Anti gun legislation

tdesanto

Expedition Leader
Mr. Leary said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when in this entire thread have we discussed restricting where CCW holders are legally allowed to carry their weapons?

This entire thread has discussed everything from CCWs, to the right to own guns and where to carry legally. I just wanted to show a real world account of someone that was in a situation that could have turned out different if she was allowed to carry.

That was very compelling testimony. My favorite part was the looks on the legislators' faces.

She was speaking about the Luby's incident, right?

That was in '91.

The CHL (CCW) law wasn't passed in TX until '95. Until then, all I remember that we had was that you were allowed to carry in your car if you were travelling across county lines, and even then it was sketchy as to whether you might still be prosecuted if caught.
 

xtatik

Explorer
Every time this gun control issue comes up I like to reference this video. I keep putting off getting my CCW and I pray I don't regret not getting it as soon as possible.



YouTube - 2nd Amendment Protection

No question Dr. Hupp's personal story is a tragic one. But, IMO, it becomes even more tragic when she capitolised on her parents loss by going on the NRA dole. She tells a great "personal tragedy story" and the NRA has bankrolled and moved mountains to propel her political career so that story can continue to be heard.
 

dwh

Tail-End Charlie
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...ns/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2008

"Reported Child casualties fell by 8 per cent. The number of children killed or seriously injured in 2008 was 2,807 (down 9 per cent on 2007). Of those, 1,784 were pedestrians, 6 per cent down on 2007. 124 children died on the roads, 2 per cent higher than in the previous year, when the lowest ever child fatality figure of 121 was recorded."


Geez. Thank god for gun control in the UK...
 
as more people carry weapons in public does not the added protection to the individual become an increased danger to society as a whole?

how does more people carrying=more danger to society? do you have any statistics showing CCW holders commit crimes?

I can testify that conservatively 35% of U.S. Navy personnel receive no weapons training. I would guess it would be at least that for the Air Force.


Every Airman is trained in the safe handling and use of firearms in basic training. Your guess is incorrect.
 

cnynrat

Expedition Leader
"The Bill of Rights was clearly intended by the authors to be a statement of rights that are a birthright to all humans." White males certainly. But it did not apply to non-whites, native Americans or in some cases women, at the time it was drafted.

A classic red herring argument. We've recognized that error, and extended those rights to women and done away with slavery. In so doing we did not conclude that the fundamental rights expressed in the BOR are granted by any government, rather we've concluded that all humans have the inherent rights they represent.
 

Scott Brady

Founder
Having been trained in 9mm and M16 while in the Air Force, I can also verify that all Airman are trained at least in M16. Once I earned my marksmanship status and began deploying, I was also trained in 9mm.
 
how does more people carrying=more danger to society? do you have any statistics showing CCW holders commit crimes?

here I found some stats..

"One study found that in Florida CCW holders were 300 times less likely than the general population to commit a crime. The firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Between the beginning of Florida’s permitting program and the end of 2005, the state issued 1,104,468 concealed weapons permits. During that time period; 3,643 permits were revoked—a rate of about .3 percent. Of those revocations; 2,941 involved a crime after licensure; 157 of those crimes involved the use of a firearm. "

"A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense."

"North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law."

Georgia: "studies by numerous independent researchers and state agencies have found that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes"

in 2004, the state of Utah had a permit revocation rate of about .4 percent. The rate for revocations due to
firearm offenses was .02 percent..

between 1986 and 2003, only .8 percent of Kentucky's 71,770 licenses were revoked for any reason

in 2001, Indiana revoked about .2 percent of its outstanding concealed weapon permits

since the inception of its concealed weapons program in 1995, Virginia has seen a revocation rate of just .2
percent.

between October of 1994 and February of 1996, the state of Wyoming issued 2,273 permits and revoked
four, a revocation rate of just under .2 percent.

between 1996, when its shall-issue law passed, and September of 1999, the state of Oklahoma issued 30,406
permits and revoked only 62–a rate of .2 percent.


The truth shouldn't come as a surprise either.
This is what you typically know about a person who has a CCW in many states:
(specifically Tennessee in the example)

They've never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year".
They've never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
They've never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
They were not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
They were not the subject of an order of protection at the time they applied for a CCW.
They haven't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the past 10 years
They haven't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
They've never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
They've never been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions ("dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than honorable discharge Chapter 1340-2-5-.02 (5)").
They've never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
They've never received social security disability benefits "by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."


Besides, most CCW holders know exactly what the law is, and the responsibility of carrying and the serious implications of using a CCW inappropriately, so many holders tend to AVOID more situations that may be inclined to lead to trouble.
 

keezer37

Explorer
how does more people carrying=more danger to society? do you have any statistics showing CCW holders commit crimes?

Every Airman is trained in the safe handling and use of firearms in basic training. Your guess is incorrect.

I was posing a question. To answer it myself I can only say that a society armed is more dangerous to itself. That is my opinion and is glaring in common sense. Regarding statistics, I commented on this at the end of my post.

I retract my antiquated comment of weapons training in the military. We received none when I went through boot camp. All training was aboard ship and only to watchstanders who had a need for it. Engineering Department received none.
Requalls were rarely performed until after 9/11.
 

Mr. Leary

Glamping Excursionaire
Less killing power than an expo truck doing 60mph and ramming into...anything really.

Vehicles kill a hell of a lot more CHILDREN than guns. I can tell you which I would restrict more diligently. And yet, as has been pointed out in this thread - we ALREADY screen drivers.

Doesn't work though does it? CHILDREN STILL DIE.

We're talking about risk. Fine. FIRST deal with the problem that has the highest risk. Guns aren't nearly as serious a problem as idiots behind the wheel.

That's not politically correct though is it? Not popular. No one wants to tackle THAT problem. So let's argue guns, that's always a handy bandwagon to jump on.


"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson

Where are you going with this? We still have no feasable alternatives for transportation, and safety standards have steadily been improved since the 60s. Sure, its not perfect. But its still a cause worth the effort, as are many others. Are you suggesting further training should be required for drivers (if you did, I would agree with you)?

The truth shouldn't come as a surprise either.
This is what you typically know about a person who has a CCW in many states:
(specifically Tennessee in the example)

They've never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year".
They've never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
They've never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
They were not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
They were not the subject of an order of protection at the time they applied for a CCW.
They haven't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the past 10 years
They haven't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
They've never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
They've never been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions ("dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than honorable discharge Chapter 1340-2-5-.02 (5)").
They've never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
They've never received social security disability benefits "by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."


Besides, most CCW holders know exactly what the law is, and the responsibility of carrying and the serious implications of using a CCW inappropriately, so many holders tend to AVOID more situations that may be inclined to lead to trouble.

This would seem to be a strong argument for the additional screening and training we have been talking about. If Bubba wants to carry a concealed gun, he must be screened and trained. Why should this not be extended to certain firearms and ammunition? Enforce the laws and prosecute offenders... laws with teeth.

I would feel safer knowing that gun owners have at least had a basic gun safety class before they can exercise their 2nd amendment rights, and gun owners who tote assault rifles and extra lethal ammunition have an additional layer of screening / training.
 

xtatik

Explorer
2a. Making law abiding citizens take a personality test to ensure that they have the necessary traits to rate firearm ownership......Really?

Yes, the Arizona shooter was a law abiding citizen and had done nothing prior that would have precluded him from ownership. A psych eval would have nailed him dead square. Many who have gone postal were law abiding citizens as well.....right up to those last few seconds/moments . They would have been revealed as well.


Who decides on the list of traits? I know very little of the Psych eval you guys have mentioned, but it seems like whoever sets the parameters determines who "passes." Does the federal government set the parameters? If not them, then who? If the government sets the parameters then why bother with the test at all--the government is still saying who can and cannot own a gun.

The government?....Whos that?...... J/K, but what I'm pointing out here is how the language gets formed when we talk about gun rights. We covered this earlier...you are the government and should have a say in how the criterion gets set.
Let me ask this hypothetical, and answer honestly: If you were allowed to actually sit on the panel and have direct input in the discussion of trying to establish what levels of Schizophrenia, history of, or propensity for Depression and impaired vision would be permissable for gun ownership...what would your inputs be?
 
I would feel safer knowing that gun owners have at least had a basic gun safety class before they can exercise their 2nd amendment rights, and gun owners who tote assault rifles and extra lethal ammunition have an additional layer of screening / training.

when you buy a handgun it is a requrement (at least in ca) to prove to the FFL that you can operate said firearm , with a small safety demostration, and there is a handgun safety test you must take before purchasing a handgun. which costs 25 dollars to take(dont know where that money goes to.. but it must be some damn expensive paper they print it on)

I can kill you just as easily with my 22 revolver as I can with my AK 47, or my Ar15, or even with my vintage .303 british..

Hell my shotgun could kill the **** out of you..... and its a pump action... if I ever fix my single shot 20Ga that could put you down just as easily..
 
Last edited:
Yes, the Arizona shooter was a law abiding citizen and had done nothing prior that would have precluded him from ownership. A psych eval would have nailed him dead square. Many who have gone postal were law abiding citizens as well.....right up to those last few seconds/moments . They would have been revealed as well.


actually he had merely skated by because several agencies failed to report his erratic behavior, and drug use....
 

xtatik

Explorer
here I found some stats..

"One study found that in Florida CCW holders were 300 times less likely than the general population to commit a crime. The firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Between the beginning of Florida’s permitting program and the end of 2005, the state issued 1,104,468 concealed weapons permits. During that time period; 3,643 permits were revoked—a rate of about .3 percent. Of those revocations; 2,941 involved a crime after licensure; 157 of those crimes involved the use of a firearm. "

"A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense."

"North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law."

Georgia: "studies by numerous independent researchers and state agencies have found that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes"

in 2004, the state of Utah had a permit revocation rate of about .4 percent. The rate for revocations due to
firearm offenses was .02 percent..

between 1986 and 2003, only .8 percent of Kentucky's 71,770 licenses were revoked for any reason

in 2001, Indiana revoked about .2 percent of its outstanding concealed weapon permits

since the inception of its concealed weapons program in 1995, Virginia has seen a revocation rate of just .2
percent.

between October of 1994 and February of 1996, the state of Wyoming issued 2,273 permits and revoked
four, a revocation rate of just under .2 percent.

between 1996, when its shall-issue law passed, and September of 1999, the state of Oklahoma issued 30,406
permits and revoked only 62–a rate of .2 percent.


The truth shouldn't come as a surprise either.
This is what you typically know about a person who has a CCW in many states:
(specifically Tennessee in the example)

They've never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year".
They've never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
They've never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
They were not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
They were not the subject of an order of protection at the time they applied for a CCW.
They haven't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the past 10 years
They haven't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
They've never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
They've never been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions ("dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than honorable discharge Chapter 1340-2-5-.02 (5)").
They've never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
They've never received social security disability benefits "by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."


Besides, most CCW holders know exactly what the law is, and the responsibility of carrying and the serious implications of using a CCW inappropriately, so many holders tend to AVOID more situations that may be inclined to lead to trouble.

With all due respect, this has nothing to do with the specific subject of this thread. We're talking general population, fundamental rights and who might be precluded. CCW isn't the issue.
The thread is starting to get broadly bombed with less relevant info much like other general threads on the subject. I'm sure Mr. Leary (the OP) would like to keep this thread better focused, but it may be too much to ask.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,188
Messages
2,903,578
Members
229,665
Latest member
SANelson
Top