TX Gov. Perry: Allow concealed handguns everywhere.

[natty bumppo 297]

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...

and this type of behavior is news ?

proliferation? what happened to personal choice? it provides people the choice for carry within the law. It is not a requirement to carry.

there are laws for obtaining a CCW permit and not everyone who has the permit carries, or carries all the time.

[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...

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.

I think you're mangling my statement more than a little there. "I" (as in I personally) wouldn't own one for ANY reason - were I to do so the only reason I would conceivably have for buying one (not being into hunting or sports) would be self-defence. But as I don't feel the need for that sort of "protection", its rather a moot point.

As far as carrying one on your person, I don't see any justification for that outside of law enforcement. But I don't make the rules. I can agree to disagree. I was talking in context of the OP article - which describes broad legislation for the extension of concealed carry laws for the reasons of "personal defence" in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech incident. He doesn't mention anything about sports enthusiasts - and his whole line of argument for an extension of cch is that it is necessary to allow people to protect themselves from "random maniacs".

[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...

and this type of behavior is news ?

proliferation? what happened to personal choice? it provides people the choice for carry within the law. It is not a requirement to carry.

there are laws for obtaining a CCW permit and not everyone who has the permit carries, or carries all the time.

Didn't say it was - just that he's advocating a wholesale extension of the policy on the basis of this "freak occurrence" while more or less ignoring the issues involved that led to it. That inevitably would mean looking more closely at the people who are applying for any type of firearm licence.

[mawilson 2,133]

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

It's called the principle of mutual assured destruction. It works for states with nukes and it works for people with guns.

Edited May 2, 2007 by mawilson

[Robor007 0]

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

It's called the principle of mutual assured destruction. It works for states with nukes and it works for people with guns.

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

[Otto 83]

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

It's called the principle of mutual assured destruction. It works for states with nukes and it works for people with guns.

Good Greif!

[mawilson 2,133]

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

[natty bumppo 297]

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...

and this type of behavior is news ?

proliferation? what happened to personal choice? it provides people the choice for carry within the law. It is not a requirement to carry.

there are laws for obtaining a CCW permit and not everyone who has the permit carries, or carries all the time.

Didn't say it was - just that he's advocating a wholesale extension of the policy on the basis of this "freak occurrence" while more or less ignoring the issues involved that led to it. That inevitably would mean looking more closely at the people who are applying for any type of firearm licence.

The extension is an acknowledgement that the LEOs can not be everywhere to protect everyone all the time. The LEOs are not obligated to protect, they are there as a deterrent and to record events after they happen. If something “goes down” in front of a LEO, then the actions are taken.

[natty bumppo 297]

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

It's called the principle of mutual assured destruction. It works for states with nukes and it works for people with guns.

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

while this is your opinion, I don't share the same ...

Q: where is the best place for a "nut case" to go nuts?

A: where there is high probability of zero response from the surrounding people.

[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...

and this type of behavior is news ?

proliferation? what happened to personal choice? it provides people the choice for carry within the law. It is not a requirement to carry.

there are laws for obtaining a CCW permit and not everyone who has the permit carries, or carries all the time.

Didn't say it was - just that he's advocating a wholesale extension of the policy on the basis of this "freak occurrence" while more or less ignoring the issues involved that led to it. That inevitably would mean looking more closely at the people who are applying for any type of firearm licence.

The extension is an acknowledgement that the LEOs can not be everywhere to protect everyone all the time. The LEOs are not obligated to protect, they are there as a deterrent and to record events after they happen. If something “goes down†in front of a LEO, then the actions are taken.

Sure - but the point is that the sort of thing that happened in VA Tech (a random homicidal maniac) is not the most typical form of gun crime. As for the effectiveness of police it really depends where you live - stands to reason that you're not going to get the same experience in Newark NJ as you are in Santa Monica, CA.

Back where we used to live in CA, it was not uncommon to see a teenager being arrested for spitting gum on the street. No need for a gun there, but 2 miles over in the next town with a less well funded police force you could (and a friend of my sister in law had this happen to her) be held up outside a Starbucks.

Similarly, in NJ you can throw a box of trash out your car window and get away with it. A lot depends on the quality of your public services.

Edited May 2, 2007 by erekose

[Robor007 0]

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

It's called the principle of mutual assured destruction. It works for states with nukes and it works for people with guns.

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

while this is your opinion, I don't share the same ...

Q: where is the best place for a "nut case" to go nuts?

A: where there is high probability of zero response from the surrounding people.

So guns in the workplace, guns in the bar, etc, etc? After all, we can't have any place where guns aren't allowed or the nut cases will target them.

[homesick_american 1]

the women who packed were usually excruciatingly careful with their handbags, i.e. they were afraid if they dropped their bag or set it down hard, the gun would go off. Personally I think it's stupid to go everywhere cocked and locked, but that's just me.

actually, the ones that would go off if dropped just right are usually revolvers with one under the hammer. for cch, a semi-auto is recommended but it's the owner's preference for carry.

i can see carrying locked, as in a magazine inserted and one under the firing pin with safety engaged. i can't see the hammer cocked though, that's asking for trouble.

that said, half cocked is a safety feature on the model 94 winchester 30-30.....as it can go off if dropped.

Isn't it a bad idea to carry around a gun with a loaded magazine tho, since all that pressure wears out the spring and instead of it firing when you need it, all you hear is *click* *click* *click*? I'm talking about people who cram 15 rounds into a magazine, slam it into a 9mm, then don't fire it for a year or two.

If I had to carry a handgun for self-defense but knew I wouldn't be using it often, I'd rather carry a revolver for the reason I stated above.

[homesick_american 1]

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?)

Nope. As soon as concealed carry permits became legal, 'no handguns' signs popped up all over Austin like mushrooms after rain. Most of the establishments around the University of Texas would not permit you to have a concealed weapon on your person. It was so difficult to carry in Austin that some people didn't...and still do not...bother with it.

That's the weirdest Spanish I've ever seen. Either my Spanish sucks or theirs does.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Well, seeing the number of gun-related deaths in comparable countries with very limited access to guns in relation to the daily slaughterfest that goes on all over the US where every moron and his uncle can carry a piece kind of supports the notion that more guns will translate into more deaths.

[Otto 83]

IMO if guns were more common in society and allowed in places they are currently prohibited more people would be killed than saved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Well, seeing the number of gun-related deaths in comparable countries with very limited access to guns in relation to the daily slaughterfest that goes on all over the US where every moron and his uncle can carry a piece kind of supports the notion that more guns will translate into more deaths.

Good greif...