|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 106 responses total. |
drew
|
|
response 25 of 106:
| 
Dec 16 19:45 UTC 2000 |
It is rather rare for legislators to conspire to give the people a bit *more*
freedom, which I think this "concealed weapons" bill would do. Still, why
should a bill be immune to referendum challenges because of being an
"appropriations" bill?
|
bru
|
|
response 26 of 106:
|
Dec 16 21:48 UTC 2000 |
I suppose t could be argued that because of this bill the State Police are
going to need increased funding for background checks.
I have been waiting 4 years for this bill to pass. Damn will I be happy when
he signs it!
|
aaron
|
|
response 27 of 106:
|
Dec 17 05:21 UTC 2000 |
Which suggests that the world will be less safe.
|
goose
|
|
response 28 of 106:
|
Dec 17 23:57 UTC 2000 |
I attended a gun show this weekend with my father. He's a regular at these
things and he noted to me that since GWB was declared the president elect gun
prices have come down a bit, and now with this CCW bill ready to go prices
have fallen again.
|
jep
|
|
response 29 of 106:
|
Dec 18 20:34 UTC 2000 |
I don't think most people think concealed weapons permits need to become
more common and easier to get. I don't think that's necessary, and I
tend a lot more toward the right-wing side more than most people on
Grex.
I'm getting more and more annoyed by the state legislature, which has
gotten more and more into taking over issues previously controlled by
lower levels of government. This is not what I expect from Republicans,
it is to control rampant big government that I vote for Republicans.
|
aaron
|
|
response 30 of 106:
|
Dec 18 21:05 UTC 2000 |
Start voting Libertarian. The "Republicans like small government" claim is
a bit misleading.
|
bru
|
|
response 31 of 106:
|
Dec 19 01:45 UTC 2000 |
Unfortunately, the low levels of government were telling people who applied
for concealed weapons, "Sorry, but you need to convince the three people on
this board that you have a need to carry this weapon." The new law makes it
so the board has to prove people who apply for te license are a threat to
restrict them from having the license.
People who are in law enfrcement or in the legal profession are almost
automatically approved by the board, along with some family members and
freinds.
Thats the way my mother was treated. She knew many of the police officers
in the city and those who worked in city hall. All she had to do to get a
permit to purchase was to call city hall adn ask, same if she wanted a permit
to carry.
While might have been able to take advantage of it while she was alive, that
doesn't make it right that she have advantages over other people with just
as valid a reason to carry a gun.
I could probably get a permit to carry from my uncle who is a township
supervisor adn is able to issue permits in his township, should I exploit that
advantage? Or if a certain person won election in Lenawee County, I am sure
I could call on our past freindship and get one issued by the Sheriffs office.
Should I?
I don't think so. I think I should be able to walk into my local police or
sheriffs office and get what I want if I so desire, and anyone else should
as well.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 32 of 106:
|
Dec 19 02:04 UTC 2000 |
First, the State has *always* set the standards by which County boards
issue permits to carry concealed weapons. It used to be, the State law
said that County boards "may issue"; now (assuming the Governor signs
it) the State law says that County boards "shall issue." As Bruce says,
removing the opportunity for favoritism is a Very Good Thing.
If people don't want a CCW, they don't have to ask for one.
On the radio today, I heard someone railing against the proliferation of
weapons the new law will encourage. I don't believe it. Those who WANT
to carry a weapon ARE CARRYING ONE RIGHT NOW. They simply don't care what
the law says; they will carry. (Correction: they probably care a little,
and they understand that it DOES apply to them, but they aren't going to
let that change their behaviour.) ALL of the examples of when to fear a
gun-toter that I've heard APPLY RIGHT NOW, EVEN WITH "may issue".
|
gull
|
|
response 33 of 106:
|
Dec 19 04:37 UTC 2000 |
<sarcastic analogy mode>
I think it should be legal for me to have guided missiles mounted behind the
headlights of my car, so that when I see someone who, in my opinion, is
driving dangerously, I can take them out before they hurt someone else. My
inability to get a concealed guided missile permit clearly reduces the
safety of everyone in society. There's no guarantee that there will be
police around every time someone's driving unsafely, so we should have a
right to have concealed guided missiles.
</sarcastic analogy mode>
|
johnnie
|
|
response 34 of 106:
|
Dec 19 04:39 UTC 2000 |
re 32: Maybe. Bruce himself said that he's been waiting anxiously for
this law to pass; presumably he wants to carry a gun, but doesn't, as
he's a law-abiding type of guy. I know others who are the same way
(want to carry but don't due to the illegality), some of whom are most
decidedly NOT the kind of people who should be carrying (quick and
violent tempers, for example).
|
gelinas
|
|
response 35 of 106:
|
Dec 19 04:41 UTC 2000 |
Yes, a good argument could be made for the Second Amendment covering guided
missiles. And nuclear warheads. The word *is* "arms," after all. ;)
|
scg
|
|
response 36 of 106:
|
Dec 19 08:09 UTC 2000 |
I would have no objection to having a concealed carry permit, but wouldn't
use it. What I don't want is other people around me carrying guns, which they
are presumably intending to use to settle some sort of dispute or scary
situation (which they presumably think they have some chance of happening).
I don't want to be on the receiving end of any method of dealing with people
that involves guns, or to be hit by cross fire.
The "if you don't want X to be permitted, don't get/do X" only works where
X is something that has no effect on those not deciding to be affected by it.
That argument doesn't hold true for things like gun proliferation, which if
they have any effect at all, affect public safety.
|
zua
|
|
response 37 of 106:
|
Dec 19 08:23 UTC 2000 |
hi =neat= I'm astu_dent*.*BYE
|
bru
|
|
response 38 of 106:
|
Dec 19 15:28 UTC 2000 |
you do not need to fear the gun toting public, they are in general a lot safer
than the gun toting police. I read a study that said police have a 13% rate
of shooting unarmed or innocent people, while the public has a rate of less
than 1%. Also, the gun toting public have a higher accuracy rating, after
going thru the Civilian police academy, I can believe this. Some officers
never use their gun at the range except to qualify, while the average civilian
shooter spends a lot more time practicing on a range with his weapon of
choice.
I don't feel I get as near as much practice as I would like, but I did very
well on accuracy at teh police testing range and on the private ranges I use.
There have been times when I wanted to carry a gun, like when my co-workers
ex husband was stalking her and there was a chance he might show at the office
and he had a gun permit. There is no place to hide here, no back door to get
out of, no place to run. Iwrote the office policies manual, making sure the
boss couldn't fire you for carrying concealed with a permit. Didn't need it,
and he was finally put away, at least for a while. But what if I had?
|
scott
|
|
response 39 of 106:
|
Dec 19 15:45 UTC 2000 |
Oh please, let's not get into *that* argument again.
The police have that statistic because they are supposed to use their guns
in situations where regular people are not.
Bruce, the goverment is not what you should be worried about. Big business
has far more intrusive plans for you and your family.
|
pfv
|
|
response 40 of 106:
|
Dec 19 17:13 UTC 2000 |
What makes you believe they are different?
|
danr
|
|
response 41 of 106:
|
Dec 19 17:22 UTC 2000 |
I've said this before and I'll say this again. How many of you who are in
favor of reduced gun control have ever been in a situation where you would have
needed the gun? If so, please give specific examples.
Then of those situations, can you honestly say that you would have been able to
get the gun out and use it properly to save your life or the life of someone
else?
Every time I've asked these questions, they've been ignored. I take that to
mean the answer is "no" to both.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 42 of 106:
|
Dec 19 17:31 UTC 2000 |
I've only been in scary situations where if I had had a gun I would
probably have been killed. If you are known to be armed you are considered
dangerous, so it can be "shoot first and ask questions afterward".
|
pfv
|
|
response 43 of 106:
|
Dec 19 18:52 UTC 2000 |
Negative arguments.. humbug.
|
flem
|
|
response 44 of 106:
|
Dec 19 19:12 UTC 2000 |
re resp:33 - I'm in. Where do I sign up? :)
|
danr
|
|
response 45 of 106:
|
Dec 19 20:26 UTC 2000 |
re #43: Thanks for making my case for me. I'll take that response as two "no"
responses.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 46 of 106:
|
Dec 19 20:47 UTC 2000 |
Dan, that's just like the argument, "If you have no secrets, you do not need
privacy, do you?" It is just as false.
No, I've never been in a situation where a firearm would have been useful.
I've never been in a situation where someone was threatening my life. That's
just fine.
Your argument is what "may issue" is all about: Convince us you need it to
save your life, and we'll let you. Bluntly, I don't think that is
Government's call to make: it is *mine*. And that's what "shall issue" is
all about.
The ultimate fallacy is that this is all largely irrelevant. The nasties who
want to carry *will* carry, and without bothering to register the thing, much
less ask for a permit. "May issue" and "shall issue" ONLY affects law-abiding
citizens.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 47 of 106:
|
Dec 19 22:11 UTC 2000 |
There's some amount of truth in that argument, but I'd be a lot more
convinced by it if people who were law-abiding were *always* law-abiding
and vice-versa.. As it is, we live in a world where crimes and other
lapses are frequently committed by people who are normally mostly
law-abiding in their everyday behavior but who behave differently on an
occasion either because of a special provocation or an unusual opportunity.
|
jep
|
|
response 48 of 106:
|
Dec 19 22:23 UTC 2000 |
re: several responses by gelinas:
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not in favor of the
Brady Bill and other such attempts to make handguns (and other guns)
illegal. I think there is a right for a person to defend his/her home
and person and family against attackers and thieves. However, I stop
somewhat short of wanting the state to require local authorities to
issue concealed weapon permits on demand.
For one thing, I don't think most people agree. (If they did, there
would be no motivation for the state legislature to act.) I'm a lot
more in favor of local control for such things; this allows people who
are serious enough about their preference to move to an area where
people think like they do. This principal is called "self governance".
I strongly favor it.
For another, I don't agree myself. Sometimes I get cut in front of by
unreasonable SUV drivers, who then proceed to yell at me, or shake their
fist, etc. because I wasn't driving the way they wanted. I don't want
such people waving guns at me. I don't want my irritable co-worker to
resort to his handy concealed gun when he gets stressed out.
I'm not opposed to people being able to defend themselves, but yet I
stop short of them wanting to do it at great personal risk *to me*. If
they have to get sufficient training, and take periodic temperament
tests and regular expertise checks, and there are other such reasonable
safeguards, I don't mind if people can earn the privilege of carrying a
concealed weapon.
I also don't mind if most people *cannot* legally carry a concealed
weapon. I've personally been in a lot more situations where it was
better I didn't have one, than in situations where I would have been
better off *with* one. Think it over seriously -- isn't that true for
you as well?
Just last week a couple of U-M football players went to a woman's house
at 4:00 a.m. in a dispute over an ex-girlfriend, and one of the football
players was carrying an (illegal) concealed handgun. What good could
possibly have come from having a concealed gun in *that* situation?
|
gull
|
|
response 49 of 106:
|
Dec 19 22:46 UTC 2000 |
#48 pretty much sums up the reasons I strongly oppose the idea of having
more concealed weapons in circulation.
|