Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism

Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism (Page 34)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2014, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I need to clarify. I'm not talking about mass killings, I'm talking about gun deaths.
I didn't realize we had changed subjects.

Likewise, you keep coming back to crime rates in anti-gun cities. It seems slap you in the face obvious to me the problem there is one where I can walk three feet out of the city limits and buy all the guns I want.
So what does that tell us? That we should make the place with lower crime rates (where you can buy guns) more like the place with higher crime rates? That's logical. How come the people where it's easier to buy guns don't have the same problems?

Also, you cannot do that if you have a criminal record. Most gun violence occurs with guns that are already illegal. If you close down the gun stores they'll just come through Mexico.

This failing as a system has nothing to do with guns, it's because it's a shitty system which will never work.

You can't buy spray paint in Chicago. Does that stop graffiti? No. What do I do when I need spray paint, which I often do? I go to Evanston, which is the first town north of the Chicago city limits.
What are you trying to say? I have to say I'm more confused now than ever about what you're trying to get at as far as how we prevent people from getting shot up.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2014, 09:35 PM
 
I didn't change subjects. It wasn't until now I realized you thought I was talking solely about mass killings.

I previously pointed out how first world countries where guns are highly restricted have almost infinitesimal rates of gun death. How would such a system not have the same* effect with us?


*Or, not the same. Affected like another first world country is more than an order of magnitude. I'm not claiming that level of change. All I'm saying is less than we have now.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2014, 03:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I previously pointed out how first world countries where guns are highly restricted have almost infinitesimal rates of gun death. How would such a system not have the same* effect with us?
We have 1000x more guns, legal and illegal. The guns used in most shooting deaths aren't legally procured*. Restricting gun sales won't keep criminals from getting as many firearms as they want, it's shockingly easy, it'll only keep honest people from being able to buy them. Frankly, I believe we'd possibly have more deaths, due to how many illegal guns are in this country. In some places it would become open season for home invasions, since crooks wouldn't have to worry about a homeowner possibly shooting them.


*We talk about mass shootings and deaths in suburbia, but most killings are in inner city areas that the national media doesn't bother to report. 3 people are gunned down at a community center and the nation is obsessed for days, 6 gangbangers get sent to the morgue and it gets a 30 second blurb on the local news.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2014, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I didn't change subjects. It wasn't until now I realized you thought I was talking solely about mass killings.
No worries. That's another issue i have with the term "people getting shot up".

I previously pointed out how first world countries where guns are highly restricted have almost infinitesimal rates of gun death. How would such a system not have the same* effect with us?
Why is our military stronger? Why are we fatter? Why do we have more auto deaths? Why do we speak different languages? Why are our governments so different? Why are Americans so much more wealthy?

These factors don't exist in a vacuum. I'm not saying guns are the reason for any of these things I just mentioned. I'm trying to say that if it were that easy to affect such massive change through simple legislation don't you think these other, smaller countries would do so in the areas I just mentioned?

It isn't as easy or as straightforward as you make it sound (gun deaths do not occur in a vacuum), and you're still neglecting to account for the correlation between gun sales and dropping crime rates.



*Or, not the same. Affected like another first world country is more than an order of magnitude. I'm not claiming that level of change. All I'm saying is less than we have now.
How do you propose we rid our country of all the illegal guns that are used in the vast majority of crime? Laws won't work, since most of these guns are already illegal.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2014, 02:46 PM
 
subego has exactly the right point: the "gun control" system is so seriously broken that it is worse than useless, especially in places like Chicago. What is needed is a system that restricts people who are not stable enough, not trained, not responsible enough, and not reliable enough to be trusted to not misuse firearms. The "21 or over" age limit doesn't address any of that, though it was initially expected to cover all but the training point. What sort of "least restrictive" qualifications would be appropriate? Keep in mind that EVERY time a state or local government has placed restrictions on firearm ownership, even those that should have been pretty much completely neutral, those restrictions were used to block access to certain groups or individuals for purely political reasons, thus the "least restrictive" point. What's the shortest list we can come up with?

Now for a not-really-pedantic part. Guns don't die, so what exactly are "gun deaths"? How about "deaths caused by people using guns"? Because guns also don't up and kill people by themselves any more than cars or kitchen knives do. This isn't a semantic quibble, it's about focusing on the real problem, which is people using X inappropriately, whether X is hatchets, pry bars, or matches.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2014, 11:43 PM
 
Sorry I dropped off here for a bit.

Why is the mechanism of reduction relevant to the conclusion at some point less guns brings you less deaths by guns?

Let's take something ridiculous. A proposal to sink all land beneath the ocean.

Close to impossible. Unquestionably impractical.

That doesn't falsify the claim enacting said proposal would result in an increase of drowning deaths.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2014, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sorry I dropped off here for a bit.

Why is the mechanism of reduction relevant to the conclusion at some point less guns brings you less deaths by guns?

Let's take something ridiculous. A proposal to sink all land beneath the ocean.

Close to impossible. Unquestionably impractical.

That doesn't falsify the claim enacting said proposal would result in an increase of drowning deaths.
Well sure man. On paper, you're right.

What I'm trying to say is that the application of your theory absolutely fails in the real world. I get the logic; what I'm trying to say is that the reasoning is narrow-minded and does not account for any sociological factors at play. I feel like you have not addressed these "reality based" inputs with your assessment, and are simply stating how a policy change "ought to" change things.

Does that follow?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2014, 11:28 AM
 
The suggestion that "less guns equals less deaths" is actually counter to the historical record. Over the past several decades, per capita gun-related deaths have actually declined. See this Bureau of Justice Statistics publication from November 2011 for the numbers, particularly the rates of deaths.

It is obviously more complex than simply "less guns equals less deaths." I think "better management of mental health" and "better social training" (as in frustration tolerance, anger management, etc.) would be more effective than simply trying to enforce some legal ban. Over the last 15 years (this is limited by my brief attempts to research national numbers) it appears that social orientation and effective parenting have substantially declined throughout the US. That means that the current generation of "parents" has little in the way of effective parenting skills because their parents weren't effective in parenting, and the trend appears to go much farther back and often dependent on socioeconomic status.

I did my final paper in graduate school on a localized example of this in rural South Texas; in working with a community project to reduce childhood obesity (and planning to do the paper on educating parents on how to manage their kids' diets), I found that because of the low economic status of most people in that community, with one generation having both parents working (and not being present to parent) transitioning to another with economic supports that deemphasized parental responsibility, to finally an essentially economically dependent generation that had almost no parenting themselves - which led to a complete lack of skills in managing children's upbringing. Not surprisingly, the kids with the least effective parents also had the highest rates of obesity, and typically had the highest rates of disciplinary issues in school. It's not hard to translate that to those kids' adulthood status and to predict that many of them would have legal problems.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2014, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The suggestion that "less guns equals less deaths" is actually counter to the historical record. Over the past several decades, per capita gun-related deaths have actually declined. See this Bureau of Justice Statistics publication from November 2011 for the numbers, particularly the rates of deaths.

It is obviously more complex than simply "less guns equals less deaths." I think "better management of mental health" and "better social training" (as in frustration tolerance, anger management, etc.) would be more effective than simply trying to enforce some legal ban. Over the last 15 years (this is limited by my brief attempts to research national numbers) it appears that social orientation and effective parenting have substantially declined throughout the US. That means that the current generation of "parents" has little in the way of effective parenting skills because their parents weren't effective in parenting, and the trend appears to go much farther back and often dependent on socioeconomic status.

I did my final paper in graduate school on a localized example of this in rural South Texas; in working with a community project to reduce childhood obesity (and planning to do the paper on educating parents on how to manage their kids' diets), I found that because of the low economic status of most people in that community, with one generation having both parents working (and not being present to parent) transitioning to another with economic supports that deemphasized parental responsibility, to finally an essentially economically dependent generation that had almost no parenting themselves - which led to a complete lack of skills in managing children's upbringing. Not surprisingly, the kids with the least effective parents also had the highest rates of obesity, and typically had the highest rates of disciplinary issues in school. It's not hard to translate that to those kids' adulthood status and to predict that many of them would have legal problems.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2014, 03:22 PM
 
Recently we were at a birthday party for a neighbor's 3 y/o and there must have been 12-15 kids of similar age running around, screaming and destroying the place, it was complete chaos with no apparent parental supervision. My little girl stayed close to us, often staring at the other kids like they were from another planet. It was hilarious, every once in a while she'd look at me like, "What's wrong with them?"
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2014, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Well sure man. On paper, you're right.

What I'm trying to say is that the application of your theory absolutely fails in the real world. I get the logic; what I'm trying to say is that the reasoning is narrow-minded and does not account for any sociological factors at play. I feel like you have not addressed these "reality based" inputs with your assessment, and are simply stating how a policy change "ought to" change things.

Does that follow?
Absolutely.

For better or worse (I think better) the right to bear arms has vastly stronger support here than anywhere else. People against the RTBA would call that "gun culture", I'd call it "legislative policy drawn directly from the Constitution". Either way, the result are attitudes which are resistant to change.

I guess the only plea I'm making is for the response to the number of guns correlating to deaths to be "yes, but [good argument]".

I feel that argument isn't as good when it follows "no, because".

This is because the correlative premise isn't faulty, therefore it's a "yes, but". Likewise, your points aren't about the correlative premise, they're about how achieving the situation where we can test the correlative premise is difficult to impossible.

That's a good reason for why we shouldn't try it, but it's not an argument which serves to falsify the premise.

Does that make some sort of sense?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2014, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Recently we were at a birthday party for a neighbor's 3 y/o and there must have been 12-15 kids of similar age running around, screaming and destroying the place, it was complete chaos with no apparent parental supervision. My little girl stayed close to us, often staring at the other kids like they were from another planet. It was hilarious, every once in a while she'd look at me like, "What's wrong with them?"
Parenting is about setting examples, setting and enforcing limits, and providing guidance. Children, by nature, push boundaries. This is a part of their cognitive and emotional development, a form of exploration. They NEED someone to show them where their limits are, sometimes firmly. A child without enforced limits becomes untrusting, while one without consistent or at least structured consequences, becomes confused and lacks trust in consistency of the results of actions.

In contrast, children with well structured, firmly enforced and consistent set of boundaries (they don't have to be very restrictive, just consistent) will develop a sense that their caregivers care about them, that their actions have consequences, and that consistent performance leads to consistent results.

These are all important stages in the child's development. The lack of success in these stages points to parents who do not themselves have a sense of consistent outcomes.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2014, 05:10 PM
 
I thought this might interest you, OAW

     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2014, 05:18 PM
 
That sets off some major bullshit sensors, and I support SYG.

I'm not saying the data is wrong, but the correlation is questionable.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2014, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Absolutely.

For better or worse (I think better) the right to bear arms has vastly stronger support here than anywhere else. People against the RTBA would call that "gun culture", I'd call it "legislative policy drawn directly from the Constitution". Either way, the result are attitudes which are resistant to change.
And I'd call it common sense . But you're right.

I guess the only plea I'm making is for the response to the number of guns correlating to deaths to be "yes, but [good argument]".

I feel that argument isn't as good when it follows "no, because".

This is because the correlative premise isn't faulty, therefore it's a "yes, but". Likewise, your points aren't about the correlative premise, they're about how achieving the situation where we can test the correlative premise is difficult to impossible.

That's a good reason for why we shouldn't try it, but it's not an argument which serves to falsify the premise.


Does that make some sort of sense?
I absolutely see where you're coming from, Subego. I have to be honest though, it seems that you're issue is how we choose to present our pro-2A arguments to those that find guns yucky by accepting a dubious premise into the foundation of that argument in the name of making it accessible to those that believe in that dubious premise. I don't think this is the right way to gain supporters, as your support is now as dubious as the premise you used to garner it.


I think your folly is that because the premise cannot be disproved and it follows what many consider to be "basic logic", we must accept it as true. I find this to be a disturbingly bad way in which to present an argument, especially considering real world evidence to the contrary. There are either (most definitely in this case) inputs that we are not considering, and/or the relationship between inputs and outputs behave in a way that doesn't fit our simplified view of how things ought to be.

I'm saying the premise can't be proven either way, and there is evidence that could support either premise as true. Therefore, the premise is not to be taken as true, and we must look for other, more solid criteria to base our arguments off of.

"Ought" isn't enough. Not even close.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2014, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I thought this might interest you, OAW

As Subego noted ... correlation is not necessarily causation. For all we know that steep drop could be the result of a plunge in accidental shootings or suicides. All of which are considered "gun deaths" because that's an aggregate figure that doesn't factor in the circumstances involved. For example ... self defense.

OAW
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2014, 06:42 PM
 
It's also important to separate "press coverage volume" from "rate of events." Just because the 24 hour news cycle reports more events does not even correlate to the rate of those events. News is about advertising today, NOT about informing the public. As long as the data that chart is based on is available for review, I'd doubt it a lot less than any of the national news talking heads.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2014, 07:11 PM
 
^^^^

This.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2014, 09:24 PM
 
Nevermind
( Last edited by Snow-i; Apr 22, 2014 at 09:58 PM. Reason: Too derailly.)
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2014, 08:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That sets off some major bullshit sensors, and I support SYG.

I'm not saying the data is wrong, but the correlation is questionable.
Well... for starters, they've employed what I could only refer to as an extremely unorthodox usage of axis data in a simple line chart. The Y axis values decline moving up the chart so what appears to be a precipitous drop is actually not a drop, but a spike.

That said, there is still an overall decline in gun deaths of 17% "from the 90's" and upon further digging, the overall violent crime rate (total # of violent crimes adjusted for population) in Florida has dropped 32% from 2000 to 2010, 23% of which occurred from 2005 when SYG was passed. It should also be noted however that violent crime rates have dropped nationally, substantially and while Florida is showing significant progress -- they are not keeping apace with national trends.

ebuddy's "for what it's worth" conclusion: the data isn't really telling us that SYG has had a profound impact on gun deaths or violent crime rates and it's not really telling us it hasn't.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2014, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That sets off some major bullshit sensors, and I support SYG.

I'm not saying the data is wrong, but the correlation is questionable.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
As Subego noted ... correlation is not necessarily causation. For all we know that steep drop could be the result of a plunge in accidental shootings or suicides. All of which are considered "gun deaths" because that's an aggregate figure that doesn't factor in the circumstances involved. For example ... self defense.

OAW
I must confess, I'm messing with you guys just to see if you'd pick up on the error.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well... for starters, they've employed what I could only refer to as an extremely unorthodox usage of axis data in a simple line chart. The Y axis values decline moving up the chart so what appears to be a precipitous drop is actually not a drop, but a spike.
ebuddy wins. The chart makes a little more sense if you look at it like this:

     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2014, 02:36 PM
 
^^^^

Just goes to show how when you are used to seeing something a certain way you can gloss over the details. Normally the Y axis increases as you move up vertically. So I didn't even NOTICE that it was reversed when I looked at the graph. I was just looking at the relative movement in the context of how such graphs are normally presented. You got me!

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2014, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^^

Just goes to show how when you are used to seeing something a certain way you can gloss over the details. Normally the Y axis increases as you move up vertically. So I didn't even NOTICE that it was reversed when I looked at the graph. I was just looking at the relative movement in the context of how such graphs are normally presented. You got me!

OAW
Yes, it's a complete foul-up on the chart maker's part. Supposedly it wasn't an intentional misdirection but was instead inspired by some other chart I don't have handy ATM (FWIW, the colored part is on the actual info, up top)
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2014, 06:02 PM
 
Sometimes you just have to call it like you see it. The gun nut lobby has totally co-opted prudent governance in parts of the South.

What Georgia's 'Extreme' New Gun Law Allows - NBC News

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed a new gun law Wednesday that greatly expands the number of public places where licensed owners are allowed to carry their weapons. Critics have called the law “extreme,” while the National Rifle Association lauded it as an “historic victory for the Second Amendment. What does the Safe Carry Protection Act really do? Here’s a brief list of the major changes ahead for Georgians when the law takes effect July 1:

1) Bars

Before the new law, gun owners were not allowed to bring their firearms into bars unless the bar owner specifically allowed it. But under the Safe Carry Protection Act, the emphasis is reversed. A patron can bring guns into bars unless the owner tells him or her to leave.
Bars? BARS???!!!! Only a gun nut would advocate mixing alcohol and firearms in this manner. And just how is the bar owner supposed to tell a guy to leave if he has a concealed weapon?

2) Churches

Church leaders will now be able to decide whether to allow their congregations to bring guns into their buildings. Right now, bringing guns into houses of worship is illegal. Under the Safe Carry Protection Act, if a gun license holder brings a gun into church against the wishes of that church’s leaders, the gun owner will be fined $100. If a non-license holder brings a gun to that same church, he or she will be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Again, the guy is carrying a concealed weapon. How are the church leaders supposed to express their displeasure about something they don't know about? And a $100 fine IF you are discovered? Really? That's basically making the violation of the rules the church leaders set forth on par with a traffic ticket.

3) Schools

Local school boards will now be allowed to vote on whether they want to let teachers and other members of the school’s staff bring guns to campus. The staff members will apply to the school board, and they will go through training that includes “judgment pistol shooting,” “marksmanship,” and a review of Georgia’s laws about shooting people to defend yourself and others. If a teacher doesn’t want to carry the gun at all times, he or she will have to store it in a safe or lock box. Previously, a licensed owner could bring a gun to school if an “authorized official of the school” gave permission.
This is a complete disaster waiting to happen. There are those who like to delude themselves with their "good guy with a gun" fantasies about some untrained civilian taking down a mass shooter or some other type of criminal. But I'd like to remind those of this mindset that freaking target practice at the range is NOT "training" in scenarios where the other guy is shooting back! Even those who are trained for those situations screw up ....

Unarmed Man Is Charged With Wounding Bystanders Shot by Police Near Times Square | NYTimes.com

Imagine that being kids shot by an armed teacher by mistake who freaked out when the bullets started flying? Or an armed teacher who shoots a student because he was mouthing off and the teacher then wants to claim s/he was "scared" even though s/he is the one with the gun?
4) Airports

Licensed gun owners will be allowed to have firearms in airport common areas and if they accidentally bring their guns to airport security checkpoints, they will be allowed to pick up their weapon and leave without criminal penalty. They will not, of course, be able to take their gun past the TSA checkpoint, which remains a federal matter.
So now lets make the security checkpoints even slower because TSA now has to deal with some knucklehead that somehow "forgot" that he can't take a gun onto a plane.

5) Government buildings

Licensed gun owners will be allowed to bring their weapons into unsecured government buildings -- in other words, those buildings that don't have security checkpoints or metal detectors. Supporters say this provision was intended to help rural counties that don't have the funds to hire full-time security personnel. Gun owners still won't be able to bring weapons into, say, Atlanta City Hall or the Georgia State Capitol.
Note that this only applies to "unsecured government buildings." So even for the supporters of this legislation it's ok to bring a gun into the DMV ... but not into City Hall or the State Capitol. Where they work on a regular basis. Imagine that.

6) No database of gun owners

The law will prevent the state of Georgia from creating and maintaining a database of licensed owners.
Dude. You registered your firearm by law. You applied for a CCL by law. You are only fooling yourself if you think this information isn't tracked. If a gun is used in the commission of a crime how do you think they track it to the person it's registered to if there is no database? Are you that freaking out there with your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that you'd rather hamstring the police from being able to investigate a crime (even if your registered gun was lost or stolen) just so you can sleep better at night knowing the federal "gubment" isn't going to come round up all the firearms in America? Which, considering how there are more guns than people in this country, is a logistically impossible thing to do?

7) No fingerprinting

The law will eliminate the fingerprinting requirement for renewing weapons carry licenses.
But these same people not only don't have a problem with the government requiring fingerprints for people receiving public assistance ... they also advocate it.

Fingerprinting Welfare Applicants - NYTimes.com

OAW
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2014, 08:33 PM
 
Texas recently changed the administrative rules for CHL to require digital fingerprinting instead of physical prints with a DPS-specific card. While some noted that the authorized digital fingerprint folks in Texas charge a fee (around $10-12), the physical fingerprints had to be done by a licensed peace officer specifically authorized to do fingerprinting, and they used to charge sometimes a lot more than $12.

Of course the State of Texas has a database of people with CHL. They have to in order to administer the program. How could Georgia administer their program without a database? "I see you are showing me a piece of paper that says you're legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon" said the Georgia State Trooper. "I guess I'll have to trust that it really is a valid license, since we don't have a database to check you against..." Yeah, that'll happen.

Bars and schools are about the last places I'd want anyone other than a police officer to have a gun at, and here in Texas those places are specifically off limits. In fact, if a business earns 51% of their income from selling alcohol, CHLs are specifically prohibited from carrying there. Schools? I don't want to see two hot head dads showing up to pick up Junior after a scuffle...

I'm sorry, but if you're licensed to carry a gun, you should KNOW when you have it with you, and you should KNOW that you shouldn't get anywhere near the controlled area at an airport with a weapon. Period. "I didn't realize I still had that in my bag" is a lame excuse, and I think good grounds for pulling someone's license for a nice long time. Stupidity should be there in every state's concealed carry law as a disqualifier. Repeated stupidity should be grounds for permanent disqualification.

I have mixed opinions about churches, because there have been some very bad events in churches, but some very quick resolutions due to someone with a concealed weapon dealing with the "problem." On the other hand, every government building in Texas - except the Capital building - has metal detectors at all the entrances, so they are all "secured" buildings. Our beloved Legislature figured out that forcing someone to go through a metal detector would essentially reveal that they were carrying, so no metal detectors there. Lots of state troopers though... Just in case.

In other words, as goofy as my state is, Florida again trumps pig-headed Texans, hands down, for loony ideas.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2014, 09:38 PM
 
^^^^

I agree wholeheartedly. Except for the part about Florida again trumping pig-headed Texans. This particular insanity is coming from Georgia!

OAW
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2014, 10:11 PM
 
OOPS! I did miss that, didn't I... Georgia winning in the batpoo-brain department is kinda different to me.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2014, 09:17 AM
 


You can carry GUNS IN BARS in Ohio, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Nevada just off the top... Mayhem in the streets? The controllists are merely concerned that this won't have the profoundly negative impact they'd expect. I mean, to qualify for a concealed weapons permit, Georgians must be 21, have no drug or weapon felony convictions, and not have been a patient in a mental facility within the past five years. Give it time folks, there's nothing bizarre or NUT-JOB about the move and in fact it brings Georgia in line with many other States that allow this and aren't having quite the issues you're up in arms about. Up in arms, like that?

Maybe it's possible the folks interested in owning guns aren't the barbarians you're making them out to be. I know, shocker, but just maybe.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2014, 09:59 AM
 
I see allowing CC in bars or schools as similar to "abortion, on demand, no questions".

Neither is meant as a enumeration of "best practices", they're meant as counter-chilling effect policy.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2014, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I see allowing CC in bars or schools as similar to "abortion, on demand, no questions".

Neither is meant as a enumeration of "best practices", they're meant as counter-chilling effect policy.
I don't see it that way, subego. I don't see it as a "We're for guns and we're going to push the most bizarre things possible to... mmgrr IN YOUR FACE!" I think it says simply that we will acknowledge the right for people to carry this legal tool to protect themselves against criminal force in a number of additional places and let each entity make their own rules whether or not such an allowance helps them or hurts them. The ones that believe it hurts them place a "no guns" sticker on their premises and people violating those wishes can be addressed by the legal system for continuing to enter these premises against the wills of the premise owner. I think these are perfectly logical and reasonable allowances and give we people some benefit of doubt on all sides of this issue.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2014, 09:53 PM
 
You've lost me.

I'm not claiming either is an "in your face" pushing of the most bizarre things possible.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2014, 07:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You've lost me.

I'm not claiming either is an "in your face" pushing of the most bizarre things possible.
My apologies, I must be the lost one here and missed your point by a mile. What did you mean by counter-chilling effect policy.?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2014, 03:07 PM
 
For guns: as the number of places where you cannot CC goes up, people who normally would carry end up stopping, because they hit too many places during the day where it's not allowed. While an argument can be made neither schools or bars are the best place for guns, and I'd probably agree with it, making guns illegal there has a chilling effect. The "counter-chilling effect" is letting you carry in those places. I assume the rationale behind folks like the NRA being so strongly against these laws isn't because they think guns in bars and schools is awesome. I think that's a mischaracterization by anti-gun types. The point of allowing guns in schools and bars isn't the NRA (and others) claiming that's an ideal use for guns, the point is if you start heavily restricting where you can carry, with criminal prosecution as a penalty, it's going to discourage people from legit carrying: the chilling effect. Saying it should be legal in those places is counter to that.

In a similar vein, the rationale behind unrestricted abortions isn't so we can protect the right to terminate one day before birth, it's so a doctor can be free to perform the procedure if they feel it's necessary. Restrictions place an onus on the doctor to prove the procedure is required, or potentially face criminal consequences. This is the chilling effect. Even if the law is seemingly reasonable, like "no third trimester abortions except for the health of the patient", puts the doctor at risk of criminal prosecution unless they can satisfy the state. That's the chilling effect. The medical decision making process is replaced with a government decision making process.

Again, the idea isn't you should be having abortions left and right up until the moment of birth, it's that even seemingly reasonable policy has unintended consequences. This is the same with guns in a school or a bar. The argument isn't these are great places to have a gun, it's that CC restrictions for large categories of places make it more difficult to exercise the privilege.



A few things which aren't analogous... when it comes to the particular nutbags on either side, I fully admit there are far more abortion nutbags who do believe in having abortions left and right. I've had someone admit to me they grew up thinking an abortion was a teenage "right of passage". You don't get that to the same extent on the other side. Likewise, you don't have a situation with abortion wherein if you restrict it, you still have gangbangers scamming them from straw buyers and then performing drive-by abortions, something which lack of restriction would have potentially helped against.


In the words of Mark Twain: sorry I didn't have the time to write a short letter.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2014, 11:12 PM
 
That's ultimately the argument that made me pro-choice, at least within what I believe are "reasonable" parameters. Giving someone a license to carry a gun doesn't kill, or even harm, anyone. Could it potentially? Yes, but so could licensing a 16 y/o to drive, with the latter being more likely than the former, given statistical probabilities. In contrast, after a certain point in gestation, abortion kills someone every single time.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2014, 11:44 PM
 
The "reasonable parameters" is the problem. Laws suck at that sort of thing.

"Health of the mother" is one of those reasonable parameters in a moral sense, but as has been said, "morality is a rapier, the law is a blunt instrument".

How do you define "health of the mother" in law? You can't possibly list every possibility in the law itself. OTOH, if you resort to more general phrasing, that leaves it up to the doctor, which is what the situation is with no law. IOW, you've defanged the thing.

Trying to stake a claim to middle ground on this makes the situation worse. The doctor then has to decide if performing the procedure is going to get them prison time... based on how an unknown, potential jury may feel about it. This is no longer a reasonable parameter... the parameters are people's whims.

The solution to this under normal circumstances, is to realize the law alone cannot deal with this sort of thing, and you need to set up some type of panel or board who has authority to make the decision, thus not penalizing the doctor for thinking any given case needs the procedure. The doctor knows beforehand if there will be consequences.

Think how baroque that is in this situation. We have an immediate, potentially fatal health risk, and we're going to convene a government panel to see if the procedure can be performed... because a doctor isn't considered a proper authority on the issue?

What could go wrong?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2014, 11:47 PM
 
I do want to add though, because of the aforementioned abortion nutbags, the movement as a whole does a... well... IMO reprehensible job of making this argument.

Edit: I meant "reflected by" not "because of" the nutbags.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 29, 2014 at 02:04 AM. )
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2014, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The "reasonable parameters" is the problem. Laws suck at that sort of thing.

"Health of the mother" is one of those reasonable parameters in a moral sense, but as has been said, "morality is a rapier, the law is a blunt instrument".

How do you define "health of the mother" in law? You can't possibly list every possibility in the law itself. OTOH, if you resort to more general phrasing, that leaves it up to the doctor, which is what the situation is with no law. IOW, you've defanged the thing.

Trying to stake a claim to middle ground on this makes the situation worse. The doctor then has to decide if performing the procedure is going to get them prison time... based on how an unknown, potential jury may feel about it. This is no longer a reasonable parameter... the parameters are people's whims.

The solution to this under normal circumstances, is to realize the law alone cannot deal with this sort of thing, and you need to set up some type of panel or board who has authority to make the decision, thus not penalizing the doctor for thinking any given case needs the procedure. The doctor knows beforehand if there will be consequences.

Think how baroque that is in this situation. We have an immediate, potentially fatal health risk, and we're going to convene a government panel to see if the procedure can be performed... because a doctor isn't considered a proper authority on the issue?

What could go wrong?
Fantastically said, subego.

I'd also like to point out that when you vest that kind of decision making authority into any panel or board, inevitably that panel or boards appointments become heavily politicized, which inevitably leads to politically motivated outputs from that panel. Quite simply, the process has been fouled before any decisions have even been considered, and the people with the most at stake are excluded from the decision making process.

Count me as one of the one's who think government panels and boards are just an expression of a politicians inability to effect positive, results-driven change.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2014, 11:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The "reasonable parameters" is the problem. Laws suck at that sort of thing.

"Health of the mother" is one of those reasonable parameters in a moral sense, but as has been said, "morality is a rapier, the law is a blunt instrument".

How do you define "health of the mother" in law? You can't possibly list every possibility in the law itself. OTOH, if you resort to more general phrasing, that leaves it up to the doctor, which is what the situation is with no law. IOW, you've defanged the thing.
*As an aside because I know your intent here wasn't to adjudicate Roe V Wade all over again, but I've always seen this argument for abortion as a sort of ruse. Isn't the default preference in such instances always "the mother" anyway? I think this falls under a sort of "greater good" ethic in the health care field. I mean... unless the mother specifically requests that her life be risked in the process, wouldn't the default already always be the health of the mother? And while anyone can sue a doctor, I'm pretty sure they're not going to have to worry about the charge that a Doctor was hungry to abort holding up in court.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2014, 01:55 PM
 
I'm not an expert on late-term abortions by any stretch of the imagination, but the argument seems plausible to me by virtue of extrapolating from how medicine goes down in other circumstances.

First and foremost, you have the "second opinion". In a thorny, complicated pregnancy, it's possible for reasonable doctors to disagree whether a procedure is necessary.

Secondly, I think there's a genuine moral question when it comes to abortion. I've staked claim on where I believe it falls on a moral scale, and this would bias my decisions as a doctor. This wouldn't be a problem except for...

Thirdly, those panels we'd need. As Snow-i mentioned, appointments would become a political football. How these cases get adjudicated will sooner or later hinge far more on bias, because that would be the metric appointers use to judge potential appointees.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2014, 08:53 PM
 
Police: Doctor Who Shot Gunman 'Saved Lives'

"without a doubt, I believe the doctor saved lives"
News Distribution Network, Inc.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2014, 09:00 PM
 
Doctor Who doesn't use guns
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Doctor Who doesn't use guns
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2014, 04:44 PM
 
When you shoot an unarmed teenage girl in the face with a shotgun through your locked screen door, it's kind of hard to argue "self-defense" right out of the gate. Especially since if you were so "afraid" you could have just called 911 instead of opening the door in the first place. But when you try to make a "the gun went of accidentally" argument on top of that well this is what happens. Can't have it both ways buddy.

Renisha McBride’s killer, Theodore Wafer, found guilty of second-degree murder in porch shooting - NY Daily News

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2014, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
When you shoot an unarmed teenage girl in the face with a shotgun through your locked screen door, it's kind of hard to argue "self-defense" right out of the gate. Especially since if you were so "afraid" you could have just called 911 instead of opening the door in the first place. But when you try to make a "the gun went of accidentally" argument on top of that well this is what happens. Can't have it both ways buddy.

Renisha McBride’s killer, Theodore Wafer, found guilty of second-degree murder in porch shooting - NY Daily News

OAW
Guilty, as he should have been found. As a gun owner, it is my responsibility to be absolutely 100% positive that I have no other means of addressing a situation! If there's any doubt, being a CPL holder doesn't automatically give me license to kill someone!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2014, 11:52 AM
 
I don't believe any of us are surprised that he was found guilty.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2014, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I don't believe any of us are surprised that he was found guilty.
Seconded.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2014, 12:01 PM
 
Pretty much a "gimme" for the prosecutor.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 10:15 AM
 
Barely related, but if you like drama Missouri seems to be currently serving generous portions of it… Hoping it deescalates soon.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 10:33 AM
 
Yeah, watching idiots throw a temper tantrum about something that doesn't concern them is always high drama.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Barely related, but if you like drama Missouri seems to be currently serving generous portions of it… Hoping it deescalates soon.
Believe me I know. I saw the protests firsthand before a small percentage of the crowd turned things really ugly.

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2