OK to carry guns in Stone Mtn. Park now. Boy, I feel better...

[CurtEastPoint]

From today's AJC:


GeorgiaCarry.org, the same group that sued Hartsfield Jackson Airport and lost, over the right to bring guns to the airport, sued Stone Mountain and won.

John Monroe, the attorney for Georgia Carry, said, "There's no place in the world that's off limits to criminals or where someone can be completely safe."

Used to be, no guns were permitted at the park. Now anyone, except a convicted felon can bring a gun. Those without a permit must leave their guns in their cars. Those with permits can carry them anywhere in the park.


Yes, that group wanted to be able to bring GUNS into the world's busiest airport. Assholes.

[skygazer]

1. I was reading an article recently in the NRA magazine

No, I don't get the NRA magazine - it was in a friend's bathroom.

Anyway, they were all worked up about how unreasonable it was to have laws that forbade the carrying of firearms in bars and restaurants. The nerve! The gist of the article was that the liberal freaks who wanted such laws were "afraid of their fellow citizens."

And my immediate response was, why do you feel the need to CARRY a weapon in a bar or restaurant if you're not afraid of your fellow citizen?

Morans.

[Dogtown]

4. Is that a working definition of "irony"?

We're rapidly becoming the most reactionary society on the planet.

Do you think they hate the Iraqis for their freedoms? After all, *they* can shop up all the rockabilly AKs they want at the flea market....

:patriot:

[imdjh]

5. I agree with them.

The purpose of concealed carry is self defense. Going to and from bars and restaurants is one of the most common places to be a target for criminal attack.
As a gay man who misspent his youth dancing the night away, and discos are always in the most charming neighborhoods (if you are a rodent), I have been in danger countless times simply by walking to my car. I was a target both because I was walking to my car from a known nightclub, and because I'm gay.

So yeah, it would be nice to be able to carry a gun when I am most likely to need it.

[skygazer]

6. And peachy when the other guy is able to carry a gun too

That logic just doesn't work for me. And I own guns. But there is nothing that is going to convince me that a combination of guns and alcohol is a good thing.

[imdjh]

7. You must be thinking of a different scenario.

My scenario is not one of having a disagreement with someone in the bar. It's about being attacked on the way to your car. As for guns and alcohol mixing, there is nothing to stop your average criminal from having a snort while sitting in his car waiting for you to walk by.

[Zoeisright]

10. +1

Actually, +1000

[aikoaiko]

12. When carrying a firearm in GA, its against the law to consumer alcohol.

Often people say, "but what's to stop them from drinking" and the answer is nothing. But then again, people are allowed to drink up to the point of BAC of .08 and drive their car. We don't ask the question, "but what to stop them from drinking to too much in driving their car".

Georgia Carry fought for the right of people to got to restaurants that happen to serve alcohol.

[Treo]

14. We could also ask

Why would a law against carrying a gun in a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol stop anyone W/ criminal intent?

I mean it worked so well at

VA Tech (gun free zone)
NIU (gun free zone)
Lane Bryant (gun free zone)
Vonn Mar (gun free zone)
Luby's (gun free zone)
Columbine (gun free zone)
Paducah Ky. (gun free zone)

New Life Church Oh, wait not a gun free zone and the shooter got dropped by a civilian W/ a gun

How are those gun free zones working out for you?

[GreenStormCloud]

69. Does going to a restaurant automatically mean you are going to drink?

I ate out yesterday and today. Didn't drink anythink except water or Pepsi. And I was armed. My guns didn't jump out of their holsters and start shooting people.

I agree that guns and booze don't mix, but I CAN be in a restaurant, or a bar for that matter, without drinking booze. I may be the designated driver and escort for some friends. Did you ever think of that?

To say, "I own guns" and then proceed to spout gun-grabber illogic is like in the 1950's and early 1960's when some redneck would say, "Some of my best friends are Colored, but...".

[michreject]

61. It's not the bar or diner

It's the walk at night in the parking lot at said establishment.

[GreenStormCloud]

68. Does a Luby's in Texas, or a McDonald's in California ring a bell to you?

An armed citizen in either of those two places could have stopped the slaughter.

[spin]

78. A lot of people don't believe in wearing seatbeats...

when they are just driving to the local neighborhood store.

They are certain that they will never have an accident so near home. They do wear their seat belts on long trips. Everybody knows that's where the accidents happen. That's just commonsense.

If you are going to be involved in an accident, chances are it will happen close to your home. Progressive Insurance polled 11,000 of its policyholders who experienced accidents in 2001. They found that 52% were involved in accidents within five miles from there home and 69% were involved in accidents within ten miles from their home. Only 17% of those polled experienced accidents beyond twenty miles from his or her home (Strillacci, 2002).
http://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/content31.aspx

Commonsense also tells people there is absolutely no reason to carry a concealed weapon in a bar or restaurant. Criminals and nutcases never go to restaurants or bars. Everyone knows that.

[Euromutt]

81. I think that depends entirely on your definition of "fellow citizen"

See, if we're talking about people who threaten others with harm to life and limb to coerce them to hand over their valuables, or massacre a restaurant full of people in pursuit of some perverse form of self-validation, I for one would be extremely reluctant to describe such people are my "fellow citizens." As far as I'm concerned, they just happen to live in the same country I do.

The notion that the bulk of firearm crimes are committed by people "who would have been considered 'law-abiding citizens' until they pulled the trigger" is widespread and persistent, but it is incorrect. As has been pointed out over and over on this forum, CCW permit holders are actually less likely to commit a criminal offense than the general population, which figures, because it's a self-selecting group of people who are sufficiently confident about their lack of desire to commit a crime that they're willing to let the FBI have a complete set of their fingerprints. These are really not the people to be afraid of, just because they own and carry guns in public, but somehow, an awful lot of people didn't get the memo that the shoot-outs over fender-benders, blood running in the streets and every locality in "shall-issue" states turning into the Hollywood version of Dodge City didn't happen.

[GreenStormCloud]

83. I would like to add something further to your excellent post.

You said: ]b]The notion that the bulk of firearm crimes are committed by people "who would have been considered 'law-abiding citizens' until they pulled the trigger" is widespread and persistent, but it is incorrect.

That is completely true. In addition to that, it is extremely rare for a murder to be a person's first crime. Almost always, they will have a history of violent behavior and arrests and often convictions. Such a person is already restricted from being armed, but ignores such laws.

[Euromutt]

85. True (and thank you), but there are other firearm crimes than homicide

I left out that particular datum because we were talking about firearm crimes in general, not specifically firearm homicide. According to the FBI's UCR for 2008, there were 9,484 firearm homicides, against 153,476 aggravated assaults involving firearms. Interestingly, there also were 161,283 robberies committed using firearms, and robberies at gunpoint are exactly the kind of crime you don't expect a CCW permit holder to commit in a fit of pique.

Which illustrates that most gun crimes aren't committed by CCW permit holders, or even "regular" gun owners.

[paulsby]

99. i've been to dozens of shooting incidents

and my personal experience (20+ yrs) certainly bares this out. those involved in unlawful shoots are almost always the classic type of scum we refer to as "frequent flyers" NOT joe sixpack with a CCW.

[paulsby]

98. ah, the NEED canard

in post ONE no less.

impressive illogic

[gorfle]

104. On fear.

And my immediate response was, why do you feel the need to CARRY a weapon in a bar or restaurant if you're not afraid of your fellow citizen?

If I carry a spare tire in my car, am I afraid of flat tires or just being prepared for them?

If I have a smoke detector in my house, am I afraid of fires or am I just being prepared for them?

If I have a fire extinguisher in my house, am I afraid of fires or am I just being prepared for them?

If I have life insurance, am I afraid of dying or am I just being prepared for death?

Being prepared does not necessarily mean one is afraid.

[DainBramaged]

2. Code words for 'scary Black people' dontchknow.........

[GreenStormCloud]

84. Bullcrap. N/T

[Tippy]

3. Tennessee Legislature is now working on a bill

To make it legal to carry in the work place...

[Treo]

15. I used to work in a machine shop where everyone carried

One of the guys even made a revolver just to see if he could.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. You are mistaken.

The bill is NOT for the workplace, it is to have a gun in your locked car in the parking lot of your workplace.

That way, a person does not have to go from the workplace all the way to their home to have a gun when they leave work. So a person can go from the job parking lot to the firing range, or where ever they intend to go.

[Tippy]

89. I just happened to catch a bit of this on the local news.....

Didn't hear the part about locking it in your trunk, but knowing this legislature and guns, I would say this is par for the course....How soon will it be before kids are alowed to carry in school...These people are obsessed with guns..

[Treo]

90. I carry in school right now. NT

[GreenStormCloud]

96. Please be realistic. It makes for a better discussion.

Nobody is talking about allowing kids to carry guns in schools. None of us want minors to be able to have guns on their own.

Please do not accuse us of taking stances that we do not actually take.

The workplace parking problem is a real one. Many people may occasionally want to do something involving shooting after work. Some employers have an extreme anti-gun agenda and have been checking employees cars for guns.

In my case, I carry concealed everywhere - except at work or other restricted places. When I get to work, I put the gun in the trunk. After work, I open the trunk and slip it into its holster, then leave. So I would be without protection if I went anywhere after work, except home.

How does what an employee legally has in his trunk harm the employer? How is it any of the employer's business what I have in my trunk, as long as it is legal.

[pipi_k]

8. Be Prepared...that's their motto....

You just never know when you'll have to shoot down a stuck roller coaster or ferris wheel.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

9. Archie Bunker reborn in 2009.

This sounds like the episode of "All in the Family" where Archie goes on TV and says that he could stop skyjackings.

All you have to do is arm every passenger on the plane so that the skyjackers won't have the guts to try anything.

While I agree that there are times when some people might need to have the right to carry, things seem to be getting a little out of hand.

[PavePusher]

56. Are you claiming there is no crime or need for self-defense...

in parks? Airports? Workplaces? Parking lots?

Please give us a list of places where you feel being prepared for self defense is not needed.

[paulsby]

100. the need canard

AGAIN!

[aikoaiko]

11. Georgia Carry is a great organization fighting for gunowners' rights in the courtroom.

There is no good reason to ban permitted gun owners from carrying in the park if they can carry most everywhere else. There is nothing special or security sensitive about Stone Mountain (like a courtroom, prison, or jail).

And in time they will win the batte to carry a concealed firearm in the unsecured areas of Hartsfield (i.e., outside the TSA contolled security zone).

They're not the assholes.

[hlthe2b]

13. I could have dealt with the rare chance of encountering a

felon with a gun and still enjoyed a park such as Stone Mountain. I would think twice about going with the green light given to all the "supposed" law-abiding gun nuts packing. How many of these zealots are just a 12-pack and a bit of road rage away from using their "concealed" weapons intentionally or unintentionally on innocent bystanders? More guns means more incidents, not less.

[Statistical]

16. Strangely in last 20 years we have more guns & more CCW permits yet lower rate of

homicide & violent crime.

The scenario of people settling disputes over parking spaces with concealed firearms has been expressed every time a state loosened "feel good" restrictions on firearms. It started in FL 25 years ago and every single time the antis were proved wrong.

Simple truth is today we have more firearms, less restrictions on carrying them, more people legally carrying them and less violent crime & homicides.

[Treo]

18. hey now, don't let a few facts get in the way

Of a good stereotyping session.

[hlthe2b]

20. Statistical, we have debated much in the past. I won't change

your views and you won't change mine, especially with mangled data and hyperbole. Enjoy your Saturday, however.

[JonQ]

86. That's only because facts and statistics hate the children!

If they didn't they would work harder to prove the grabbers right!

Instead they contradict them at every turn.

[Treo]

91. Bad statistics, no donut! NT

[Treo]

17. Colorado has been shall issue for several years

It's also legal to OC every where but the PDR of Denver can you cite all these road rage incidents involving CHP holders? Vermont has NO requirement whatsoever regarding concealed carry. surely the blood must be ankle deep in the streets. News reports of law abiding concealed carriers going off the deep end and shooting the place up must abound. surely you can present some evidence.

We'll wait

[hlthe2b]

19. Your post makes no sense, beginning with your subject line...

No offense intended, Treo, but you need to add some punctuation. Do you mean, Colorado has been "shall issue" for several years?


Look, I don't engage in "pissing" matches, that often takes over these discussions, but I strongly disagree with the "arm everyone" and no one will be at risk theory. I won't change your views and you certainly will not change mine, especially with hyperbolic rhetoric.

I am not anti-gun, but I am for common sense gun policy.

[Taitertots]

23. No one supports "arm everyone"

Talk about hyperbolic rhetoric. You can't even get the most basic facts straight. No one, not even the NRA supports "arming everyone".

The preponderance of gun owners support the vast majority of gun laws. We support the real common sense gun restrictions, not the arbitrary, capricious, and burdensome restrictions advocated by gun prohibitionists. Even the NRA supports the preponderance of current gun control laws.

What is common sense?
FBI background checks-NRA supports it
Strict regulation of assault rifles-NRA supports it
Firearms safety classes-NRA provides them
Firearms locks-NRA provides them

[hlthe2b]

39. No one? This is Georgia... Ever hear of Kennesaw, Georgia?

Gun law

On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

NRA has moderated its positions at the same time it has moved from center stage and ceded to the extremists the voice of gun policy, as was in evidence during the whole guns taken to Obama events incidents. These more extremist gun groups were everywhere on tv spouting their opinion and intent that there be NO GUN Laws and that gun owners should have the right to come into Obama events fully packing, on airplanes, in church, etc.

Sorry Taiter. I am not your enemy vis-a-vis guns. These extremists ARE.

[triple point]

42. The Kennesaw ordinance was never intended to be literal or serious, it was to make a point

that ultimately and unfortunately passed thousands of feet over some heads.

[hlthe2b]

44. It passed, it is still on the books. Funny, most communities...

do not pass ordinances that carry the weight of law, just to "make a point." But, that is Cobb Couty, Georgia, after all. Newt Gengrich lovers still predominate and take closing down federal government over similar stunts to be no less serious.

[PavePusher]

57. Your text proves you wrong.

Not everyone is required to have a firearm.

Please try again...

[Thickasabrick]

60. I lived in Kennesaw but broke the law by not having a gun. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

72. And the burglary rate in Kennesaw immediately dropped to zero.

BTW - The law has never been enforced, nor was it intended to be. It was merely a political statement made shortly after Morton Grove's anti-handgun law. Recently, after the Heller decision, Morton Grove repealed their anti-handgun law.

[Euromutt]

76. By that token, I'm sure I can find at least one city gov't that would like to confiscate my guns

And yet, how often do I hear the refrain that "nobody wants to take your guns"? Let's just accept that the phrase "nobody wants to" is shorthand for "there is no viable concerted campaign underway to." Thus, we can agree that the Obama administration isn't making a serious effort to confiscate any firearms already in private hands, an we can accept that nobody outside Kennesaw, GA twenty-seven years ago is forcing anyone to purchase and carry a firearm. Actually, not even in Kennesaw, given that there was a conscientious objection option. I'd like to see Mike Bloomberg, Richard Daley or Greg Nickels allow me to keep my carry piece on the grounds that I have conscientious objection to being threatened with death or dismemberment by inhabitants of their cities.

[Treo]

24. What I'm hearing you say

Is that you want to be free to malign law abiding and responsible gun owners with out having your statements challenged.

You stated that many law abiding and responsible gun owners are but a 12 pack and some road rage away from a shooting spree (and you accuse ME of hyperbole?). You live in a state that has been "Shall Issue" (means if they can't find a reason not to issue a permit the must do so) for 6 years, it should be fairly easy for you to find multiple examples of responsible gun owners who drak their 12 pack and had a road rage incident and started shooting.

Either back up your claim or withdraw it.

[hlthe2b]

29. I refuse to interact with you & to your rudeness. I stated my opinion.

Just as you have. I owe you nothing.

[PavePusher]

73. How is he being rude?

He has repeatedly asked what facts you have to support YOUR rude assertion that legal gun-owners are merely criminals-in-waiting.

His opinion has been supported by evidence, yours merely by claiming that your feelings outweigh actual evidence.

Again, who is being rude here?

[Taitertots]

21. Except that your claims are demonstrably false

"More guns means more incidents, not less"

So are you a liar or willfully ignorant?

[Treo]

22. Delete, reponded to the wrong post NT

[Taitertots]

25. Delete, post I was responding to was deleted

[Treo]

27. Taitertots My bad my , my mouth got in gear while my brain was in neutral NT

[TheWraith]

45. FBI stats say concealed carry licensees are 30% less likely to commit violent crime than the police.

And 60% less likely than the average civilian. The concern is completely uncalled for.

[benEzra]

49. I've visited Stone Mountain park with a gun in the vehicle before. Big deal.

I was on the way from NC to Florida and back with my son. I wasn't aware there was even a token rule against it.



ZOMG SCAWWY!!! Be afraid!!! :sarcasm:

FWIW, I am licensed to carry a firearm in ~33 states and have been for many years, and have never (at age 38) so much as been in a fistfight outside of martial arts classes, and don't ever plan to be.

[spin]

108. It was 25 years ago, but I also visited Stone Mountain with a firearm...

in the car.

No big deal.

[Harley1647]

65. hlthe2b could have dealt with what?

"I could have dealt with the rare chance of encountering a felon with a gun and still enjoyed a park such as Stone Mountain."

No, you couldn't. Lots of victims feel that way, before Darwin proves them wrong...

"I would think twice about going with the green light given to all the "supposed" law-abiding gun nuts packing."

So you'd rather a convicted felon carry a gun than a citizen who abides by the law, passes a background check and is trained in the legal uses of handguns. You give the term "clueless" new meaning!

"How many of these zealots are just a 12-pack and a bit of road rage away from using their "concealed" weapons intentionally or unintentionally on innocent bystanders?"

Almost zero...certainly nothing compared to the massive number of lives that are saved each year by legally carried weapons...and before you scoff at that statement, keep in mind that I, personally, am included in that little statistic. You are going to have a hard time convincing someone who has defended themselves with a firearm that they would have been better off having been murdered had they been unarmed.

"More guns means more incidents, not less."

I hear that every time an anti-gun idiot runs out of nonsense to spout. It's never been true, but fools say it a lot...

[X_Digger]

75. How many stories can you dig up..

.. where CHL holders were charged with a crime?

GA doesn't seem to publish the same stats that TX & FL do, but I'd imagine it's close- namely, that CHL holders are arrested for crimes at rates even less than police officers.

[spin]

77. Consider carefully what you said...

"I would think twice about going with the green light given to all the "supposed" law-abiding gun nuts packing. How many of these zealots are just a 12-pack and a bit of road rage away from using their "concealed" weapons intentionally or unintentionally on innocent bystanders? More guns means more incidents, not less."

I have a concealed carry permit as does my daughter and her husband. You insinuate:

(1) We really are not law abiding at all.

(2) People with concealed weapons are "gun nuts".

(3) Plus they are zealots! (fanatical partisans).

(4) Many of us drink and drive.

(5) We are likely to commit road rage at a slight excuse.

(6) And given that excuse we would be willing to whip out our concealed weapons and "intentionally or unintentionally" use them on innocent bystanders.

That's a lot of insults for just one paragraph.

But the part I find most humorous is that you accuse another poster of being rude when he asks for some proof of your statements.


You must think we all look like this?

[SteveM]

105. "More guns means more incidents..." Do you have a link?

Since c1995, the number of guns in civilian hands has gone from 190,000,000 to the present guestimation of over 330,000,000. Yet, during this time, the murder rate in the country has gone down. The "more guns mean more crimes" bumper strip is a little tattered these days.

You seem very fearful of legislation about carrying in National (or state) Parks. Do you distrust your fellow citizens that much?

[katandmoon]

26. Guns are more important than people's right not to get shot

[Treo]

28. Where is it written that you have a right not to get shot? NT

[Lorien]

31. Go ahead Treo. Walk outside and randomly shoot someone

then see if law enforcement give you an "atta boy" pat on the back. :eyes:

[Treo]

37. Thanks, no

I have first hand experience in what it feels like to get shot. I haven't any desire to inflict that on another person if I can avoid it at all. I was responding to Katandmoon's constant nonsensical gun bashing.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

33. Our rights are more important then your fear.

[Euromutt]

62. Where did anyone advocate people being shot without provocation?

Because if somebody here advocated repealing laws on reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, manslaughter and murder, I missed it.

Also, I really must insist you explain to me how my carrying a concealed firearm in public is automatically going to result in an innocent person getting shot. Is the gun going to leap out of its holster of its own accord and discharge itself at the nearest family? Is it going to exercise its powers of mind control and compel to draw it and discharge it at an innocent? Really, I'm keen to know.

And maybe you could also explain why that mechanism doesn't apply when it comes to any other mechanical device with the potential to inflict injury. In your book, are cars more important than people's right not be run over? Is it a given that every car driver--every single one--will, at some juncture, cause a motor vehicle collision resulting in injury or death to others?

And could you ever have the guts to actually stick around and defend your preposterous assertions for once? Or are you what you seem to be: a disgusting, cowardly little troll?

[JonQ]

92. Would you say free speech is more important than your right

not to ever hear anything you don't want to hear?

What about our right as a society to not have murderers walking around? Shouldn't that trump all legal protections of the accused?

[proteus_lives]

32. Why not?

I don't understand why people are so scared of CCW/open carry. Criminals are carrying guns anyway. Why does it bother people if legal owners do it?

[triple point]

34. That's the 64 caliber (as it were) question that the gun grabbers never answer.

shrug

[divideandconquer]

40. Because "legal" gun owners are just a shot away from being a criminal

It's a coin flip who's more dangerous with guns, the "bad" guys or the "good" guys.

[triple point]

41. Just as every driver is a flip of the steering wheel away from vehicular manslaughter.

I have to use a narrow shoulderless 2-lane road for 5 1/2 miles each way every day in an area where people commonly carry concealed guns. I don't worry about the guns at all but the chance of a head-on collision with a drunk driver is damn near terrifying.

[TheWraith]

46. Do you feel the same about the police?

Because a police officer is more likely to commit a violent crime than the holder of a concealed carry license.

[proteus_lives]

50. Please explain.

How are legal gun owners a shot away from being criminals?

[PavePusher]

58. Except the crime statistics fail to support your hand-wringing. n/t

[Euromutt]

66. And kitchen knife owners are just a slash or stab away...

...and anyone with a computer and an internet connection (like everyone on this board, by definition) is one download away from being in violation of child pornography laws, etc. etc.

It's tautological to say that every non-offender is only one offense away from becoming an offender. The mere fact that one has the means to become an offender (being alive and able-bodied is practically sufficient) does not imply that one is therefore likely to become an offender. So unless there's some stuff on your hard drive that you wouldn't care to have to explain to the D.A., I don't see where you get off asserting that CCW permit holders any more like to become offenders than you are.

[JonQ]

93. Law abiding males are just one step away

from being rapists.

Law abiding females are just one step away from being hookers.

Let's go ahead and penalize all of them preemptively. Actually committing a crime is less important than being theoretically able to commit a crime.

[paulsby]

102. no, it';s not

a coin flip refers to a situation where either of two outcomes is equally statistically likely.

there is a metric assload of evidence (posted here frequently) that the "good guys" iow CCW'ers with guns are less likely to commit violent crimes with their guns than most other demographics. whereas "bad guys" by definition (in law enforcement we refer to them as frequent flyers) constantly do criminal acts.

[Paladin]

35. Stone Mtn. Is A Shrine To The Confederate Revival Movement.

Think of those town hall meetings you've been seeing, increase the nightly attendance by a factor of ten, boost the alcohol intake about four-fold, and then add lotsa guns to the mix. Sound good to you? God help us, things like this sound wonderful to the gun militancy movement, whose primary goal is to make this country even more of an armed camp than it already is.......

[triple point]

36. You must be joking.

Or maybe not.

[Treo]

38. I thought it was a carpet company NT

[benEzra]

51. How many times have you visited Stone Mountain Park?

It is a great running/walking trail up and down the back side of the mountain, the surrounding park is beautiful, the Swiss cable cars are a great ride for the kids, the antique car museum is fascinating (they even have a 1948 Tucker, the only one I have ever see in person), and the Olympic size (?) ice rink was where I first learned to ice skate (though I don't know if that one is still there). And decades ago, as a young child, I found the riverboats plying the lake to be fascinating.





Yes, there happens to be a very remarkable equestrian sculpture of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Thomas J. Jackson on the mountain. That doesn't make it a hangout for drunken rednecks, and anyone who views it as such as obviously never visited.



That's my son atop the mountain, BTW, with one of the cable car towers in the background. We stopped there on one of our regular trips to his cardiologist in Florida, while he was enrolled in the cisapride investigational access protocol (with "evil" firearms in the vehicle, no less). You ought to visit it; you'd like it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. What makes you think they weren't carried there before? n/t

[Tim01]

47. Good. Sometimes reality wins out over hyper-emotional soccer moms. nt

[billh58]

48. If everyone participating

in this thread would just step back and look at ALL of the posts objectively, most people would at least smile at the irony: each side is accusing the other of the same narrow-minded behavior: "Grabber!" "Gun-nut!"

The assumption that ALL gun-owners are a probable danger to their neighbors, or strangers they encounter is asinine, as proven by the history of this country. The assumption that NO gun-owners are a threat to their neighbors, or strangers they encounter is asinine, as proven by the history of this country.

That overall crime rates go down where responsible gun laws exist is a fact. That with the increase of gun ownership, accidental gun injuries and deaths will also increase follows the law of averages. We won our freedoms at gunpoint, have maintained them at gunpoint, and unfortunately the concept of "gun-enforced" freedoms has become a part of the American societal fabric.

Fortunately, however, we can all make choices, and our Constitutional freedoms also include the right not to exercise a particular freedom without losing it. I am more concerned with losing the American sense of civility and fair play, than I am with the loss of any enumerated rights.

I am also concerned that we Democrats have allowed ourselves to be suckered into this artificially-introduced divisive position, by the purposeful hate-mongering of the neoconservative Republicans over the past few decades.

[benEzra]

52. I would put the rule change at Stone Mountain in the "responsible gun laws" category, IMO.

The prior rule certainly did not stop anyone from bringing guns into the park; to the extent that it even existed (I have visited Stone Mountain Park with guns in the vehicle on multiple occasions in the past two decades, and was not aware there was even a token rule against it), it was merely moral grandstanding with no impact on safety or violence.



FWIW, the considerable increase in the ownership of nonhunting guns since the 1980's has coincided with a rather remarkable decrease in gun crime, gun accidents, and gun murders of police officers. I am not arguing causality here, merely noting the absence of correlation with the "more lawfully owned guns automatically equals more gun murder" hypothesis. And gun murder is associated very strongly with prior criminal records.

[billh58]

53. Thanks for the

level-headed response, and you are correct that an increase in gun-ownership has a demonstrable and positive effect on crimes rates. I believe that my assertion of an increase in accidental injury and death (NOT murder) due to "more guns" is also an unfortunate, but provable fact. There is no "right or wrong" involved with stating facts -- they are what they are.

More people = more crime. More cars = more accidents. More idiots = more Republicans...;-)

[benEzra]

55. Except that accidental gun death rates have been in decline for decades

even as the number of guns owned has increased roughly 50% over the past two decades.

Here are the stats through most of the 20th century, through 1990:



Another chart showing 1970-2002, using a different scale (sorry about the non-disinterested source, but the data are National Safety Council and are easily verifiable):



And the accident rate has continued that decline since 2002, and is now IIRC at historic lows.

The thing is, gun accidents are not a linear function of guns owned; they are strongly correlated with inexperience with guns, impulse control and/or substance abuse issues, and (yes) criminal records. The lawful gun culture is, generally speaking, a very safety conscious one, and increases in the ownership rate within that group do not necessarily correlate with gun-exposure rates in the more at-risk populations.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

67. Highway death rates have been decreasing as well, yes...

and that in spite of both increased ownership, higher travel speeds on multilane highways, and far less aggressive speed limit enforcement than in the past (but relatively few deaths occur on high-speed highways anyway). Factors driving the rate down are primarily a culture of seat belt use, improved safety systems, the fact that most drivers on the road today took drivers' ed, improved highways, and a reduced tolerance for driving while impaired, I'd say. I would not give the sporadic use of daytime running lights or high-glare headlights any credit, as they probably cause as many fatalities as they save.

[billh58]

71. Amazing! n/t

[Euromutt]

82. I wonder what part cell phones played in that progression

Because on the one hand, I can readily see that MV collision victims who in the past might not have been saved in time might benefit from people having the ability to call 911 right away. Conversely, I have a really hard time imagining that all those idiots yakking on their cell phones and not paying due attention to their surroundings could jack up the figures a bit, and I doubt any of them would have the presence of mind to hang up and call 911 instead of freaking out to whomever they were on the phone with.

[paulsby]

101. you are in a select

and respectable minority - those people on the internet who can actually simply say "i was wrong" gracefully.

i applaud you for it.

it is one of the reasons why internet discussions can be so tiring is that most people seem to think the entire edifice of their existence will fall on their heads if they simply go "really. i was wrong. thanks."

[PavePusher]

74. You made one mistake.

You claim that 'assertions' are provable 'facts'. They are demonstratably not the same, else we'd still be living in caves pulling bugs out of each others hair.

[billh58]

80. I made more

than one mistake. If you will backtrack the thread, you will see that I was presented with facts that disproved my "assertions," and I acknowledged having learned a few things today.

Thanks for keeping me honest however...;-)

[PavePusher]

88. Whoops, I missed a few responses.

My apologies for the redundancy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. As gun ownership has increased accidents and deaths have decreased.

[PavePusher]

54. Does the name calling and blatent bigotry...

somehow increase the validity of your factless hand-wringing?


"Yes, that group wanted to be able to bring GUNS into the world's busiest airport. Assholes."

I've openly carried firearms through the non-secure portions of the airports in Tucson, Pheonix, Salt Lake City, and Manchester N.H.

I endangered no-one, no-one panicked, the police did not harrass me for exercising my Civil Rights.

The sky, it did not fall.



There were already two kinds of people carrying firearms in parks. Criminals, who laugh at ink on paper, and Citizens, who carried firearms as one of a plethora of options should they be attacked by one of the criminals. The new rules and laws simply de-criminalize the Constitutional Right of being prepared to defend ones-self.

What is the problem with this?

[spin]

59. O.K. Let 's see what happens in a year or two or five or ten...

I predict very few or no incidents involving the misuse of firearms by those with concealed carry permits, or for that matter guns in the cars of honest citizens who have no intention of committing a crime.

Despite what the Brady Campaign constantly claims, it's highly unlikely that you will have more violence in Stone Mtn. Park, just because honest everyday citizens can have firearms in their cars or carry concealed with a permit. It just doesn't happen.

That old wives tale is getting as stale as the you can catch warts from a toad myth.

[Euromutt]

63. We could look to Oregon and Washington state as data points

It's quite legal to carry firearms in Oregon and Washington state parks (though there are rules regarding when, where and how they can be discharged) and I'm not aware of any rash of Oregon CHL and Washington CPL holders capping people over picnic sites or because they mistook them for bears.

If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I'd be most interested to see it. You'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath, though.

[JonQ]

94. Is that true?

We need toad control ASAP! These imported, unregulated assault toads are a menace to our children!

[slackmaster]

79. I've carried guns in the Atlanta airport and many others

It's always been legal if you follow the rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. Good you should feel better.

I'm sure the criminals always followed the rules.

[paulsby]

97. you can legally bring guns into my local airport - SEATAC (seattle tacoma)

i fail to see what the problem is.

i support carrying of guns by citizens lawfully in possession of guns, and of course gun bans in parks only deter those who are concerned about lawfully carrying

[gorfle]

103. Oh noes! Not in the AIRPORT!!!!

>Yes, that group wanted to be able to bring GUNS into the world's busiest airport. Assholes.

So it's OK if I use my concealed carry permit to carry a pistol and walk down the street in downtown Atlanta surrounded by thousands of my fellow men, women, and child citizens, but I can't do it in the unsecured part of AN AIRPORT?

Where is the logic in that?

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Here, I'll paint the scenario for you.

I concealed carry. I carry pretty much all the time, except at work, where my workplace forbids all weapons as a condition of employment.

So I'm out and about, and I get a call from a friend who needs to be picked up from the airport. I had to decline, because I had a firearm on my person. I couldn't drive up to the aurport lobby and pick him up, without risking all kinds of legal hassle, if for any reason the officers patrolling the entrance had any reason to search me or my vehicle.

This change doesn't allow people into the SECURED areas of the airport with firearms. It allows people like me to come to the airport and pick someone up without all kinds of hassle, like having to go home first to securely stow my weapon.

[spin]

107. In other words, another stupid feel good law that accomplishes nothing. (n/t)