GA 2008 Second Amendment Protection Act

[crumbles]

Well, Phatlip would have a heart attack if he lived in GA right now. The organization I belong to is currently in full support of State Representative's House Bill 915 (http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/sum/hb915.htm), otherwise known as the 2008 Second Amendment Protection Act. GA's firearm laws are some of the most strict in the country. This bill relaxes GA's firearm laws. I saw a few things about it the other day on the news.

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/14934313/index.html

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5352011&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

My favorite part on the foxnews video is the chick who wants more gun control. She says: "This is going to make it more dangerous for officers." Um, what? Can someone tell me how a good guy having a firearm makes anything more dangerous for an officer?

[phatlip12]

Well, Phatlip would have a heart attack if he lived in GA right now. The organization I belong to is currently in full support of State Representative's House Bill 915 (http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/sum/hb915.htm), otherwise known as the 2008 Second Amendment Protection Act. GA's firearm laws are some of the most strict in the country. This bill relaxes GA's firearm laws. I saw a few things about it the other day on the news.

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/14934313/index.html

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5352011&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

My favorite part on the foxnews video is the chick who wants more gun control. She says: "This is going to make it more dangerous for officers." Um, what? Can someone tell me how a good guy having a firearm makes anything more dangerous for an officer?

Well, I already stated my position on this so I ask you a new question. Is it really the best idea to allow citizens to carry guns in areas where people are more prone to aggression (especially if it involves large groups of people)?

Examples:

A Wu-Tan Clan concert in the inner city

A death metal rock band concert with people moshing

A soccer game (no so aggressive in the US as in other countries)

A baseball game

Political debates (politicians are already a big enough party, why not keep EVERYONE with a gun out of there but cops)

[crumbles]

Is it really the best idea to allow citizens to carry guns in areas where people are more prone to aggression (especially if it involves large groups of people)?

Examples:

A Wu-Tan Clan concert in the inner city

A death metal rock band concert with people moshing

A soccer game (no so aggressive in the US as in other countries)

A baseball game

Political debates (politicians are already a big enough party, why not keep EVERYONE with a gun out of there but cops)I'll answer your question with a question. Do you feel you have to be worried about someone who has passed a rigorous background check, proving they are a good guy, and also registering their prints on file with the police department, or do you have to worry about someone who doesn't want to take those steps and carries a gun anyway.

Answer that, then I'll answer yours.

[phatlip12]

I'll answer your question with a question. Do you feel you have to be worried about someone who has passed a rigorous background check, proving they are a good guy, and also registering their prints on file with the police department, or do you have to worry about someone who doesn't want to take those steps and carries a gun anyway.

Answer that, then I'll answer yours.

Guns are a lot like drugs. They both have the potential of being deadly (guns more so then drugs) and are both accessible despite being legal/illegal or easy/hard to get (again though, drugs being a little easier to get). With that said, at least we are doing SOMETHING (while keeping in mind that anyone can still get the gun regardless). At least we have SOME way of keeping track of who should and shouldn't get a gun. Yeah, they can still get the gun through illegal means but at least this is SOME sort of step in stopping it (even if its just a pain in the ass). It's kind of like those cooling off periods they have before they let you take the gun home.

[darknessgp]

umm, why exactly is it called the "Second Amendment Protection Act"? Last I checked the 2nd amendment was about having a well regulated militia.

[crumbles]

Guns are a lot like drugs. They both have the potential of being deadly (guns more so then drugs) and are both accessible despite being legal/illegal or easy/hard to get (again though, drugs being a little easier to get). With that said, at least we are doing SOMETHING (while keeping in mind that anyone can still get the gun regardless). At least we have SOME way of keeping track of who should and shouldn't get a gun. Yeah, they can still get the gun through illegal means but at least this is SOME sort of step in stopping it (even if its just a pain in the ass). It's kind of like those cooling off periods they have before they let you take the gun home.I don't know what the hell your talking about. There is a method in place right now that prevents bad guys from legally getting a gun. That's not changing with this bill that's being presented. Also, there is no "cooling off period." So, I'm not sure what you're referring to there either.

umm, why exactly is it called the "Second Amendment Protection Act"? Last I checked the 2nd amendment was about having a well regulated militia.Most of the world, including the supreme court, doesn't agree with you. Nor do the other amendments that everyone agrees refers to citizen rights, except apparently the 2nd one.... :rollyeyes:

[darknessgp]

...
Most of the world, including the supreme court, doesn't agree with you. Nor do the other amendments that everyone agrees refers to citizen rights, except apparently the 2nd one.... :rollyeyes:

Actually, the 2nd amendment as I understand it refers to the fact that the citizens have the right to have their own military power, as in the citizens (as a whole) have the right to defend themselves against their government. Remember "For the People, by the People."? I think the 2nd amendment protects that, even if force is needed to subdue the government.

[tokenuser]

I'll answer your question with a question. Do you feel you have to be worried about someone who has passed a rigorous background check, proving they are a good guy, and also registering their prints on file with the police department, or do you have to worry about someone who doesn't want to take those steps and carries a gun anyway.Yeah, because everyone with a gun permit is a good guy (http://gothamist.com/2007/04/18/vt.php), and passes background checks at the highest level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh).

[crumbles]

Yeah, because everyone with a gun permit is a good guy (http://gothamist.com/2007/04/18/vt.php), and passes background checks at the highest level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh).I looked around on that VT link, didn't see what you were hinting at though...

Anyway, yes, there are going to be bad people out there. The answer is not to take away guns from good guys.

[tokenuser]

I looked around on that VT link, didn't see what you were hinting at though...I was hinting at this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho).

There are plenty of other examples out there of people (http://wbztv.com/topstories/Scott.Medeiros.Foxy.2.583679.html) carrying (http://www.wsoctv.com/news/14304079/detail.html) valid (http://shootingmessengers.blogspot.com/2007/05/blind-man-says-gun-permit-does-not-make.html) permits.

[crumbles]

I was hinting at this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho).Hrm... yea, I dunno... it does say this about him:

He was successful at completing both handgun purchases, even though he had failed to disclose information on the background questionnaire about his mental health that required court-ordered outpatient treatment at a mental health facility.

Seems like something like that should turn up in a background check. Sounds like someone else dropped the ball on that one.

Also, this one (http://www.wsoctv.com/news/14304079/detail.html) isn't specific on whether or not he had a permit. Seems to be written very poorly.

Ha, this one is pretty weak (http://shootingmessengers.blogspot.com/2007/05/blind-man-says-gun-permit-does-not-make.html). I agree eyesite should be required for a permit. And it does say he was denied by one state.

I'm sure you can find cases like this, however, I (http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071227/BREAKINGNEWS/71227025/1086) can (http://www.star-telegram.com/crime_courts/story/382398.html) find (http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/12/28/suspect-intrusion-dies-wound/) cases (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/9553C0B469F89078862573BF000DCF98?OpenDocument) that (http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/serial-burglars-narrowly-escape-police/134900.htm) prove (http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=7551872) the (http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=5855892) exact (http://www.kirotv.com/news/14918529/detail.html) opposite (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07359/844410-100.stm) as (http://www.wrbl.com/index.php/news/article/man-shot-after-invading-home/4563/) well (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2007/12/resident_shoots_kills_home_int.html). Statistically, guns help more than they hurt.

Anti-gun rhetoric is its most outlandish when the subject turns to right-to-carry laws, under which people obtain permits to carry firearms concealed for protection against criminals. For years, gun control supporters have tried to convince the public that the average person is neither smart enough, adept enough nor responsible enough to be trusted with firearms, especially where using firearms for protection is concerned.

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime,1 Prof. John R. Lott, Jr. provides the most comprehensive study of firearm laws ever conducted. With an economist's eye, Lott examined a large volume of data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3,045 counties over an 18-year period. He included in his analysis many variables that might explain the level of crime--factors such as income, poverty, unemployment, population density, arrest rates, conviction rates and length of prison sentences.

With 54,000 observations and hundreds of variables available over the 1977 to 1994 period, Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been compiled for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. And, unlike many gun control advocates who masquerade as researchers, Lott willingly made his complete data set available to any academic who requested it.

"Many factors influence crime," Lott writes, "with arrest and conviction rates being the most important. However, non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime."

Non discretionary, or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes, because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed and can defend themselves. Secondly, national crime victimization surveys show that victims who use firearms to defend themselves are statistically less likely to be injured. In short, carry laws deter crime, because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.

Lott's research shows that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high-crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Lott found "a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates." Further, he found that the value of carry laws increases over time. "For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by over 2%," Lott writes.

"Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women," Lott notes. "An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men."

While right-to-carry laws lead to fewer people being murdered (Lott finds an equal deterrent effect for murders committed with and without guns), the increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."

The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others "get a 'free ride' from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens," Lott finds. And the benefits are "not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns." The most obvious example of what Lott calls this "halo" effect, is "the drop in murders of children following the adoption of nondiscretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area."

How compelling is John Lott's message? How threatening is his research to those who would disarm the American people? He devotes an entire chapter of his book to rebutting attacks leveled at his research and at him personally. He recalls how Susan Glick of the radical Violence Policy Center publicly denounced his research as "flawed" without having read the first word of it.

This type of unfounded and unethical attack unfortunately is not uncommon. Criminologist Gary Kleck explains why: "Battered by a decade of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one's targets into submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible evidence."2

Law professor and firearms issue researcher David Kopel notes, "Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed-carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences. Permit-holders will slaughter each other in traffic disputes, while would-be Rambos shoot bystanders in incompetent attempts to thwart crime. But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media's radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn't so bad after all."3

Thirty-two states now have right-to-carry laws. Half the U.S. population, including 60% of handgun owners, live in right-to-carry states. Twenty-two states have adopted right-to-carry since 1987. In each case, anti-gun activists and politicians predicted that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms would result in more violence. Typical of this sort of propaganda, Florida State Rep. Michael Friedman said, "We'll have calamity and carnage, the body count will go up and we'll see more and more people trying to act like supercops."4 Similarly, Broward County Sheriff Nick Navarro said, "This could set us back 100 years to the time of the Wild West."5 But since Florida adopted right-to-carry in 1987, its murder rate has decreased 51%, while nationwide the murder rate has decreased 33%.6 Less than two one-hundredths of 1% of Florida carry licenses have been revoked because of firearm crimes committed by licensees, according to the Florida Dept. of State.

Before Gov. George W. Bush was able to sign Texas' carry law, predictions of a return to the Wild West were also made. But honest public servants who initially opposed the law have stepped forth to admit they were wrong. John B. Holmes, Harris County's district attorney, said that he thought the legislation presented "a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless." And this from Glen White, president of the Dallas Police Association: "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. . . . I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."7

Contrary to the picture painted by anti-gun groups, evidence supporting the value of right-to-carry laws and the high standard of conduct among persons who carry firearms lawfully is overwhelming and continues to mount.

[crumbles]

References (post above was too long to fit them in)

1. John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), pp. 50-96.

2. Gary Kleck, "Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People," The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

3. David Kopel, "The Untold Triumph of Concealed-Carry Permits," Policy Review, July-August 1996, p. 9.

4. Jim Myers, "Critics, Police Fear 'Calamity and Carnage'" USA Today, Oct. 1, 1997.

5. Ibid.

6. FBI.

7. H. Sterling Burnett, "Concealed Handgun Laws Help Fight Crime," Human Events, June 30, 2000, p. 15.

[phatlip12]

Hey Crumbles, you haven't answered my original question yet.

[autodas]

Well, I already stated my position on this so I ask you a new question. Is it really the best idea to allow citizens to carry guns in areas where people are more prone to aggression (especially if it involves large groups of people)?

Examples:

A Wu-Tan Clan concert in the inner city

A death metal rock band concert with people moshing

A soccer game (no so aggressive in the US as in other countries)

A baseball game

Political debates (politicians are already a big enough party, why not keep EVERYONE with a gun out of there but cops)

You want gun-free zones. Cause we know how great that turned out in Virginia Tech. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens that would only have used guns to protect themselves.

[masherscf]

You know, you can't prove stuff by quoting examples.


Local states and municipalities should have the right to make ordinances governing things like this as long as they don't violate a non-constructive reading of the second amendment.

As for FOX stumping a retarded left-winger... what a surprise.

[phatlip12]

You want gun-free zones. Cause we know how great that turned out in Virginia Tech. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens that would only have used guns to protect themselves.

You never answered the question. I also didn't state that, I only asked a question.

[xibalba]

Yay guns! pew pew pew pew pew.

[crumbles]

Hey Crumbles, you haven't answered my original question yet.I should first note that most of these places are already offlimits to carry a firearm to. I should also note that part of the responsibility of carrying a firearm is being smart enough to try and avoid some of the places where the likelyhood of drawing your firearm is present. Just because someone has the right to carry doesn't mean they have the right to place themselves in confrontation. I can't find my original post, but I know I've talked about it before. Carrying a firearm has made me more mellow, respect my surroundings more, and stay out of conflict as much as I can (http://revision3.com/forum/showpost.php?p=244762&postcount=169). Although some places are appropriate, it's up to the person to use common sense and know that there are places where the event is usually indicative to some type of emotional driven response, so either don't carry, find another place to go, or make sure you know where the nearest egress is in the event of trouble. Now, as far as my answer:

If you start taking freedoms away from people, then what do they have left? Where in all those places (that are legal to carry) has it ever been a problem? You cannot restrict people because you believe it might cause harm.

Also, can you be attacked in any of those places? So why should the criminals be the only ones with weapons? Also, do you not have to travel to and from said event?

You are also forgetting that if it's a private event, they make the rules. If they say chicks can't wear tops, then they can't. Don't like it? Don't show. They can write their rules how they want, you pay to go if you want. If said event decides to ALLOW firearms on the premises, then the government has no reason to disarm the populace.

If you feel those types of events are so dangerous, then maybe we should ban them instead of firarms and carry permits?

But let's look at it another way. Your question is similar to "Should we allow police officers to carry guns in areas where people are more prone to aggression?" Both a citizen with a carry permit and a cop with their background checks are both good intentioned people. The answer is clear though. Of course we should. We should allow any honest citizen whose purpose is to protect themselves and others to carry as many places as possible.

You know, you can't prove stuff by quoting examples.Um... I guess that would kinda depend on what the examples are.

[masherscf]

Um... I guess that would kinda depend on what the examples are.

As you seem to have a grasp of logic and predicate calculus, I can only assume that you're joking.

Suffice it to say, anecdotal evidence and citing any number of single cases cannot prove a theorem unless the scope of theorem is trivially narrow.

[rabidbadger]

this whole thread is just deja vu all over again...

[crumbles]

this whole thread is just deja vu all over again...Thanks for the insightful input.

[rabidbadger]

thanks for beating a dead horse. ;)




JK, keep it going. I got popcorn and an easy chair. Just gonna sit back and enjoy the show.

[crumbles]

thanks for beating a dead horse. ;)Responding to someone asking me a question isn't beating a dead horse. No one is forcing you to come in here and post anything, let alone read anything in this thread. Ironically, you're the cause for another "2nd amendment" type thread appearing in the first place instead of keeping it all in one area. But keep complaining though. Seriously, it's awesome.

[rabidbadger]

dude, lighten up.

Not only did I start the last gun thread to distract "someone" from another thread, but I also closed it because it became a flamefest. Same thing is gonna happen here, I can almost promise.

[frankiethewaffle]

Well, I already stated my position on this so I ask you a new question. Is it really the best idea to allow citizens to carry guns in areas where people are more prone to aggression (especially if it involves large groups of people)?

Examples:

A Wu-Tan Clan concert in the inner city

A death metal rock band concert with people moshing

A soccer game (no so aggressive in the US as in other countries)

A baseball game

Political debates (politicians are already a big enough party, why not keep EVERYONE with a gun out of there but cops)

Example:

1. A college campus with kids learning physics and journalism. Worst case scenario, drinking too much.

2. A high School with younger kids studying basic math and science. Worst case scenario, the home ec kids burn the brownies.

3. A grade school with even younger kids learning to safely leave a building during what could, or now could not, be a fire drill. Now it's a line up for a firing squad.

The examples you used were places that bread aggression anyway. No matter the weapon, someone is likely to be hurt. Ensure no one has a gun, they are now safe? No. Go to a game at Yankee Stadium, pick out the poor sap wearing anything but Yankee apparel and take bets with your friends on which inning he begins to bleed. It will happen and never with a gun.

For anyone counting on the no gun zone. When I was in HS it was a drug free zone of all three campuses that made 3/5ths of the district. Including a primary school. That drug free zone was almost true. I had to hold a classmate against a wall more than once waiting for an ambulance because he dropped too much acid. Was he ever arrested? NO. After all this was a drug free zone. It is worse now. This is a suburb type town too. 20 Miles from the biggest city.

Drug free zone, Gun free zone. This is all wishful thinking. It can't happen. Do I think anyone should carry a gun anywhere? NO! I think Sean Penn should have been arrested for carrying a shot gun through New Orleans after Katrina. He is made out to be this Robin Hood. Helping the poor. He helped no more than three dogs, truth be told, and carried a gun to protect himself. Protection from what? He was there to help right? Why was he so scared to be unarmed among the poor of New Orleans? Or was he scared of the black poor of New Orleans. He is a coward and a hypocrite.

For how Gun Control is looked upon. It only keeps guns out of the hands of normal people that want to legally own guns for numerous reasons. What those reasons are, are none of my business. People that want to commit a crime with a gun, don't want to be traced to that gun or the crime. They will steal it or buy it illegally. That is what bad people do. Take the right to own guns out of all of our hands. I can't own one, you can't. Bet on which one of us get robbed, mugged or killed first. Because the guns don't go away because bad people shouldn't own them. They just make those that wish to legally own and carry a gun weak. Even if they only want to feel safe or defend themselves.

I do not personally own a handgun. This is just a view on the absurdity of the idea that crimes can be controlled buy law abiding citizens being disarmed. I do however have personal protection in my home. I will use it if threatened. I just lost an Uncle by his son in law. He blew my Aunts head near off with a shot gun blast to her neck. Then two blasts to my Uncles chest. These guns were legal. I know because I have held them after the murder. They belonged to that Uncle. I reiterate, If my Uncle did not own that shot gun, and this guy was intent on killing him and his wife. Would they have been safe? Was there no other way for this murderer to attain a shotgun? A former NYS trooper BTW.

Your arguments just don't stand up to reality.

[crumbles]

dude, lighten up.

Not only did I start the last gun thread to distract "someone" from another thread, but I also closed it because it became a flamefest. Same thing is gonna happen here, I can almost promise.Only if you keep posting.

[tokenuser]

Responding to someone asking me a question isn't beating a dead horse. No one is forcing you to come in here and post anything, let alone read anything in this thread. Yeah, noones putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read and respond.

Well .... perhaps they are, and they would be within their 2nd amendment rights to do so :)

[rabidbadger]

*munch munch* Popcorn needs more butter. brb

[crumbles]

Yeah, noones putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read and respond.

Well .... perhaps they are, and they would be within their 2nd amendment rights to do so :)I'm assuming you're kidding with this.

*munch munch* Popcorn needs more butter. brbThere are a few people in this thread actually curious to some responses. Your popcorn joke was old the last time you posted it. You know, two posts ago.

[phatlip12]

I should first note that most of these places are already offlimits to carry a firearm to. I should also note that part of the responsibility of carrying a firearm is being smart enough to try and avoid some of the places where the likelyhood of drawing your firearm is present. Just because someone has the right to carry doesn't mean they have the right to place themselves in confrontation. I can't find my original post, but I know I've talked about it before. Carrying a firearm has made me more mellow, respect my surroundings more, and stay out of conflict as much as I can (http://revision3.com/forum/showpost.php?p=244762&postcount=169). Although some places are appropriate, it's up to the person to use common sense and know that there are places where the event is usually indicative to some type of emotional driven response, so either don't carry, find another place to go, or make sure you know where the nearest egress is in the event of trouble. Now, as far as my answer:

If you start taking freedoms away from people, then what do they have left? Where in all those places (that are legal to carry) has it ever been a problem? You cannot restrict people because you believe it might cause harm.

Also, can you be attacked in any of those places? So why should the criminals be the only ones with weapons? Also, do you not have to travel to and from said event?

You are also forgetting that if it's a private event, they make the rules. If they say chicks can't wear tops, then they can't. Don't like it? Don't show. They can write their rules how they want, you pay to go if you want. If said event decides to ALLOW firearms on the premises, then the government has no reason to disarm the populace.

If you feel those types of events are so dangerous, then maybe we should ban them instead of firarms and carry permits?

But let's look at it another way. Your question is similar to "Should we allow police officers to carry guns in areas where people are more prone to aggression?" Both a citizen with a carry permit and a cop with their background checks are both good intentioned people. The answer is clear though. Of course we should. We should allow any honest citizen whose purpose is to protect themselves and others to carry as many places as possible.

Um... I guess that would kinda depend on what the examples are.

Hmm, I'm starting to think about this a little differently now. My main concern with these permits are with the nuts I see EVERY single day. I'm worried if it was any easier for them to get a firearm and carry it 24/7 they may be more likely to use it. Road rage being the major issue/scare for me. Another scare I have is if it were made easier there may potentially be more people that carry guns everyday. Those stats scare me.

The more guns in one area = a higher chance of one going off or a person pulling one out due to a mis-judgment. I'm just not sure if would work. Its kind of like the folks that want to legalize drugs all together. It may work great but has the potential of going horribly wrong. Yeah, if a bad guy comes people can pull out their guns and shoot them...but what happens when 6 people draw at the same time? There's obviously a higher chance of confusion/friendly fire. Of those 6 people, who is the shooter?

[crumbles]

I'm worried if it was any easier for them to get a firearm and carry it 24/7 they may be more likely to use it. Road rage being the major issue/scare for me. Another scare I have is if it were made easier there may potentially be more people that carry guns everyday. Those stats scare me.Not sure why you're thinking it's going to be easier for anyone to get a firearm, but your logic still doesn't make any sense. Why would someone that is a nut follow the law anyway?

The more guns in one area = a higher chance of one going off or a person pulling one out due to a mis-judgment.Not really. Firearms are used more to help than they are for bad. In fact, according to the National Center for Health Statistics and National Safety Council, firearm accidents are at an all time record low. You should see all the things you have a better chance of dying from than an accidental discharge (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm). Some of them are pretty funny. Besides, according to you, you're OK with keeping a firearm in the home. Why are you not worried about it accidentally going off there? What's different about me going outside?

I'm just not sure if would work. Its kind of like the folks that want to legalize drugs all together. It may work great but has the potential of going horribly wrong. Yeah, if a bad guy comes people can pull out their guns and shoot them...but what happens when 6 people draw at the same time? There's obviously a higher chance of confusion/friendly fire. Of those 6 people, who is the shooter?I'm not sure what your last sentence means... can you elaborate?

[phatlip12]

Not sure why you're thinking it's going to be easier for anyone to get a firearm, but your logic still doesn't make any sense. Why would someone that is a nut follow the law anyway?

True, if they REALLY want it they can get it. Why make it any easier for the ones that shouldn't have it though? It's not only the nuts you have to worry about though, it's also the normal people that simply have short tempers. You mentioned carrying made you more mellow. That may not be the case for everyone else.

Not really. Firearms are used more to help than they are for bad. In fact, according to the National Center for Health Statistics and National Safety Council, firearm accidents are at an all time record low. You should see all the things you have a better chance of dying from than an accidental discharge (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm). Some of them are pretty funny. Besides, according to you, you're OK with keeping a firearm in the home. Why are you not worried about it accidentally going off there? What's different about me going outside?

Can firearm accidents being at an all time low be the result of gun control laws though? It only makes sense that the more guns in one area = the higher chance of friendly fire. Assume here are 20 people in room A (all good guys) and 20 in room B. Room A has one person armed with a gun and in Room B everyone is armed. Which room is more likely to have some sort of friendly fire occur?

In regards to keeping a gun in the home...

Yes, a gun can accidentally go off in the home. Thats not the point Im trying to make though. The chances of a gun accidentally going off are higher when a quarter of the room has a gun ON THEM as opposed to a gun sitting in a lock box or gun case in the house.

I'm not sure what your last sentence means... can you elaborate?

I was comparing relaxing gun control laws with legalizing drugs. It has the potential of working (and working great) but also has the potential of going horribly wrong.

[crumbles]

True, if they REALLY want it they can get it. Why make it any easier for the ones that shouldn't have it though? It's not only the nuts you have to worry about though, it's also the normal people that simply have short tempers. You mentioned carrying made you more mellow. That may not be the case for everyone else.I don't recall saying I wanted it to make it easier for people who shouldn't have firearms get firearms.

Can firearm accidents being at an all time low be the result of gun control laws though? It only makes sense that the more guns in one area = the higher chance of friendly fire.Gun control doesn't work. Washington DC currently has a ban on firearms. 13 years after the ban, the murder rate tripled.

Assume here are 20 people in room A (all good guys) and 20 in room B. Room A has one person armed with a gun and in Room B everyone is armed. Which room is more likely to have some sort of friendly fire occur?You didn't really give a situation. You just told me there are people standing around in rooms. Our Army does it everyday, as well as police officers.

The chances of a gun accidentally going off are higher when a quarter of the room has a gun ON THEM as opposed to a gun sitting in a lock box or gun case in the house.That's not very likely:


Type: Deaths: One Year Odds: Lifetime Odds:
Firearm discharge 235 1,249,604 16,041

I was comparing relaxing gun control laws with legalizing drugs. It has the potential of working (and working great) but also has the potential of going horribly wrong.I don't think that at this point either of us are planning on changing our minds. I guess you will just have to keep fighting to remove that right from citizens, and I will have to keep fighting to keep 'em.

[phatlip12]

I don't recall saying I wanted it to make it easier for people who shouldn't have firearms get firearms.

Gun control doesn't work. Washington DC currently has a ban on firearms. 13 years after the ban, the murder rate tripled.

You didn't really give a situation. You just told me there are people standing around in rooms. Our Army does it everyday, as well as police officers.

That's not very likely:


Type: Deaths: One Year Odds: Lifetime Odds:
Firearm discharge 235 1,249,604 16,041I don't think that at this point either of us are planning on changing our minds. I guess you will just have to keep fighting to remove that right from citizens, and I will have to keep fighting to keep 'em.

Dude! I JUST said I started thinking about this a little differently. Sorry for the short response, but I gota head to work. I'll have a more in depth response tonight when I get home.

[crumbles]

Dude! I JUST said I started thinking about this a little differently. Sorry for the short response, but I gota head to work. I'll have a more in depth response tonight when I get home.Ha, OK, I re-read what I said, and I don't want you to take the last thing I said wrong. I wasn't trying to be curt, or short, or F-YOU! or whatever, I was just meaning that I had pretty much made all the points I could think of, and if I hadn't convinced you by now we'd probably arrived at a stalemate. Didn't mean to make that sound mean.

Have fun at work, post your more in-depth response later. I'll reply to it when I see it.

[shant]

You should also know that 13 US states have their own agencies working on the part of the national instant criminal background check system in what is referred to as a complete Point Of Contact (POC) faculty. In the said states, FFL holders perform their own background checks by electronically getting into the national instant criminal background check system. After completing the mandated ATF Form 4473, FFL holders transacting firearms business in these states get in touch with an assigned state office to perform a national instant criminal background check system instead of making direct contact with the Section of the national instant criminal background check system of the FBI in West Virginia.

Furthermore, there are 8 US states operating as partial POC states. This means that they work hand in hand with the Section of the national instant criminal background check system. These states have offices assigned to perform background checks for handgun (http://www.spam.com) transactions, while the Section of the national instant criminal background check system is in charge of long gun transactions.

[tokenuser]

<sniff> ...
<sniff> <sniff> ...

Is that SPAM I smell? Your embedded link to backgroundsearch.com sure looks like SPAM.

=====

Clever little SPAMBOT. Same text appearing over the internet over the past couple of days. Link redirected.

[crumbles]

My main concern with these permits are with the nuts I see EVERY single day. I'm worried if it was any easier for them to get a firearm and carry it 24/7 they may be more likely to use it. Road rage being the major issue/scare for me. Another scare I have is if it were made easier there may potentially be more people that carry guns everyday. Those stats scare me.

The more guns in one area = a higher chance of one going off or a person pulling one out due to a mis-judgment.Can firearm accidents being at an all time low be the result of gun control laws though?Six years ago Michigan made it much easier to get a license to carry a concealed weapon. Michigan residents responded by increasing the number of residents there who now carry a concealed weapon by six-fold. According to law enforcement officials, the incidence of violent crime in Michigan since the law went into effect has been below the rate of the previous six years. There was less crime once citizens were able to arm themselves. The overall incidence of death from firearms has also gone down. The police chief says that the general consensus is that things were not as bad as they expected.

Article:Michigan sees fewer gun deaths -- with more permits (http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Michigan+sees+fewer+gun+deaths+--+with+more+permits&expire=&urlID=25709310&fb=Y&url=http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200%5C)

[secret-steve-crumbles]

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff99/Bojangles888/gc.jpg