TX Gov. Perry: Allow concealed handguns everywhere.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

QUOTE(slim @ May 2 2007, 09:57 AM)

The safety of a gun carried concealed is a non-issue. If we're going to let 16-year-olds operate automobiles, we've already waived our right to complain about the "possibility" of being injured by someone operating a mechanical device in a legal manner.

Apples and oranges. For most people a car is necessary. A gun is not.

agree...a gun is used to kill...a car to get from point a to point b...

For the majority of people a car is a necessity for everyday living. A gun is not - and frankly, outside of people who use them for work (police, prison guards etc) I'd be worried about anyone who seriously thinks otherwise.

that's rather broad brush, isn't it? some of us hunt, target shoot, and have them due to "911" not being an instant solution. your liberal left wing is showing......

Sports use aside - I don't see the imminent criminal threat to justify that sense of security. But even for sports use I wouldn't say its a 'necessity', as in a car is "necessary". Its 'optional', as is the activity itself.

just because you don't see it does not mean others don't.

I'd agree - but then we're back to how many people have actually been the victim in a violent crime Vs how likely they think they are to become so. I'd bet fair money that there's way more people out there generally afraid of violent crime than have actually experienced it.

you're probably correct on that. and at the same time, i have earthquake insurance on my house, even though kansas has not had an strong earthquake in years. get the idea?

Edited May 2, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

QUOTE(slim @ May 2 2007, 09:57 AM)

The safety of a gun carried concealed is a non-issue. If we're going to let 16-year-olds operate automobiles, we've already waived our right to complain about the "possibility" of being injured by someone operating a mechanical device in a legal manner.

Apples and oranges. For most people a car is necessary. A gun is not.

agree...a gun is used to kill...a car to get from point a to point b...

For the majority of people a car is a necessity for everyday living. A gun is not - and frankly, outside of people who use them for work (police, prison guards etc) I'd be worried about anyone who seriously thinks otherwise.

that's rather broad brush, isn't it? some of us hunt, target shoot, and have them due to "911" not being an instant solution. your liberal left wing is showing......

Sports use aside - I don't see the imminent criminal threat to justify that sense of security. But even for sports use I wouldn't say its a 'necessity', as in a car is "necessary". Its 'optional', as is the activity itself.

just because you don't see it does not mean others don't.

I'd agree - but then we're back to how many people have actually been the victim in a violent crime Vs how likely they think they are to become so. I'd bet fair money that there's way more people out there generally afraid of violent crime than have actually experienced it.

you're probably correct on that. and at the same time, i have earthquake insurance on my house, even though kansas has not had an strong earthquake in years. get the idea?

Not really - I don't really see much point to those sorts of analogies (as per the one about spare tyres on the other page). I might equally say that its within the realm of possibilty to be struck by lightning, but I don't see too many people walking around with rubber-soled boots just on the off-chance.

[pedroh 21]

so now, not only will americans have a bigger probability of shooting a family member instead of a criminal inside their house, but now outside too? jeez..

[mawilson 2,133]

AUSTIN[/b] — Gov. Rick Perry said Monday that Texans who are legally licensed should be able to carry their concealed handguns anywhere, including churches, bars, courthouses and college campuses.

I thought concealed guns were already legal everywhere in Texas (except liquor stores?)

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Not really - I don't really see much point to those sorts of analogies (as per the one about spare tyres on the other page). I might equally say that its within the realm of possibilty to be struck by lightning, but I don't see too many people walking around with rubber-soled boots just on the off-chance.

so we should remove guns from everyone's hands just because statistics show that the likelihood of someone being a victim of violent crime is less than anticipated? i'm sure the victims of violent crimes past would dispute such. and what, pray tell, shall we say to those victimized by criminals after having their firearms taken away "sorry, statistics say it was an acceptable risk"

perhaps in a perfect world, such could occur, but unilaterally desiring the removal of the ability of people to defend themselves due to statistics is quite reckless.

[Otto 83]

AUSTIN[/b] — Gov. Rick Perry said Monday that Texans who are legally licensed should be able to carry their concealed handguns anywhere, including churches, bars, courthouses and college campuses.

I thought concealed guns were already legal everywhere in Texas (except liquor stores?)

Most states have restrictions on certain public places and allows for business to restrict them as well.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

AUSTIN[/b] — Gov. Rick Perry said Monday that Texans who are legally licensed should be able to carry their concealed handguns anywhere, including churches, bars, courthouses and college campuses.

I thought concealed guns were already legal everywhere in Texas (except liquor stores?)

Q: Where can I not take my handgun?

A: Handguns and other weapons can not be carried at schools or on school buses, at polling places, in courts and court offices, at racetracks and at secured airport areas. The law also specifically prohibits handguns from businesses where alcohol is sold if more than half of their revenue is from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption, and from locations where high school, college or professional sporting events are taking place. You may not carry handguns in hospitals or nursing homes, amusement parks, places of worship or at government meetings if signs are posted prohibiting them. Businesses also may post signs prohibiting handguns on their premises based on criminal trespass laws.

source

[mawilson 2,133]

[pedroh 21]

man so people would have to run to their cars and get their guns.. I've seen a lot of places with 'no concealed weapons' signs.. malls, stores, etc..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not really - I don't really see much point to those sorts of analogies (as per the one about spare tyres on the other page). I might equally say that its within the realm of possibilty to be struck by lightning, but I don't see too many people walking around with rubber-soled boots just on the off-chance.

so we should remove guns from everyone's hands just because statistics show that the likelihood of someone being a victim of violent crime is less than anticipated? i'm sure the victims of violent crimes past would dispute such. and what, pray tell, shall we say to those victimized by criminals after having their firearms taken away "sorry, statistics say it was an acceptable risk"

perhaps in a perfect world, such could occur, but unilaterally desiring the removal of the ability of people to defend themselves due to statistics is quite reckless.

Again I didn't say anything about banning - all I've ever said is that I wouldn't own one because I don't see the need. I'm not into hunting or target shooting, the only other reason would be for defence. For "home defence" I can just about handle that - but walking around with them as though its the most normal thing in the world?. Sorry that's a no for me.... I think the processes governing who can buy one need to be revised so that (for example, a mentally ill man cannot legally buy them). Also that various agencies and institution need to better share information about such people, so that someone with a potentially dangerous history is (at least) subjected to further scrutiny before a licence is granted.

On the basis of the OP article I think the limitations on the current laws (which you mentioned above) should remain as is. I think using a freak event as an excuse for proliferation is politically motivated - in that state at least...

Edited May 2, 2007 by erekose

[pedroh 21]

only Chuck Norris can walk like that

[Robor007 0]

Don't let them purchase the gun in the first place.

Sorry... I don't think the answer to gun violence is more guns.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Again I didn't say anything about banning - all I've ever said is that I wouldn't own one because I don't see the need. I'm not into hunting or target shooting, the only other reason would be for defence. For "home defence" I can just about handle that - but walking around with them as though its the most normal thing in the world?. Sorry that's a no for me.... I think the processes governing who can buy one need to be revised so that (for example, a mentally ill man cannot legally buy them). Also that various agencies and institution need to better share information about such people, so that someone with a potentially dangerous history is (at least) subjected to further scrutiny before a licence is granted.

On the basis of the OP article I think the limitations on the current laws (which you mentioned above) should remain as is. I think using a freak event as an excuse for proliferation is politically motivated - in that state at least...

you're waffling now

For the majority of people a car is a necessity for everyday living. A gun is not - and frankly, outside of people who use them for work (police, prison guards etc) I'd be worried about anyone who seriously thinks otherwise.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again I didn't say anything about banning - all I've ever said is that I wouldn't own one because I don't see the need. I'm not into hunting or target shooting, the only other reason would be for defence. For "home defence" I can just about handle that - but walking around with them as though its the most normal thing in the world?. Sorry that's a no for me.... I think the processes governing who can buy one need to be revised so that (for example, a mentally ill man cannot legally buy them). Also that various agencies and institution need to better share information about such people, so that someone with a potentially dangerous history is (at least) subjected to further scrutiny before a licence is granted.

On the basis of the OP article I think the limitations on the current laws (which you mentioned above) should remain as is. I think using a freak event as an excuse for proliferation is politically motivated - in that state at least...

you're waffling now

For the majority of people a car is a necessity for everyday living. A gun is not - and frankly, outside of people who use them for work (police, prison guards etc) I'd be worried about anyone who seriously thinks otherwise.

There's nothing contradictory there...

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Again I didn't say anything about banning - all I've ever said is that I wouldn't own one because I don't see the need. I'm not into hunting or target shooting, the only other reason would be for defence. For "home defence" I can just about handle that - but walking around with them as though its the most normal thing in the world?. Sorry that's a no for me.... I think the processes governing who can buy one need to be revised so that (for example, a mentally ill man cannot legally buy them). Also that various agencies and institution need to better share information about such people, so that someone with a potentially dangerous history is (at least) subjected to further scrutiny before a licence is granted.

On the basis of the OP article I think the limitations on the current laws (which you mentioned above) should remain as is. I think using a freak event as an excuse for proliferation is politically motivated - in that state at least...

you're waffling now

For the majority of people a car is a necessity for everyday living. A gun is not - and frankly, outside of people who use them for work (police, prison guards etc) I'd be worried about anyone who seriously thinks otherwise.

There's nothing contradictory there...

in the earlier post you stated frankly, outside of people who use them for work (police, prison guards etc) I'd be worried about anyone who seriously thinks otherwise. indicating you don't think anyone needs to have one unless they work in one of those jobs. then in the latter post you changed position with all I've ever said is that I wouldn't own one because I don't see the need. I'm not into hunting or target shooting, the only other reason would be for defence. ergo having one for one of those 3 purposes is ok, but then drawing the line in the sand again at cch.

Edited May 2, 2007 by charlesandnessa