's a right-wing asshole, if she's presenting her stupid noise as a cover for her purely political display of power over other people.

[Meiko]

71. Why would you walk around

with assumptions like those you listed? Nobody knows anything about the person standing next to them, including if they are carrying a gun or not. That's the way it should be. Why would anyone care. I have fulfilled all legal requirements to carry a concealed weapon...I have been carrying one for years and haven't harmed a soul, imagine that.

As far as the lady in the story she was probably making a statement, she was legal to do what she did. Just because someone doesn't like it is just too bad. If businesses and such don't want guns on their property all they are required to do is put up a sign and anyone with a CCW is required to comply with the sign. It's really not as crazy out here in the world as you might think.

[iverglas]

72. why would you sit there with your bare face hanging out

and make the false statement that I made any assumptions at all?

I expressly said that I MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS -- I do NOT assume that anyone in the world is sane or has adequate impulse control or is not motivated by unbridled self-interest or by hatred.

As far as the lady in the story she was probably making a statement, she was legal to do what she did.

And it's legal for people to cheat on their spouses and spread ugly false rumours about their neighbours. It was once legal, and still is in some places, for people to own human beings and for men to rape and beat women.

So the fuck what? The fact that something is legal is not an argument for doing it. And the fact that it is obnoxious and antisocial is an argument for not doing it, regardless of how legal it is.

Legal for her to do it, unfortunately for her community. And legal for anybody who thinks she's a total asshole for doing it to say so. Funny how that works, eh?

Just because someone doesn't like it is just too bad.

And funny how a lot of people over history probably said just that about a lot of things it was legal to do at the time, and isn't now.

It's really not as crazy out here in the world as you might think.

I have no idea what you surmise I think. What I have stated I think is that people who carry firearms around in public are assholes.

I have no idea whether anyone reading this, including you, carries a firearm around in public, so nobody needs to be squealing that I have smeared anybody. Anybody can wander onto an internet discussion board and claim to carry a firearm around in public.

[Meiko]

73. If you think I

am an asshole for carrying a gun that's your opinion and you have a right to believe that. I have my reasons for carrying a firearm. The lady in the article that seems to have you so riled up was not breaking the law. She obviously felt that she needed to make a statement and that's what she did. People make statements in this country every day. There are protests going on constantly.

The real issue here I think is "Is the fact that I carry a gun any of your business" The answer to that is no it is not. Why would you even waste any time worrying about it. I know you don't agree with it but there a lot of things out there we don't agree with. Are there people out there that probably should not be carrying a gun, sure there are, criminals come to mind for some reason. There are people out there who shouldn't be driving, worry about them. The death toll from automobiles is a lot higher than it is for guns.

As long as someone complies with all the legal requirements to carry a gun I see no reason why they shouldn't if they want to.

I expressly said that I MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS -- I do NOT assume that anyone in the world is sane or has adequate impulse control or is not motivated by unbridled self-interest or by hatred.

I really have no idea how to respond to the above statement other than it screams of a total distrust of anyone and everyone and tells me that you have no real idea what motivates people. Are people capable of outbursts of anger or displaying hate?, of course they are...we see it everyday but that doesn't mean that everyone who carries a gun is going to go off the deep and and shoot someone. Perhaps it would be better if they just went off and beat the heck out of someone.

Statistically speaking those who are licensed to carry concealed weapons commit very few crimes with them. That shows me that these people are law abiding, reasonable members of society. I have no idea why anyone would be worried about them, I certainly don't.

[oneshooter]

83. " obnoxious and antisocial " according to who? You?

Are you now the arbitrator on what is " obnoxious and antisocial"?
And who awarded you this tremendous power?

What is "obnoxious and antisocial " is not yours to determine, except in your home, property and/or business. Outside of those areas it is society that determines what is allowable, and enforces that determination by the passage of laws.

Canada has such laws, as does the United States. If they do not agree with each other then so be it. If you do not like the laws in the US then do not enter. The same goes with Canada and its laws.

Your mores and values are yours, don't go on a screaming hissy fit if they are not the same as others.

Live with it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

89. it may surprise you greatly to know

that the answer is yes: I get to determine who is obnoxious and antisocial.

You know what it's called when I do that?

It's called an opinion.

And you know what it's called when I type it in this forum?

It's called free speech.

And it's protected and quite highly valued up here.

[Straw Man]

92. Lucky for us that ...

I get to determine who is obnoxious and antisocial.

You know what it's called when I do that?

It's called an opinion.

... your opinions don't have the force of law in the United States.

[Clames]

96. Her opinions...

...don't have the force of law anywhere. Except in her head. Another thing to be thankful for...

[Meiko]

97. Actually

Free speech on a forum is what the forum owner say's it is.

[iverglas]

103. noooooo

My goodness, I learned something today.

[Meiko]

127. I think you already knew

you just be messin' around.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. She wasn't necessarily wearing it to protect herself from terrorists.

Her husband walked in, when she happened to be unarmed, and put five bullets in her.
They had been described as having marital problems at the time, though no court orders had been sought, and he was living in the family home at the time.

Hain's gun was holstered, hanging in the livingroom, where she could not access it when it happened.

[iverglas]

104. what - how did I miss this?

She's dead??

Lived by the sword, and died by it ... ?

I hadn't clicked on the article because it didn't seem, from the excerpts, to be about her, and the thread had just gone its merry way around the subject as usual.

In October 2009, Hain was gunned down in her home by her husband who, after firing six shots into her with his handgun (hers was in a backpack hanging off a door), went upstairs and ended his own life with a shotgun blast. Neighbors said they heard the couple's children run from the house shouting "Daddy shot mommy!"

Well damned if it wasn't one of those very homicide-suicides I was babbling on about.

Not likely ever possible to know much about her life, but hard to think she wasn't victimized in her home before this. And she could have found help that would very possibly have saved her life -- the danger to a woman who leaves an abusive man, especially one with guns, should never be underestimated -- but instead she devoted her energies to harassing her neighbours with her gun and wasting the public's time with her stupid lawsuits over it. All that time and energy and undoubtedly money spent on her fixation with dragging a gun around everywhere she went, and well, it's hard to say anything else without both stating the obvious and appearing insensitive. The point is that it's a huge tragedy, that she wasted her life doing what it did, and all her association with guns did in the end was get her killed.

I suppose she could have spent her time embroidering throw pillows, and her husband could have suffocated her and then himself. I know we all get the point about firearm homicide-suicides. Once you've killed your victim, you need to be able to finish yourself off pretty quickly or you just might not have the guts to do it. Taking a bus crosstown to jump off a bridge isn't likely your best plan.

She was talking to a friend via webcam when she was killed. Her loaded handgun was hanging in the kitchen. She had children aged 2, 6 and 10. Hard to think of a better poster child for the cause, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. My assumption was

she carried to protect herself from him. Why she didn't exercise any number of other avenues such as a shelter, or a protection order, or whatnot, I can only guess. I agree, it is highly likely she was victimized in some way, prior to the murder.

The one pertinent point I take away from the story, the person who 'carried' openly, and insisted upon doing so, wasn't the instigator of the murder-suicide. She is simply a victim.

[ileus]

60. Thanks for caring enough to carry

Lots of people will give you flack for taking your safety into your own hands, I say job well done. Nothing like being responsible and caring enough for society to take up the burden of carrying.

[iverglas]

65. snork

Whose burden is that, now? I recall a line, from Kipling perhaps ...



I thought this carrying crap was one of those personal choices. Why would somebody be thanking somebody else for doing it?

I must remember to thank the next person I see smoking a joint, or wearing pink socks ...

[beevul]

12. The VPC? Really?

Do you ask the ONDCP for opinions about drug legalization as well?

[krispos42]

13. "non-self-defense incidents"

Because a CCW permittee shooting his wife to death in their bedroom is entirely due to him carrying a pistol in public. Or something.

The question is, as always, is "how many murders were committed by a CCW permittee in public, with his legally carried sidearm, that were spontaneous and unplanned?"


Keeping in mind, of course, that in the period being mentioned, some 80,000 Americans were murdered, 25,000 or so without guns.



People freaking out about somebody carrying openly have about the same basis for fear as the people that freak out about gays kissing in public.

[ileus]

16. They don't threaten my safety.

[Remmah2]

18. So private citizens carrying in public scares some people.

What about off duty LEO's or undercover detectives? I know one LEO who "totes" off duty. Jeans and a Metallica tee shirt. His plumber's butt popping out of his jeans is more offensive than the grip of his IWB Smith&Wesson snubby. He looks more like a bald biker than a LEO. Honestly I'd rather have him around than some phobic-neurotic-judgemental individual.

[rl6214]

23. But as I've seen posted in the past

everyone just KNOWS and off duty cop is an off duty cop.

[iverglas]

34. "So private citizens carrying in public scares some people."

Of course it does. Why the hell else do ugly right-wing assholes do it?

Actually, as has been explained before, it doesn't "scare" people -- it INTIMIDATES them. That is what it is intended to do. To say "this public space is mine".

I have no idea why off-duty police would be allowed to carry firearms in public (given that I have no idea why anyone is), myself. Undercover detectives are on duty and thus subject to public oversight just like uniformed police, and are simply a red herring you're throwing around.

[oneshooter]

39. In many areas LE is required to be armed. They are actually considered to be "on duty" 24-7.

[iverglas]

45. are you really pretending to think I am unaware of this?

How many bleeding times have we been around this mulberry bush in this place?

I don't live somewhere where a police officer is considered to be "on duty 24/7" and I don't want to. I don't want somebody who has just downed a half-dozen beers to be "on duty" -- and I don't want a police service that treats its employees like indentured servants, which is what being "on duty" (and thus, presumably, sober and awake) 24/7 amounts to.

Let's not play this game.


edited bad editing

[oneshooter]

50. Well good for you. If you don't want a question answered, then don't ask it.

[iverglas]

57. I didn't ask a question

I said I have no idea, and I still have no idea.

But feel free to tell me some more blah blah I already know and find bizarre.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. Pop goes the weasel.

How many bleeding times have we been around this mulberry bush in this place?
Round and round the mulberry bush,
The monkey chased the weasel,
The monkey though it was all in fun,
POP goes the weasel.

Would you like us to send you a jack-in-the-box?

[GreenStormCloud]

42. Police make enemies who would do them harm.

An LEO sometimes meets people whom he/she has arrested, and caused to spend time in prison. Sometimes those people carry grudges so for his own protection LEOs are allowed to be armed at all times, even after they have retired.

[iverglas]

58. and yet in the rest of the world

they aren't.

And former cops are just not dropping like flies out here ...

[Remmah2]

79. Judges, juries and witnesses.

You can't assign 24/7 protection to everyone forever.

[gejohnston]

43. can you read minds?

impressive. Who are they intimidating? I don't know anyone who would actually be intimidated by such a thing.

[Remmah2]

134. Never underestimate stupidity.

It's a long way until we bottom out.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. In the US federal law mandates that they be allowed to carry at all times.

In response to a bunch of murdered off-duty cops.

In the US, a badge basically comes with a 24x7 nationwide concealed carry permit.
Which is kind of unfortunate, since there are a couple officers I wouldn't trust with a dull spork.

Has Canada never had a problem with officers killed while off-duty by suspects, or released inmates seeking revenge? We certainly have.

[iverglas]

106. yes, we know that

In response to a bunch of murdered off-duty cops.

Actually, in response to a bunch of pressure by the gun lobby and some of its favourite sons.

Has Canada never had a problem with officers killed while off-duty by suspects, or released inmates seeking revenge? We certainly have.

Not that I'm aware of. Hell's Angels almost killed a journalist in Montreal a while back, but he made it through.

And I have never been given any figures for the problem in the US. Or a breakdown of what the murdered off-duty cops were doing at the time, for instance.

[gejohnston]

109. got evidence?

Actually, in response to a bunch of pressure by the gun lobby and some of its favourite sons.

Can you calmly answer without the use of "colorful metaphors" and illiterate adjectives?

[AtheistCrusader]

110. I don't believe it was a high numbers issue,

here in the US, but it was a very high profile media issue.

[ileus]

54. I've never understood the whole intimidation or scary aspect of an OC firearm.

In a more perfect union most everyone would have a sidearm open carried....but we'er not that progressive yet.

[NewMoonTherian]

19. The only time I ever feel threatened...

by an openly carried gun is when it's being carried by a police officer. I trust civilians with guns vastly more than I trust police.

[HALO141]

20. Josh Sugarman?!?!?!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah!!!!

[rl6214]

21. Time for another 6pak editorial dump

Article by Josh Sugarman=fail

That's about like linking to an editorial by lapierre or nugent

[HALO141]

24. I'm genuinely surprised that Sugarman still has a job anywhere.

Everything he's ever been connected with has been so demonstrably fraudulent you'd think that nobody would want him anywhere near their cause or organization.

[rl6214]

25. Not only fraudulent but

a complete failure

[Spoonman]

22. I would like to thank all the posters

for serving up jpak's daily dose of his ass on a platter.

[HockeyMom]

26. Kick her kid off the soccer team

They have a right to do that you know? Solves the problem and maybe she will get the hint that she and her gun is not wanted at 5 year old soccer games.

Are guns allowed in Labor and Delivery? Did she pack her gun when she went to the hospital to give birth too? She sound like she was TRYING to pick a fight. Must have a LOT of friends on that soccer team.

[iverglas]

35. and then she'd sue *them* for a million bucks.

It's what they do.

We call them provocateurs.

The "free speech" provocateurs are the same -- the ones who want to put up their billboards of aborted fetuses and lynched African-Americans and gassed German Jews on university campuses.

It isn't about their cause, and it isn't about her protecting her kids from terrorists.

It's about saying "all your public spaces belong to us", and fuck you if you don't like it.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. That's the way rights are expanded. N/T

[iverglas]

66. what are rights, balloons?

You really don't have a clue, do you?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. That would imply...

...that the principal threats to safety are the military and law enforcement, interesting idea.

[ileus]

44. Scary...scary....gunz...they kill people you know!

[slackmaster]

80. Anecdotes do not carry as much weight as statistics gathered over time

I am not impressed by the case the author of this essay has attempted to make. Mr. Sugarmann's long history of appeals to emotion and failures to support his positions with verifiable facts has made me begin to suspect that he may be less than honest.

Violent crime of all types has been trending downward for almost 20 years both in states that have liberalized public carrying of weapons and those that have not. This can be easily confirmed by anyone who will take the trouble to research the subject.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

[Clames]

88. Wow, the anti-gunners got creamed...

...on that one.


Total Points for pro-Civil Rights: 2306
Total Points for the antis: -1880

[Simo 1939_1940]

130. Aint it nice that jpak inadvertantly (and loudly!) broadcasts the fact

that his position is a minority position in the extreme, and demonstrates why gun restriction is failing!

[Simo 1939_1940]

132. They're getting clobbered worse now:

Pro-rights: 2,634

Pro-restriction: -2,139

Of course this is largely because pro-rights folks are in motion, while pro-restrictionists are motionless.....but it sure illustrates gun restriction fail nicely regardless.

[Pacafishmate]

129. No they don't.

Outside of some people's delusions, that is.

[ileus]

131. Guns, Carried Openly and concealed, secure our safety

That's how it should be titled.