Good point made by anti- for once.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Atticus

Member.
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,792
Location
Ohio
There is an opinion piece in the Columbus Dispatch today about CCW. The writer has been a huge opponent of CCW since it all began. He did raise an interesting point today however. He asks, "If CCW is going to make society safer for everyone else, then why are the politicians banning CCW in all governent buildings, where THEY work". I disagree with about 99% of the writers opinions, but this seems to be a valid statement. Has this issue been brought up in other CCW states?
 
You forget that the politicians already have armed guards where they work to protect them. It's a lame argument. :rolleyes:
 
Here in Texas we can carry into public buildings - including police stations - with very few exceptions, e.g., courthouses.

"If CCW is going to make society safer for everyone else, ..."

That's not why I support concealed carry by law-abiding adults. I carry to protect myself and my loved ones, not to "make society safer."
 
Banning concealed carry from government buildings is not the same as banning guns from the buildings. In New York, the law allows judges to carry weapons. When Councilman Davis was killed in NYC's City Hall, the shooter, Othniel Askew, was killed by a cop on security detail.

So the lawmakers keep guns handy for themselves. What the lawmakers are doing is preventing anyone else from having guns.
 
It's a false analogy. A government building, airport or similar installation can be secured(hopefully) with armed guards and other measures. But even a large police force cannot secure a city in a similar manner. Nor can the police provide protection for those who live in remote rural areas. When you're out on the town or out in the country, you're on your own.
 
"If CCW is going to make society safer for everyone else, then why are the politicians banning CCW in all governent buildings, where THEY work"
Because they DON'T want to make the buildings safer for everyone else, THEY want to make sure THEY have the upper hand in those buildings (either by armed guards working on THEIR behalf, or by THEM having exclusive permission for CCW).

Whenever anyone is denied CCW, take a close look at who is exempted. Politicians frequently exempt themselves from regulation & restrictions of others, granting themselves benefits denied to the rest of us.

Those "no-CCW" buildings do NOT prohibit carry by all; they allow carry by an elite few - now why is that?
 
All the valid counter arguments are cited above ...

... also, if you and your cohorts spent much of your day using coercion to strip citizens of property (taxation) and other assumed rights, you'd be nervous about having them in the building and armed as well. That's not a threat ... that is just a logical observation.

As one pol mentioned to me at a Town Council meeting one time ... "people can get very emotional at these meetings, and we don't want them to have guns". No kidding. I suppose when you change zoning laws and thereby restrict private property rights and damage the value of that property by hundreds of thousands of dollars, gee ... people can certainly get testy. ;)

That is the reason they don't want armed citizens in government buildings. They rely on coercion, and don't appreciate the competition.

Regards from TX
 
There may be some hope for that author. If he gets this corelation now, maybe he will someday understand we aren't the bad guys.

GT
 
If CCW is going to make society safer for everyone else, then why are the politicians banning CCW in all governent buildings, where THEY work...

On the whole, our elected misrepresentatives both dislike and fear us—and consider themselves above both us and the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top