Gun Free Zones: The Ugly Truth


PDA






Dean Weingarten
February 28, 2013, 05:14 PM
The ugly truth is that gun free zones are not about irrational dreams of safety. They are about power and control. The irrational spouting about safety is just a way to get emotional support from those who don’t really think about the issue.

Gun free zones are just another incremental way to move toward total control. The idea is simple: make an example of a place where guns are not allowed, with no rational reason other than “we do not tolerated armed citizens *here*” . This lends legitimacy to the thought that citizens with guns are a bad thing, and the idea that more such zones should be created and encouraged. Haven't we all heard a variant of “If we do not allow guns in (school, legislature, church) then we certainly should not allow them in (school, legislature, church, parking lot, mall, store, DC.)

Gun free zones are designed to grow and spread, like small pox.

The other purpose of gun free zones is to make carrying a gun as uncomfortable, legally dangerous, and impractical as possible. Look at any map that shows the impact of the insane “Gun Free School Zone” act of 1996. In any urban area, it becomes impossible to conduct business in a normal manner while carrying a gun that is not licensed in that state, without breaking the law.

Neither of these clear purposes is discussed openly by those who detest free citizens, fear the power that they gain from carrying guns, and the independent mindset that it fosters.

Those who favor citizen disarmament base their appeal on lies, derive their power from lies, and cannot exist when their lies are exposed.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/03/gun-free-zones-ugly-truth.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Free Zones: The Ugly Truth" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JustinJ
February 28, 2013, 06:55 PM
The ugly truth is that gun free zones are not about irrational dreams of safety. They are about power and control. The irrational spouting about safety is just a way to get emotional support from those who don’t really think about the issue.

What evidence do you have for the above statement? Do you have the ability to magically read people's minds to identify their real motives? It is not hard to understand how people intuitevely conclude that restricting firearms will create a safer area. If a store, hospital or church decides to ban guns on their premise do you honestly believe it is because they attempting to gain incrimental control? Some businesses with lots of money or valuables on hand ban concealed weapons because they believe the best chances of preventing death or injury during a robbery is to comply with the thief rather than resist. In the vast majority of instances they are probably right. They don't want a customer or employee to turn a robbery into a murder. Some places may also be concerned with irresponsible gun handling. Negligent discharges do happen and i know people with permits who have accidentally left their guns in public places. Others may be concerned about normally law abiding citizens escalating conflicts to dangerous levels that otherwise would be minor. Security has a saying about signs and cameras, they keep the honest people honest.

Am I in favor of gun free zones? No. There are instances in which i can see the reason behind them but i don't believe my ability to defend myself should be limited because of the actions of others. Some people don't agre with me. That doesn't justify me making up unsubstantiated claims about their desires to take over the world.

Deltaboy
February 28, 2013, 07:00 PM
There is no logical reason for Gun Free Zones.

GAF
February 28, 2013, 07:09 PM
Delusional thinking creates dangerous zones where the like minded feel safe.

Dean Weingarten
February 28, 2013, 07:12 PM
Perhaps I should have said "legislated" gun free zones, but I thought that was implied.

Those who have the motives that I ascribe do not commonly place those thoughts in the public discourse, and motivations are slippery things.

But to attribute the desire to ban guns from a thousand feet of a school, as somehow contributing to "school safety" seems so clearly disingenious as to lack of another explanation than that given.

I am willing to listen to other motivations that you would suggest.

JustinJ
February 28, 2013, 07:16 PM
There is no logical reason for Gun Free Zones.

So then you must believe that the Texas State Legislature does not allow concealed weapons in public schools because they have a secret pact to take over the world through incremental totatalitarianism? Perfectly logical.

People are not infallible. People do have negligent discharges. One guy managed to accidentally shoot his concealed carry gun in a walmart bathroom. Some even accidentally leave guns in public places where a child could find them. Those are not valid reasons to be concerned about allowing firearms to be carried in certain places?

JustinJ
February 28, 2013, 07:21 PM
Perhaps I should have said "legislated" gun free zones, but I thought that was implied.

Those who have the motives that I ascribe do not commonly place those thoughts in the public discourse, and motivations are slippery things.

But to attribute the desire to ban guns from a thousand feet of a school, as somehow contributing to "school safety" seems so clearly disingenious as to lack of another explanation than that given.

I am willing to listen to other motivations that you would suggest.

I've already listed quite a number that are absolutely applicable when considereing legislation. My point is that there are valid arguments for certain gun free zones just as there are valid arguments against them. Like most things in life it is not a black and white issue. I object to ignoring the expressed concerns of people with a different point of view and then accusing them of just wanting to implement total control, which they themselves wouldn't gain to begin with, rather then actually having a real discussion.

jerkface11
February 28, 2013, 07:38 PM
Of course JustinJ also thinks the president and vice president are motivated by concern for the safety of our children and not just grabbing for power.

JustinJ
February 28, 2013, 08:15 PM
Jerkface, loosen the tin foil and actually adress my points for a change.

bobmcd
February 28, 2013, 08:24 PM
There is a wise old saying that one should not try to pin something on malice that can be explained by stupidity. I am of the opinion that GFZ's are stupid, but not malicious.

Just one man's opinion.

On the other hand, the stupidity of the gun free zone idea is well over a hundred years old. In 1881, Tombstone was a city-wide gun free zone (they obviously did not call it that at the time). This did not prevent the OK Corral shootout; in fact, it can be argued that it caused the shootout.

Malicious? Maybe, maybe not. Stupid? Definitely.

jerkface11
February 28, 2013, 08:46 PM
It's hardly tinfoil hat territory to think that gun control advocates don't realize it doesn't work.

jamesbeat
February 28, 2013, 09:17 PM
I think that it also has something to do with demonization.
When my wife was pregnant, we had to go to the emergency room because of a complication (baby's fine btw).
Because it was an unexpected visit, I had my knife clipped to my pants IWB, but with the end of the handle and the clip showing.
I was in a bit of a panic because of the medical emergency, so until everything calmed down it didn't even occur to me that the knife was a) on my person, and b) unwelcome in the hospital.
I saw a sign forbidding knives (actually 'weapons' with a picture of a knife and a gun) so I made an excuse and went to the bathroom to drop it in my pocket, covering it with my arm on the way.

Now, I'm sure hospitals get more than their fair share of psychos, but I'm equally sure that someone who is intending to cause trouble will not heed the signs.

These types of signs definitely give out a 'Your kind aren't welcome here' vibe to me.

CarolinaChuck
February 28, 2013, 09:21 PM
First off you are trying to reason with the irrational, and that usually makes you come off as sounding foolish. I feel the arguement is much simpler than that; there is evil in this world, and as such, safety in ones person is an illusion. These fools can not legislate morality no more than they can legislate safety... These people who think or speak of such nonsense are dulusional at best, or just full of crap.

Some people are just out of their gords; all you have to do is drive down the highway a few miles. How many tickets have been written, are written and will be written? And yet, the American highway is still the most dangerous place on earth...

Chuck

Dean Weingarten
February 28, 2013, 09:24 PM
I have been participating in this discussion and legislative process for about 45 years. There are people who actually believe the points that you bring up; but experience in the last 20 years or so shows that they are generally mistaken in their fears.

However, at the legislative level, those that write the laws that create such things as the "gun free school zones" clearly have an agenda that means to gradually and incrementally disarm the American populace. Sometimes it is directly admited, as by Senator Fienstein or by an intellectual such as Charles Krauthammer. It has been a staple of "progressive" thought for nearly a hundred years.

It is not so easy to document a movement that is based on the belief that it is necessary to decieve the people in order to "advance" society.

Dean Weingarten
February 28, 2013, 09:43 PM
So then you must believe that the Texas State Legislature does not allow concealed weapons in public schools because they have a secret pact to take over the world through incremental totatalitarianism? Perfectly logical.

We existed for hundreds of years without such a prohibition, and we had less problems than today. Then there is a huge media campagn to ban guns in schools and the Federal government passes a law prohibiting guns within a thousand feet of a school, and this is all based on no verifiable benefit. Since the law passed, the number of mass school shootings has quadrupled.

I do not doubt that there are many who actually believe that Gun Free Zones increase safety, but it appears to be because of a media campaign based on "progressive" ideology that has promoted that beleif.

There is no question that the "progressive" belief structure desires to increase government power, degrade the Constitution as old fashioned, and create some sort of "world government" . It also appears to denigrate the idea of God.

If that is your idea of a secret pact to take over the world through incremental totatalitarianism?then, yes I believe that is correct.

beatledog7
February 28, 2013, 09:44 PM
Dean,

Has anyone ever studied or considered which places do we all think actually should be gun free, and how would we ensure that they really are gun free?

Rather than start with those that are so-called gun-free now and work backwards, what if we consider it from a position of "no place is designated/legislate gun free" and add places to that set of none?

Dean Weingarten
February 28, 2013, 09:47 PM
There is a pretty simple answer as to what places should be "gun free". It may not be perfect, but It solves most problems.

It is this: If police are allowed to be armed there, then so should other citizens. This takes care of prisons and most courtrooms. If it is truely dangerous to have guns in a location, then the police should not be allowed to have guns there either.

beatledog7
February 28, 2013, 09:52 PM
I'm inclined to agree. If the no-guns-for-safety concept is in effect, then a BG who can snag my CCW could even more easily snag a LEO's open carry gun., especially given that he can see it.

Dean Weingarten
February 28, 2013, 09:57 PM
Another thing to consider is the actual effect of legislation rather than its stated purpose. More often than not, legislation is given a stated purpose that has nothing to do with its intended effect, simply as an artifice to help pass it into law.

I think it is more important to look at the actual effects of legislation rather than the stated purposes. As I have already said, motivations are slippery things, and many people are very good at lying to themselves.

OptimusPrime
February 28, 2013, 10:00 PM
I always thought that zero tolerance laws exist so that a stiffer penalty can be enforced when they're broken. You make selling dope a certain level of crime, but if near school property then the penalty increases hugely. Same with guns; make a city "gun-free" and then you can prosecute the criminals to a higher level or maybe actually get them imprisoned.
Of course, it catches some of the ones who aren't really criminals too but those poor few don't really matter, right?

jamesbeat
February 28, 2013, 10:01 PM
There is a pretty simple answer as to what places should be "gun free". It may not be perfect, but It solves most problems.

It is this: If police are allowed to be armed there, then so should other citizens. This takes care of prisons and most courtrooms. If it is truely dangerous to have guns in a location, then the police should not be allowed to have guns there either.
Agreed, in fact while I was at the hospital with my knife, there were several police officers there too, guarding a dangerous patient.
I'm no cop basher, but LEO's have their fair share of ND's, shooting bystanders etc, plus the open carry thing makes it easier for someone to grab their gun.
I'm not saying the cops shouldn't have been armed, but I certainly shouldn't have been made to feel uncomfortable and guilty for having my folding knife either.

Vurtle
February 28, 2013, 10:07 PM
JustinJ,
How can you have over 3000 post on this forum and still think that gun free zones are a good thing? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying though and I apologize if so. It is super simple to understand. People with bad intentions do not stop what they plan to do simply because an area is "gun free". They probably prefer those areas because of their high odds of achieving their goal without much resistance. The gun free zones are also called gun slaughter zones for a reason. The idea of leaving people defenseless and thinking bad people will not bother with a zone designated to be gun free is ignorant. There will probably be many more of these sad incidents because bad people are realizing how effective they can be at mass murders when there is no opposition.

Vurtle
February 28, 2013, 10:15 PM
JustinJ,

Based on your reasoning of what can happen with a firearm, does that mean you think that everywhere should be a gun free zone? Because in reality, accidental discharges and other firearm incidents can happen any where with any body.

USAF_Vet
February 28, 2013, 10:35 PM
I always thought that zero tolerance laws exist so that a stiffer penalty can be enforced when they're broken. You make selling dope a certain level of crime, but if near school property then the penalty increases hugely. Same with guns; make a city "gun-free" and then you can prosecute the criminals to a higher level or maybe actually get them imprisoned.
Of course, it catches some of the ones who aren't really criminals too but those poor few don't really matter, right?
I would agree that this makes sense, but then I look a Chicago and realize that it isn't put into practice. EVER. The Honor Student 0bama likes to talk about who was shot a few blocks from his house was shot by a thug who has a long list of gun crimes, and consistently given probation. If probation is Chicagos idea of a 'stiffer penalty' then they deserve their title of "murder capital, USA, 2012". If they would actually throw these thugs in prison and leave the law abiding alone, they might make some headway with their crime/ gang problem.

jamesbeat
February 28, 2013, 10:41 PM
I'd go one further, use modern terminology, and say that there is no such thing as an 'accidental' discharge.
Aside from the vanishingly small chance of a firearm going off because of a mechanical failure (or series of mechanical failures in a modern firearm) 'accidental' discharges are actually not accidental, but negligent.
Given that all people are prone to make mistakes, the prospect of a ND is something to be considered, but I agree with the above poster that if police can carry in a given area, civilians should be able to too.

OptimusPrime
February 28, 2013, 10:45 PM
Yeah, I ain't saying it works, I just think it's the rationale. If we make something another level of trouble, then we can snare more bad guys. "Your tail light is out, can I see your registration? Can I search your car? I found a gun, are you licensed...." and the ratcheting goes on and on.
Oops we caught some dolphins in the tuna nets, oh well, they taste like fish too.

happygeek
February 28, 2013, 11:42 PM
There is a pretty simple answer as to what places should be "gun free". It may not be perfect, but It solves most problems.

It is this: If police are allowed to be armed there, then so should other citizens. This takes care of prisons and most courtrooms. If it is truely dangerous to have guns in a location, then the police should not be allowed to have guns there either.


If the police are also disarmed, then who's enforcing said "gun free" zone?

For the purposes of this thread, and honestly in any discussion of these zones, the important distinction should be made between an enforced weapons free zone (like airports past security, court houses, prisons, etc) and "gun free" zones like schools, bars, etc. I'm not opposed to enforced zones in general, the key there being that they're enforced with a secure perimeter, searches to enter, armed guards, etc.

Blackstone
March 1, 2013, 03:01 AM
JustinJ,
How can you have over 3000 post on this forum and still think that gun free zones are a good thing? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying though and I apologize if so. It is super simple to understand. People with bad intentions do not stop what they plan to do simply because an area is "gun free". They probably prefer those areas because of their high odds of achieving their goal without much resistance. The gun free zones are also called gun slaughter zones for a reason. The idea of leaving people defenseless and thinking bad people will not bother with a zone designated to be gun free is ignorant. There will probably be many more of these sad incidents because bad people are realizing how effective they can be at mass murders when there is no opposition.

He isn't saying they're a good idea. He's saying how to an uneducated person, they make sense on the outset. No guns = less risk is an easy conclusion to arrive at if you don't think too hard about it. He's also saying that because of this, people who ask for GFZs aren't necessarily doing it out of malice and for control.

Dean Weingarten
March 1, 2013, 03:58 AM
For the purposes of this thread, and honestly in any discussion of these zones, the important distinction should be made between an enforced weapons free zone (like airports past security, court houses, prisons, etc) and "gun free" zones like schools, bars, etc. I'm not opposed to enforced zones in general, the key there being that they're enforced with a secure perimeter, searches to enter, armed guards, etc.

This is a good distinction, one that most people can easily understand.

BigBore44
March 1, 2013, 04:31 AM
Well the problem I have is the uneducated person is keeping me from being able to defend myself or my children when I take them to school. What happens if a BG opens up on a school at say 7:45 AM when lots of parents are walking their kids into the school. Maybe he pulls the gun only 20 feet from me. I have a clear shot but instead of pulling my child behind me, clearing and ending it right there, I'm now almost certainly a helpless victim because he is to far to engage by hand.

There is a saying in LE that ignorance is no excuse.

It's supposed to be the individuals right to choose to carry or not carry. But I will also agree that our CCW classes are an absolute joke. You don't even have to prove your proficiency with the firearm. Just shoot a couple rounds into the dirt. Which in itself is dangerous. I spend lots of time at the range. And I have become very proficient with my 45. But others simply took a test and paid some money. That does scare me. I believe anyone who wants to carry should be allowed to carry. But we as armed citizens owe it to ourselves, our neighbors, and the public, to be relied on to safely end a threat should one arise.

JustinJ
March 1, 2013, 09:46 AM
He isn't saying they're a good idea. He's saying how to an uneducated person, they make sense on the outset. No guns = less risk is an easy conclusion to arrive at if you don't think too hard about it. He's also saying that because of this, people who ask for GFZs aren't necessarily doing it out of malice and for control.

Thank you, Blackstone. That is correct. However, i am also saying that i recognize there are valid concerns about allowing legally carried guns in certain areas but that does not mean i agree with gun free zones. In my opinion, the arguments against gun free zones are stronger than the arguments for them. The only real exception i would say is bars. I've spent enough time in bars and night clubs to realize how impractical it would be to allow guns in businesses full of drunk young people. I worked the door for a summer at a bar on 6th street(famous strip of bars and clubs in downtown austin) and I have no doubt that many bloody noses would have easily escelated to gun shot wounds had firearms been in the mix.

Well the problem I have is the uneducated person is keeping me from being able to defend myself or my children when I take them to school.

That is what i was saying earlier. However, the uneducated person preventing us from being armed is not always just the "anti". Irresponsible gun owners who conceal carry and then make stupid mistakes like leaving guns in shopping carts, escelating minor confrontations or having negligent discharges probably do more to encourage gun free zones than anything else.

rodinal220
March 1, 2013, 09:55 AM
GFZ=Infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

GFZ=death

GFZ=physical harm/injury

sansone
March 1, 2013, 10:14 AM
I mostly agree with Dean, GFZ locations sometimes make sense, such as prisons and courtrooms, but sometimes GFZ locations are just a liberal's statement to ban something they are ignorant of.

FYI: all public schools in my part of the state have a county deputy (armed) on premises at all times. Nobody gives it a second thought.

Only law abiding citizens will obey a GFZ so how does that make a person safe from law breakers?

beatledog7
March 1, 2013, 10:18 AM
If we apply the "if the police can have guns then so can the law-abiding citizen" rule, we'll quickly find that the average on-duty LEO isn't willing to go anywhere unarmed.

Problem solved then.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 01:13 PM
Quote:
The ugly truth is that gun free zones are not about irrational dreams of safety. They are about power and control. The irrational spouting about safety is just a way to get emotional support from those who don’t really think about the issue.

What evidence do you have for the above statement? Do you have the ability to magically read people's minds to identify their real motives?

No, but the OP has the ability to learn from history, which apparently some people don't. All you have to do is examine the past 50-70 years of U.S. history and see how the government has incrementally created and grown the welfare state, created and increased federal control of education and healthcare, restricted freedom of speech and religious expression, ignored and even sanctioned illegal immigration, etc... to see that they are doing the exact same thing to the 2nd amendment. You don't need to read minds when you can read history!

JustinJ
March 1, 2013, 01:34 PM
No, but the OP has the ability to learn from history, which apparently some people don't. All you have to do is examine the past 50-70 years of U.S. history and see how the government has incrementally created and grown the welfare state, created and increased federal control of education and healthcare, restricted freedom of speech and religious expression, ignored and even sanctioned illegal immigration, etc... to see that they are doing the exact same thing to the 2nd amendment. You don't need to read minds when you can read history!

Convoluting a bunch of different issues hardly qualifies as reading history. Rights and freedoms have both expanded and shrunk since the establishment of the united states. Overall gun rights have actually grown quite rapidly in recent times. Public areas of my state, as well as many others, were essentially complete gun free zones not to long ago to begin with. The first amendment has actually been expanded and reaffirmed in many instances over the last century. In other ways liberties have been eroded as well with the fourth being probably the most infringed upon. I'm not sure where you got a 50 to 70 year time frame from but the role of government and individual liberties have been debated since before the constitution was even signed and constantly ever since.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 03:02 PM
I'm not sure where you got a 50 to 70 year time frame from but the role of government and individual liberties have been debated since before the constitution was even signed and constantly ever since.

the role of federal government changed dramatically with the New Deal in 1933, so I should have said 80 years ago, and it has grown larger and become more intrusive ever since. The next major growth in the federal government was with the The Great Society by LJB in the 60s, and we have taken baby steps ever since in the expansion of federal government.

Convoluting a bunch of different issues hardly qualifies as reading history.

Actually, I believe you are dead wrong. You have to look at things holistically to fully comprehend the extent to which government's role has changed from what the Founding Fathers intended to what we have today as well as understanding that what you call "Convoluting a bunch of different issues" is really all part of one issue we are facing and that is the "socialization" of the U.S.A.

Coyote3855
March 1, 2013, 03:47 PM
I worked the door for a summer at a bar on 6th street(famous strip of bars and clubs in downtown austin) and I have no doubt that many bloody noses would have easily escelated to gun shot wounds had firearms been in the mix..

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. This is an opinion and is the same "blood in the streets" argument that has been used against permissive concealed carry laws. "Road rage (or fist fights or dirty looks at the coffee shop) will escalate into shootings!" Does it happen, yeah. Is it a reason to stop me from carrying a firearm? Ah, no.


That is what i was saying earlier. However, the uneducated person preventing us from being armed is not always just the "anti". Irresponsible gun owners who conceal carry and then make stupid mistakes like leaving guns in shopping carts, escelating minor confrontations or having negligent discharges probably do more to encourage gun free zones than anything else.

The sign on the door that says "No Weapons Allowed" has been so effective in keeping bad guys from bringing guns into schools, theaters, bars, sporting events, etc. (That's sarcasm, son.) Your argument does not translate from the specfic to the general. Criminals will ignore the law or the signs, by definition. You are correct that unfortunately, idiots with guns give the rest of us a bad name. Still no reason to restrict the rights of "the rest of us."

JustinJ
March 1, 2013, 04:22 PM
the role of federal government changed dramatically with the New Deal in 1933, so I should have said 80 years ago, and it has grown larger and become more intrusive ever since. The next major growth in the federal government was with the The Great Society by LJB in the 60s, and we have taken baby steps ever since in the expansion of federal government.

Obviously there have been periods of faster change and periods of slower change and associated debates and conflicts. Post civil war legislation dramatically changed the role of the federal government. There have been numerous other acts and amendments that created great controversy all through out our history. A large part of the reason for so much change has simply been a response to the rapid changes of a developing country and the world it exists in.

Actually, I believe you are dead wrong. You have to look at things holistically to fully comprehend the extent to which government's role has changed from what the Founding Fathers intended to what we have today as well as understanding that what you call "Convoluting a bunch of different issues" is really all part of one issue we are facing and that is the "socialization" of the U.S.A.

Holistically, as you call, is essentially tyring to look at an extremely complex system in simplistic way. It doesn't work. You're trying to assign one motive for countless acts that were done by countless different people with countless different reasons in response to countless different situations.



You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. This is an opinion and is the same "blood in the streets" argument that has been used against permissive concealed carry laws. "Road rage (or fist fights or dirty looks at the coffee shop) will escalate into shootings!" Does it happen, yeah. Is it a reason to stop me from carrying a firearm? Ah, no.

Um yeah, accept my post that you quoted did not make a factual statement. What you just said is an opinion. What i said is an opinion with a hypothetical prediction based on experience.

The sign on the door that says "No Weapons Allowed" has been so effective in keeping bad guys from bringing guns into schools, theaters, bars, sporting events, etc. (That's sarcasm, son.) Your argument does not translate from the specfic to the general. Criminals will ignore the law or the signs, by definition. You are correct that unfortunately, idiots with guns give the rest of us a bad name. Still no reason to restrict the rights of "the rest of us."

If you are going to quote me and then type something after it would better if the something you typed actually addressed what you quoted.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 04:37 PM
JustinJ,

From one Texan to another, you know what the great thing about Austin is? You can see Texas from there! :D

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. While I don't buy into conspiracy theories, I do believe that all the "countless acts that were done by countless different people with countless different reasons in response to countless different situations" were all done by people holding the same worldview that is far left and socialist/communist at its core.

The people who advocate the homosexual lifestyle as normal, rich people as evil, criminals as victims, animals and plants having more rights than people, capitalism as oppressive, unborn children and elderly as disposable, and guns as evil by and large drink from the same poisoned well.

JustinJ
March 1, 2013, 05:43 PM
The people who advocate the homosexual lifestyle as normal, rich people as evil, criminals as victims, animals and plants having more rights than people, capitalism as oppressive, unborn children and elderly as disposable, and guns as evil by and large drink from the same poisoned well.

I think the real poison well is the one that tricks people into thinking the above is an accurate representation of non-republicans. The irony is that the above is about as an accurate representation of "groupthink" as one can imagine. Ironic you talk about government control and liberty and then complain about homosexuality. A person who genuinely believes in liberty realizes that his or her opinion about the "normalcy" of homosexuality is irrelevant in a free society.

c4v3man
March 1, 2013, 05:51 PM
If there's a "Gun Free Zone" then the establishment needs to be liable and responsible for my security while I'm there. That means armed guards, metal detectors, the whole nine yards. I believe they also must be required to provide safe, secure means to store your firearm while you are on their premises.

Obviously you are solely responsible to protect yourself since the Police aren't responsible for your protection. If I need to take a bus, walk, take a taxi, ride a bicycle, etc, and thus have no safe, lockable location to store my firearm, does that mean I'm not allowed to have a PO box?

jerkface11
March 1, 2013, 06:10 PM
Ok justin let's rephrase the whole thing. Would a gay free zone be legal?

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 06:26 PM
I think the real poison well is the one that tricks people into thinking the above is an accurate representation of non-republicans.

Funny, I never said anything about Republicans. Actually, I detest both parties and most all politicians in general.

You mention a free society. Free to do what? Whatever you want? That is what you advocate when you condemn me for judging homosexuality as being wrong. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want. Freedom is the ability to do the RIGHT thing. This implies there must be wrong things. Which implies that there must be a morality that comes from a higher source than man. Otherwise, every man defines his own truth and everybody is free to do whatever he wants since truth is subjective. In other words, in the true free society that you advocate if nobody is allowed to make a judgment call about what is right or wrong, I could say that sodomizing little boys and girls is perfectly fine because I believe it to be so. It would not matter what you think or believe because we live in a free society where we can all do whatever we want.

Ok justin let's rephrase the whole thing. Would a gay free zone be legal? :D LOL!

Vurtle
March 1, 2013, 06:26 PM
Thanks for the clarification JustinJ.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 06:27 PM
If there's a "Gun Free Zone" then the establishment needs to be liable and responsible for my security while I'm there. That means armed guards, metal detectors, the whole nine yards. I believe they also must be required to provide safe, secure means to store your firearm while you are on their premises.

Obviously you are solely responsible to protect yourself since the Police aren't responsible for your protection. If I need to take a bus, walk, take a taxi, ride a bicycle, etc, and thus have no safe, lockable location to store my firearm, does that mean I'm not allowed to have a PO box?

My sentiments exactly! I am violating federal law every time I check my PO Box.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 06:34 PM
I need to add a disclaimer for those who are not familiar with Austin, TX. It IS the liberal hotbed of the state and if it was not in the dead center of Texas and instead near... say the Red River, most Texans would vote to move the border south until Austin was a part of Oklahoma, but even the Okies would object to that! Right, JJ? :neener:

JustinJ
March 1, 2013, 06:43 PM
Ok justin let's rephrase the whole thing. Would a gay free zone be legal?

That's about as absurd an argument as i've ever heard. We're definitely not in a nonsense free zone right now. And if you are trying to imply something, no i'm not gay. I just can't stand hypocricy.



Funny, I never said anything about Republicans. Actually, I detest both parties and most all politicians in general.

You're right, my mistake. Just because you parrot Rush Limbaugh i guess i shouldn't assume.

You mention a free society. Free to do what? Whatever you want? That is what you advocate when you condemn me for judging homosexuality as being wrong. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want. Freedom is the ability to do the RIGHT thing. This implies there must be wrong things. Which implies that there must be a morality that comes from a higher source than man. Otherwise, every man defines his own truth and everybody is free to do whatever he wants since truth is subjective. In other words, in the true free society that you advocate if nobody is allowed to make a judgment call about what is right or wrong, I could say that sodomizing little boys and girls is perfectly fine because I believe it to be so. It would not matter what you think or believe because we live in a free society where we can all do whatever we want.

I didn't condemn for making a judgement call. I condemned you for acting like your judgement concerning the actions of other people that hurt nobody else is somehow your business. In a free society, people are allowed to do as they wish so long as it hurts nobody else.

I need to add a disclaimer for those who are not familiar with Austin, TX. It IS the liberal hotbed of the state and if it was not in the dead center of Texas and instead near... say the red river, most Texans would vote to move the border south until Austin was a part of Oklahoma, but even the Okies would object to that! Right, JJ?

No, but i will add to your disclaimer. Austin is a college town with a higher than average population of people with advanced educations therefor expect independent thought as often happens when people actually learn about the world they live in.

jerkface11
March 1, 2013, 06:46 PM
I wasn't implying anything. Banning people from defending themselves is every bit as absurd as banning gays.

JustinJ
March 1, 2013, 06:53 PM
I wasn't implying anything. Banning people from defending themselves is every bit as absurd as banning gays.

Look, i agree with that sentiment however ideology is not a substitute for practicallity. In principle i agree one should always be allowed the means to defend themself however i realize that in the world there are in fact situations in which adding guns will create far more problems than it will ever solve. As i mentioned earlier, sixth st fills with extremely drunk 20 something men who are running on nothing but testosterone and booze. Fights are the norm and more often than not there are multiple comabtants with often one being jumped by several. In the vast majority of such incidents nothing gets seriously hurt except egos. It is almost guranteed that in such situations adding guns would result in unnecessary deaths and all the associated media and political fall out. All the anti's would be screaming "we told you so" and the next thing we know a whole bunch of new and unrelated restrictions are imposed on CHL holders in TX. No thank you.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 06:56 PM
In a free society, people are allowed to do as they wish so long as it hurts nobody else.

But you and I both know, Justin, that in a totally free society people are going to get hurt because there will always be those people who infringe on the rights of others, which is EXACTLY the reason the 2nd Amendment says "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Any law or ordinance preventing that is violating that right IMHO.

That was a nice segway to get back on topic, don't you think?

jerkface11
March 1, 2013, 06:57 PM
sixth st fills with extremely drunk 20 something men who are running on nothing but testosterone and booze.

So you'd make an entire street a gun free zone? Or just streets full of drunken morons?

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 07:00 PM
JustinJ, show me a study that substantiates your claim that having more guns in areas like Sixth Street results in higher death rates. I don't need to provide you with studies that show Gun Free Zones have extremely high death rates of innocents. Just watch the nightly news. Theories are nice, but real life exposes flawed theories every time.

JustinJ
March 1, 2013, 07:02 PM
So you'd make an entire street a gun free zone? Or just streets full of drunken morons?

No, i'd leave it as it is now. The bars and nightclubs would remain "gun free". I fully believe that if a sober person is walking down any street and minding his own business and then suddenly finds his life being threatened by a group of drunks he has the right to defend himself. However, if the person walking down the street is drunk it is not reasonable to expect he will always exercise the appropriate level of restraint.

JustinJ, show me a study that substantiates your claim that having more guns in areas like Sixth Street results in higher death rates.

There are countless studies showing that intoxicated people are poor decision makers and have lower inhibitions but I'm not playing that game. Can you show a study to support each and every one of your opinions are or some of them derived from simple common sense?

But you and I both know, Justin, that in a totally free society people are going to get hurt because there will always be those people who infringe on the rights of others, which is EXACTLY the reason the 2nd Amendment says "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Any law or ordinance preventing that is violating that right IMHO.

That was a nice segway to get back on topic, don't you think?

Um okay, but what does that have to do with anything i said specifically about the comment you are replying too? Never mind, lets keep it back on topic.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 07:03 PM
There would be a designated gun free zone marked on the sidewalk of each block where all the drunk people would be required to stand. Of course, it would be based on the honor system.

c4v3man
March 1, 2013, 07:04 PM
I'm sure that it's already illegal to be drunk while carrying a firearm. Putting up a sign or writing a law making it further illegal is going to accomplish little. What about the bar owner? Should they be unable to defend themselves while operating their business?

Someone who gets drunk and shoots someone is obviously dangerous and needs to be punished severely. Once enough "good friendly drunks" shoot random strangers, perhaps people will reconsider getting recklessly drunk in the first place.

jerkface11
March 1, 2013, 07:05 PM
Not everyone in a bar is drunk. So why ban the sober people from defending themselves.

JustinJ
March 1, 2013, 07:15 PM
Not everyone in a bar is drunk. So why ban the sober people from defending themselves.

Again, in principle i agree with you but i think the reality is quite different. Verify few, if any people in bars on sixth street remain sober, be it by one subtance or another. Many who intend to drink very little or none at all eventually decide, "oh, one won't hurt me, and then they're puking on the sidewalk". Most people do not got out intending to drive home drunk yet the numbers are quite staggering.

I'm sure that it's already illegal to be drunk while carrying a firearm. Putting up a sign or writing a law making it further illegal is going to accomplish little. What about the bar owner? Should they be unable to defend themselves while operating their business?

It is illegal to carry while drunk and is already illegal to carry in a bar. The signs are there to keep the honest, honest. That's the thing about drinking. Most who get blitzed never intended to in the first place. That's the nature of alcohol, it lowers inhibitions.


Someone who gets drunk and shoots someone is obviously dangerous and needs to be punished severely. Once enough "good friendly drunks" shoot random strangers, perhaps people will reconsider getting recklessly drunk in the first place.

Right, like how after enough drunk drivers caused enough crashes and deaths people finally reconsidered and just stopped driving drunk?

jerkface11
March 1, 2013, 07:18 PM
Right, like how after enough drunk drivers caused enough crashes and deaths people finally reconsidered and just stopped driving drunk?

Maybe we shouldn't let people have car keys in bars then.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 07:25 PM
Can you show a study to support each and every one of your opinions are or some of them derived from simple common sense?

Stay on point here, Justin. I agree with you that drunks are poor decision makers. I asked you to support your claim that having more guns in areas like Sixth Street results in higher death rates. We know from documented fact that Gun Free Zones are targeted by mass murderers. It is proven that in places where concealed or open carry is legal death rates are lower. Look at Chicago and D.C.

Also, people who have concealed carry permits are less likely than your average person to get rip roaring drunk and shoot up a bar. Generally speaking, the people who would do that are not going to bother with a permit in the first place. Once you get into the "if it only saves one life" argument the other side has already won.

I don't know why we are having this discussion. Places with more restrictive gun laws have higher death and crime rates. Period. Places that allow concealed or open carry have lower crime rates because the bad guys does not know who else may be armed besides him, and most criminals don't target victims who have the ability to fight back. Period.

I will have to continue this later. My 16 year old daughter is singing the National Anthem at our local HS soccer game. Now that is as American as it gets. Well, the National Anthem part; not the soccer game part.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 07:49 PM
Amen to that! I will have an angle to present later tonight of a directly personal nature. I am an elementary school teacher. Obviously, our school is a GFZ, yet I am assigned with protecting my students should a shooter be on campus. I'll tell you the brilliant district-wide plan later. Think about what you would do.

c4v3man
March 1, 2013, 08:00 PM
Right, like how after enough drunk drivers caused enough crashes and deaths people finally reconsidered and just stopped driving drunk?

Right. I know people who have stopped drinking after someone close to them got involved in a DUI.

If you get drunk and CHOOSE to lower your inhibitions, then you are still responsible for your actions. Making it illegal to carry while drunk or while in a bar does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent it from occurring. All it does is create victims, such as people who choose not to drink, but still want to go to the local bar for a good burger. They are defenseless, especially against drunk morons who ignore the laws and/or signs.

So tell me, how does a gun free zone (without encorfement, which the vast majority lack and always will) actually make anyone safer?

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 09:16 PM
OK, here is my dilemma. My elementary school is a large Pre-K through 5 campus with two long wings of classrooms separated by the offices, gyms, cafeteria, library etc. in the middle. EVERY classroom has a large window that can be easily accessed. We have four main hallways with cross hallways and the classrooms are configured in pods with four rooms grouped together. Each door is no more than eight feet apart. You can go from room to room to room to room in seconds. Our district-wide policy for an intruder is to go to lockdown mode, which consists of the following procedures:

Every teacher locks the classroom door, turns off the light and has the kids hide under the desks, tables or behind anything as long as they can't be seen by an intruder(s) through the little vertical rectangular window in the door. We then wait until the all clear signal is given. That's it. There are so many problems with this strategy, but I will just point out a few.

1. Are we to believe that a shooter, or shooters, will be fooled when every door is locked and every light is out. It will not take him very long to discover that each classroom is probably full of cowering kids and a teacher at which point he will just start shooting off the locks and flipping on light switches.

2. Every window is an entry point. The main doors of our school are full length glass like many school doors. They have the automatic lock with the camera but so what. Just go through a window and you can take out at least one classroom before the office is even notified by one of the classrooms in the same pod. Most likely, he could take out an entire pod of classrooms before a LEO got the call. To make matters worse, our school is on the far south side of the county. It takes 15 minutes to get from town to the campus. If the county LEOs are on the north side of the county it could take 30 minutes to arrive.

3. I am a CHL holder, ex-military and very physically fit. I have a real problem with a policy that says I will have to hide in a room with the lights out and twenty kids freaking out and hope that the shooter does not pick my room. I do not carry while I am at school, but let's say that I could access my weapon within two minutes if necessary. However, by that time the body count would likely be very high. Besides, I'm not going to abandon my kids.

I agree with c4v3man who says if you are going to infringe upon my Constitutional right to protect myself, you had better be able to provide me the same level of protection. I have a real problem with a policy that says you are responsible for protecting your kids but we are not going to give you any tools with which to provide that protection. I will give my life for my kids, but it will not be given hiding in a room under a desk with the lights out.

This is the dilemma that Gun Free Zones have created. They are nothing more than killing fields.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 09:32 PM
The only weapon I carry concealed at school is my Kershaw; and even this is a violation of current district policy and state law. That certainly is no match for any firearm; semi-automatic or not.

I am eagerly awaiting Justin's defense of this gun free zone policy and would love to hear his strategy for protecting kids from a shooter while armed with only a pocket knife and hiding under a desk in a dark room with 20 terrified children.

sleepyone
March 1, 2013, 09:40 PM
BTW, JohnnyDollar, I have travelled your fair state from the panhandle to Key West and from Siesta Key to Cocoa Beach. I love Florida, but I could always count on two things; getting stuck behind a senior citizen while driving and a good thunderstorm each afternoon around 1:00!

Airbrush Artist
March 1, 2013, 10:10 PM
LET'SAY- I'am on My school Bus, My Weapons Free Killing Zone School Bus and LET'S SAY-That I disregard that sign and Law ordinance and Carry my Firearm with Me on this particular day along with my Conceal & Carry Card right beside my CDL to Drive My school Bus LET'S SAY- I have all 42 Kids on My Bus LET'S SAY a Muslim Terrorist Hops on My School Bus with a Dagger and a M-16s supplied from a US Stock pile LET'S SAY Before he can Kill one of My Innocent Students I blow His brains back out the bus door LET'S SAY- I'm arrested and Charged and end up in Prison and My Freedom of my Life ends for 20-30 years taking from Me My Wife ,Sons,5 grandchildren and so many friends and Blessings I've worked for All My life.LET'S SAY If after it happen I could back up the Time and change it all.WOULD I ? Like Most American Men and Women would .I'd say NO..I wonder How many of Our elite Government officals especially Our President and Vice-President that are trying to take The Rights of Our Constitution would say NO...

JustinJ
March 1, 2013, 10:17 PM
Stay on point here, Justin. I agree with you that drunks are poor decision makers. I asked you to support your claim that having more guns in areas like Sixth Street results in higher death rates. We know from documented fact that Gun Free Zones are targeted by mass murderers. It is proven that in places where concealed or open carry is legal death rates are lower. Look at Chicago and D.C.

Uh yeah, my point was on topic. Calling for a study that couldn't practically be performed as an attempt to prove your position is not sound debate. Do you expect the state of TX to suspend it's law regarding concealed carry in bars just to see what will happen? Not likely. But since you claim to have "documented" evidence that Gun Free Zones are targeted by mass murders please cite your study. More specifically cite a study that bars in states in which concealed carry is prohibited are targeted by mass shooters.

I don't know why we are having this discussion. Places with more restrictive gun laws have higher death and crime rates. Period. Places that allow concealed or open carry have lower crime rates because the bad guys does not know who else may be armed besides him, and most criminals don't target victims who have the ability to fight back. Period.

I hate to burst your bubble but the above comments are completley false. Some places with stricter gun laws have high death and crime rates and some places with less restrictive have fewer. Houston, where concealed carry is allowed, has a much higher crime rate than many cities where it isn't allowed. Why? Because the factors that contribute to crime rates are extremely complex. If the threat of being shot deterred crime please explain how it is that murder rates are so high among gang members? Crimes are largely committed by young men with delusions of invisibility so no, guns are not a significant detterent against crime. Sorry, I believe in gun rights but i won't delude myself against reality to justify my position.



Right. I know people who have stopped drinking after someone close to them got involved in a DUI.

If you get drunk and CHOOSE to lower your inhibitions, then you are still responsible for your actions. Making it illegal to carry while drunk or while in a bar does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent it from occurring. All it does is create victims, such as people who choose not to drink, but still want to go to the local bar for a good burger. They are defenseless, especially against drunk morons who ignore the laws and/or signs.

So tell me, how does a gun free zone (without encorfement, which the vast majority lack and always will) actually make anyone safer?

Despite you knowing people who have stopped drinking and driving it still continues to be extremely common. This is why such stiff penalties and new enforcement strategies are constantly being enforced. The threat of being caught with a concealed weapon in a bar is absolutely a deterent against carrying there. But i've already stated the problem with allowing concealed carry in bars and i'm not going to keep repeating myself.


I am eagerly awaiting Justin's defense of this gun free zone policy and would love to hear his strategy for protecting kids from a shooter while armed with only a pocket knife and hiding under a desk in a dark room with 20 terrified children.

Wow, this is irritating. It's like some just live in some bubble in which they filter out everything that isn't convenient to their argument. I haven't said i believe in making guns school free zones. In fact i've spoken quite clearly on the subject. Sorry, i'm not going to retype everything just for you.

edit: Maybe i just need to speak in a simpler manner. If guns are allowed in schools certain bad things could happen. If guns are in schools they might also stop some bad things from happening. I think it better they be in schools but only if people with the guns are shown how to be safe. Get it?

Now I see why there are 3 thousand plus posts. Continual responses, subject of no consequence, and no matter how far off the RKBA track. Bar Zones! You gotta laugh. It relieves tensions. Even from Texans. We do need comic relief in these tense 7 limit times! It is being provided.\

Johnydollar, you make this thread and accuse my posts as being of no consequence? You can't formulate an intelligent rebuttal so instead make a poor attempt to patronize but you're the one laughing? They say ignorance is bliss, i guess.

sleepyone
March 2, 2013, 12:02 AM
I'm not calling for new studies or citing existing studies. That is what someone steeped in academia loves to do. Just look at the news stories over the past 20 years. public schools, colleges, malls, post offices, movie theaters etc... How many of these places were gun free zones? All of them.

Murder rates among gang members are higher for obvious reasons. Gangs are violent and they enforce their rules and conduct their illegal businesses violently.

You do believe in gun rights; on a limited basis. The 2nd amendment does not have limits. It's pretty straight forward.

I am sorry to say this, but the tone of your threads really paints you as an elitist who thinks we need to be protected from ourselves instead of other people, and it is the government's job to provide that protection even though we have seen time and time again what happens when our right to protect ourselves and our loved ones is taken away and we are left to depend on our local law enforcement or some other agency for protection. It would not surprise me if you were a professor at UT. The tone of your threads smacks of an air of superiority over the rest of poor, uneducated dopes. I encountered a lot of that when I was in graduate school.

It is our God-given right to keep and bear arms. The government can't take away something that did not belong to it in the first place. It is my job to protect myself and my family. Any honest LEO will tell you not to depend on him for protection. They usually arrive in time to do a body count. As they say, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Justin, it is obvious you are a very intelligent and educated person, but your RKBA position is not sound, and in my opinion, contradicts itself. You are making it a lot more complicated than our Founding Fathers intended, and they spoke from firsthand knowledge and experience; not studies, statistics or theories.

happygeek
March 2, 2013, 01:48 AM
Do you expect the state of TX to suspend it's law regarding concealed carry in bars just to see what will happen?


Apparently 4 states do allow it (TN, AZ, GA, VA). 18 other states allow it in restaurants that serve alcohol, WA being one of those (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04guns.html?_r=0).

Sam1911
March 2, 2013, 07:22 AM
PA as well has no prohibition against carrying in a bar or, indeed, of having a few drinks while carrying.

No blood in the streets. After ?? years of Pennsylvanians being uninhibited in that way, I feel perfectly confident in saying that this functions as a very worthwhile "case study."

Apparently all the worries about the terrible and dangerous things folks will do when allowed to carry -- and even to DRINK while carrying -- are COMPLETELY unfounded.

How 'bout that? :)

Maybe the difference is that PA doesn't have any college towns...or college bars...or groups of drunk young men in bars...? Huh, so that's not it. So, again, while neither Justin's view nor mine can provide a controlled study to prove their point, I can provide a completely unbounded one -- of a whole state full of bars and college bars and drunk young guys -- that's been running for DECADES now (truly longer than that...) and has NOT proved Justin's point or even made the barest suggestion that it MIGHT be true.

(Or that whatever few random unpleasant events which might happen occasionally in bars, whether carry there is legal or not, represent a compelling societal interest in making concealed carry there specifically against the law.)

...

Now, I'll chime in on another point and that is that I really don't believe, either, that concealed carry is a great deterrent to violent crime (or suppressant for violent crime rates in an area, more accurately). It just doesn't seem that criminals (or anyone else) seem to put much thought into the relatively few people who might lawfully be carrying on a given day. Heinlein's old saw about "and armed society..." is a neat idea, but no place in the US is so heavily and visibly armed as to really be a good example of that. (And some places in the world that are VERY heavy/visibly armed don't seem to support the hypothesis, either...)

Concealed carry is a fantastic way to deter, or actually STOP, violent crime against YOU, which is the real point. Violent crime in general, though doesn't seem to be much affected. Way too many other factors contribute to whether a place is more or less agreeable to the operations of criminal actors.

Geno
March 2, 2013, 07:42 AM
I won't make a long post here, because I already have done so in other threads on this subject here at THR. As many of you know, I am a recently retired graduate professor, and before that served a few years as a middle school & high school principal, as well K-12 Director of School Improvement & Professional Development. My total career in professional education spans back to about 1982, pre-zero tolerance.

Zero Tolerance was for fact, adopted for the sole purpose of legitimately being able to expel students who had a 504, which mandated accommodations for their handicapping condition. I am among the few principals who actually did not fear expelling a special education student when it was merited, even pre-Zero Tolerance. Then again, I also am the principal who suspended the MEA Union's Vice-president for a week, and the student who I suspended for the greatest number of days (93 days suspended out of 183 days of classes) was a School Board members's son. I did not need Zero Tolerance; I was born with a spine. Yes, I mean that seriously; Zero Tolerance was for the cowardly, and uninformed administrators.

In terms of the Gun Free Zones, and the Michigan State Police's position (as usual) that blood will run down the school's halls, I question what has changed since 1989-1990, when I was the principal of Hillman High School, when the State Police tried to force me to carry concealed, and to carry my rifles and shotguns to my office, direct to the gun range after school, and to let White Boy Rick see me shooting. Investigate White Boy Rick and Maserati Rick if you are interested in the story.

As a related side note, the greatest number of people killed ever in a school in the United States did not involve a handgun; it involved dynamite. A disgruntled School Board member in (I think) Holt Michigan bombed the school, killing dozens.

If you search my name here, you will find complete explanations of what Zero Tolerance laws, and you will see that in desired intent of the law has been utterly perverted. Zero Tolerance has become Zero Thinking, Zero Spine and makes me so sick I could vomit! Before some of you pontificate too much without knowing these laws, and without having worked with these laws. Stop and ask some questions from those of us who have. As is the case with many laws, Zero Tolerance is well-intentioned, and poorly executed. As to Gun Free Zones, let's just hold hands now, boys, and sing Kumbaya.

Yeah, this is a short post. Feel free to search what I have posted previously. If in those posts, you do not find your desired answer, follow-up here.

Respectfully submitted,

Prof. E.R. Shaw (AKA Geno)

Pilot
March 2, 2013, 08:16 AM
Gun free zones assume that criminals and the mentally ill that become criminals will follow rules, laws, regulations, etc. This belief, and premise is flawed, irrational, and blatantly wrong. Politicians, and bureaucrats know this, and even often admit that new laws won't helps stop shootings like Newtown.

While I may not be a mind reader, in observing anti (legal) gun politicians and individuals for 40 years I have come to the conclusion that they all have an unreasonable and irrational belief in government creating an all powerful utopia where they are mostly in control as they are smarter, wiser, and better intended than most others. The gun free zone, and more laws like assault weapons bans and magazine capacity limits and bans are a manifestation of this flawed belief.

beatledog7
March 2, 2013, 09:22 AM
Regarding the fact that there are those who wish to have gun free schools, and those who think not: we could consider the issue from an equal protection perspective.

If you want public schools to be GFZs, fine. Send your children to a GF school. But since that GF school is tax payer funded, I want an equal school that's not GF and also tax payer funded. Same with the post office and any other publicly funded gun-free zone. I want an equal guns-allowed zone.

Oh, some will say, we tried segregation and it failed. I agree, and it should fail. But therein lies the rub. Public schools are all about supporting and encouraging diversity of race, socioeconomics, religion (ok, not religion), gender, sexual orientation...everything but political thought, especially RKBA. Like it or not, the debate about citizens' RKBA IS political. As long as politicians are controlling who has RKBA and who doesn't, and in what way, you can't discuss it without the politics.

The jury is not out on whether GFZs that don't include a means to actually enforce the idea are "shoot-at-will" zones for killers. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see, if one opens his eyes, that these are open invitations to mass killers, places where they know that they can blast away unchallenged for several minutes. I cannot imagine a more ridiculous solution than that for curtailing what the antis like to call "gun violence."

Then again, as others point out, it's not really about guns, after all.

beatledog7
March 2, 2013, 09:38 AM
Geno, thanks for your post #79.

I agree with your views on zero tolerance. All it does is shift accountability from the local, on-the-scene authority to a central bureaucrat--a bureaucrat who has already been declared to exist free of real accountability.

The result? In the case of a school, teachers and principals' hands are tied; they are simply not allowed to make rational decisions, and they know that if they do, they'll be unemployed and unemployable. They apply the zero tolerance rules, every time, without question.

When someone with an independent mind challenges a teacher or pincipal's actions, they can hide behind zero tolerance. When the thinking person escalates his question to the bureaucrat, the bureaucrat can hide behind the disembodied policy.

End game--Nobody's accountable. And that's just how they want it.

Geno
March 2, 2013, 01:44 PM
beatlegog7:

The problem is that there is local authority, plenty of it. But the administrators are either too uninformed, or too weak to follow what the law actually is intended to do. Look up my previous posts about Zero Tolerance's 4 Criteria for enforcement: 1) actual weapon, 2) brought intentionally, with 3) malicious intent toward people or property and 4) not a manifestation of the child's handicap.

For example, a photograph of a Glock, is not a Glock, and does not make a student eligible for expulsion. But it has happened. That a student forgot to leave her employment "box cutter" at home does not make her eligible for Zero Tolerance expulsion, but it has happened. That a mother packed a steak knife for her elementary child's home cooked steak lunch, does not make him a gang-banger, and automatically eligible for expulsion. But is has happened.

Then, I don't think society ever intended for spineless and brainless idiots to become high school administrators, but has happened all across America. And who pays the price?! Our innocent children pay the price. There's a combination of misinformation, and administrators (for that matter School Board members) who are too weak to defend innocent children. It's easier to bury one's head in the sand (or in some other malodorous orifice) and claim, "My hands are tied!" Bovine feces!

Never ask an honest, properly educated and experienced administrator what s/he opines. S/He'll tell ya! As an FYI, if any of you, or yours EVER run into bovine feces, PM me. I'll help turn up the heat, big time! Unfortunate for me, I'm smart enough to know the educational laws, and not quit smart enough to keep my nose out, or big mouth shut. :evil:

Geno

Airbrush Artist
March 2, 2013, 04:26 PM
If I die in My school Bus or on any of My schools I drive too on their property defined in the Ohio gun free law code at the hands of anyone with a weapon,I have directed My Wife and Sons To File the largest lawsuit they can for the Failure of the schools sytems for posting their Ridiculous signs and violating my right to protect Myself and the children I'm respondsible for..in a Gun free Zone for which they failed at adhere too as Posted

beatledog7
March 2, 2013, 04:59 PM
Geno,

But if local authorities are afraid (with good reason) to exercise the right to decide because they fear repercussion from their bosses (Oh no, what if I make a decision they don't like!?), the fact that they technically have that authority is just cover for the bosses. In effect, if the power to second guess and sanction rests with the central authority, the local authority cowers.

sleepyone
March 2, 2013, 11:40 PM
Thank you,sleepyone. You are much more toned down and diplomatic than I.Much.
We cannot get much further than the original concept of the Second Amendment which simply recognizes and confirms our God given unalienable rights to self defense of ourselves ,our families and our loved ones.

Nothing could be more alien to this concept than Gun Free Zones.

Those that chose to believe that gun control laws,any gun control serves the public good are either sadly deceived or despicable charlatans whose only eventual objective is control and total disarmament of the populace.

The sad history of the 20th Century shows us that clearly with Lenin,Stalin,Hitler,Castro,Amin,Hussein and so many others. Disarmament is numero uno on their target list.

We must resist these incremental chippings away. Look how much has been lost since 1911.1934,1968,1986? We been have trying and succeeding in gaining ground since 1987.

It must continue. The Austin's,Madison's,Berkeley's,Ann Arbor's,Princeton's and Cambridge's are out there with their Marx-Engels Profs and dialogue.

No matter, in the end 100 million + gun owners and 300 million guns will be the winner.
No matter how many trolls and flea bites we have on forums like these,they are doomed to lose. Doomed.

Americans will simply not give up their unalienable freedoms. Firearms,axes,arrows or spears, we are gonna prevail. So help me!

+1 to the whole post, JohnnyDollar! I was only going to quote a line or two or three but the entire post needs repeating.

I think our country is unique in that the populace is so heavily armed that disarmament is probably not feasible at this point; at least not without a huge loss of life on both sides. You also have to include the men and women in the military and law enforcement who would resign their posts rather than turn on fellow Americans.

The politicians and activists have known this all along, which is why they are content to chip away at our freedoms. Oh sure, some may cry for outright and immediate bans of this gun or that magazine, but they are grandstanding and are more than willing to settle for whatever they can get. Slowly but surely, step by step, patient and focused until their subjects wake up one day and say "What happened? How did it happen? When did it happen?"

sleepyone
March 2, 2013, 11:48 PM
Great post, Geno! I currently teach SPED kids and have to overlook a lot of bad behavior because it is supposedly a manifestation of their disability and they can't be punished for being disabled. :barf:

Kids know this and play the teachers and the system for all its worth.

JustinJ
March 4, 2013, 12:38 PM
PA as well has no prohibition against carrying in a bar or, indeed, of having a few drinks while carrying.

No blood in the streets. After ?? years of Pennsylvanians being uninhibited in that way, I feel perfectly confident in saying that this functions as a very worthwhile "case study."

Apparently all the worries about the terrible and dangerous things folks will do when allowed to carry -- and even to DRINK while carrying -- are COMPLETELY unfounded.

How 'bout that?

Maybe the difference is that PA doesn't have any college towns...or college bars...or groups of drunk young men in bars...? Huh, so that's not it. So, again, while neither Justin's view nor mine can provide a controlled study to prove their point, I can provide a completely unbounded one -- of a whole state full of bars and college bars and drunk young guys -- that's been running for DECADES now (truly longer than that...) and has NOT proved Justin's point or even made the barest suggestion that it MIGHT be true.

I think "blood running in the streets" is bit of over dramatazing my position. However, i do recall hearing about at least on incident in bar although i don't recall what state. Regardless, i can only guess that the saving grace is that drunken bar goers are probably a demographic with relatively few who conceal carry regularly to begin with. Sort of like the recent college carry dorm for people with carry permits that nobody moved into. If bar goers don't really carry to begin with then i suppose it's a moot point but I see carry in bars as simply a risk with little to no reward. Use of a gun, even if justified, is not going to go well in a crowded bar or dance club. People go to such places to drink. Even the staff of such places are generally consuming alcohol. Sure, there may be the occasional visitor who remains sober but it certainly isn't the norm.

Let me also clarify that i don't object to carry in establishments that serve alcohol such as restaurants. My position is that guns in bars and clubs, establishments visited with the primary purpose of becoming intoxicated, should not allow guns.


Gun free zones assume that criminals and the mentally ill that become criminals will follow rules, laws, regulations, etc. This belief, and premise is flawed, irrational, and blatantly wrong. Politicians, and bureaucrats know this, and even often admit that new laws won't helps stop shootings like Newtown.

Maybe those who support gun free zones, to whatever degree, are just willing to accept the reality that all misuses of guns are not premeditated? I hate to say it but "criminals don't follow gun ban signs" is a bit of a straw man argument.



I'm not calling for new studies or citing existing studies. That is what someone steeped in academia loves to do. Just look at the news stories over the past 20 years. public schools, colleges, malls, post offices, movie theaters etc... How many of these places were gun free zones? All of them.

Murder rates among gang members are higher for obvious reasons. Gangs are violent and they enforce their rules and conduct their illegal businesses violently.

New or existing studies is beyond the point. You're implying that my opinion must have some direct study supporting it to be valid which is absurd.

If the threat of being shot dettered crime there would be a lot less gang activity since that is a pretty easy way to get shot. The fact that gangs are violent only supports my point.

You do believe in gun rights; on a limited basis. The 2nd amendment does not have limits. It's pretty straight forward.

You believe in practice the 2nd should have no limits, huh? So then you must also disagree with laws against carrying while drunk? You also believe violent felons should be allowed to carry guns? There should be no age restriction on possession or carry of a gun? How about WMD? There should be no laws that prevent somebody from whipping up some anthrax in the basement? Making a few pounds or chemical weapons, buying radioactive waste for a dirty bomb or a former soviet bloc nuclear weapon? No thanks, i live in the real world, not a fantasy one driven by ideology of reality.

I am sorry to say this, but the tone of your threads really paints you as an elitist who thinks we need to be protected from ourselves instead of other people, and it is the government's job to provide that protection even though we have seen time and time again what happens when our right to protect ourselves and our loved ones is taken away and we are left to depend on our local law enforcement or some other agency for protection. It would not surprise me if you were a professor at UT. The tone of your threads smacks of an air of superiority over the rest of poor, uneducated dopes. I encountered a lot of that when I was in graduate school.

You do realize that i as well can not carry my gun in bars due to the TX law? Calling one "elitist" for having a pereceived intellect or being educated is nothing but pandering to the stupid. Have at it.

Dean Weingarten
March 5, 2013, 10:39 PM
If the threat of being shot dettered crime there would be a lot less gang activity since that is a pretty easy way to get shot. The fact that gangs are violent only supports my point.

I do not think I have read many statements that are more absurd. Gang activity is a pretty complex phenomena, and yes, most criminals are deterred by the thought of getting shot.

There have been several studies to that effect, from interviews of criminals in prison, to John Lotts work on the decrease of crime rates when more people carry concealed weapons, not to mention centuries of practical experience.

Sam1911
March 5, 2013, 10:50 PM
But Dean, that really doesn't refute his point. Folks routinely engage in very risky behavior and for many violent criminals the risks of being shot are simply not compelling enough to get them to stop their behaviors. In fact, gang violence is a LOT more likely to get a gang member shot and/or killed than many years of robbing average citizens ... and yet they persist.

As much as I love John Lott and his work, I don't quite buy the idea that increased rates of lawful concealed carry drives down rates of violent crime. There are simply too many factors involved to make that a legitimate claim. And, too many instances where it does not appear to be true.

Concealed carry protects ME & MINE. I don't believe, or need to believe, that it benefits society as a whole to make it the right choice.

BigBore44
March 6, 2013, 04:40 AM
Sleepyone,
We would most certainly object to moving the Red River to incorporate Austin. It is funny though. As much as Okies hate Texans and vice versa, we are so much alike in our beliefs.

As for the school, or any other establishment having an armed officer posted, that is almost a joke.

ANYONE READING THIS THREAD I HAVE A QUESTION.

If you were going to intitiate a mass shooting at a school, or any other GF establishment, and there was an armed officer outside, who would be your first target?

Answer: the officer of course. He poses the only threat to you accomplishing your goal. And now you have his weapon also.

happygeek
March 6, 2013, 08:16 AM
As for the school, or any other establishment having an armed officer posted, that is almost a joke.

ANYONE READING THIS THREAD I HAVE A QUESTION.

If you were going to intitiate a mass shooting at a school, or any other GF establishment, and there was an armed officer outside, who would be your first target?


Why speculate? There's real life examples out there, this one come to mind immediately: http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9025899

Airbrush Artist
March 6, 2013, 09:53 AM
Concealed carry protects ME & MINE. I don't believe, or need to believe, that it benefits society as a whole to make it the right choice.
PROFOUND SAM...as far as the gangbangers,They are Criminals...and should be treated as such....

sleepyone
March 6, 2013, 10:04 AM
As much as Okies hate Texans and vice versa, we are so much alike in our beliefs.

Yes, we are.

As for the school, or any other establishment having an armed officer posted, that is almost a joke.

Yes, it is.

You believe in practice the 2nd should have no limits, huh? So then you must also disagree with laws against carrying while drunk? You also believe violent felons should be allowed to carry guns? There should be no age restriction on possession or carry of a gun? How about WMD? There should be no laws that prevent somebody from whipping up some anthrax in the basement? Making a few pounds or chemical weapons, buying radioactive waste for a dirty bomb or a former soviet bloc nuclear weapon? No thanks, i live in the real world, not a fantasy one driven by ideology of reality.

Now you are way outside the scope of this discussion, but as far as convicted felons owning firearms. When people commit felonies, they have givien up certain rights that are reserved for those citizens who do respect life and property. Felons are also restricted from voting in many instances, and that is the way it should be. Freedom is the ability to do the right thing; not the ability to do whatever you want. People who fail to understand this basic and scared concept should not be afforded the rights and privileges of people who do respect their fellow citizens and follow the laws of our country.

rodinal220
March 6, 2013, 10:19 AM
The obtuse,irrational,uneducated,corrupt,delusional believe that GFZ will somehow provide them physical protection.

JustinJ
March 6, 2013, 10:41 AM
Now you are way outside the scope of this discussion, but as far as convicted felons owning firearms. When people commit felonies, they have givien up certain rights that are reserved for those citizens who do respect life and property. Felons are also restricted from voting in many instances, and that is the way it should be. Freedom is the ability to do the right thing; not the ability to do whatever you want. People who fail to understand this basic and scared concept should not be afforded the rights and privileges of people who do respect their fellow citizens and follow the laws of our country.

You introduced the position that the second amendment has no limits so it is now within the scope and you're dodging. Regarding felons, i agree with you, but that position is contradictory to an unlimited second amendment.

jerkface11
March 6, 2013, 10:47 AM
If a felon is safe to release how is it not safe for him to own a gun? If it isn't safe for him to own a gun how is he safe to release?

JustinJ
March 6, 2013, 11:20 AM
If a felon is safe to release how is it not safe for him to own a gun? If it isn't safe for him to own a gun how is he safe to release?

Nobody owns a crystal ball. There is never a way to predict with any level of certainty the future actions of any person, felon or not. Are you saying all felons should get life sentences?

jerkface11
March 6, 2013, 11:25 AM
As I said why let them go if they are dangerous. Most felons aren't even violent.

JustinJ
March 6, 2013, 03:53 PM
As I said why let them go if they are dangerous. Most felons aren't even violent.

Yes, I saw that. But how do you know which are dangerous?

c4v3man
March 6, 2013, 04:08 PM
Laws preventing felons from having firearms only stop those who respect the law (which probably varies widely on what felony they originally committed). I believe felons should be allowed to carry a firearm, since there's nothing actually stopping them from doing so now. Maybe if people faced the reality of a violent criminal being armed they wouldn't be so quick to release them into a society in the first place. Which would save alot of lives in and of itself. And regarding prison overpopulation, well that's what you get when you give out insane life-sentences when the death penalty should be in place.

jerkface11
March 6, 2013, 04:11 PM
How do I know which are dangerous? Shouldn't the government decide that before letting them out?

JustinJ
March 6, 2013, 04:18 PM
How do I know which are dangerous? Shouldn't the government decide that before letting them out?

Just like you, they can't say with any degree of certainty that any felon isn't dangerous. That's the point.

Laws preventing felons from having firearms only stop those who respect the law (which probably varies widely on what felony they originally committed). I believe felons should be allowed to carry a firearm, since there's nothing actually stopping them from doing so now.

There may be nothing stopping them that is completely effective but the threat of returning to prison is certainly a detterent for some. Just because something is not completely effective that does mean efforts shouldn't be made. My seatbelt won't gurantee i survive while i driving but i'm still gona wear it.

jerkface11
March 6, 2013, 04:32 PM
If they don't know the guy isn't dangerous why are they setting him free in the first place?

c4v3man
March 6, 2013, 04:36 PM
but the threat of returning to prison is certainly a detterent for some
I would argue that those who are sane enough to not want to go to prison can be trusted with a gun anyways. If they're willing to forego their right to self defense to stay out of prison, wouldn't they likewise not use a gun in a criminal way to stay out as well?

Just because something is not completely effective that does mean efforts shouldn't be made.

I would venture to say that there is a difference between a law not being completely effective vs ineffective in the first place. A law preventing felons from owning guns IS completely innefective at preventing violent felons who seek to commit further crime from obtaining one. There is simply no way around this. The only thing the law does is give the courts the ability to add one more crime to his list if/when he is brought to court.

Obviously you're steadfast in your opinion, and unwilling to look at the law's consequences as it stands. Some fool who gets a DUI under a variety of circumstances is potentially forever sentenced to never be able to properly defend himself or his present/future family. While I believe that obviously actions have consequences, the point of the second amendment is that it is a basic, unalienable right. The human right to self defense shall not be compromised.

Dean Weingarten
March 6, 2013, 05:16 PM
There may be nothing stopping them that is completely effective but the threat of returning to prison is certainly a detterent for some. Just because something is not completely effective that does mean efforts shouldn't be made. My seatbelt won't gurantee i survive while i driving but i'm still gona wear it.

The threat of returning to prison is an effective deterrent, but the threat of getting shot is not? I think you are tying yourself in circles.

JustinJ
March 6, 2013, 05:19 PM
I would argue that those who are sane enough to not want to go to prison can be trusted with a gun anyways. If they're willing to forego their right to self defense to stay out of prison, wouldn't they likewise not use a gun in a criminal way to stay out as well?

All crime is not premeditated. A felon may end up in a situation in which he uses his gun in spite of not originally planning to do so. Also, if a released felon is caught with a gun that he was carrying for illegal purposes he will be sent back before the next time it is used. An episode of Cops demonstrates just how regularly criminals do appear to get caught with guns when searched or arrested for other crimes.

I would venture to say that there is a difference between a law not being completely effective vs ineffective in the first place. A law preventing felons from owning guns IS completely innefective at preventing violent felons who seek to commit further crime from obtaining one. There is simply no way around this. The only thing the law does is give the courts the ability to add one more crime to his list if/when he is brought to court.

You can't say the laws against felons carrying guns are completely ineffective unless you somehow can know that all those who follow the law would otherwise be armed. Sure, the law does not prevent determined felons from getting guns in the first place but that is not the only way for the law to be benefitial.

Obviously you're steadfast in your opinion, and unwilling to look at the law's consequences as it stands. Some fool who gets a DUI under a variety of circumstances is potentially forever sentenced to never be able to properly defend himself or his present/future family. While I believe that obviously actions have consequences, the point of the second amendment is that it is a basic, unalienable right. The human right to self defense shall not be compromised.

Are you willing to look at the consequences of all dangerous felons being able to carry with no threat of repercussions?

In what state is a single DUI a felony? Either way, no, i don't believe a single DUI should disqualify an individual from owning a gun. I don't believe most non-violent criminals should be disqualified either. I also don't believe most non-violent crimes should be felonies to be begin with. I would prefer the classification of many crimes be changed rather than violent felons be allowed to carry guns. However, there are also some non-violent crimes, especially when there are multiple offenses, that can demonstrate an individual possesses either extremely poor judgement or a complete disregard for the welfare of others. They may also demonstrate a criminal lifestyle. In those instances an individual could rightly lose his right to own a firearm, imo.

beatledog7
March 6, 2013, 05:22 PM
We can't keep guns away from people who really want them but have been deemed ineligible to possess them as long as such people are free to walk into places where law-abiding people have guns.

It's a violation of 2A, and generally unfair, to try to accomplish that feat by taking the guns away from law-abiding gun owners so that the ineligible can walk freely among us.

The only effective, rational, and lawful way to keep guns away from ineligible people who really want them--and will commit crimes to get them--is to keep such people away from where the guns are. In other words, take action against those who have demonstrated a reason to be kept gun-free, and leave the rest of us alone.

Duh!

JustinJ
March 6, 2013, 05:27 PM
We can't keep guns away from people who really want them but have been deemed ineligible to possess them as long as such people are free to walk into places where law-abiding people have guns.

It's a violation of 2A, and generally unfair, to try to accomplish that feat by taking the guns away from law-abiding gun owners so that the ineligible can walk freely among them.

Who in this thead is advocating prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning guns? Laws against felons owning guns does not do this.

The only effective, rational, and lawful way to keep guns away from ineligible people who really want them--and will commit crimes to get them--is to keep such people away from where the guns are. In other words, take action against those who have demonstrated a reason to be kept gun-free, and leave the rest of us alone.

Duh!

I don't know if you realize this but "Duh!" does not support you in making your case. In fact it does the opposite.

Anyways, your general statement adds nothing without specifics. There is no way to know that a violent criminal is no longer dangerous. Are you saying that all violent offenders should get life sentences?

Sam1911
March 6, 2013, 05:28 PM
Are you willing to look at the consequences of all dangerous felons being able to carry with no threat of repercussions?
Yes, absolutely.

If they are inclined to violence, they'll not hesitate to break a minor law in order to get a gun.

In other words -- they have them anyway. We live with a reality where released felons have access to weapons, often obtaining them more easily and with less hassle than law abiding folks face.

So the two alternatives here are, 1) dealing with the consequences of felons having easy access to firearms, and 2) dealing with the consequences of felons having easy access to firearms, but pretending we don't because that's against the law.

There is no way to know that a violent criminal is no longer dangerous. Are you saying that all violent offenders should get life sentences?There's no way to know that ANYONE is not currently dangerous. Obviously there are plenty of folks who do quite violent things who've never been in trouble before. All we can do is make a decision about whether we feel someone has been rehabilitated, or not. If rehabilitated, release them and restore their rights. If not, don't.

JustinJ
March 6, 2013, 05:42 PM
Yes, absolutely.

If they are inclined to violence, they'll not hesitate to break a minor law in order to get a gun.

In other words -- they have them anyway. We live with a reality where released felons have access to weapons, often obtaining them more easily and with less hassle than law abiding folks face.

So the two alternatives here are, 1) dealing with the consequences of felons having easy access to firearms, and 2) dealing with the consequences of felons having easy access to firearms, but pretending we don't because that's against the law.


Except i'm not pretending anything. As i already explained, laws against felons owning and carrying guns have substantial benefits even if those who want them can still get them. If a felon is caught with an illegal weapon it demonstrates said felon still has no regard for the law and is not hesitant to use that weapon. The ability to arrest said criminal before he actually commits another violent act seems like a good thing to me.

There's no way to know that ANYONE is not currently dangerous. Obviously there are plenty of folks who do quite violent things who've never been in trouble before. All we can do is make a decision about whether we feel someone has been rehabilitated, or not. If rehabilitated, release them and restore their rights. If not, don't.

Of course there isn't. But i believe it does make sense to judge people based on their actions. No, we can't say that any average joe will or won't commit an illegal violent act. A violent criminal we can say is certainly capable of it.

Rehabilitate, release and restore is ideal but not realistic in the real world. There is just no way to say, "yes, this felon is now rehabilitated so lets turn him loose and restore all rights". Maybe years later after continual demonstration of reform he should be eligible for consideration but the black and white "bad stay in jail, good get out" position is not realistic.

beatledog7
March 6, 2013, 05:46 PM
Who in this thead is advocating prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning guns? Laws against felons owning guns does not do this.

Nobody here is doing that, but antis do, and they argue that gun control is needed to keep guns away from such people. We know such laws don't work, but antis preach that they do. I'm simply noting that they have it backwards. You don't keep dangerous zoo animals from mauling people by forbidding people to leave their homes so the animals can roam about. You do it by keeping the animals caged.

Are you saying that all violent offenders should get life sentences?

Yep, or either that or their rights restored.

If letting them out means the rest of us are so at risk from the potential that they might get guns that our rights have to be curtailed so that they may walk free, then we must keep them locked up, absolutely!

Sam1911
March 6, 2013, 05:48 PM
As i already explained, laws against felons owning and carrying guns have substantial benefits even if those who want them can still get them. If a felon is caught with an illegal weapon it demonstrates said felon still has no regard for the law and is not hesitant to use that weapon. The ability to arrest said criminal before he actually commits another violent act seems like a good thing to me.So we let these guys out, and then some number of them (how many? 0.1%? 0.001%?) get picked up later for some other offense and are found to be in possession of a gun. Thus indicating the reality that these criminals are NOT deterred and therefore, the failure of the entire premise.

The fact that we may happen, HAPPEN by chance, to sweep up a pittance of them and arrest them for gun possession (which is pretty much the single most dropped and bargained away charge of all time) is no comfort what so ever.

Of course there isn't. But i believe it does make sense to judge people based on their actions. No, we can't say that any average joe will or won't commit an illegal violent act. A violent criminal we can say is certainly capable of it.So there is no rehabilitation, then. We're just letting out dangerous and non-trustworthy folks into society where they are completely uninhibited from carrying out violence by whatever means appeals to them. Even the dreaded "gun violence!" Hmmm.

jerkface11
March 6, 2013, 06:02 PM
And all of it ignores that most felons aren't violent.

JustinJ
March 6, 2013, 06:03 PM
So we let these guys out, and then some number of them (how many? 0.1%? 0.001%?) get picked up later for some other offense and are found to be in possession of a gun. Thus indicating the reality that these criminals are NOT deterred and therefore, the failure of the entire premise.

I would estimate that of those who do carry, far more than just .01% eventually get caught. Because some criminals choose to carry and then get caught this means no others are in fact deterred? Hardly. Some may be just deteremined while on parole or probabtion but even that will contribute to fewer crimes with firearms.

The fact that we may happen, HAPPEN by chance, to sweep up a pittance of them and arrest them for gun possession (which is pretty much the single most dropped and bargained away charge of all time) is no comfort what so ever.

I find it hard to believe that weapons charges are regularly just dropped for felons, ecspecially those on parole or probation, unless there is something stronger to pursue in the first place.

So there is no rehabilitation, then. We're just letting out dangerous and non-trustworthy folks into society where they are completely uninhibited from carrying out violence by whatever means appeals to them. Even the dreaded "gun violence!" Hmmm

No, you are making a false "either or argument". Society has decided that in certain situations it is in it's best interest to take the chance on convicted criminals by releasing them with certain conditions. Outlawing them from owning guns is a way to mitigate that risk to some degree as well as add another penalty to try and deter people from committing such crimes in the first place. I did add to my last post, after you may have begun typing, that i think it wouldn't be bad idea for some released convicts to eventually retain gun rights after demonstrating that they are in fact rehabilitated.

Sam1911
March 6, 2013, 06:20 PM
I would estimate that of those who do carry, far more than just .01% eventually get caught. Because some criminals choose to carry and then get caught this means no others are in fact deterred? Hardly. Some may be just deteremined while on parole or probabtion but even that will contribute to fewer crimes with firearms.That seems to be a wishful form of thinking. I can't prove you're wrong of course, but I don't believe one word of what you're supposing here.

I find it hard to believe that weapons charges are regularly just dropped for felons, ecspecially those on parole or probation, unless there is something stronger to pursue in the first place.Then how are the few who are so charged coming under investigation to begin with? Obviously these are the few who are swept up in arrests and searches for reasons of other crimes being suspected, rendering the gun charge a moot point. (As it so very often proves to be.)

Society has decided that in certain situations it is in it's best interest to take the chance on convicted criminals by releasing them with certain conditions.Understood. That's what we're doing now. It's not working -- at all, with such astronomical rates of recidivism and plea bargaining charges away because we don't have space/money to hold criminals -- but sure, that is the theory we seem to have been forced to accept.

Outlawing them from owning guns is a way to mitigate that risk to some degree as well as add another penalty to try and deter people from committing such crimes in the first place.One a false promise, the other a vain hope, as I suggested previously.

JustinJ
March 6, 2013, 06:48 PM
That seems to be a wishful form of thinking. I can't prove you're wrong of course, but I don't believe one word of what you're supposing here.

Of 272,111 state prisoners released in 1994 there were 25,647 arrests within a three year time for weapons charges.
Page 4 of The study is Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994; http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Then how are the few who are so charged coming under investigation to begin with? Obviously these are the few who are swept up in arrests and searches for reasons of other crimes being suspected, rendering the gun charge a moot point. (As it so very often proves to be.)

Stopped for traffic violations, minor drug offenses, suspiscious activity, jay walking, etc.

Understood. That's what we're doing now. It's not working -- at all, with such astronomical rates of recidivism and plea bargaining charges away because we don't have space/money to hold criminals -- but sure, that is the theory we seem to have been forced to accept.

That is an argument to allow felons to own and carry guns? There certainly are huge problems with our correctional system, criminal justice system and the 'Prison Industrial Complex' certainly is making it worse. I'm all for changing the classification of many non-violent crimes. Many problems need addressing but decriminalizing the possession of weapons by felons doesn't much seem like the answer.

Sam1911
March 6, 2013, 07:04 PM
That is an argument to allow felons to own and carry guns? There certainly are huge problems with our correctional system, criminal justice system and the 'Prison Industrial Complex' certainly is making it worse. I'm all for changing the classification of many non-violent crimes. Many problems need addressing but decriminalizing the possession of weapons by felons doesn't much seem like the answer.Not exactly, it is more of an argument against allowing anyone out of jail who is not rehabilitated enough to trust with a firearm. But in the end, sure. They have the guns anyway, believing they are deterred or apprehended in any significant degree is not a leap I can make, so I don't place value in the laws we have against those we release from jail having guns.

c4v3man
March 6, 2013, 07:37 PM
Who in this thead is advocating prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning guns?
The law of the land (the constitution) states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Barring law abiding citizens from carrying in a bar creates criminals out of law abiding citizens, then prohibits them from owning guns. It also does literally NOTHING to prevent those who wish to do harm from carrying in such an establishment. So by suggesting laws infringing on our natural rights, protected by the 2nd amendment, law abiding citizens accused of false crimes are being disarmed.

Also, if a released felon is caught with a gun that he was carrying for illegal purposes he will be sent back before the next time it is used. An episode of Cops demonstrates just how regularly criminals do appear to get caught with guns when searched or arrested for other crimes.

But they were already arrested for the other crimes, right? Whether or not they have a gun they were still breaking the law. In other words, the law did nothing to prevent the criminal from having the gun in the first place, nor did it prevent them from using it in a crime. Their being involved in another crime prevented them from being in a violent crime involving a gun. It merely demonstrates that the law is completely powerless, and does nothing but CREATE criminals.

If a felon gets pulled over for speeding and is found in posession of a firearm, you would claim that it stopped a crime. What if he merely needed it for defense from a criminal element he was previously involved in? What if it was a hunting shotgun and he had no intention of committing a crime? What if he was borrowing a car from a non-felon and unknown to him there was a gun in it?

Claiming that the law prevents criminals from committing gun crime is merely a guess on your part. An "educated" guess in your case I suppose.

If felons were allowed to have firearms and routinely committed crimes with them, you'd see a lot fewer felons being released, and a change in public opinion towards the death penalty being applied to violent criminals. This would lead to a safer society, as we'd be living in the reality of felons having access to firearms, you know, just like today. People simply refuse to accept the truth since they think that writing a law actually makes anyone safer.

beatledog7
March 6, 2013, 10:26 PM
If violent criminals remain behind bars, and not at them, they won't be able to get guns. Why is that concept so unpopular?

jerkface11
March 7, 2013, 10:02 AM
How does the threat of going to prison for firearms possession bigger than the threat of going to prison for robbing a gas station anyway?

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 12:13 PM
The law of the land (the constitution) states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Barring law abiding citizens from carrying in a bar creates criminals out of law abiding citizens, then prohibits them from owning guns. It also does literally NOTHING to prevent those who wish to do harm from carrying in such an establishment. So by suggesting laws infringing on our natural rights, protected by the 2nd amendment, law abiding citizens accused of false crimes are being disarmed.

The comment of mine that you responded to was regarding the ability of felons to own guns so you're jumping back to another discussion. The inability to carry a gun in all places is not the same as an inability to own a gun. That would be like saying since "Bob can't carry his gun into a prison to visit Uncle Joe" his right to own a gun is being infringed.

But they were already arrested for the other crimes, right? Whether or not they have a gun they were still breaking the law. In other words, the law did nothing to prevent the criminal from having the gun in the first place, nor did it prevent them from using it in a crime. Their being involved in another crime prevented them from being in a violent crime involving a gun. It merely demonstrates that the law is completely powerless, and does nothing but CREATE criminals.

Not when the crime, or supsiscion of a crime, is a very minor offense such as a traffic stop.

If a felon gets pulled over for speeding and is found in posession of a firearm, you would claim that it stopped a crime. What if he merely needed it for defense from a criminal element he was previously involved in? What if it was a hunting shotgun and he had no intention of committing a crime? What if he was borrowing a car from a non-felon and unknown to him there was a gun in it?

Of course there may be exceptions but if a felon is carrying a gun, even if specifically to hunt, it still demonstrates that he has retained his disregard for law. If a convicted felon borrows a car it is his resonsiblity to make reasonable effort to ensure there are not drugs or guns in the car. The fact is that there is no constiutional violation to prohibiting felons from owning or carying guns so long as the right has been removed through due process.

If felons were allowed to have firearms and routinely committed crimes with them, you'd see a lot fewer felons being released, and a change in public opinion towards the death penalty being applied to violent criminals. This would lead to a safer society, as we'd be living in the reality of felons having access to firearms, you know, just like today. People simply refuse to accept the truth since they think that writing a law actually makes anyone safer.

That is a completey oversimplifiation and quite innacurate view of public opinion on the death penalty. Regardless, many felons who are released and commit further violent crimes were not in for a capital crime to begin with. I referenced a quite in depth study above.

If violent criminals remain behind bars, and not at them, they won't be able to get guns. Why is that concept so unpopular?

Once again, explain in practical terms how to implement this. Do you advocate life sentences for all violent crimes? It has nothing to do with popularity instead practicality.

How does the threat of going to prison for firearms possession bigger than the threat of going to prison for robbing a gas station anyway?

As i said already:

"... As i already explained, laws against felons owning and carrying guns have substantial benefits even if those who want them can still get them. If a felon is caught with an illegal weapon it demonstrates said felon still has no regard for the law and is not hesitant to use that weapon. The ability to arrest said criminal before he actually commits another violent act seems like a good thing to me."

"All crime is not premeditated. A felon may end up in a situation in which he uses his gun in spite of not originally planning to do so. Also, if a released felon is caught with a gun that he was carrying for illegal purposes he will be sent back before the next time it is used. An episode of Cops demonstrates just how regularly criminals do appear to get caught with guns when searched or arrested for other crimes."

michaelbsc
March 7, 2013, 01:30 PM
If a convicted felon borrows a car it is his resonsiblity to make reasonable effort to ensure there are not drugs or guns in the car.

You would think. But the political atmosphere today wants to make it our responsibility to make sure we keep him from getting them, not his responsibility.

beatledog7
March 7, 2013, 03:45 PM
JustinJ:

Life sentences are appropriate for those violent offenders whom we deem so dangerous that we won't allow them to have guns once we let them out.

We know if they're on the street, and so inclined, they'll find a way to get a gun no matter laws we pass, and the idea that they'll be caught with that gun and then we can put them back in prison--before they kill--is a fantasy.

Implementation? States must examine sentencing rules and make sure life sentencing is available to violent offenders. Judges must have their feet held in the fire. Parole boards must be held accountable for their decisions...

Is all that easy? No. But it is the right answer because it assigns the accountability for violent crime to those who perpetrate it and those who, in various ways, facilitate it. And it takes the onus off law-abiding gun owners.

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 03:57 PM
Life sentences are appropriate for those violent offenders whom we deem so dangerous that we won't allow them to have guns once we let them out.

The problem still comes down to there is no reliable way to deem if an offender is not dangerous. If there were the recidivism rates would not be so incredibly high.

We can agree to disagree but if a person commits a violent crime it is his burden to suffer the consequences and one such consequence is no more legal access to guns. So long as he is just convicted through due process the state can legally take away his legal right to firearms.

jerkface11
March 7, 2013, 04:01 PM
You keep saying there is no way to tell of someone is dangerous. But you seem to have no problem letting them out.

beatledog7
March 7, 2013, 04:08 PM
The problem still comes down to there is no reliable way to deem if an offender is not dangerous.

The standard is supremely easy: too dangerous to get restoration of lawful gun ownership = too dangerous to be on the street.

If there were the recidivism rates would not be so incredibly high.

The rates are high because we let criminals out.

So long as he is just convicted through due process the state can legally take away his legal right to firearms.

The state can also keep him behind bars, assuring he gets no gun, legally or otherwise. Why are you so intent on letting violent criminals out?

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 04:10 PM
You keep saying there is no way to tell of someone is dangerous. But you seem to have no problem letting them out.

Like all problems in life there are pros and cons to each response. I'm not "okay" with letting out convicted violent felons but there are major problems with life sentences for all such criminals as well.

beatledog7
March 7, 2013, 04:12 PM
...there are major problems with life sentences for all such criminals as well

Would you care to list them? And describe why they are worse than recidivism?

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 04:28 PM
Would you care to list them? And describe why they are worse than recidivism?

Off the top of my head, cost, life sentence inmates become extremely vioent against guards, effects on their children and families, it's Draconian, and the punishment of life sentence doesn't fit all violent crimes.

jerkface11
March 7, 2013, 05:03 PM
It's draconian to keep them locked up but gun free zones and keeping lists of people who can't be armed is just fine. Lol.

JustinJ
March 8, 2013, 09:44 AM
It's draconian to keep them locked up but gun free zones and keeping lists of people who can't be armed is just fine. Lol.

Gun free zones is pretty much a completely different subject than arming felons so I'm not sure where that came from.

Lists of people who can't own guns? Um, no. Keeping criminal records of violent criminals is probably about a little more than just guns. Equating losing one's right to own guns due to a violent felony conviction hardly compares to the harshness of a life sentence. "LOL"

Robert
March 8, 2013, 10:24 AM
Oh enough. This is going around in circles with not end in site. If you must, take it to pm. Otherwise we are done.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Free Zones: The Ugly Truth" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!