Me-I do not want a bunch of simpletons carrying concealed weapons around me. I've been around a bit in my life and never felt the need of a weapon to protect myself from danger from animals or simpletons.
If you feel the need for protection in most places it is not against the law to carry a weapon that is visible.
I don't even know these people who think guns is the answer and I don't like them not even a little bit!
And yes I have guns and can probably use them better than the simpletons.
I predict Wisconsin will turn the "Enlightened 37" into the "Enlightened 38" this year. I also suspect that Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona are not long to be alone in enjoying the additional enlightenment of Constitutional carry.
One Fly, you're going to get a lot of Texans, New Yorkers, New Jerseyains, Floridians and Hoosiers thrown into jail with your bad advice about open carry; and that's just listing the ones I know without resorting to a reference.
So I doubt your firearm expertise in other matters, too.
Knowledge might help with your contempt for your fellowman and fear of him carrying a gun. Or not; maybe you're just an elitist snob.
Here in New Hampshire we are going to try to get "constitutional carry" and get rid of the delays and fees for exercising our rights. It's pretty absurd that we need to buy a permission slip that must be granted to put on a jacket over our sidearm.
On Feb 24th at 130 pm there will be a public hearing about this bill, at room 204 of the Legislative Office Building (behind the State House). I'm hoping to go open carrying AND concealed carrying. :)
For me the real question is this: is having the local police approve of the application for concealed carry useful or not. I say it is. The abuse of power that police sometimes engage in is far outweighed by their direct ability to identify potentially dangerous people and prohibit them from having a license.
FWM is confusing majority with normality. They don't always align.
@Mikeb, so you're more concerned with the potentially dangerous people who might choose to carry a firearm legally, than the ACTUALLY dangerous people who routinely break the law and will carry a gun no matter what the law is?
MikeB: “The abuse of power that police sometimes engage in is far outweighed by their direct ability to identify potentially dangerous people and prohibit them from having a license.”
And when they can’t identify “potentially dangerous people” they just assume everyone is. It is much easier than having to make a judgment. Show me one may issue state where qualified people are not routinely denied.
First off get your facts straight. The NRA has resisted joining the carry movement until just recently. They wee never at the forefront of this movement.
Want to know who really pushed the carry laws?!? The tourism industry of Florida. They started the movement.
Along with legal gun owners who said enough is enough we are not going to be "lambs unto Slaughter" anymore. The rampant violence against tourist in Florida had really dented the bottom line. The only way to make a dent was to give people the right to fight back. Resident and non resident permits gave amounted and tourists the ability to fight back. Criminals are really cowards, they have to chase only the weak and vulnerable because fighting or robbing strong opponents is not how you have a long career.
So in florida the gun rights people suddenly found themselves being offered the logistical and lobby help of the tourism board. With that kind of muscle, the bill passed and exactly what every gun rights advocate was saying happened. Crime went done. Assaults on tourists went down when it was announced that reciprocity would be granted. All of the shootouts at traffic lights, gender benders that were supposed to happen never did and all the good things did happen.
Once there was a precedent, other states houses started to say, "this can work here" and it has. It really wasn't until about mid 2008 when most of the states already had working carry laws that the NRA suddenly woke up and decided to try and join Heller and McDonald. Carry articles were rare and far between in the American Rifleman magazine of the NRA.
Finding it hard to believe that the people of these states pushed and got passed these laws is a testime t of fact winning out over fiction. The fiction of no guns equals no crime was proven daily by millions and millions of people carrying on a daily basis. The fact that legal and law abiding gun owners being safe, under control and wise in their behaviors' is proven daily.
A good Citizen is a good Citizen whether or not he or she carries a gun. A crook is a criminal whether or not he carries a gun, a knife, a rock, or his fists.
P, I really find that Florida-tourism explanation completely implausible. Where in the world did you come up with that one?
Orygunner, I don't agree with your idea, "dangerous people who routinely break the law and will carry a gun"
Why do you keep saying they'll ALWAYS get guns. With proper controls only the most determined will. Many who get guns now are not determined, they're path-of-least-resistence guys. It all depends on gun availability.
@Mikeb, I'm saying they will ALWAYS get guns, because there will always be those willing and able to meet the demand on the street, no matter HOW much "harder" you try to make it.
I base my belief on the following evidence:
1. Recreational drugs are extremely difficult or even impossible to get legally, yet with all of the prohibition laws, anyone that wants them can still get them without much trouble. What makes you think with guns it's going to be ANY different?
1. All other countries that have implemented various "strengths" of gun control have seen no consistent or substantial decrease in their firearm-related crime rates. If gun control really works so that only the most determined still get their guns, why is there no substantial decrease in the firearm-related crime rates?
I will admit that there may be a relative few people, particularly what you may classify as "dangerous but mostly law abiding," that if they couldn't get a gun easily, they just wouldn't bother getting one. But how much of our violent crime is that type of person really responsible for?
@Mikeb, It has always been easy for criminals to carry guns, it's easy for them now, and it will be easy for them to carry guns no matter what laws you put in place.
Look at DC, where carrying a gun is absolutely positively prohibited by law unless (IIRC) you're a licensed armed security guard or a cop. How much "harder" can you make it? Unless you're wanting a police state that can search anyone at any time for any reason, you're not going to make it any harder than that, yet people there in DC willing to disobey the law carry guns anyway. Sometimes they get caught. Most of the time they don't.
And the negative side effects of a prohibition like that are that good people who choose to obey the law are unable to carry the most effective means of self defense.
I want "constitutional carry," for open or concealed carry to be allowed by anybody, without a permit, everywhere within this country. If as a society we deem an area too sensitive for firearms, then there needs to be "hardened" security in place - metal detectors, armed guards, and a secure perimeter, otherwise the "gun free zone" isn't worth the vinyl the sign is printed on.
Orygunner says, "It has always been easy for criminals to carry guns, it's easy for them now, and it will be easy for them to carry guns no matter what laws you put in place."
I must insist that you reconsider that statement. With the kinds of gun control laws I propose it would not continue to be "easy." Or, it would not continue to be easy for long. Straw purchasing would be eliminated or nearly so, theft would be diminished with better storage laws, no more "mistaken" transfers to bad guys because of the background check requirements. After a year or two of that kind of regimen, your average crook would be hardpressed to find a gun.
Guess that many states makes it "normal". Breda and others don't need to pretend it is normal then.
ReplyDeleteMe-I do not want a bunch of simpletons carrying concealed weapons around me. I've been around a bit in my life and never felt the need of a weapon to protect myself from danger from animals or simpletons.
ReplyDeleteIf you feel the need for protection in most places it is not against the law to carry a weapon that is visible.
I don't even know these people who think guns is the answer and I don't like them not even a little bit!
And yes I have guns and can probably use them better than the simpletons.
I predict Wisconsin will turn the "Enlightened 37" into the "Enlightened 38" this year. I also suspect that Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona are not long to be alone in enjoying the additional enlightenment of Constitutional carry.
ReplyDeleteThese are gratifying developments.
One Fly, you're going to get a lot of Texans, New Yorkers, New Jerseyains, Floridians and Hoosiers thrown into jail with your bad advice about open carry; and that's just listing the ones I know without resorting to a reference.
ReplyDeleteSo I doubt your firearm expertise in other matters, too.
Knowledge might help with your contempt for your fellowman and fear of him carrying a gun. Or not; maybe you're just an elitist snob.
One fly might be wise to discover that not all animals are fish.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good start.
ReplyDeleteHere in New Hampshire we are going to try to get "constitutional carry" and get rid of the delays and fees for exercising our rights. It's pretty absurd that we need to buy a permission slip that must be granted to put on a jacket over our sidearm.
On Feb 24th at 130 pm there will be a public hearing about this bill, at room 204 of the Legislative Office Building (behind the State House). I'm hoping to go open carrying AND concealed carrying. :)
"What's your opinion?"
ReplyDeleteThe right to keep and bear arms aren't just hollow words on an old piece of paper. More states to follow.
And only 20 more states to go!
ReplyDeleteFor me the real question is this: is having the local police approve of the application for concealed carry useful or not. I say it is. The abuse of power that police sometimes engage in is far outweighed by their direct ability to identify potentially dangerous people and prohibit them from having a license.
ReplyDeleteFWM is confusing majority with normality. They don't always align.
@Mikeb, so you're more concerned with the potentially dangerous people who might choose to carry a firearm legally, than the ACTUALLY dangerous people who routinely break the law and will carry a gun no matter what the law is?
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you have your priorities straight?
...Orygunner...
MikeB: “The abuse of power that police sometimes engage in is far outweighed by their direct ability to identify potentially dangerous people and prohibit them from having a license.”
ReplyDeleteAnd when they can’t identify “potentially dangerous people” they just assume everyone is. It is much easier than having to make a judgment. Show me one may issue state where qualified people are not routinely denied.
First off get your facts straight. The NRA has resisted joining the carry movement until just recently. They wee never at the forefront of this movement.
ReplyDeleteWant to know who really pushed the carry laws?!? The tourism industry of Florida. They started the movement.
Along with legal gun owners who said enough is enough we are not going to be "lambs unto Slaughter" anymore. The rampant violence against tourist in Florida had really dented the bottom line. The only way to make a dent was to give people the right to fight back. Resident and non resident permits gave amounted and tourists the ability to fight back. Criminals are really cowards, they have to chase only the weak and vulnerable because fighting or robbing strong opponents is not how you have a long career.
So in florida the gun rights people suddenly found themselves being offered the logistical and lobby help of the tourism board. With that kind of muscle, the bill passed and exactly what every gun rights advocate was saying happened. Crime went done. Assaults on tourists went down when it was announced that reciprocity would be granted. All of the shootouts at traffic lights, gender benders that were supposed to happen never did and all the good things did happen.
Once there was a precedent, other states houses started to say, "this can work here" and it has. It really wasn't until about mid 2008 when most of the states already had working carry laws that the NRA suddenly woke up and decided to try and join Heller and McDonald. Carry articles were rare and far between in the American Rifleman magazine of the NRA.
Finding it hard to believe that the people of these states pushed and got passed these laws is a testime t of fact winning out over fiction. The fiction of no guns equals no crime was proven daily by millions and millions of people carrying on a daily basis. The fact that legal and law abiding gun owners being safe, under control and wise in their behaviors' is proven daily.
A good Citizen is a good Citizen whether or not he or she carries a gun. A crook is a criminal whether or not he carries a gun, a knife, a rock, or his fists.
P, I really find that Florida-tourism explanation completely implausible. Where in the world did you come up with that one?
ReplyDeleteOrygunner, I don't agree with your idea, "dangerous people who routinely break the law and will carry a gun"
Why do you keep saying they'll ALWAYS get guns. With proper controls only the most determined will. Many who get guns now are not determined, they're path-of-least-resistence guys. It all depends on gun availability.
The abuse of power that police sometimes engage in is far outweighed . . .
ReplyDeleteWell, the victims of that abuse might beg to differ. Care to guess whose side I would take?
. . . by their direct ability to identify potentially dangerous people and prohibit them from having a license.
And is it your contention, then, that these "dangerous people" will obediently not carry, because they don't have a license to do so?
On another note, wanna buy a bridge?
@Mikeb, I'm saying they will ALWAYS get guns, because there will always be those willing and able to meet the demand on the street, no matter HOW much "harder" you try to make it.
ReplyDeleteI base my belief on the following evidence:
1. Recreational drugs are extremely difficult or even impossible to get legally, yet with all of the prohibition laws, anyone that wants them can still get them without much trouble. What makes you think with guns it's going to be ANY different?
1. All other countries that have implemented various "strengths" of gun control have seen no consistent or substantial decrease in their firearm-related crime rates. If gun control really works so that only the most determined still get their guns, why is there no substantial decrease in the firearm-related crime rates?
I will admit that there may be a relative few people, particularly what you may classify as "dangerous but mostly law abiding," that if they couldn't get a gun easily, they just wouldn't bother getting one. But how much of our violent crime is that type of person really responsible for?
...Orygunner...
Zorroy asked, "And is it your contention, then, that these "dangerous people" will obediently not carry, because they don't have a license to do so?"
ReplyDeleteYes, some of them will obediently not carry. Others will be forced to make a decision about whether they want to be criminals or not.
What's your idea, make it easier for them? That's what we do now and it's part of the problem.
@Mikeb, It has always been easy for criminals to carry guns, it's easy for them now, and it will be easy for them to carry guns no matter what laws you put in place.
ReplyDeleteLook at DC, where carrying a gun is absolutely positively prohibited by law unless (IIRC) you're a licensed armed security guard or a cop. How much "harder" can you make it? Unless you're wanting a police state that can search anyone at any time for any reason, you're not going to make it any harder than that, yet people there in DC willing to disobey the law carry guns anyway. Sometimes they get caught. Most of the time they don't.
And the negative side effects of a prohibition like that are that good people who choose to obey the law are unable to carry the most effective means of self defense.
I want "constitutional carry," for open or concealed carry to be allowed by anybody, without a permit, everywhere within this country. If as a society we deem an area too sensitive for firearms, then there needs to be "hardened" security in place - metal detectors, armed guards, and a secure perimeter, otherwise the "gun free zone" isn't worth the vinyl the sign is printed on.
...Orygunner...
Orygunner says, "It has always been easy for criminals to carry guns, it's easy for them now, and it will be easy for them to carry guns no matter what laws you put in place."
ReplyDeleteI must insist that you reconsider that statement. With the kinds of gun control laws I propose it would not continue to be "easy." Or, it would not continue to be easy for long. Straw purchasing would be eliminated or nearly so, theft would be diminished with better storage laws, no more "mistaken" transfers to bad guys because of the background check requirements. After a year or two of that kind of regimen, your average crook would be hardpressed to find a gun.