Perhaps the single-most idiotic statement EVER opposing CCW


PDA






FireBreather01
February 1, 2006, 09:45 PM
I had to read this 3 times yesterday to make sure I hadn't mistakenly ingested hallucinogenic mushrooms in my dinner the previous night.

This 'thinking', if it can be loosely described as such, shows exactly what we're up against here in WI. Can you believe this drivel?????????

http://www.jsonline.com/news/weblogs/index.asp?id=70&month=1&year=2006
MONDAY, Jan. 30, 2006, 6:31 p.m.

Criminals have advantage with concealed weapons

One of the arguments often used to support concealed carry is that it will allow ordinary, law-abiding citizens to fend off street criminals. But talk to prosecutors and police officers who deal exclusively with gun crimes, and they'll tell you that gang members and other street thugs almost always pack their guns in their waistbands with the safeties off so they can immediately draw and fire. And where normal people might hesitate to pull the trigger, the thug won't hesitate for a second because in the streets, it's kill or be killed. Advantage: the armed criminal.
By Jerry Resler, editorial writer

If you enjoyed reading about "Perhaps the single-most idiotic statement EVER opposing CCW" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
lucky_fool
February 1, 2006, 09:51 PM
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Armed criminal, unarmed victim. Advantage: armed criminal.

`Nuff said.

telomerase
February 1, 2006, 10:35 PM
See, if the citizen doesn't have a gun, they don't have the problem that their draw is too slow.

And of course we all know that waistband carry is faster than IWB.

georgeduz
February 1, 2006, 10:51 PM
i live in nj so there is no hope for me.nj doesnt belive in the 2nd amendment nor do they care about the bill of rights.unlike your state they dont want citizens to own a gun,or let any harm come to a Armed criminal,for they have more rights than I,i served in the army in iraq for one year just to come home and find out i lost more freedoms,i came home and this state made me a criminal with all there new gun laws.

Lion_dog
February 1, 2006, 10:55 PM
Yup, he's right.:rolleyes:






:evil:

Pilgrim
February 1, 2006, 10:55 PM
But talk to prosecutors and police officers who deal exclusively with gun crimes, and they'll tell you that gang members and other street thugs almost always pack their guns in their waistbands with the safeties off so they can immediately draw and fire. And where normal people might hesitate to pull the trigger, the thug won't hesitate for a second because in the streets, it's kill or be killed. Advantage: the armed criminal.
The hesitation works true for both sides. The thug does not have a monopoly on decisive action.

Pilgrim

Firethorn
February 2, 2006, 12:26 AM
I carry with a CZ75BD, in a fitted holster, with one in the pipe, hammer down.

Who's less likely to have a snag?
Who's more likely to shoot a somewhat important part of themselves?

It'll take me how long to get a shot off? The CZ75BD doesn't even have a manual safety. I got it due to experience with a bad range instructor that wanted us to rely on the manual safety way too much. So I got a semi without one.

Darn tootin I pay attention to trigger control with that puppy.

Standing Wolf
February 2, 2006, 12:28 AM
This 'thinking', if it can be loosely described as such, shows exactly what we're up against here in WI. Can you believe this drivel?????????

I could believe such drivel more easily if you were to tell me the "author" was a high school kid.

Crosshair
February 2, 2006, 12:59 AM
Crack does not smoke itself.:barf:

progunner1957
February 2, 2006, 01:04 AM
And where normal people might hesitate to pull the trigger, the thug won't hesitate for a second because in the streets, it's kill or be killed. Advantage: the armed criminal.
So according to this brain-dead moron, an unarmed "normal person" is better off to be unarmed against an armed thug?

WTFO??

So by his "reasoning," police would be better off with no guns too - they might hesitate to shoot due to all the paperwork involved when they do.

What a freaking idiot!:barf:

Jeff
February 2, 2006, 01:52 AM
But talk to prosecutors and police officers who deal exclusively with gun crimes, and they'll tell you that gang members and other street thugs almost always pack their guns in their waistbands with the safeties off so they can immediately draw and fire.

I wasn't aware that "gang members and other street thugs" were largely a danger to regular citizens. Don't such lowly elements mostly just shoot each other?

The idea behind concealed carry is to protect oneself from other types of human dangers, such as pathological predators, impulse subjects (i.e. road rage, street rage involving weapons), women protecting themsleves from rapists, robberies, muggings, etc.

foghornl
February 2, 2006, 11:20 AM
Crack does not smoke itself

ROTFLMAO

We do have CCW here in Ohio, but also have some of the dumbest restrictions...

When you get into car, has to immediately go from concealed to "in plain sight" ...whatever THAT means....[switch from say IWB to an outside thigh holster]

Media has full access to, AND PUBLISHES names/ages/county of resisdence of CCW holders.

Armed criminal, unarmed victim. Advantage: armed criminal.

pretty well sums up the discussion.

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 11:54 AM
Media has full access to, AND PUBLISHES names/ages/county of resisdence of CCW holders.

"I'm not certain that I have an issue with that."

If the entire concept of the 2nd Amendment is to promise access to firearms, who cares if the exercising of such is advertised? :confused:

boofus
February 2, 2006, 12:04 PM
Well you have a right to use those drug store enema bags too. Do you want the entire world knowing what brand and how long you use them for?

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 12:18 PM
Well you have a right to use those drug store enema bags too. Do you want the entire world knowing what brand and how long you use them for?

It's not as if you're buying them online and having them shipped to your door in brown paper. John Q. with a case of Depends in his shopping cart is pretty much "in public."

MechAg94
February 2, 2006, 12:33 PM
Yes you are.

You don't need a license to wear Depends.

gt3944
February 2, 2006, 12:49 PM
ok retards,:cuss: what the hell, was I at your house for dinner....

lucky_fool
February 2, 2006, 01:17 PM
"I'm not certain that I have an issue with that."

If the entire concept of the 2nd Amendment is to promise access to firearms, who cares if the exercising of such is advertised? :confused:

How many people with a carry permit own only one gun? I don't know any, and they can't either stay home or carry all of them all the time.

How hard is it to find an address for someone if you know their name and county of residence? Not hard.

Why are you okay with newspapers essentially giving criminals lists of houses that almost certainly have guns in them?

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 01:27 PM
Why are you okay with newspapers essentially giving criminals lists of houses that almost certainly have guns in them?

Because this would be marginally different then offering lists that have jewels, electronics or cash in them?

1. Criminals know what you have, based upon things that have nothing to do with the paper.
2. I find it amusing that folks want 2nd Amendment "rights" but desire nobody to know about it.
3. An address is a simple thing to locate in any event.

Manedwolf
February 2, 2006, 01:28 PM
I had to read this 3 times yesterday to make sure I hadn't mistakenly ingested hallucinogenic mushrooms in my dinner the previous night.

This 'thinking', if it can be loosely described as such, shows exactly what we're up against here in WI. Can you believe this drivel?????????

http://www.jsonline.com/news/weblogs/index.asp?id=70&month=1&year=2006
MONDAY, Jan. 30, 2006, 6:31 p.m.


By Jerry Resler, editorial writer

...

I just have no idea what to say to that. It's like something from the mad tea-party as written by Lewis Carrol...

Manedwolf
February 2, 2006, 01:30 PM
ROTFLMAO

We do have CCW here in Ohio, but also have some of the dumbest restrictions...

When you get into car, has to immediately go from concealed to "in plain sight" ...whatever THAT means....[switch from say IWB to an outside thigh holster]

Duct-taped to forehead.

lucky_fool
February 2, 2006, 01:35 PM
Because this would be marginally different then offering lists that have jewels, electronics or cash in them?

:confused: I wouldn't want the paper publishing my info and telling crooks I have an expensive art collection, either. (Not that I do)

1. Criminals know what you have, based upon things that have nothing to do with the paper.

I think I've done a good enough job of opsec that crooks across town don't know I have guns in my house.

2. I find it amusing that folks want 2nd Amendment "rights" but desire nobody to know about it.

It's not that I want nobody to know that I have guns, it's that I don't want everybody to know.

3. An address is a simple thing to locate in any event.

Yes it is, that's my point. But unless the crook has a reason to find my specific address why would he?

El Tejon
February 2, 2006, 01:41 PM
I'd vote Top 10 but not the dumbest.:D

As someone who spends a lot of time around criminals (alleged and convicted), police officers and prosecutors, I can say that his statement is completely inaccurate.

I see a lot of Condition 3 (who knew the Israelis trained the crooks? They shoot from a horse stance too, Oy Veh!). Heck I even see pistols with the wrong magazines inserted.:D

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 01:42 PM
Yes it is, that's my point. But unless the crook has a reason to find my specific address why would he?

Interesting. Isn't the entire point of gun ownership for personal protection being that it "deters crimes against you body/property?" I'd think you'd want neon signs indicating that your crib is a gun-friendly domicile. :confused:

torpid
February 2, 2006, 01:56 PM
If the entire concept of the 2nd Amendment is to promise access to firearms, who cares if the exercising of such is advertised?

Depends on where you reside. In some political climates, it could jeopardize your employment and business relations, as well as social and childcare circles.

Someone wrote a great article about 10 years ago about "coming out" as a "closeted" gun owner, and the repercussions that they encountered (eerily similar to the attitudes of a small town in 1950's America towards an openly gay man, but change to a "tolerant" modern left-leaning city, and the man is a legal gun owner).


.

Janitor
February 2, 2006, 02:17 PM
Interesting. Isn't the entire point of gun ownership for personal protection being that it "deters crimes against you body/property?" I'd think you'd want neon signs indicating that your crib is a gun-friendly domicile. :confused:
So you take all your guns with you when you go out?

AJ Dual
February 2, 2006, 02:47 PM
The reason that public notification of CCW is a problem, is because our enemies want it.

I agree that the criminal threat from a published list, while real, it's probably limited. To my knowledge, crime facilitated by such a disclosure has not yet been documented. Of course, it could happen eventually, and even one instance would be too often.

However, whether or not public exposure of CCW's is harmful is irrelevant, the intent of the media is what matters here. Even if by Ezekiel's reasoning, publishing CCW lists is harmless, the fact that the media did not have harmless intent is sufficient to oppose them. The anti, mainstream press has made use of public CCW records in attempt to bully people into not exercising their rights. Even if there is "nothing to be ashamed about", (and I agree), the fact that the enemies of RKBA want it, is sufficient reason to deny it.

The anti-gun, nominally liberal mainstream press hopes to thwart CCW in practice after they failed to do so legislatively. It's utterly transparent that despite claims over the public's "right to know", "open government, and first Amendment concerns, they really hoped to engender hostility and ostracism in the families, friends, and co-workers of CCW permit holders.

Interestingly, pro-RKBA forces began publishing public info about these newspaper's editors, such as name, phone number, address, family members, and other interesting things like city property tax records. In most cases, the newspapers stopped publishing the lists, or printed retractions.

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 02:49 PM
So you take all your guns with you when you go out?

You don't keep yours in a safe?

Mongo the Mutterer
February 2, 2006, 02:53 PM
they'll tell you that gang members and other street thugs almost always pack their guns in their waistbands with the safeties off so they can immediately draw and fireI hope so...

Gang banger birth control?

Don't Tread On Me
February 2, 2006, 02:53 PM
Wow...that statement was pure stupidity. Which is precisely why I don't get self-defense advice from a chiropractor, or back pain relief from a Karate Master, or financial portfolio advice from a Burger King manager.


Maybe the Cops and the DA should stick to what they know best, eating donuts and prosecuting everyone.

AJ Dual
February 2, 2006, 03:08 PM
You don't keep yours in a safe?

I'm actualy somewhat with you in this debate, since I acknowledge that there's been no recorded instance of a crime caused by a public CCW list.

However, it's obvious should a criminal be informed by such a list that a target owns guns, a safe becomes much less of a deterrent.

1. Most locksmiths will tell you, "gun safe's" aren't really safe's, not by industry standards, they are technicaly RSC's. "Residential Security Containers". The units deemed to be true "safe's" for commercial or banking use are much heavier, larger, and in terms of expense, out of reach for all but the wealthiest gun collector. Given time, RSC's can be easily defeated with hand-tools such as a sledgehammer and chisel, or portable battery operated electric tools, like a Sawzall. Sometimes they're just ripped and dragged out of the house with chains and a sturdy truck.

2. If the criminal knows the home has guns, he can come prepared to tackle the security measures in place. Residential security containers are only truly useful in thwarting the opportunistic burglar, "smash & grab" thief, juvenile delinquents, or drug-addict style thieves. Someone who is even "semi-pro" can break into one with some preparation. (i.e. a CCW list...)

3. The third, and most unapealling possibility, is simply ambushing the homeowner, holding them hostage, and forcing them to open the RSC. If the element of surprise is taken from the CCW holder, AND, the attacker has the initiative, it's a very difficult combination for someone to defeat.

Again, all the above is stil unlikely, IMO, but it still outweighs the "public right to know". Especialy since the main reason for public notification in CCW bills is that they're really just a hostile amendment to create a back door for the press to discourage and embarass carriers.

scout26
February 2, 2006, 03:29 PM
The purpose of concealed carry is not just to protect yourself to also provide an "umbrella of protection" to those who choose to not carry.

I do not mean that as a CCW holder you have any obligation to protect others/strangers, but that by exercising that your right to carry the BG's cannot tell the "sheep" from the "goats" and therefore will hesitate to commit evil acts, unless they know for sure that their targeted victim is defeneseless.

Same with publishing list of CCW holders. It could have one of two effects.

1) Hit that house as we know there's guns in there that we can use/fence.
2) Don't hit that house, hit the one next door that doesn't have guns so that we won't face an armed homeowner.

The key is ambiguity/anonimity. I want the BG's to be afraid to hit either house, by not knowing whether they could be facing an armed homeowner. Just the same as out on the street. (Play "Spot the CCW'er.")

The goal is to keep the BG's guessing, so that YOU have the element of surprise on your side, making them afraid to commit their evil acts. Which has the spillover effect of protecting those who don't carry.

Besides it is no-ones business what I have in my house unless I choose to tell them.

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 03:35 PM
Besides it is no-ones business what I have in my house unless I choose to tell them.

Are you only going to CCW in your house?

The goal is to keep the BG's guessing, so that YOU have the element of surprise on your side, making them afraid to commit their evil acts.

I thought the goal was to protect ourselves from governmental tyranny? Now folks want to become the Black Panthers? Vigilantes?

"We can't even keep our own motivations straight."

jashobeam
February 2, 2006, 04:24 PM
Are you only going to CCW in your house?

What are you talking about? How did you come up with this? Your statements and questions indicate that you refuse to understand or even acknowledge others' reasons for believing that publishing lists of CCW holders is undesirable. Certain members here have taken the time to compose thoughtful objections to a position that you support; why are you unwilling or unable to respond in kind?


I thought the goal was to protect ourselves from governmental tyranny?
What line of reasoning led you to respond in this manner to a perfectly logical post explaining valid reasons to oppose publishing a list of CCW holders? Are you saying that the goal of CCW is to protect ourselves from governmental tyranny or that the reason for opposing published lists is to protect ourselves from such? The government does not need to reference published lists to discover who is licensed to CCW. I have never read anywhere on THR that the actual act of CCW has anything to do with opposing tyranny, it is about self-protection.

Now folks want to become the Black Panthers? Vigilantes?
Where did someone suggest this? You are arguing like a leftist, putting false and easily defeated arguments into the mouths of opponents.

There have been several well-reasoned arguments already posted against publishing lists of CCW holders. If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. People are less likely to misinterpret your position when you take the time to explain yourself and support your view with logic and reason instead of posting little questions and ad hominems as responses.

madmike
February 2, 2006, 04:59 PM
"I'm not certain that I have an issue with that."

If the entire concept of the 2nd Amendment is to promise access to firearms, who cares if the exercising of such is advertised? :confused:

While we're at it, I'd like a list of gays, blacks, Jews, Catholics, trade unionists, single women and newspaper editors.

No real reason. I'd just like to know.;)

lucky_fool
February 2, 2006, 05:48 PM
While we're at it, I'd like a list of gays, blacks, Jews, Catholics, trade unionists, single women and newspaper editors.

No real reason. I'd just like to know.;)

And parole officers. You know, just in case a parolee wants to check in with their PO at home.

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 05:59 PM
And parole officers. You know, just in case a parolee wants to check in with their PO at home.

The parolees -- by definition -- know who the Parole Officers are.

(And they knew better then to call on me at home. Interrupting my scotch/cigar ritual would have gotten someone shot.)

lucky_fool
February 2, 2006, 06:09 PM
The parolees -- by definition -- know who the Parole Officers are.

(And they knew better then to call on me at home. Interrupting my scotch/cigar ritual would have gotten someone shot.)

I know, I'm just trying to get across that there are certain pieces of information about my life that aren't for public dissemination. Just like there are probably things about you that you'd rather not have published in the paper.

xd9fan
February 2, 2006, 06:21 PM
Its all about controling/framing the arguement.....the spin.......its not about logic The masses dont want to think about most things that require a thought process.

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 08:17 PM
Just like there are probably things about you that you'd rather not have published in the paper.

I do spend a lot of my time reading what my wife calls "gun porn." :D

justice4all
February 2, 2006, 09:12 PM
This prosecutor, and most all of the cops I know, have no problem with decent people being armed.

SL4SI
February 3, 2006, 08:11 PM
Heres another brilliant article on gun control found it at http://www.gunguys.com/?p=361

In Rochester, Less Guns Equals Less Crime
Well well well, look at this. The gun lobby (and their various worshippers) like to claim “more guns, less crime!” (as in more guns on the streets equals less crime) until they’re hoarse, but statistics in today’s Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester, New York prove that reality is exactly the opposite. Less illegal guns taken by police (which means more on the street) makes for more gun crimes.

Police cheer each recovery of a “crime gun.” But crime statistics obtained by the Democrat and Chronicle show that the number of guns taken off Rochester’s streets fell dramatically from 1999 to 2002 while at the same time gun crimes spiked, peaking in 2003, which saw a near-record 57 homicides.

In 2002, police recovered 427 illegal guns, a 33.5 percent decrease from the 642 guns recovered in 1999.

At the same time, the number of serious crimes involving the use of a firearm jumped 27.8 percent, from 493 to 630 and peaked at 827 in 2003.

And now, as police start to take more and more weapons off the street, the curve is going the other way.

Since then, gun recoveries have begun to rebound, while gun crimes, despite several high-profile homicides this year, are declining.

A new effort this year, Operation Law and Order, intends to take even more illegal guns off the street. Of the 453 guns that had been seized by the beginning of this month, 184 had been recovered since the operation was launched in mid-July.

“You can’t say that when you take 200 guns off the street that you saved 200 lives, but we know that every gun represents a potential homicide or assault,” said acting Police Chief Cedric Alexander. “So it’s not unreasonable to believe that if you take more guns off the street, violent crime is going to go down.”

How about that? Exactly the opposite of what the gun lobby says is true! Where we come from, that’s called “lying.” Wonder what else the gun lobby has been lying about…

Do they not understand that when it is said "More Guns, Less Crime" that it means LEGAL firearms.:confused: :banghead:

tellner
February 3, 2006, 08:25 PM
I had to read this 3 times yesterday to make sure I hadn't mistakenly ingested hallucinogenic mushrooms in my dinner the previous night.

This 'thinking', if it can be loosely described as such, shows exactly what we're up against here in WI. Can you believe this drivel?????????

Nah. The most idiotic statement opposing CCW still has to be "It puts you on the same moral level as the criminal."

Billmanweh
February 4, 2006, 02:16 AM
I can see why the newspaper might want to double check the background checks for people on the CHL list, and I don't know what the legality is of keeping the list secret. But clearly, the intent of publishing a list is to apply pressure to discourage people from getting a CHL.

Meplat
February 4, 2006, 02:30 PM
But talk to prosecutors and police officers who deal exclusively with gun crimes, and they'll tell you that gang members and other street thugs almost always pack their guns in their waistbands with the safeties off so they can immediately draw and fire.

Ah, were this only true. Think of all the illegitimate progeny this would eleminate were all the gang-bangers to shoot themselves in the hoo-ha's by practicing quick draws from their waistbands with chambers loaded and safeties off.

Meplat
February 4, 2006, 02:48 PM
Interestingly, pro-RKBA forces began publishing public info about these newspaper's editors, such as name, phone number, address, family members, and other interesting things like city property tax records. In most cases, the newspapers stopped publishing the lists, or printed retractions.

When this state implemented CCW, the local newspapers (who had all rabidly opposed the legislation) immediately took up the practice of publishing the names and addresses of the people who had been issued a permit. It was done as nothing more than a means of trying to intimidate anyone who would counter their leftist postion by actually exercising their rights. They were trying to depict CCW holders in much the same light that registered sex offenders stand in - IOW, "this person has a firearm and chooses to carry it, and is therefore a danger to children and other living creatures."

I find it extremely interesting that they saw no need to let us know the names and addresses of all the fifteen year old kids who were getting their driver's licenses - and who were much more statistically likely to cause mayhem - so that we could avoid THESE dangerous creatures...Just hate that I never thought about the idea of publishing the facts about the publisher's lives that they may have liked kept private. Someone had a darn good idea on that one.

Meplat
February 4, 2006, 02:54 PM
"I'm not certain that I have an issue with that."

If the entire concept of the 2nd Amendment is to promise access to firearms, who cares if the exercising of such is advertised? :confused:

I most certainly DO have an issue with it. Almost invariably, it occurs immediately following the passage of CCW legislation. It is a blatant attempt to brand CCW holders with the same stamp placed upon registered sex offenders.

Else, they would not be publishing them. There is no other reason for them to be giving out addresses than the fact that they hope to intimidate, or at the least humiliate others into NOT getting a permit.

Meplat
February 4, 2006, 03:04 PM
Interesting. Isn't the entire point of gun ownership for personal protection being that it "deters crimes against you body/property?" I'd think you'd want neon signs indicating that your crib is a gun-friendly domicile. :confused:

Part of the effectiveness of concealed carry is the fact that the scuzz-buckets can never be entirely sure of who is armed and who isn't.

Why do you think that they don't want open carry? Why is "flashing" grounds for losing your CCW? Just the fact that someone MIGHT be carrying the means to defend him/herself is enough to cause hesitation. It not only keeps the holder from undue harassment, it also serves as a deterrent to help protect those unwise enough or unthinking enough to walk around without protection of their own.

Strings
February 4, 2006, 03:26 PM
>While we're at it, I'd like a list of gays, blacks, Jews, Catholics, trade unionists, single women and newspaper editors.<

Yeah, but Mike... wanting that list of single women, might get ya hurt... ;)

I'm against publication of such a list: don't see where it's anyone's business. Seriously, Ezekiel... what actual purpose does such serve?

Ezekiel
February 4, 2006, 03:42 PM
Seriously, Ezekiel... what actual purpose does such serve?

"It lets me, and the rest of the populace, know who the loonies are that have guns."

Not that having a gun makes you a loonie -- if so, I am one -- but, well, "I know a lot of dumb people." The sort that would make me think, "they gave this crack addict a gun?" If my wacko neighbor has CCW, or carries a gun, I'd like to think he met minimum standards.

Someone, intelligently, asked why we don't publish the names of folks with DLs. The simple answer is that anyone over 16 is presumed to have one: there is no great conspiracy.

Government licensing is public domain. It's really that simple. If it scares folks to think they might be "branded" by having thier name in the paper, they're not that committed.

Janitor
February 4, 2006, 03:46 PM
If my wacko neighbor has CCW, or carries a gun, I'd like to think he met minimum standards.
Whose minimum standards would you require they meet? Yours? How about mine? Maybe somebody like Sarah Brady should come up with them?

Personaly, I think the requirement should be that we meet the minimum standards talked about in the Constitution.

zealot
February 4, 2006, 04:13 PM
I think CCW's and CHL's are just pure BS. I wish we could all just go back to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and go to Vermont and Alaska style carry. If you want a gun in your pocket for protection, just go get one. No need to ask the Master's, "May I?"

garyk/nm
February 4, 2006, 04:30 PM
Ezekiel,
Do you have a large sign on the outside of your house advertising the fact that there are guns inside? If not, please go put one up immediately. Then get back to us in a week and let us know how it went.

Gatman
February 4, 2006, 08:06 PM
While we're at it, I'd like a list of single women.
No real reason. I'd just like to know.;)

I fixed it so I could add a +1.

orionengnr
February 4, 2006, 08:33 PM
and if I haven't said it recently, God Bless Texas.

It was specifically spelled out in the CHL legislation that no-one has access to the list. No Brady-ites, no "news"::barf: papers.

Texas DPS, I am sure, has all of the applications, and knows how many have been approved. But the Dallas Morning "News":barf: does not.

God Blessed Texas, and some of her lawmakers, with (un)common sense..

Maybe some of them actually read and understand the Constitution:rolleyes:

CleverNickname
February 4, 2006, 08:42 PM
It was specifically spelled out in the CHL legislation that no-one has access to the list. No Brady-ites, no "news"::barf: papers.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's still possible to find out if a specific person has a CHL by writing the DPS and giving the person's name and ZIP code, and pay a small fee. Then the DPS will give a yes/no answer, but they'll also notify the CHL holder who inquired about their CHL status. There was a bill to eliminate this method of inquiry in the last session of the TX legislature, but I don't believe it passed.

Ezekiel
February 4, 2006, 09:09 PM
Do you have a large sign on the outside of your house advertising the fact that there are guns inside?

"No."

But I also wouldn't think it the endtime were my name to be published in a local paper.

"Zealots bitch for no reason other then they're zealots."

tyme
February 4, 2006, 10:24 PM
“You can’t say that when you take 200 guns off the street that you saved 200 lives, but we know that every gun represents a potential homicide or assault,” said acting Police Chief Cedric Alexander. “So it’s not unreasonable to believe that if you take more guns off the street, violent crime is going to go down.”
It certainly is unreasonable. Unless the "crime gun" pool in a city is on the order of 200 guns, a decrease of 200 guns isn't going to matter much... even if those 200 were all eliminated at once, which they're not. One or two guns confiscated each day is going to have no impact on the overall crime rate, because there are plenty of spare guns floating around on the black market. If supply shrinks enough, there's plenty of time for the black market to find a source for more guns.

Art Eatman
February 5, 2006, 02:27 PM
Ezekiel, lemme put it this way: There is a lot of stuff that I may have a right to know, but I don't necessarily have a need to know. Some stuff just isn't my danged business. It's not a matter of any legal right to privacy; it's the moral thing of "Mind your own (bleep) business, and stay out of mine." Hank Williams sang about that over a half-century back, but it still holds true today.

When a state issues a CHL, it means that the recipient did not flunk the Good Guy Test. Therefore the state has assured itself that there is no public danger from the recipient. It follows from that fact that it's nobody else's business about you or me having or not having a CHL. An honest person's knowledge or lack of knowledge about a CHL does not in any way affect his safety.

I wear a seatbelt against an untoward event of relatively small likelihood. Refraining from publicizing people's CHLs is also a protection against an untoward event of small liklihood: Burglary.

But common sense just ain't real common in Modern America.

:(, Art

Scottmkiv
February 5, 2006, 03:43 PM
I think a CCW license is like a Poll Tax. You are licensing, and requiring someone to pay for, a right. This would be like the News papers taking it a step farther and publishing names and addresses of people that paid the poll tax.

If you enjoyed reading about "Perhaps the single-most idiotic statement EVER opposing CCW" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!