New bill lets you take your gun to church- Freepers Respond

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965045/posts

Liberal idiots will never understand.

5 posted on 02/04/2008 8:31:49 PM EST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)


Two words for you, Doug ol' buddy ol' pal:

Matthew Murray.

That was the New Life Church shooter. Stopped by a civilian with a carry permit.

He killed two girls and wounded their daddy in the parking lot.
6 posted on 02/04/2008 8:32:48 PM EST by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))

Took the words outa my mouth.

It has always galled me that I can't carry where I may need it the most -- sporting events, restaurants, church . . .

Luby's Cafeteria comes to mind too.
9 posted on 02/04/2008 8:33:44 PM EST by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))


My church congregation includes several active and retired LEO’s. I not only hope, but EXPECT that they are carrying.
According to Romans 13 they are just as much ministers as those occupying the pulpit.

Thank God.

10 posted on 02/04/2008 8:34:02 PM EST by lightman (The Office of the Keys should be exercised as some ministry needs to be Exorcised.)


AND THE WINNER SO FAR FOR WACKIEST POST.

Thanks be to God ! Now I can worry much less about where I am with my gun. If I walk into a Chilis then I wont be arrested.

GOD BLESS Our wise leaders in Georgia !!!

14 posted on 02/04/2008 8:45:48 PM EST by ColdSteelTalon

"...sporting events, restaurants, church . . ."

Oh yeah, never mind dark alleys, abandoned buildings, or midnight dockyards; it's ballgames, restaurants, and church where you really need the firepower. Hell, someone might try to seal an extra french fry, stand between you and the Ballpark hot dog vendor, or not pray just right. Thank God you can now be armed and ready to blow them to Jesus!

I like to urban explore, but I'm smart enough that I wouldn't carry in those places. The last thing I would need is to be found carrying while trespassing or breaking and entering.

It's much more likely for the average person to need a gun in the places they spend the majority of their time then while exploring hidden pirate coves or abandoned Nazi bunkers.

...that would come to mind when making a list of places I need a gun. Perhaps I should have said "parking structures after dark" or "downtown, late at night." Restaurants, ballgames, and churches would be the kinds of places where I'd prefer people not to carry guns. Particularly ballgames if the vitriol we saw on DU yesterday after the Superbowl is any indication of how ugly people can get over sports.

that were improved by people not carrying. At the same time, chances are we both live in concealed carry states and have run across people with guns numerous times without ever knowing it. The overwhelming majority of people aren't any risk to our collective safety. I'm glad that there are mystery people carrying pistols that I don't know about, because that means criminals don't know about it either and have an added incentive not to commit violent crime.

...stands about as much chance of getting a concealed-carry permit as Lala of the Telletubbies does of being named Secretary of State. Only the wealthy and the connected need apply. That said, I'm sure there are still a lot of people carrying, but few of them legally. Which is the worst of all possible situations, really.

Lane Bryant stores?
Virginia Tech classrooms?

It's hard to predict when you might end up in a store that's going to be robbed, or in a restaurant next to someone whose ex decides that if he can't live with her, no one else will, either.

Sure, the odds are probably less than the odds of winning the lottery, but it's one of those situations that, if it happens, there aren't many substitutes.

...places like parking structures late at night or downtown, after the bars have shut. Like everything in life, the chances of needing to defend oneself with a gun is a calculated risk. If, as you say, the chances of a fellow restaurant patron "going postal" are lower than those of winning the lottery, it hardly makes sense to carry a weapon to defend against such an eventuality. After all, the risk of being struck and killed by lightening is significantly BETTER than those of winning the lottery, yet not many of us go around with lightning rods stuffed down our pants.

Carrying a weapon at all times based on the risk of generally safe activities turning lethal doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a risk perspective. Now, it's a different matter if that romantic meal ends with a walk down a dark, lonely street to a car parked under a broken streetlight. In that case, the risk calculation starts to favor being prepared.

As someone else posted, allowing guns in churches, restaurants, or sporting events isn't primarily about defending the user in those places; it's more about defending him/her on the way to or from those places.

I am without a gun probably 100 times as often as I am with a gun when I leave the house.

My issue isn't with people making their own choice to carry or not carry; it's with people that would deem me a criminal just for entering a building.

If I'm not a criminal standing in line at the bank with a gun, why would someone suddenly consider me a criminal if I go to church with a gun? Most people place far more importance on their money then they do on their religion. If I can be trusted around the former, you would think I can be trusted around the latter.

but the journey from your truck to the arena that is dangerous.

You are smart enough to not carry a gun while breaking and entering, but you post you do this and call it "urban explore"?

Most of us walking down dark alleyways are NOT breaking and entering, or trespassing, you know.

It's loads of fun, and usually illegal. But look at some of the cool buildings I have been inside of:





Western NY is filled with classic buildings rotting away, and the whole state is filled with abandoned asylums. A lot of people, myself included, like to break into them. The rules are trespassing is ok, damaging property and stealing isn't.

What if the damned thing goes off while you're genuflecting? Or choking on a piece of gristle?

And the point of carrying in church or anywhere else is to be ready for self-defense at all times. One CCW holder stopped the Colorado church shooting, after all.

While most churches may not be dangerous, you could go through dodgy areas on your way to or from church or in the course of your daily activities afterward. Lawful concealed carry is kind of difficult when there's a patchwork of places you can't legally be armed.

I was kind of surprised that church carry is against the law in some states, but it doesn't make much difference to me, as I never enter churches unless I get paid to.

prove how much of a tough guy they are. Scares the hell out of me.

Holsters Recalled Because Strap Can Cause Gun to Fire Accidentally - http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/holsters-slings/19879-holsters-recalled-because-strap-can-cause-gun-fire-accidentally.html

Officer on toilet accidentally fires gun - http://www.wmsa.net/news/KCStar/kcs_052504_officer_on_toilet.htm

Gun Dropped, Goes Off at Kmart - http://theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/503290.html

"...The problem with the A-5? A broken firing pin that would at times get wedged into the hole on the bolt face and protrude a half inch out of the face of the bolt. Being in the small confines of the bolt the firing pin still operated when called upon. Except for the pin occasionally protruding from the bolt the firing pin worked just fine. Replacing the firing pin, the A-5 showed it is as dependable as it was over the last 26 years." - http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/powder-keg/24281-gun-went-off.html (scroll down to read post from ScottD)

"Holsters Recalled Because Strap Can Cause Gun to Fire Accidentally"

In this case, badly designed holsters were catching the triggers of guns placed in them.

"Officer on toilet accidentally fires gun"

His gun fell, he "fumbled for it" and it fired. In other words, he pulled the trigger.

"Gun Dropped, Goes Off at Kmart"

The article mentions it's a .32 caliber pistol. It's probably one of the cheap crap guns from Raven, Lorcin, Jennings or a similar make. Those companies have since been driven out of business because of their products' unreliability.

"Broken firing pin"

Slamfires can occur in 26-year-old shotguns that are given infrequent maintenance. Also note that the Browning Auto-5 was patented in 1900, and safety technology has come a ways since then.

In conclusion: a modern gun from a respectable manufacturer is 99.999% certain not to fire when dropped or handled roughly. Any firearm adopted by a police or military force is subjected to rigorous drop tests and other malfunction tests, so there's not much room in the market for makers of unsafe guns.

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!

You park your car, possibly in a parking garage at night, and walk, possibly past abandoned buildings and dark alleyways.



Tell me, please, how you, Kutjara, carrying a concealed pistol makes you more likely to kill somebody. Would you, if you had a snub-nosed .38 under your shirt, shoot and kill somebody for a french fry? A space in line?


Please, the perception that people with concealed-carry permits are bloodthirsty vigilantes just itchin' for a chance to legally kill someone is bullshit. People like that are psychopatics career crimnals with long rap sheets who can't legally touch a gun, can't get a permit, and don't give a rat turd for a little xeroxed sign saying "this business bans handguns" taped outside of a door.


And in case you haven't noticed, declaring such sites "gun-free zones" seems to attract people bent on blaze-of-glory mass shootings.

Try this on for size instead: "Heroic Consequences", written by a gun magazine editor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x153308

overcompensate much?
what poor little freeps.

;-)

I think Freud said that..?

n/t

"Hi, I don't like gun owners. I'm going to make penis jokes because it makes me feel superior to them.

In other news, I don't know what 'assault weapon' actually means, but I know anyone who doesn't want to ban them is insane."

If he can't what's the point of a god?

Worse yet, if he can and doesn't what's the point of worship?

I kinda wondered if the gun would be used in lieu of a stirring offertory statement. No speechifying necessary; just draw your gun and tell the deacons to start passing the plate. ;-)

And in fact, what is their problem with being killed? They would be going to Jeebus.

They are fine with a great conflagration in the Middle East that would kill us all, because it would bring on the Rapture. Yet they had issues with going on their own before that?

:rofl:

How completely unsurprising.....

Some places need to be free of weapons. I don't want to go to church with the paranoid assholes who would carry a gun there.

Redstone

I don't post a lot many days. I am trying to finish my thesis. Finally.

Who knew?

as for me, I am going to hell no matter what. It's far too late for me.

WWJPACI?

Who would Jesus Pop a Cap in?

where guns are NOT God.

Redstone

And guns are not God here. Hell, they're not even good citizens.

Damn, I said Hell. Shit, I said Damn.

Ah, forget it.

Virginia Tech is the wrong school to attend.

Luby's is the wrong cafeteria to take the parents for lunch.

Please tell us how you know where you might or might not need a gun, before it happens.

The government is worried you might start a religious militia. Get it?
The religion may not be of your choosing.

"People unclear on the concept..."

Taking away our right to decide what a person can and cannot carry into a private establishment. Typical gunner logic, trample all over other peoples' rights and the constitution all so they can carry their precious where ever they feel like.

Look at the actual proposed legislation. At present the law does not allow privately established houses of worship the right to decide who may or may not carry deadly weapons on the premises; the law mandates that no one may carry in a church regardless of the wishes of the church leadership. The proposed legislation would grant the church leadership the right to make that decision, rather than having it made for them by the state.

There is no reason for the state to specifically mandate whether or not deadly weapons may be carried on church grounds when the state already allows private property owners of other establishemnts to make such decisions on their own.

he'd be alive today.

But noooooo, he didn't want any part of it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFrufPxjwX0

My favorite ceremony!

Actually, if they can take guns to church, can I take them into my Pagan circle? We need protection from all of the Fundies that invade and try to "save our heathen souls".

Aren't churches private property, and thus able to make the same rules as any private residence or business about what's allowable on the premises?

How can the state "force" churches to admit people with weapons?

I've been lurking for awhile, but I have to respond to this because people are clearly spouting off without doing research (and, in so doing, looking as knee-jerk an reactionary as a typical FReeper, even if their opinions differ).

The proposed law would not force any church to allow guns on the premises. The proposed law would remove a state-mandated prohibition of carrying deadly weapons on church property. A church could still, as a private establishment, ban weapons on the premesis if the leadership of the church so desired.

It would be one thing if the article didn't mention it, but if you look at the linked FR page (which people are obviously doing because they're looking at the FReeper responses) you would see the article copied verbatin wherein it is stated "Bearden said private-property owners, including church congregations, would retain the right to keep guns off their lands."

Kentucky used to have a similar provision; the citizen concealed carry permit law had a number of locations where a CCDW permit did not allow the carrying of concealed deadly weapons. Churches and other places of worship were on that list. The list was later amended to allow people who had received explicit permission from the establishment to carry on the property before it was finally amended to completely remove churches from the list. Thus far, nothing terrible has happened as a result. Churches and other houses of worship may still disallow firearms and other weapons, but it becomes their decision rather than a mandate handed down by the state, just as it is with any other private establishment.

I don't really see how this is a bad thing. Why is it preferrable for the state to mandate the weapons policies of the churches when other private establishments are free to make their own policies? Should that decision not be left up to the individual churches? If not, why not and what other specific church policies should the state be deciding?

You may not like the idea of guns in churches, but I think that it is a dangerous policy -- on seperation grounds -- for the state to set weapons policies specifically for houses of worship when they allow citizen carry elsewhere. I don't see how putting that decision into the hands of the church is a bad thing.

I understand that this standing law was intended as a safeguard against religious militias.
The separation between church and state is already tenuous, in my opinion. I don't have much time, or I would answer more thoroughly. Welcome.

Edit: Hi. I had a chance to read the original FR post. Now, I have no problem with this legislation, as long as it is applied across the board to all religions. Muslims can all bring firearms and meet at their mosques, weird cults can bring weapons to their meetings...and who knows what the hell is talked about at tax-exempt cult meetings! As long as this is all "kosher", then I say let's give the go ahead to allow guns at church!

"good and sufficient reason." (quote)

Unfortunately, there is no definition of what constitutes "good and sufficient".

any large number of right wing christo-fascists gather. And with any luck someone will make a wrong move and all hell will break loose.

:rofl:

No law against it and I have a concealed carry permit so it wouldn't be a problem at all.

The proposed law is more in keeping with a state that allows concealed carrying of weapons after a significant background check.

I was really getting pissed off about it too. In this state the County Sheriff has 45 days in which to either grant the permit or to reject it and give reason. However there is no penalty for the Sheriff if he delays and the cost to put the matter before the Court for an immediate decision to issue or not - which the law gives as remedy - would have cost me $200. As it was the permit cost me $100 and at that time only had reciprocity with two other states. That has since grown and I can, and do. now carry a pistol in all surrounding states (except Maryland) plus about a dozen others. After the decision we're going to see come out of the Supreme Court this coming spring you will be seeing some sweeping new gun laws all across this country.

so most gun owners are out killing things rather than waisting time in Church.:sarcasm:

then it's a law I fully support (even though I don't go to church). :smoke:

And yeah, FWIW, it's not about carrying/possessing in a house of worship... it's about protecting oneself while going or returning
from said house of worship.

That's something I haven't heard anyone talk about. In Missouri, for example, after the CCW law failed in the referendum, the Repukes then hammered it through the legislature immediately, and afterwards, you can't go anywhere without there being a sign in front of stores and business that say "No concealed guns on premises". This includes everything from grocery stores, department stores, gas stations/convenient stores, banks, etc. I really question the practicality of such laws.

I can't find the information about Georgia specifically, but different states have different laws regarding privately owned but publically accessible places that choose to ban firearms.

Some states explicitly forbid concealed weapons in any private establishment that has a posted policy against patrons carrying weapons. Carrying in such places constitutes a violation of state law -- often a felony. I believe that Nebraska is one such state.

Other states require establishments post signs of a very rigidly defined description (regarding the size and content) in order for a posting to carry legal weight. Carrying in an establishment that has a properly specced sign is a crime, but carrying in an establishment that does not have a "regulation" sign -- even if they have a non-regulation sign that declares weapons to be forbidden -- is not a crime. Texas is one such state; the so-called '30.06' sign is required for a no-weapons policy to have force of law.

Then there are states like Kentucky, which has no specific legal provision for a private establishment banning weapons. This does not mean that private businesses cannot prohibit firearms carried by patrons, it means only that carrying in defiance of such a posted prohibition is not itself a crime against state law. The store management is still free to demand that an armed customer leave, and an armed customer who refuses to leave can be charged with trespassing. I'll note right now that I live in the largest and arguably the most "liberal" (bearing in mind that "liberal" does not and should not necessarily translate to "anti-gun", even if too often there seems to be a correlation) city in the state, and I've rarely seen any "no weapons" signs. I can actually name about four places I've been in the last three years that have posted no weapons policies.

Regarding your statement about Missouri, I've actually heard from residents of other states that a common pattern in states that suddenly allow shall-issue CCW is for private businesses to post signs en masse and then, after nothing bad happens, they start disappearing after several years when business owners realise that 1) they're not attracting any business that otherwise wouldn't be there, 2) they are preventing business that would otherwise be happening there (even if it's a very small minority, that's money that otherwise wouldn't be lost that isn't being offset because of the aforementioned 1) and 3) nothing bad has happened in any of the places that didn't disallow CCW, so there's really no percievable benefit from it. Kentucky has had shall-issue CCW since 1996, and I only started paying any real attention in 2006, so I don't know how that pattern worked out here, but I do know that the two local malls near me at one time had a "no firearms" policy, but such a rule isn't listed on any "code of conduct" placard that I've found since I started looking out for such rules.


Note that no matter which of the above three applies to Georgia, churches will still be allowed to privately decide to ban firearms on the premises. The only question is whether such a decision by the church makes carrying within that specific church an actual crime in itself or just grounds to charge someone with trespass.

I will say all the ones I've seen are of the same type, and look "official" if that's the proper word. The format is almost like a traffic sign, and is usually posted near the entrance to the business. All of them have a picture of a handgun with a crossed out circle surrounding it, I think.

I just looked it up, this is the SAME county I live in, by the way, and the Sheriff's office is the one who issues the signs.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4185/is_20040405/ai_n10178262

It looks like it isn't an automatic felony, but around here, if you are caught with violating the premises rule, you get fined 100 dollars, and if you refuse to leave, you get charged with trespassing. That's a first offense, if you violate the rule again, your CCW permit is suspended for a year, I don't think it specifies in the article, but I'm assuming repeated violations would lead to an outright revoking of the permit.

Note that the article was written almost 4 years ago, and these signs are still posted all over the place. Its more than 31 business by now, more than the article specifies. I know for a fact that CFM stores have them, for example.

It shouldn't be the domain of the government/legislature to forbid it.

Dimensio0 (post #64), brings up some excellent points (all of which I agree with), that should answer the legal boundaries of the issue. The moral and societal issue... well that's a matter of opinion and will never be resolved.

One matter not addressed in this thread...

1) Citizens that posses a CCW permit can carry their firearms with the exceptions stipulated in state law.

2) Private entities can prohibit the carrying of firearms on their property (legal ramifications aside).

3) If a CCW holder in possession of a firearm is faced with the dilemma of carrying in an illegal, banned or posted location, do they comply with the request, or do they leave the firearm in their vehicle where it can easily be stolen?

Which is the wiser decision?

I would say the LEGAL decision would be to go home and lock the gun up in your gun safe. In Missouri, the only legal way to transport firearms, outside of CCW and law enforcement, is to separate the ammunition and firearm, and, if its a pistol, the pistol must be locked up in some type of portable safe or lockbox. I know about this mostly because I worked as an armed Security Guard, and there were other laws, for example, we couldn't, while having our issued guns in our possession, to stop for let's say, gas. You had to drive from home straight to work, and back again, no exceptions. This could also be related to wearing our uniforms, though unarmed security guards aren't restricted by this rule. I remember, before I went in for armed security, as just a security guard, I'd walk into my regular CFM and get free coffee, even though they knew I was a security guard. Though I think that the woman who worked there had a crush on me at the time, that could have contributed to it. :)

Also, I doubt its legal to keep a loaded firearm unattended where other people can see and steal it without suitable precautions. Even if it were legal, I can see the gun owner being held partially responsible for any crime involving the gun if it can be found they were negligent in its handling, such as leaving it, loaded, in the passenger seat of the car, and someone stole it.

Note, my experiences as a Security Officer predate the passage of the law, so its entirely possible that the CCW law changed these rules, though I'm not sure. Security Guards usually carry firearms mostly as a deterrent, very obvious, in a very obvious holster. In fact, it was against company rules(not sure about the law), to carry any "hidden" weapons, even unarmed security guards had a large flashlight or telescoping club(forgot what those fuckers were called), just in case. But we were "discourage" from carrying smaller knives or anything we can hide from obvious sight. I carried around a Maglite, the big ones can crack open a skull if you need it too, I had a 5 D-cell one, I believe.

You're not allowed if there's a sign up.

Of course, it's CONCEALED pistols, so unless the damn thing slides down your leg and drops out of your pant cuff, how are they suppose to know?

Not to mention the obvious target factor.

And once we get all your guns, we send the black helicopters in with the anal probes!!!!! Ohhhhhhhhhhhh!

I live in Massachusetts where gun owners getting fucked up the ass is a legislative ritual.

No matter... I'm out of here in few years (like so many others), and heading on to greener pastures where my Constitutional rights are more respected.

Let the 2010 census count reflect that when this shithole loses a seat or two in the House of Representatives.

Who's scared now?

:) Sorry, I couldn't resist. JK

actually it's not (paranoia).

I guess you'd have to live here and be a gun owner to understand.

To put it in perspective... think along the terms of supporting gay rights or pro-choice in Utah.

There's not an outright program to eliminate or confiscate, but making things as difficult or painful as possible pretty much achieves the same results.

Saw too many acquaintances use them as a tool to "clear their mind."

I've managed to survive just about any urban environ this country has to offer without a firearm, but that's just me. We used to keep a shotgun for varmints, but have found that a shout and a rock do the job pretty well. Luckily, the Velociraptor population isn't as bad as it used to be.

As to home protection? I have a heluva big dog and an alarm system. And I try to live smart.

Peace.

glad to hear you've managed to get along as well as you have, but others might not be as fortunate (or lucky), to have had your experiences or situations.

For those less fortunate... at least let them have the options to decide which way to best protect themselves.

Myself... a dog and/or an alarm system is not possible nor desirable.

lurking behind every bush... er, corner. Bush has a lot of baddies, but I still don't think a gun would help.

If its a joke I don't get it.

Bizarre is all I can think of.

The FReeper responses are typical FReepers. Whether or not the average FReeper is a joke or just a tragedy is up for debate.

The proposed bill is not a joke, and it's a good idea.

Are these responses a joke? They are just....I don't even know the word. It's like they are trying to be funny but end up being scary/pathetic.

Government-mandated "gun-free" zones are kind of proving to provide nothing but a false sense of security; this really is the sort of policy the individual property owner (in this case, the diocese, presbytery, synod, etc.) should be able to set.

"praise the lord and pass the ammo"

if your paranoia follows you into an alleged sanctuary from the evil in the world then you should not need a little gun to protect you. Plus the fundies should want to be shot in church so they can fulfill their goal to martyr themselves and prove to the world just how persecuted they really are.

ugh.....

...let the hospital management decide for themselves.

This hit me a few weeks ago. For all the cries about how much these horrific shootings could be stopped IF everyone EVERYONE carried a gun I can't think of a single instance in which someone with a gun was present and acted when something like this occurred.

The recent shooting of the guy in the church was by a trained security guard.

How could that possibly be?

From the shooting near Ft.Hood back in the early 90's which was IN a restaurant (no restrictions as far as I know) to anyone being near Columbine to Tech (no one NOT ONE person had a gun handy?) to the mall shooting a few months ago even the one at the Lane Bryant just a few days ago not one time was one of these mythical gun owners present.

How could that possibly be?

She was a volunteer parishoner. She had been a police officer ten years previously, but at the time she was a private citizen who was only allowed to carry her own personal firearm because she had been granted a permit by the state to carry as a citizen.




The only "Ft Hood" resturaunt shooting that I know about is the Luby's massacre in 1991, which is a really bad example for you to cite. The shooting occured before Texas had a "shall-issue" concealed weapons permit system. One of the patrons was a gun owner who had left her firearm in her car specifically because of Texas law. Her parents were killed in the incident, and she expressed regret that she had complied with the law by not having a gun on her person when she had the ability (even if not the legal means) to do so.

The other shootings to which you referred occured in "gun free" zones, where the carrying of firearms was prohibited by the management of the establishment, or in places where citizens are not allowed to carry at all. The mall shooting occured in a designated "no guns" zone. The management had made the decision, but Nebraska law meant that anyone who violated the policy was in violation of state law. Illinois has no legal civillian carry, thus it was not possible for any gun owners who complied with the law to intervene.

I could bring up the fact that people generally carry to protect themselves against thugs who are looking to victimize someone for money rather than to stop a crazed mass shooter (because mass shootings are extremely rare), or I could go on about how few (if anyone) actually advocates "arming everyone" and that such a phrase is a common strawman used by those who have done no real research but the examples that you cited really threw me. Did you deliberately choose bad examples?

Yes I was attempting a serious argument

and

No I didn't choose bad examples deliberately

Before I go any further - Welcome to DU and I DO mean that

Okay I went back to the Luby's shooting just to set the time frame back to almost 20 years ago-first shooting back then that popped in my head.

Now about concealed weapons- I understand that point that these were "no carry" zones but aside from that (which is a good point and I did include Tech for that reason) there is never anyone "packing heat" carrying a weapon in one of these situations? Never? I find the chance of that hard to believe. Never, not once?

About concealed weapons- What is the rate of usage of their concealed weapons? I doubt that if they really used them with any regularity such stories would be made readily available courtesy of the NRA or in Guns and Ammo and Soldier of Fortune type magazines.


Oh and Jean Assam WAS a security guard. A volunteer with a concealed license but she was a security guard who was there for, security. She wasn't just a random citizen.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15180386/detail.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3980889&page=1

Now about concealed weapons- I understand that point that these were "no carry" zones but aside from that (which is a good point and I did include Tech for that reason) there is never anyone "packing heat" carrying a weapon in one of these situations?

I'm trying to think of a "mass shooting" that didn't occur in a "gun free zone", and I don't know of any. Do you?

That is, these shootings occur precisely in the places where attackers know that law-abiding people will not have guns on them.

About concealed weapons- What is the rate of usage of their concealed weapons? I doubt that if they really used them with any regularity such stories would be made readily available courtesy of the NRA or in Guns and Ammo and Soldier of Fortune type magazines.

Well, if you can hold your nose for long enough you'll see a couple of them per week on Free Republic. It's a difficult phenomenon to document, first off, since most defensive uses of firearms do not require firing the weapon and go unreported.

"A manz gotta feel like a mannnnn-ah, everywheer he go-ah!"

There's a poll down in the DU Gun Dungeon right now, concerning just how important guns are in the upcoming election. The largest category---48%---consists of individuals who say they are ready to vote Republican if they think their guns are in jeopardy.

Suspicions confirmed. I personally think that percentage is a lot higher than 48%....

are far less than the noises they make.

(as if I had to ask)

or anywhere like it.

How sad it must be to live with the sort of irrational fear and paranoia where one would feel the need to carry a gun around.

or worse- would want to carry a gun around....

...:cry:

but if I did and I will someday, I would apply for a concealed weapons permit.

I own guns, and I am on the side of gun rights. But I don't really care for concealed carry, and those responses are the reason why. The Freepers are looking for an excuse to shoot someone, and that comes through quite clearly in their posts. They talk about being able to carry a gun where they need one "the most", but where is that? Have any of them been in a place where a shooting has happened, ever? What makes them think they need a gun in those places so much that the law should be changed? I don't believe that there is a necessary correlation between guns and crime, but there is likely a direct correlation between these clowns carrying and shootings, because they're looking for an excuse to play Dirty Harry.

I prefer to examine the actual results of allowing civillian concealed carry rather than the comments of a few FReepers who, by their nature, tend to be on the lunatic fringe of the right-wing. I find it more rational to examine consequence rather than bluster.




I believe that a more logical question to consider is the one of why the state felt the need to meddle in the affairs of religious institutions by pre-emptively banning firearms regardless of the wishes of the management of the establishment, when the state allows other private organizations to make their own decisions on the matter.




If this is the case, you should be able to provide a correlative study between concealed carry permit holders and shootings. Opposing concealed carry based upon what you "think", when no evidence for your beliefs has been provided, is not rational.

I prefer to examine the actual results of allowing civillian concealed carry rather than the comments of a few FReepers who, by their nature, tend to be on the lunatic fringe of the right-wing. I find it more rational to examine consequence rather than bluster.

We have people who state publicly that they NEED a concealed weapon. This is a comment spoken out of fear. The comments listed indicate a lot of fear, and fear translates to hasty action and bad results. The fact they they are a lunatic fringe, as you put it, is very relevant here. Allowing lunatics to run around with concealed weapons is not a good idea.

I believe that a more logical question to consider is the one of why the state felt the need to meddle in the affairs of religious institutions by pre-emptively banning firearms regardless of the wishes of the management of the establishment, when the state allows other private organizations to make their own decisions on the matter.

I question concealed carry in most places, actually. Open carry is a different matter. I'm not against guns, and have several. I just am wary of someone who claims they "need" to cary a weapon in public crowded areas like stadiums, because it indicates in my opinion that they are afraid. That means that they aren't going to be all that rational themselves.

If this is the case, you should be able to provide a correlative study between concealed carry permit holders and shootings. Opposing concealed carry based upon what you "think", when no evidence for your beliefs has been provided, is not rational.

Nope, because I'm talking about this group, not everyone. They are, as you said, a lunatic fringe. I'm not comfortable with concealed carry because I don't know if the guy I might be standing next to is part of that lunatic fringe, and will get it into his head that I am an immediate threat because I looked at him in a way he didn't like. there's no way any of us can know that. We already do know that freepers are delusional, and that they see challenges to their ideal of God and Country everywhere they look, and see themselves as the last stand against evil communists taking over the world. I really don't think letting them carry guns, concealed in particular, wherever they want, is a wise decision.

Understand too that I am not talking about owning guns. I am pro-second amendment, but I am not an anarchist about it. Society does have the right to put some reasonable controls on that right.