|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 106 responses total. |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 50 of 106:
|
Dec 19 23:52 UTC 2000 |
Ditto.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 51 of 106:
|
Dec 20 02:32 UTC 2000 |
First, it is already a matter of state law: the County boards were not
established by local ordinance; the State established the County boards.
So it is *completely* the province of the State legislature to determine
the standards its creature will use.
Second, I do not believe it is possible to carry a weapon, at all, without
a concealed-carry weapon permit. Put on a belt holster and it is not
"concealed", right? Until you put on your coat to go outside. Oops.
(I'm going to try to find the Michigan Compiled Laws online, to double-check
the accuracy of my belief.) I do know that I would not carry a hand-gun
without a CCW. (Possible exception: with a hunting license, while
actually hunting.)
|
senna
|
|
response 52 of 106:
|
Dec 20 06:10 UTC 2000 |
Wow, John. I'm very impressed by how well-thought you are concerning this
situation.
Frankly, the thought of some of the customers I deal with at Meijer carrying
concealed weapons is frightening. This shouldn't be misconstrued as an
indictment of all customers (a vast majority are polite even if they are upset
with us), but there are enough people that get *substantially* hostile that
I think depending on a person's good sense is not always the best idea.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 53 of 106:
|
Dec 20 06:51 UTC 2000 |
I found the Michigan Compiled Laws at
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/law/
The relevant sections read:
"Sec. 227. (1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto,
a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any
other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as
such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or
otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in
his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed
by the person.
"2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her
person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or
occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of
business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to
carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the
pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such
license" (Act 328 of 1931, 750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
[M.S.A. 28.424 ]).
and
"Sec. 43513. (1) A person may carry, transport, or possess a firearm,
a bow and arrow, or a crossbow without a hunting license while at
or going to and from a recognized rifle or target range, trap, or
skeet shooting ground, or archery range if the firearm or bow and
arrow or crossbow, while being carried or transported, is as follows:
(a) The firearm is unloaded in both barrel and magazine and either
enclosed in a case or carried in the trunk of a vehicle" (Act 451
of 1994 324.43513 Carrying, transporting, or possessing firearm,
bow and arrow, or crossbow; hunting license not required; carrying
or possessing unloaded weapon).
(The latter section is from the Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Act.)
So I guess one *could* _walk_ down Main Street with pistol in plain sight.
|
scg
|
|
response 54 of 106:
|
Dec 20 07:06 UTC 2000 |
If I'm remembering correctly, Ann Arbor has local ordinances about that.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 55 of 106:
|
Dec 20 14:40 UTC 2000 |
Legal or not, it's a sure way to find yourself surrounded by police
officers with guns drawn.
While I understand the desire to (sometimes, anyway) carry a weapon for
"protection", it gives me the heebie-jeebies to think that they'll give
permits out to just about any idiot. And in answer to Dan's question
above, I have been in situations where--at the time--I might have felt
better had I been packin', retrospect shows that a)I didn't need a gun,
and b)a gun (in my hands or others') may well have made things worse.
I also wonder if carrying a gun might cause certain persons to put
themselves in situations they might otherwise avoid (and if doing so
might therefore end with them using the gun, even if "justified").
|
jep
|
|
response 56 of 106:
|
Dec 20 17:58 UTC 2000 |
re #52: I have changed my views on this subject, and a few others
(capital punishmnet for another) in recent years.
|
bru
|
|
response 57 of 106:
|
Dec 20 19:45 UTC 2000 |
I have been in situations where I felt I might need my gun.
I have had my gun in easy reach on several of those occasions, while waiting
for the police to respond to the 9-1-1 call.
I think the thing about open holter carry is that they will cite you for
disturbing the peace.
|