...If any of you have a kid at college in Texas, you might want to be aware of this.
That could have prevented any of a number of campus shootings. Or at least ended them quickly.
As many have said, gun control laws only disarm the innocent victims. Some even call them "victim disarmament laws".
I would suggest that the "insanity" is allowing a situation where a single gunman can kill dozens of people, simply because no one else is armed and able to bring a crazed gunman down.
Unless you can assure me that "no one" will have access to a firearm, I will hang on to mine TYVM
Thank you. Me, too. I'll keep hold of mine. Although at the moment, it's put away where I couldn't reach it quickly if my house is invaded. Hmm... maybe I should re-think that!
I don't have a concealed-weapons permit, but I've seriously thought about getting one. I do a lot of driving when I get restless. If I get stuck somewhere, I want to be able to seriously defend myself if the "Good Samaritan" turns out to be more akin to Ted Bundy!
Well, I'd start by banning the 30-round clip the nutjob in Arizona used. But I personally see no right in the 2nd Amendment to carry a concealed weapon. The Constitutional right is based on the need for a strong militia (such as the National Guard). So if you want a pistol or an assualt weapon, join the Guard or the Police. Actually, I'm not so rigid as all that because I think people have a right to hunting weapons, so I'd exclude shotguns and bolt-action rifles. But I defy anyone to find a "right" in the Constitution for anyone to carry a pistol, hidden or otherwise --- especially into a classroom. Just wait until a kid angry about a bad grade pumps a few rounds into a college prof. I'd love to hear how the NRA justifies that.
I read somewhere awhile ago about a kid and his grades and the teacher. Sorry, though; I don't remember what the NRA's response was.
I prefer to have a back up plan if there is no cop in sight. Carrying a weapon has already saved by my life and my property on more than one ocassion, so I hope you don't mind if I continue to pay my NRA dues. and even if you do mind.........
I do rely on LE for protection and I've been fortunate in not having been robbed lately. In fact, the only time I've been robbed was a mugging in Manhattan decades ago when two punks jumped me with knives. They were on me so fast I couldn't have drawn a gun if I'd had one -- and they would have taken it, too. By the way, I don't hold out any hope there will be rational gun control in this country so I may at some point get a pistol permit myself. I've got my Dad's old Colt .45 model 1911 stashed with relatives in Fla. and can always get it shipped north. Do I think it's a great idea? No. Is it consistent with my beliefs? No. Do I give a shit? Same answer! LOL!
PS: I was in state law enforcement many years ago and carried a Colt .38 Detective Special, which, thank God, I never had to use. At anything more than 15 feet those things are as useless as a third tit.
You think the NRA would try to justify the shooting of a teacher over bad grades and you think an old Colt model 1911 would make a good or even adequate concealed weapon and you refer to a magazine as a clip?
Hmmmm.
I'm really not sure what you're implying but I was in law enforcement so long ago it almost doesn't count (1970). Where did I say I thought a Colt 1911 wouldmake a good concealed weapon? Go back and read my post. I didn't say that, simply that I might bring it north at some point. All I'd do with it is have it in the house. Getting a carry permit in NY is too big a pain in the ass (getting one allowing you to just keep it in your home is hard enough). My Colt isn't "old," either. My Dad bought it new in the 1980s. As for magazine vs. clip, sheesh, you've really got a bug up your ass. So what if I don't know all the terminology to your satisfaction? What's the point? Where did I set myself up as an expert? All I said was a long time ago I had a Colt .38 Detective Special as my service revolver. Revolver, get it? No clip, no magazine. Geez you really need to more carefully read people's posts before you flame them incorrectly and make yourself look foolish.
Every law enforcement officer I know understands the difference between a clip and a magazine, so I wasn't implying anything. I thought I was being quite obvious.
The discussion you raised as OP was all about concealed carry permits. Pardon me for not realizing you changed the subject.
BTW it was YOU that declared the 1911 to be OLD not me. My reference to it's age had nothing to do with its serviceability, but was only to reinforce its size and suitability to making for a good carry weapon, but you've already cleared that up in a calm, rational and unemotional fashion.
I thought I'd clarified that my days in law enforcement predated the use of clips, at least in the branches of service I was in or had anything to do with. All the beat cops carried revolvers then, too. So there was no reason for me to have any familiarity with clips, magazines or any such terminology. And you're right, I did refer to the Colt 1911 as "old," so that's my bad.
-- Modified on 2/21/2011 7:39:17 PM
JC, careful, you just might be on to something, lol. There are inconsistencies in inicky46's statements, for sure. Such as the .38 was useless at more than 15 feet. USAF crewmembers were issued snub nose .38's years ago, before they were replaced with the Beretta 9mm. We had to qualify every 6 months at the 50 foot range, with .38's that had been in service for a long time. Not qualifying resulted in being grounded until we were successful. We were also issued hollow point bullets, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention. But the point was to prevent an inflight hijacking of a military transport without harming the non-hijackers, and not putting holes in the plane at the same time. Not bragging, but I qualified expert every year, with pistol and rifle.
is so low as to be meaningless.
I still remember qualifying at boot camp back in the 70's, My father was a hundred times tougher on me where it came to firearms, not only as a marksman, but safety and cleaning of a weapon as well, than any of the DI's I had. The only weapon I had any difficulty qualifying on was the M-60 as I was left handed and my unit didn't have a fucking brass deflector, so I quickly learned how to fire the thing right handed. lol
I only go to the range once every several months now and even with my old eyes, I can still put every round of a 17 round clip in the black at 25 yds. FWIW I carry a Glock
Once upon a time I used to carry a Walther PPK, it truly was worthless at anything over 15 feet. You were better off throwing the damn thing at someone. lol
Don't try to make too much of the 15-foot comment, jersey. I was trying to make the point, correct in my opinion, that any snub-nosed revolver has a very limited accurate range. I qualified with mine on a police range at 50', too, with both bullseye targets and silhouettes. Only had to do it once. We always used to say that, beyond ten feet or so, you might as well throw the damn thing at your opponent. If you're Annie Oakley with a .38, that's great. But that doesn't mean it applies to the rest of us.
I do not knowingly put myself in danger, I just wouldn't go there because there is not a damn thing I need in the crime infested places. I choose where I decide to live. There are saner methods called alarm systems.
Used to hunt when I was kid, didn't see any sense in shooting animals for fun so gave it up. No like to go hunt get meat on the table.
This circular argument, criminals have guns so everyone should have guns to protect themselves. Criminals get more guns and people get more guns and the circle becomes larger and large. If there are common sense gun laws, wouldn't both have less guns? I can hear the argument, criminals will get illegal weapons so civilian should have it also.
I don't have guns, don't want them because guns gives you false sense of security, really.
when I scattered a gang of a half a dozen thugs who were intent on seperating me from my property and perhaps my life a few years ago.
I can still hear them now, "that crazy fucking budda head has a fucking gun, mother fucker's crazy, let's get the fuck out of here" Nope, nothing false about the sense of security I felt watching those punks scatter.
Suppose you think you are such good marks men, you could have shot them all before the shot you, John Wayne.
but they had all sorts of courage until they realized I was armed, after that their courage sort of melted away. lmao
I have no doubts that if I were not armed, at the very least I would have been robbed and beaten to a pulp.
This will come as a shock to law enforcement and military personnel. What WERE they thinking?
If you don't know the difference between military, law enforcement and civilian, no point in carrying on the discussion.
Do we all of a sudden become less capable of handling our firearms once we go back to becoming private citizens?
Speaking as an ex LE, my experience with a handgun was so long ago ('68-'70), and so limited, I don't think it qualifies me for anything in terms of getting licensed now. Hmmm I wonder if listing it on a permit application would help in the approval process?
My military experience wasn't much more recent (76-78), but I have always been around firearms, both handguns and the longer variety. There is nothing mysterious about them to me. They are simply tools to be used, and just like a chainsaw, you need to be respectful of their potential to do damage, even to the wielder of said tool.
They toe tag you and fill out the paperwork after the fact. Any cop will tell you that is the majority of their work. It is rare they can protect you. If it happens at all, its usually a coincidence or luck that they are there when you need them.
I have a kid nearing college age, so this is good news. This and Texas express line through death row for capital cases is very encouraging to parents who might have kids attending school in that State.
My gun saved my life too once. And I didn't even have to discharge it. I have never belonged to the NRA, but I am considering it.
Whether or not your victim is a criminal or not.
the Constitution.
Hence, while you are literally correct when you say “I personally see no right in the 2nd Amendment to carry a concealed weapon,” that is irrelevant to the right to carry question.
That right preexisted the Constitution and the Second Amendment provides that this pre-existing right “shall not be infringed.”
Nor is the right limited to the need to maintain a strong militia. Rather, the right to carry is an individual right that exists for the purpose of confrontation. All of this is set forth in the most recent Supreme Court cases.
For these reasons, a state law that permits carry on campus will be constitutional in light of the Court’s surprising decision that the Second Amendment applies to the states. In fact, a state law that prohibited carry on campus would more likely run afoul of the Second Amendment and will more likely be tested by the insane gun rights crowd.
"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed. . . ."[fn16]"
[from the Heller decision]
-- Modified on 2/21/2011 3:24:07 PM
Good clarification. Good post. I stand corrected. I really had no idea the 2nd Amendment applied to a pre-existing right, sad to say. Well...gotta go apply for my permit!
I rather like that there are 30 round clips available. It helps if you have to deal with a home invasion (whatever happened to the word "robber"?) with many people are involved.
There isn't a right in the 2nd amendment per se to carry concealed. But there is that right inherently in the 9th amendment.
Jefferson and Madison envisioned that we'd have a country much like Israel today or Switzerland. Everyone is a member of the militia (national guard). I think it would be a good idea to implement that idea along with Madison's idea to ban standing armies during times of peace.
I have several guns, and I don't hunt (as vegetarians are prone to doing).
"But I defy anyone to find a "right" in the Constitution for anyone to carry a pistol, hidden or otherwise"
The Constitution does not grant rights. It protects you against government taking rights away.
Crazy people do crazy shit all the time. You can't really stop that. You might as well protect yourself.
Hmmm, WW, a pistol-packing' leftie! What a concept! As I said, I'm open to it, despite my discomfort with the idea. I guess at a certain point, principles get trumped by self-protection.
but I live in the real world, and in the real world "shit happens" and rather than become a victim, I prefer to be prepared.
Knives and machete's are used.
http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html
The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 4, 1999 Stephen P. Halbrook
In Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there.
By car or train, you see shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye. (Try this in the U.S., and a SWAT Team might do you in.)
Shooting is the national sport, and the backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be.
According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.
Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.
The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."
In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.
While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home. In addition, gun shops abound. Yet firearms are rarely used in crime.
Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of guns. The prevalence of firearms in the home and the participation of youth in shooting matches bind youth to adults and discourages a generation gap.
By contrast, homicide rates are highest in the underdeveloped countries, many of which ban private firearm possession. In some, private murder does not compare to the genocidal murder committed by governments against their unarmed subjects.
In America, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and violent movies. But in Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting festival brings out the entire family. Beside the range is a huge tent where scores or hundreds of people are eating, drinking, and socializing. With cantonal and rifle club banners fluttering in the wind, the melody of rifle fire blends with Alpine music and cow bells.
Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow not only to shoot the apple from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."
This coincidence has not escaped the notice of those who oppose liberty.
Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by commoners. Subjects must be disarmed to prevent democratic sedition, he said. The Swiss proved, Bodin wrongly averred, that arms bearing was "the cause of an infinite number of murders."
The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europe's despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists.
John Adams praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on laws and to bear arms. Patrick Henry, another American Founding Father, lauded the Swiss for maintaining their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.
The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.
However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the
Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.
There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.
For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify.
European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.
By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that civilian firearm possession may prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, or many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?
Traditionally, the Swiss Cantons had few firearm regulations. The first federal firearms law was recently enacted. Certain firearm purchases require a permit, and others do not. On retirement, every soldier may keep his rifle or pistol. Surplus assault rifles may be purchased by any Swiss citizen from the Military Department.
The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not"
Updated since the Schengen Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
...The only thing I'd point out is that the Swiss example has no bearing on the handgun question. Also, given that most of the guns in this country are shotguns and bolt-action rifles, I doubt they'd dissuade any invader. Not that anyone is going to attack the US by landing on our beaches anyway. None of this invalidates your points. The most interesting conclusion from your post is the societal differences that result in the heavily-armed Swiss not resorting to gun violence.
The demographics, size and many other factors influence peoples behavior. Switzerland is a peace loving country for very very long time and the people inherit that trait. How responsible is the society, you are comparing of a me first, and win at any cost society, ego driven society to Switzerland. Believe the results will be different.
and allowing them carry it everywhere they is the solution for reducing gun violence. Suppose, vigilante justice is OK in Texas. What in the hell is wrong with Texas politicians, besides being brian dead.
Suppose guns will be allowed in frat parties, foot ball prep rallies and such.
This is an easy one. We wait a year and see if more people were shot at the school where they carry or in Chicago where they can't have guns.
Its no coincidence that the most corrupt city in the US also banned guns for years. The two go together — corruption and a population of sitting ducks.
obviously, the whole state of Texas has different crime rates than Chicago. Guns probably aren't even a major factor. I will say that I wouldn't go to Chicago without a gun concealed on my person, lol.
Texas may have rather liberal (probably the wrong word lol) gun laws, but they take firearms in establishments that serve alcohol very seriously. Most every bar has a prominent sign stating that carrying a firearm where alcohol is served carries a five year minimum sentence.
and as much as I ridiculed you for your "lock up all the guns and ammo" remark the other day, I have to confess, the Texas statutes make a lot of sense.
It's reasonable for a private establishment to say you can't bring in a loaded weapon. I may disagree with it in principle, but I certainly think that's fair, especially if they serve alcohol. I think the more ideal thing to do would be to check your gun, and have the staff mark you off for no alcohol, but that might just be too much of a hassle for the establishment.
Of course, I think it's kinda stupid for people to drink in bars anyway. Why drive someplace to get drunk, if being drunk means you can't get behind the wheel again? When I was a cab driver many a moon ago I used to wait in front of bars after last call. Usually, I'd sit there chatting up a cop who was waiting for his own customer. It was amusing to see all the people who didn't give me business soon find themselves in the back of a police car.
It was a false dichotomy. (Spelling off, but I make more typos than anyone I know, so I won't hold that against you.)
But on the merits, you are right.
In all fairness, I was being tongue-in-cheek, but in humor there is often enough of a grain of truth.
I would say there are parts of Chicago that I would prefer to have a gun more than in Texas, but we all decide what we want to be afraid of.
Thanks for the spell check, actually. I'm a horrible speller (always have been). I wish TER would at least enable an auto spell check so we know what we're misspelling from the get-go.
I think the likelihood is that poverty plays a heavier role in crime rates. With fewer people with jobs, robberies and theft goes up. Drugs become more sought out as a income source.
Regardless, my prefference would be to have something concealed on me in either Texas or Chicago.
I hate to continue the history of not agreeing, but there is no way on this earth that you are a worse speller than me. When I type, I automatically do not use certain words that I always screw up no matter how many times I check it. Are there 2 "M"s or 2 "R"s in the day that will come after "today?"
I think poverty plays some role in crime but I attribute a much smaller role than you do. Otherwise, the scum like Maddoff would not be criminals, and there would be more crime in India. Likewise, the types of crimes I deal with are not "property" offenses, but should I rape the girl next door.
That said, even there (I just typed, "even their") our disagreement really is one of degree, not kind.
I think the likelihood is that poverty plays a heavier role in crime rates. With fewer people with jobs, robberies and theft goes up. Drugs become more sought out as a income source.
Regardless, my prefference would be to have something concealed on me in either Texas or Chicago.
Attention, Priapus and Gambler. Two posters ask for spell check!
Breaking News !!!!!
AP reports Satan practicing his slap shot in Hell !
1) "Typos are very important to all written form. It gives the reader something to look for so they aren't distracted by the total lack of content in your writing." Randy K. Milholland,
2) "You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count.”
Winnie the Pooh , The House at Pooh Corner
3) "My opponents say I don't know how to spell "bird," and that I spell it "B U R D." Well, if B U R D doesn't spell "bird," what does it spell." (I think that is W.R. Hearst's father, but I am not sure.)
My fav is No. !.
Breaking News !!!!!
AP reports Satan practicing his slap shot in Hell !
Not many. When folks do get shot its a big ole press fiesta. All of the anti gun busybodies put down their Psychology Today magazines and commence to shouting into the wind. If you are afraid of getting shot you should get yourself some body armor. Get some for your kids too. I got some in case the shit hits the fan. I am also armed to the teeth in case I need to put a stop to the shit hitting the fan. Did I hear someone mention Chicago? Well I live there and everyone I know that lives here is well armed. Lots of folks get shot around here and its mostly due to gang wars in the hood. Those gangstas must be well trained because they have perfected the "drive by shooting"! They can kill everyone on a street corner from a moving vehicle and still have a round left to pick off a 5 year old kid. The cops around here shoot people by accident. That happens mostly in the hood too.