<p>
</p>
<p>I just feel like pounding it through thick skulls. Sometimes it’s the only way it works.</p>
<p>I believe TRAINED individuals should be able to possess firearms. And I feel they should be able to carry their concealed handgun whereever a firearm could possibly be taken. If a criminal can get the firearm there, then civillians should be able to have theirs too.</p>
<p>
What are you trying to pound into someones thick skull?? That comparing the use of firearms to taking a bath is ridiculously absurd? You made that point loud and clear.</p>
<p>ninja- I repeat : This is rapidly heading towards another useless “choice” vs “rights” discussion, a path not worth travelling. Who talked about parking lots?? This is ridiculous.</p>
<p>The original topic that started this whole thread was about the Florida parking lot law…I’m wondering what places you think guns should be allowed and disallowed.
[Daytona</a> Beach News-Journal Online: The Back Room](<a href=“http://blogs.news-journalonline.com/politics/2008/04/crist_signs_gun_bill.html]Daytona”>http://blogs.news-journalonline.com/politics/2008/04/crist_signs_gun_bill.html)</p>
<p>hops-
Posts # 52-53 addressed the “cars can be dangerous” thing. In fact, the story "cuse posted there was hysterical. Vehicles aren’t typically used as weapons. Here’s the response to his/her post about that:
Cuse- Your story
</p>
<p>cracked me up. It probably wasn’t supposed to be funny, but you have a gift for turning a phrase!! So this person, the lady in Texas who ran over her philandering H with their mercedes, and a few others, chose to use their vehicles as weapons. This is the exception, not the rule. No one said guns should be “outlawed”, just controlled. If cars were being used primarily as weapons, I’d agree to stricter regulations too. And, we have titles to own, and licenses/permits to drive our vehicles. Other vehicles, with differing levels of risk/safety (motorycles, busses, etc) require different licenses and training. So, the next time I plan to kill a bunch of people, I’ll pull my schoolbus out from under my trenchcoat, start up the engine and lumber it over a few people who didn’t meander out of the way while I was starting her up. Great analogy.</p>
<p>Driving is not a Constitutional right though, it’s a privilege. That’s why additional regulations on cars, like additional licenses and training, are more reasonable than gun laws.</p>
<p>oh, ninja, we actually got back to the original topic of the OP? How refreshing! :D</p>
<p>“The day you can predict with certainty every person who has an undiagnosed mental illness like worsening depression and deny them all permits, your idea will work. Until then, allowing such wide carrying is without doubt going to lead to a significant increase in the number of unsuitable people getting guns.”</p>
<p>So, your theory then is; being you can’t give everyone a mental illness test; and renewed every year; then no one should be allowed to carry a weapon. Sorry, but that is a lame excuse. There are a lot of risks in life. One of those risks is that a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Yes, it is a risk. Murderers, rapists, etc… are let out all the time waiting trial. Unless they appear to be a threat, or the threat of not showing up for trial, they are considered innocent. So, unless there is a history of mental illness, the person DOESN’T HAVE MENTAL ILLNESS. The law now allows them to buy a gun. I’m not talking about changing any of the laws or making new ones. I’m just saying that I’d like to see everyone eligible, to exercise their right to have a gun. Just like I would like to see everyone eligible exercise their right to vote. Most people don’t vote. Not saying to make it mandatory, just like to see more people exercise their rights. Same with owning a gun. i’d like to see more people exercise their right.</p>
<p>The problem with too many people is that they feel that because they don’t like something, then they have the right to rationalize it to the point of infringing on someone else’s right to use, have, do, etc… that SOMETHING. How many times have you seen a strict person who doesn’t believe in drinking or smoking. They are the first one signing a petition to eliminate smoking some place or make a county dry. I don’t drive a car that has 300 hp. Therefor it isn’t necessary or needed by anyone else. Therefor, we should make cars with that much horsepower illegal. It will save lives and save gas. What a STUPID IDEA!!! Same difference here. Law abiding and responsible adults should be allowed to buy and carry a gun any time or place they desire. If they misuse it, then the right/privilege should be revoked. But as been showed already, law abiding and responsible individuals rarely cause any problems with their guns. The illegal guns and the no responsible person is NOT an argument. They will get the gun anyway, no matter what the law says. The difference is; with the common responsible person carrying, they can STOP the irresponsible person if necessary.</p>
<p>Ninja-
I don’t think there were too many cars around at the time the constitution was written… and at this point, it doesnt seem necessary to draft an amendment in that regard. Vehicles are for transportation, not for protection/defense. You are comparing apples to oranges. Next are you going to say we should regulate and require training in the correct use of butter knives in light of what happened to the kid yesterday? I think Miss Manners and people who teach Cotillion classes would appreciate that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anyone whose possession of a weapon would put others at risk. That includes the mentally ill, criminals, and so forth.</p>
<p>Christcorp: I never said anything about denying rights; don’t put words in my mouth again. All I said was that under your plan many more people who really shouldn’t have weapons will get them.</p>
<p>I’ll agree with you jym626 that the ‘car vs gun’ analogy is a little rediculous. Still, you need a license to carry a concealed weapon just like you need a license to operate a motor vehicle. We’re not talking about everyone having a loaded firearm in their vehicle; only those who have been evaluated, trained, and granted permission to buy and maintain such a weapon. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, if you want to see a true-life variant of your joke just take a look at what happened at UNC a few years ago. Disgruntled Arab-American student rented a large SUV, somehow managed to drive it past several barricades and proceeded to go on a rampage in the pit (outdoor area on UNC’s campus where students congregate). He struck nine students; luckily no one was killed although the suspect would later state that he was trying to kill as many people as possible. </p>
<p>[Mohammed</a> Reza Taheri-azar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar]Mohammed”>2006 UNC SUV attack - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Also, don’t forget the lady who hit 49 people at a street festival in Washington, DC-</p>
<p>[Driver</a> Who Mowed Down Dozens Is Sentenced - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010802025.html]Driver”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010802025.html)</p>
<p>Jym, what I said must not have been clear. Like free speech, gun rights must be treated differently than other freedoms we enjoy because firearm use and ownership is specifically protected by the Constitution. There is a stricter standard applied to Constitutional rights than evolved freedoms and in that sense, they are apples and oranges.</p>
<p>I don’t know where the butter knife thing came from, to be completely honest. I don’t believe in the regulation of knives because I consider them “arms” as well, normal weapons available for the common defense. I’m a member of the Libertarian Party so that should tell you how I feel about most government regulation.</p>
<p>PS - Certainly don’t forget the 42,000 deaths last year in accidental motor vehicle collisions. It would not be unconstitutional for the government to ban cars in the name of public safety but banning guns for public safety would be, regardless of the intended use.</p>
<p>Here’s the boy with the butter knife story [Butter</a> Knife Pulled From Boy’s Head - News Story - KPTV Portland](<a href=“http://www.kptv.com/news/15874196/detail.html?rss=ptl1&psp=news]Butter”>http://www.kptv.com/news/15874196/detail.html?rss=ptl1&psp=news)</p>
<p>Separate, and hopefully final, issue. It appears that some posters are intermingling the right to own vs the control of the location of firearms. There is a duty to protect the public. You can get your permit to keep your gun in your home, but there are tighter regulations in all industries to protect the public. Hairdressers have to have licenses, plumbers have to have licenses, massage therapists have to have licenses. No different than drivers, doctors, lawyers and gun owners. That isnt the issue that the OP brought up (where’d ya go, NSM?) The issue is bringing weapons to public places. The thread just wandered off topic onto that awful path I keep trying to get off of.</p>
<p>1 of 42; I’m not talking about a “PLAN”. Also, don’t put words in my mouth. I say nothing about adding, changing, deleting, etc… any law on the books. The current law says that if you are 18/21 or older, not a felon; not mentally ill; etc… that you can own/buy a gun. I would just like to see MORE people exercise this right. Just like I’d like to see more people exercise their right to vote. The more people that exercise their right to vote, the more effective our political and judicial system is. The more people that exercise their right to “Bare Arms”, the more effective our crime prevention and law enforcement system will be. It’s really that simple.</p>
<p>Yes, some will say that there will be more crime, more deaths, more injuries, etc… They have absolutely no proof in that argument. Personally, I think they are totally wrong. Countries like Switzerland prove the contrary. Crime is related to “RESPECT” for others. It has nothing to do with weapon availability. There’s a lot of people killed with knives, chains, pipes, etc… But, because the 2nd amendment is a right, I don’t have to prove that crime will go down if more people exercised their right to bare arms. It’s the responsibility of those who want to infringe on that right to prove that more people exercising their right to bare arms WILL increase crime, death, and injuries. They can’t, and therein lies the problem. They don’t think they should have to. They fail to admit that the vast majority of law abiding citizens don’t commit crimes with guns and that they DO deter and stop crimes in progress. Their logic uses the perception that if there are “X” amount of guns and “Y” amount of deaths, that “Y” will go up if “X” goes up. Unfortunately, they fail to understand that “X” is made up of criminals and law abiding citizens. The criminals have no basis on the equation. We aren’t affecting them. The argument is affecting the law abiding citizens. Therefor, if “X” goes up with law abiding citizens, then there is a very good chance that “Y” will actually go down. But, that is the argument, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Is the argument against bringing guns to public places that it poses an additional threat to public safety? That argument is factual and usually changes peoples’ minds about concealed-carry. After all, the parking lot law is an extension of concealed-carry in Florida. If concealed-carry was such a failure, wouldn’t they be restricting it instead of expanding concealed-carry?</p>
<p>I believe there is a strong Constitutional affirmation of gun ownership and that public possession that does not pose a clear and present danger to society is both reasonable and deserved.</p>
<p>
Didn’t someone point out thant most guns illegally acquired by criminals were legally acquired by others first (implying that many were stolen or sold on the black market). So, the more guns out there owned by the “law-abiding” citizens, the more that can get stolen and used by criminals.</p>
<p>Did you just switch the argument back from the right to own vs. the control of location? I resent the fact that you put law-abiding in quotation marks when concealed-carry holders commit crimes at a far lower rate than the general public. The vast majority of straw-purchased guns come from a very tiny percent of gun shops, so insinuating that the majority is at fault is both rude and wrong. </p>
<p>This is from an editorial on the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website. “Based on a 2000 report, 40 percent of all crime-tarnished weapons traced by the bureau originated from just 332 gun dealers nationwide. “That means that less than 1 percent of the nation’s gun stores supply nearly half of all weapons traced in connection with a crime,” the AP said. (Another report had almost three-fifths of all guns used in crime sold by just 1 percent of dealers.)” [Mayors</a> Against Illegal Guns - Tiahrt Editorials](<a href=“http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/071407-lohud.shtml]Mayors”>http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/071407-lohud.shtml)</p>
<p>Gun theft is a problem, absolutely. Straw purchasers are a problem. People irresponsibly lending guns to friends and family (source of about 40% of guns used in crimes, DOJ) presents a problem also. These issues are unrelated to the parking lot law. I don’t believe you can make a viable argument against gun ownership based on the fact that criminals steal those guns and then use them in additional crimes. There are approximately 250 million civilian owned firearms so if reducing the number of guns in private possession is your argument, I’m afraid the metaphorical toothpaste has left the tube.</p>
<p>Also, if you’ll let me reference Kansas again because I have those numbers. This is a quote from the Topeka Capital-Journal. “Brian Hersh, a North Topeka gun shop owner, said there was a spurt of gun sales when the concealed-carry law took effect. But only one percent or two percent of his customers bought a pistol to fit the concealed-carry law, he said, and the rest already owned handguns. The majority just bought holsters to fit the firearms, said Hersh, owner of J.M. Company Unlimited.” </p>
<p>Now that’s 2% for a state new to concealed-carry. That amounts to a whopping 240 more handguns in homes. Besides, the parking lot bill is simply an extension of concealed-carry that has been in place for 20 years. That small spurt in gun sales will be even smaller (percentage-wise) in Florida and will hardly increase the number or availability of illegal guns on the market.</p>
<p>You guys are suggesting that since firearms are “dangerous” they should be banned. My analogy, while a stretch, is still true. If you want to get rid of this “dangerous” thing, then why not get rid of the other “dangerous” things??</p>
<p>Firearms are not JUST for killing other people. There are many perfectly legal (and to some moral) reasons for firearms that do not involve implanting lead into another person.</p>
<p>Ninja; I believe that Jym was trying to refute my comment that I would like to see more people exercise their right to bare arms. I believe his argument is that such a large percentage of gun crimes come from guns that were stolen from law abiding citizens, that if my wish of more people exercising their right to bare arms was realized, that there would be more guns available to be stolen; hence more crimes involving guns.</p>
<p>Based on a strictly mathematical perception, this would appear to be true. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t work that way. Just like increasing more guns carried by RESPONSIBLE individuals doesn’t directly affect those carried by criminals, neither does the theft argument. There are currently many more guns available than there are criminals stealing and using these guns in crimes. Adding more to the responsible user doesn’t inversely affect the criminal access to them.</p>
<p>It’s a proven fact that certain preventative measures make crime less likely. Criminals are lazy but also don’t want to get caught. Rarely will they break into a house if they know someone is home. Nor if lights are on, dog barking, etc… Same with vehicles. Why break into a vehicle that is locked if they can find one that is unlocked. My argument is; if more people exercised their right to bare arms and more responsible people had CCW permits, then the odds of a criminal encountering someone who could EFFECTIVELY resist, would greatly increase. The criminals would know this. They would probably go to easier pickings. I.e. convenience stores, small business, etc… </p>
<p>Guns are NOT THE ANSWER to crime. They are just a tool to assist in the prevention of crime. Just like the police are a tool. They are reactive and not proactive. Crime revolves around economics and lack of respect. If you make the odds of resistance greater from the victim, then the criminal will most definitely re-evaluate their actions. Criminals don’t commit crimes generally if they think there’s a good chance of being shot or caught.</p>
<p>You guys are the ones who keep flipping back and forth between topics of safety/control and “banning” (and I use quotation marks to delineate the term I am using-- take a chill pill ninja-- dont get all puffed up over nothing…sheesh). And the issues with guns is that they are <em>weapons</em>, not just that they are “dangerous” (there I go using those darned quotation marks again…). This discussion wasnt about banning the access to guns, but rather restricting where they are permitted to be. You are jumping the gun (pun intended) …whoa-- don’t get angry and take out your weapon and shoot me!! You might just be aiming at the wrong person if you are taking aim at a male poster. I am not a “he”. :)</p>