Two dozen men with guns entered an Oklahoma City diner promptly at midnight on Wednesday, intent on inaugurating a pernicious new law allowing the state’s 142,000 citizens with concealed-handgun licenses to begin wearing their loaded weapons publicly. “I just feel more secure and safe,” Joe Wood, an aircraft mechanic, told The Oklahoman newspaper, his Taurus PT145 pistol ready for action against any sudden attack by the eggs and burgers.Poor reporting on the mental health records makes the claim that concealed carry permit holders are safe and responsible a lie. The same kind of poor reporting happens when they do wrong. No one is keeping track of how many of them actually commit crimes.
Other Oklahomans’ sense of security and safety was not on the midnight menu, though law enforcement officials made their objections clear when “open carry” was signed into law in May by Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican. A previous version was vetoed in 2010 by Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, over such questions as how to sort out licit gun wielders from perpetrators at a crime scene.Statehouse proponents, ever obeisant to the gun lobby, contend that anyone with a handgun license has to pass a strict state check of criminal and mental health records. The dangerous loophole here is that Oklahoma is grossly delinquent in such oversight, submitting fewer than four cases last year to the federal mental health watch list.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
This was a Times editorial, not a piece of reporting. It doesn't surprise me that you can't see the grotesque bias in the words.
ReplyDeleteOf course I saw the bias. Did you think I was pawning it off as objective reporting just because I said "The NYT reports."
DeleteWell, yes we do think you would pawn something like that off as objective reporting. Deception is par for the course around here.
DeleteA previous version was vetoed in 2010 by Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat,
ReplyDeleteand how did the voters feel about that?
“open carry” was signed into law in May by Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican.
LULZ
Gun owners are invariably paranoid losers with sexual difficulties.
ReplyDeleteWill they allow open carry in the galleries of the legislature?
People who are scared of gun owners are generally effeminate losers with gender issues...there, fixed that for you.
DeleteThat's the old "I'm rubber and you are glue". Not only are you a loser with erectile difficulties, you use 4th grade arguments. Pathetic.
DeleteFor you, loser, I pray the prayer of St Gunsel: You love guns. May your friends, loved ones and family be present at the next massacre. Those that live by the gun will die by the gun.
Anonymous, when you operate on a schoolyard level, you can't be surprised when it comes back at you. You toss out flacid insults and then get snippy when you're challenged. Of course, you can't provide any evidence to support your "assertions," so I'll take them for what they're worth.
DeleteNice anonymous. You must be a Christian if you want to pray for me. Truth be told, we all, including you, could use all the prayers we can get. I'll say a prayer for you too.
DeleteThe patron saint of gun owners is St. Gabriel Possenti.
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/03/st-gabriel-possenti-patron-saint-of.html
Thomas Szasz's Summary Statement and Manifesto
ReplyDelete"Myth of mental illness." Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word "disease" denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term "mental illness" refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish. As the whale is not a fish, mental illness is not a disease. Individuals with brain diseases (bad brains) or kidney diseases (bad kidneys) are literally sick. Individuals with mental diseases (bad behaviors), like societies with economic diseases (bad fiscal policies), are metaphorically sick. The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment.
http://www.szasz.com/manifesto.html
orlin sellers
While this is obviously a biased article, albeit a funny one, it has a good point; why in the world does any sane man, woman, or child need to be lugging around a handgun? For protection? Chances are you'd end up shooting the wrong person. Plus, the feeling of invincibility from carrying around a loaded firearm means that you are more likely to get into a position where you'd get yourself or someone else shot. Anyone ever hear the phrase "leave it to the professionals?"
ReplyDeleteAlan: "Chances are you'd end up shooting the wrong person."
DeleteSo you say. Care to show us? Add up the total of people shot who were intended to be shot vs. those who were the "wrong person". It is fair to leave off criminal uses. Show us how the wrong people were more than the right people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 . Chances are if you use a firearm, the bullet will hyper-penetrate (the bullet will pass through the intended target and continue onwards). If you use it in even a moderately crowded area, do you really want to risk the bullet hitting an innocent?
DeleteWow. I carry a handgun every day and I certainly do NOT feel invincible ... quite the contrary. I carry a handgun so I have some chance to defend myself if I ever face a really ugly situation.
DeleteAs for "you'd end up shooting the wrong person", that does not match the facts. If there was any question whatsoever that armed citizens were shooting the wrong people, the mainstream media would be all over it. (Think Trayvon Martin.)
The reality is that citizens accidentally shoot a couple thousand people a year of which about 600 are fatal. Those events include accidents while hunting, target shooting, cleaning, improper handling, and self defense. Rest assured that citizens successfully defend themselves with their firearms a lot more than 2000 times a year.
You claim that my data does not support my facts. I gave you my facts, my support. Where are yours? You might be able to use a handgun/firearm responsibly, but not everyone can: do you really want a drunk to carry around a loaded firearm? And more to the point, why would you need to carry a handgun around? Why is the government's protection not good enough for you?
DeleteAlan, you cite the Kellerman study, but are you aware that it was based on analysis of two limited areas in a pair of cities? It certainly was not a valid study of all gun owners.
DeleteBeyond that, carrying while under the influence is illegal everywhere that I know of, just like driving in the same condition. Hollow point bullets are designed to prevent overpenetration. Police response time to a 911 call is minutes, but criminals can get their crimes done in much less time.
Does that answer your questions?
Alan Cordette:
Delete" Anyone ever hear the phrase 'leave it to the professionals?' "
Professionals (State actors) are the only members of society endowed with a "right" to "keep and bear" "arms". The most fundamental purpose of Government is to guarantee the lives and safety of its subjects against infringement by mere individuals or non-government agents. To fulfill this obligation, the government must enforce the people's right to civilian disarmament.
It does not matter whether mere citizens bears arms outside or inside the boundaries of one's domicile, as rejection of a "right to carry" implies that civilians are endowed with a "right" (peasants -such as yourselves- have no rights in a civilized society, as implicit in the formation of government is the forfeiture of all rights to the collective, which where previously held by individual entities) to possess firearms inside the home, a concept which was excluded by the Constitution endowing the collective Militia with such a right.
Alan, your Kellermann cite does not support what you said- that “Chances are you'd end up shooting the wrong person." His study includes all criminal uses, and suicides which completely overwhelm any ultra-rare case of self-defense gone wrong.
DeleteAnd if you are so concerned about over penetration, are you advocating disarming the police?
Police, unlike the mere peasant (you) have a legitimate purpose in possessing weapons.
DeleteAlan, note where your position leads. Carry your notion to its conclusion, and you end up with E.N.'s belief that we "mere peasants" have no individual rights. He's not just talking about guns. He means speech, religion, private property, security from unwarranted searches and seizures--everything.
DeleteThat's where gun control leads. Many of its advocates are too squeamish to say that aloud, but everything you need to know is expressed in the idea that we're "mere peasants." Chew on that before you support controlling the rights of citizens.
I know you'll all be shocked to know, but I agree with Alan. Thanks, Alan, so some common sense. It's sometimes a rare commodity around here.
DeleteIn other words, you don't mind what E.N. says, but you don't want to admit to it in public.
DeleteGreg, you are the ideological leper here, not me.
Delete(Not intended to offend anyone with Leprosy)
E.N., have you noticed that the majority of commentors here side with me? Nevertheless, reason isn't subject to majority vote, so let's consider the comments made on your side. Laci bullies; Dog Gone sneers; Democommie curses, an Anonymous prays for our deaths, and you sound like a hard-line Soviet propagandist from the 1950s. I'll put my position up against that any day.
DeleteI wouldn't advocate disarming the police, they are trained individuals funded by the state. What's your alternative- anarchy? A minimalist state where people are at the mercy of the man with the biggest gun or the fastest hand, because there's no sane way to crack down on the skilled malcontent, where people solve problems with violence because it's the easiest way? There's a reason that that went out of style, even in the old west- it's no way to live in a society.
DeleteAnd as much as I hate agreeing with the E.N., he raises a valid point; people advocating widespread open-carry are the political minority, because last time I checked we live in a democracy- and I have yet to see people carry handguns around on their hips, and I live way out in the boondocks, a place that lives, eats, and shits Republican. Q.E.D., most people don't want open carry. And I believe in fighting/arguing fair, and wouldn't stoop to 'democommie curses, prays for our death, and Soviet propaganda'.
DeleteLike those NYPD cops who ended up shooting almost a dozen bystanders a while back? We don't have open carry in my "red" state, but the "blue" state next door does have open carry and I've seen several people carrying. So red and blue don't make any difference as far as the second amendment.
DeleteAlan, E.N. isn't talking about open carry. He doesn't want any private citizen to own any gun, period. To me, open carry is best left to the countryside, but I don't take sides one way or the other on that particular question.
DeleteUnfortunately, insanity never stopped someone from being right, it just makes it highly unlikely. So while I understand that E.N. lies somewhere between batshit crazy and illegitimately scary in his reasoning, I find myself hesitantly agreeing with him on occasion. I just can not see a legitimate reason to carry a loaded handgun around, especially not for defense in a open carry situation; once everybody has a gun, you're back on an even footing with the criminals. What's next; carrying around submachine guns because criminals now carry handguns with impunity?
DeleteAlan, without lots of paperwork and money, I can't legally own a submachine gun. Submachine guns are also not a good choice, since they're designed for spraying, rather than aiming.
DeleteI carry a concealed handgun for my own protection, and I practice--safely, despite what some here will claim. You don't see a legitimate reason for me to carry, but the law allows me to do so. I exercise my rights in a legal and responsible manner. If you choose not to exercise those rights, that's your choice, but don't try to take away my choice.
"A previous version [of an open carry law] was vetoed in 2010 by Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, over such questions as how to sort out licit gun wielders from perpetrators at a crime scene."
ReplyDeleteA citizen's rights do not stop because of some government objective ... such as investigating a crime scene. And it is not relevant if a person's rights make a government objective more difficult. For example a law enforcement officer's job is more difficult when they have to get a search warrant before searching someone's home. So be it. A citizen has a right to be secure in their person and possessions. Government activity doesn't suspend that right and government activity doesn't suspend a person's right to be armed and able to defend themselves and their families.