|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 106 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 58 of 106:
| 
Dec 20 21:45 UTC 2000 |
According to a Plymouth Observer article on this subject, the proposed new
"shall" law increases the age of eligibility to 21 from the "may" law 18.
|
aaron
|
|
response 59 of 106:
|
Dec 20 22:02 UTC 2000 |
re #56: Capital punish-M-Net? ;-)
|
polygon
|
|
response 60 of 106:
|
Dec 20 22:09 UTC 2000 |
Some years ago in Ingham County, I was a juror in a case against a young
man for "assault with a deadly weapon". He walking on his own down the
street with a hunting knife visible in his back pocket, leaving a party
which had been noisy enough to attract police attention. In the hearing
of nearby police officers, somebody yelled "He's got a knife!" The police
officers -- rookies -- pursued and cornered him with guns drawn. The
police contended that the young man threatened them with the knife before
dropping the knife and submitting to arrest. A disinterested neighbor
contradicted the police testimony.
(We found him not guilty.)
|
mary
|
|
response 61 of 106:
|
Dec 20 23:55 UTC 2000 |
I'd rather gun legislation avoided concealed weapons and instead
went the other way. All guns carried on your person must be
worn in such a way as they are visible to all.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 62 of 106:
|
Dec 21 02:53 UTC 2000 |
How many here have ever called 911, and for what? (I have called once -
for my own medical emergency. I did not need a gun.)
|
drew
|
|
response 63 of 106:
|
Dec 21 03:08 UTC 2000 |
I think it should matter less whether the weapon is "concealed" than how fast
it can be drawn and used.
|
russ
|
|
response 64 of 106:
|
Dec 21 03:43 UTC 2000 |
I find the attitudes here disturbing. People who should know better
are using the language of bigotry to attack others who wish to exercise
their right of self-defense, and to support their desire to exclude
these others from the normal course of life.
I don't use the word bigotry lightly. This item has seen some amazing
displays of rank prejudice by people who ought to know better,
stereotyping the group of potential CCW holders as *dangers to
society*. This alleged danger has not played out in any state which
has adopted shall-issue (CCW holders in Florida, to give one example,
are far more law-abiding than the public at large), but it doesn't
matter. Facts don't matter, what matters is fear and prejudice.
(I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for making this analogy, but WTF...)
The same people displaying hoplophobic bigotry would be all over anyone
who claimed that young African-American males were dangerous and ought
to be restricted, despite the fact that actual crime statistics lend
support to this point of view. That ought to be cause enough for them
to re-examine their assumptions.
But they won't. Because this isn't about facts, or rights. It's about
fear, and the desire to suppress and restrict people for what one is
afraid they *might* do. And who cares about the Constitution if you
can get away with it, eh?
|
scg
|
|
response 65 of 106:
|
Dec 21 03:50 UTC 2000 |
I think nobody is pushing for visible guns, because they know that most people
would be really scared to see that people around them had guns, and that would
cause a great uproar. So, of course, the solution is to require that people
carrying guns hide them, so that those around them won't know to be scared
until it's too late.
I've called 911 a few times: when a driver cut me off and caused me to hit
her, and did some expensive damage to my bike, when my car got broken into,
when I saw a serious looking car accident, when I was driving home from work
late at night and saw a car in front of me that kept weaving from the right
shoulder to the left shoulder of the freeway and back, and probably another
time or two. 911 was called on my behalf once, when I hit my head hard in
a bike crash and was pretty out of it.
Of those, the medical emergencies probably aren't relevant to the gun control
discussion. When my car was broken into I didn't notice it happening, but
the person who did it went to enough trouble to disable the car's interior
lights that probably even walking by would have scared him/her off. In the
case of the driver who hit me, or the drunk driver who was driving in front
of me, shooting them might have taken care of the problem, but still wouldn't
have been a good thing to do.
|
scg
|
|
response 66 of 106:
|
Dec 21 03:54 UTC 2000 |
Russ slipped in. Um... Insisting on being able to carry a gun at all times
for protection or whatever, is a sign that somebody thinks they are likely
to run into situations where the appropriate answer would be to shoot
somebody. Being a young African American male is a sign that somebody is
young, male, has dark skin, has ancestors from Africa, and may be
statistically more likely to have come from a poor, urban, neighborhood. I
don't think you could possibly back up that statement, Russ.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 67 of 106:
|
Dec 21 04:06 UTC 2000 |
My major objection to 'may issue' is displayed adequately in this item.
Imagine trying to convince three people chosen at random from those responding
here that you needed to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise.
The members of the counties' CCW boards are _not_ chosen at random: they
include the chief prosecuting attorney and the chief law enforcement officer.
Saying "I need to carry" can be seen as a challenge to their abilities (or
willingness) to do their jobs. Not a way to win friends and influence people,
is it? (Most members of the CCW boards probably don't even think about it
in those terms, though.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 68 of 106:
|
Dec 21 05:27 UTC 2000 |
re #66: be a little more honest -- there *are* other uses for a gun
than shooting someone. brandishing one is probably a pretty effective
defense technique *in the right situation.*
the flip side, though, is that whenever a loaded gun is involved there
is *some* non-zero probability that the outcome will be that someone gets
shot. the whole debate should realistically be conducted in terms of
(a) what *is* the non-zero probability that the gun will be used to
shoot someone, (b) under what circumstances is that a bad thing / good
thing?, and (c) how does knowledge that a gun is involved change the
behavior of people in a given situation? as past "discussions" have
shown, there's more than enough room for disagreement on those issues..
|
happyboy
|
|
response 69 of 106:
|
Dec 21 12:31 UTC 2000 |
rane...lots of times, but always as witness to events such as
car accidents, dangerous situations in a crisis home, various
assaults, and an attempted rape.
|
mdw
|
|
response 70 of 106:
|
Dec 21 14:58 UTC 2000 |
I called 911 once, to report a drunk driver. I didn't think it was
particularly an emergency, but when I looked in the phone book for
police, 911 seemed to be the most appropriate number listed.
Unfortunately, I did this from a campus phone, so I actually ended up
talking to UM DPS--and I think their phone was even busy at first, which
didn't inspire me with confidence.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 71 of 106:
|
Dec 21 15:28 UTC 2000 |
I presume, happyboy, that you didn't need a gun to go along with your
911 calls?
|
ashke
|
|
response 72 of 106:
|
Dec 21 15:30 UTC 2000 |
I have called 911 several times and had excellent response. It was all
concerning a medical issue and when we lived in dexter, the response from HVA
was great.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 73 of 106:
|
Dec 21 16:31 UTC 2000 |
I've called 911 about three times... and not one of those situations
would have been helped by having a gun.
One, I was driving home to Saginaw from Ann Arbor, it was late and
snowing and I saw a car spin off into a ditch (they were going south).
I don't think anyone was hurt, but they obviously weren't getting out
of that mess without help- so 911.
Two- I was out on my balcony talking on the phone and saw an accident
(someone was rearended) so I called 911.
Three- well, I didn't place the call but I was there and a friend
seemed to need immediate medical help.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 74 of 106:
|
Dec 21 17:37 UTC 2000 |
And you didn't even need a gun?
y
|
polygon
|
|
response 75 of 106:
|
Dec 21 18:50 UTC 2000 |
When I lived in Detroit, I was walking home along West Warren, on a
weekday afternoon, when I noticed bizarre behavior on the part of the
traffic light at Warren and Third (aka Anthony Wayne Drive). I observed
it and realized that for part of each cycle, the light was showing green
in BOTH directions! This is an intersection with heavy traffic, so the
drivers could tell from the behavior of the other drivers that something
weird was afoot, but even so, I saw several near misses.
So I rushed to the nearest pay phone and called 911.
Even though it was in the middle of the business day, the 911 operator
sounded unbelievably drowsy and slow. She reacted like someone who had
just been awoken from a sound sleep. "Huh?" she said uncomprehendingly.
"Wha?" The concept of Anthony Wayne Drive seemed to baffle her, and I
explained helpfully that it was also Third. She just became even more
confused.
However, when I became frustrated and offered to hang up in disgust, THAT
woke her up and got her attention right away.
|
danr
|
|
response 76 of 106:
|
Dec 21 18:54 UTC 2000 |
re #57: Please describe specifically the situation in which you felt you might
need the gun. Oh, and feeling that you might need a gun is not the same thing
as actually needing it. From the tone of your answer, I'll take it that you did
not need it.
Are all of you that feel you need a gun for self-defense really that scared? If
so, shouldn't you be working to somehow reduce that level of fear instead of
exacerbating it by buying a gun?
|
mooncat
|
|
response 77 of 106:
|
Dec 21 19:40 UTC 2000 |
re 74- no... I just don't think a gun would have come in handy...
Although, there is the notion of putting someone out of their misery. ;)
|
scott
|
|
response 78 of 106:
|
Dec 21 19:51 UTC 2000 |
I'm going to be a bit impolitic here,but:
If you're worried about self-defense and you don't trust the cops, your first
move should be to gett your ass off the couch and into a gym. Guns are tools
with a limited application and many operational and storage hazards.
|
ashke
|
|
response 79 of 106:
|
Dec 21 20:01 UTC 2000 |
Bravo. Unlike scott, who is a human weapon, and has only minor operational
and storage hazards ;)
|
pfv
|
|
response 80 of 106:
|
Dec 21 20:12 UTC 2000 |
I was unaware that one needed to not only be straight and clean,
but also - after the fact - prove to <someone> they "needed"
something that was already a Right.. For a reason.
Some folks see no need to justify ownership to another. Others
don't trust cops, the legal system, or - gee, I wonder why after
the above - "911".
I find it amazing, (although, a better term - implying shock,
depression and disgust - must exist), that someone would give up a
Right folks died for.. I shouldn't, but I do - because, of course,
this Right doesn't interest you.
I don't mind Fuzzy-headedness.. I'm used to that.. I mind
Fuzzy-headedness that affects myself: because I don't get more
than a belly-laugh from voters and voting, I should deny you??
|
scott
|
|
response 81 of 106:
|
Dec 21 21:09 UTC 2000 |
Pete, you have every right to strap a rifle onto your back. So what're you
bitching about? Are you pissed you can't own slaves, or are you willing to
accept that laws change for good reasons?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 82 of 106:
|
Dec 21 23:31 UTC 2000 |
re 71: i had no need for a gun. in the attempted rape case,
however, a 2 x 4 with some spikes woulda been ok.
|