What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

[Soybomb]

What I make of it is that perfection is impossible. So what? Whatever the fallibility is, it can't be all that bad because very few airliners get hijacked these days compared to times past.

I don't feel its right to force people to be defenseless and play the odds. Perhaps you can say so what, but I imagine if it were you or a loved one on a place being hijacked you wouldn't consider their life statistically irrelevant.

And what makes you think your "firefights in the skies" and "MP-5's in courtrooms" approach would be "perfect"? I strongly doubt it.

Do you have any basis for your imagined firefights? Its the same argument we hear all the time and yet people in several states carry concealed weapons into confined spaces and emotionally charged situations every day. Why is either of those a special situation where suddenly everything changes and good men turn into murders?

Just because no one is crazy enough to actually try such things doesn't mean we can't take a crack at estimating the body count that would result from full auto firefights among passengers, jurors, emotional people in the gallery, etc.

Sure we can, people carry guns on public transit all the time. People carrying guns get into charged situations like arguments, traffic disputes, and even pulled over by the police every day. Your fears are nothing more than the usual brady group style "I imagine" hysteria that completely disregard the decades of statistics we have on concealed carry. A man doesn't turn into a killer simply because he has a gun. The real world statistics make it look like people that have reached the age to have a gun and carry permit without already doing something dumb to disqualify themselves from both don't turn into irresponsible or dangerous people.

 

[alan]

The one factor, a factor that appears uninterruptedly thoughout arguments or discussions regarding gun laws, reasonable as they are sometimes described or otherwise is as follows.

Push coming to shove, ALL SUCH PROPOSALS, in-so-far as I've noticed, serve only to attack the law abiding and the prerogereatives thereof. They have no effect whatever in criminals, perhaps due to the following:

1. criminals do not obey the law
2. Virtually without exception, when the antics of some criminal punk are involved, there seem always some well meaning, hand-wringing heart throb types who can and will always find some way to excuse the antics of the above mentioned criminal, all the while they whine and cry about the "need to pass a law", possibly several new laws. Of course, criminals won't obey these new laws either, which if enacted, will most certainly impact adversley on the law abiding, as usual.

-----------------------------

Badges, we an't got no badges, we don need no stinking badges.

 

[IA_farmboy]

I was thinking about this topic of unreasonable gun laws and came to a realization. The federal gun laws are largely based on tax codes. There isn't a true ban on any weapon just a long trail of paperwork to file and taxes to be paid. I think that all firearms are to be free from any taxes.

I see three different categories of legal uses of firearms, protection (whether that be of self, family, property, or community/state/country), hunting, or sport/competition. I don't see it right that the government profit from one's desire to protect or feed one's family. Given the difficulty to separate arms used for protection and hunting from those used for sport it would be impossible to accurately determine which arms where solely used for sport and only tax those sales.

Currently we see many items that are free from taxes, such as many food items. We also see some items that are taxed differently based on use, such as diesel fuel used for agriculture is taxed differently than diesel fuel used for over the road travel, which is also taxed differently for fuel oil (just a lesser grade of diesel fuel) used for heating. The taxes are lower for fuels used for agriculture and heating since people get very upset when they cannot afford to be fed and warm.

If one can propose a method of differentiating between sporting arms and those used for protection and hunting I might be convinced that taxing a luxury item such as a high end target rifle is a good idea, or at least not a bad idea.

With diesel fuel it is quite simple to determine if one is using agricultural or heating fuel in a road vehicle, the fuel is dyed. If dye is found in the tank of an over the road vehicle then the operator is fined. The taxing of firearms is not so simple as every firearm, IMHO, is suitable for self preservation and self preservation, along with exercising our rights, should not be taxed.

I'm not against taxes since the government does need money to build bridges and armies, I'm just opposed to taxes that are used to purely manipulate and subjugate such as the taxes on firearms and certain substances which are rarely actually collected.

The government does not need to prohibit firearms if they can simply place a tax on them so that essentially no one can actually afford to pay the tax. Remove the government's ability to tax firearms and that tax cannot be abused to the point of disarming the people.

 

[alan]

IA_farmboy:

Please sir, do not give he bastards and ideas, not that the possibility of gun control via taxation is something "new", the late Senator Moynihan had proposed very heavy, destructive levels of taxation on ammunition. Happily, such schemes went nowhere, though looking at the runup in ammunition and component prices we are seeing, some people might well be priced out of the market.

 

[dhoomonyou]

felons, no
law abiding CITIZENS, ok
with ccw, cash and carry
no ccw, 3 day wait
carry anywhere you want, except courthouse
No such thing as a "gun free" (KILLING) zone.
AND in all of these UNITED STATES, no more cant look at a gun in NYC and crap like that.

 

[Werewolf]

no ccw, 3 day wait

That's pretty elitist or maybe just a function of FL's past requirement (still current or changed?) for a 3 day wait and the subtle state indoctrination thereof????

Waiting periods accomplish nothing.

 

[dhoomonyou]

im not being elitist

That's pretty elitist or maybe just a function of FL's past requirement (still current or changed?) for a 3 day wait and the subtle state indoctrination thereof????

Waiting periods accomplish nothing.
__________________

I just didnt want to panic the people.

 

[Intune]

In my rose-tinted utopia, you walk in, buy the firearm & walk out. Carry it open, concealed, however you please. Use it in a crime, be a violent felon or certified mental & you're busted if they encounter you. If there HAD to be a background check, the 4473 should only check the v. felon & mental. NO make/model/serial number of the firearm. That is NOT their business. Yes or no to purchase a weapon. There is a database. No freakin' doubt.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Back from R&R.

Frankie wrote...........

Just because no one is crazy enough to actually try such things doesn't mean we can't take a crack at estimating the body count that would result from full auto firefights among passengers, jurors, emotional people in the gallery, etc.

Soybomb replies:

Sure we can, people carry guns on public transit all the time. People carrying guns get into charged situations like arguments, traffic disputes, and even pulled over by the police every day. Your fears are nothing more than the usual brady group style "I imagine" hysteria that completely disregard the decades of statistics we have on concealed carry.

Just "war gaming" your scenario of "no gun laws". That's all. If you do "X", what might the bad guys do?

Some people seem to think that if we had no gun laws, most adults would take to going about their daily business carrying Colt SAA 45's (or Ruger Vaqueros) in low-slung holsters strapped to their thighs, squinting into the sun a lot, and dealing on the spot justice to any bad guys who might show their faces.

I see some possibilities that these people seem to overlook.

BTW, nice job of changing the subject from "airliners" to "public transportation", and from "no laws" to "concealed carry".

Sure people carry guns on public transportation all the time. And shootings are rare under our current laws.

There are law-abiding people who have passed the background checks and obtained the necessary licenses. And there are common criminals hoping to keep a low profile while travelling (so they don't get caught illegally carrying and thereby thrown in prison) but probably intending to commit a crime elsewhere.

If open carry were allowed, criminals (or terrorists) could keep a low profile while carrying openly - i.e. blend in with the crowd. And if anyone could buy and carry any gun, they could carry MP-5's if they wanted to without drawing attention until they were ready to strike.

And if they could carry such guns anywhere, they could do it in courtrooms, airliners, etc. where they can't do it now because of our current laws.

Show me a state where the law allows for ordinary (i.e. non-government) people to openly carry MP-5's in public anywhere they go, and then you can tell me how few problems it causes.

And don't overlook that airliners are high value targets for terrorists.

Changing the subject because the argument is incompatible with some cherished fantasy world is pathetic.

Why not simply acknowledge that a completely unregulated regime would have serious problems, and that some level of regulation can be a positive benefit without being an unconstitutional infringement of the RKBA?

That would avoid having to make ridiculous statements (as some have) to the effect that armed passengers would simply cope with terrorist attacks by engaging full auto shootouts in the skies.

 

[robertbank]

frankie_the_yankee

409 posts and yours clearly was/is the best. Thanks, great read.

Take Care

Bob

 

[TallPine]

Show me a state where the law allows for ordinary (i.e. non-government) people to openly carry MP-5's in public anywhere they go, and then you can tell me how few problems it causes.

Well, actually - I know of no laws against that sort of thing in Montana, except for obvious places like schools. So that would make it technically legal, even if highly uncommon.

I have seen somebody carrying a semi-auto rifle on a shoulder sling in downtown Billings, and AFAIK no one paid him much attention (except for me, who was trying to figure out exactly what kind of rifle it was ).

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Tallpine writes...........

Well, actually - I know of no laws against that sort of thing in Montana, except for obvious places.........

1) I'm not talking semi-autos. I'm talking full auto MP-5's.

2) "...except for......" doesn't count. Exceptions are infringements, right? And no infringementa are allowed, right? None. Nada. Anyone can buy any gun, and carry it anywhere, at any time.

And anywhere means schools, courtrooms, airliners - everywhere.

Furthermore I do not believe people can walk into gun stores in Montana and buy guns with no questions asked, no background check, etc.

What do you think would happen if 20 Al Qaeda operatives walked into the airport in Billings with MP-5's slung over their shoulders, bought tickets on 4 or 5 different flights, and headed for the boarding gates?

I think they would "stick out".

I think they would be questioned.

I think they would be stopped.

And I do not think they would get aboard any airplanes unless they shot their way aboard and flew them themselves.

So Montana doesn't count as a valid example.

 

[Soybomb]

frankie_the_yankee I'm still baffled here, you obviously find terrorists with mp5's terrifying, but you still haven't addressed my question of why you think people with carry permits will get into firefights on planes when they don't on the subway and bus, or why they can go through the rest of an emotionally charged day and not go on a shooting rampage but would when they're in a court room.

BTW, nice job of changing the subject from "airliners" to "public transportation

I'm not attempting to change the subject at all. If you say that people will get into dangerous shootouts on airlines isn't it reasonable to ask why we don't see that on other forms of mass transit?

Show me a state where the law allows for ordinary (i.e. non-government) people to openly carry MP-5's in public anywhere they go, and then you can tell me how few problems it causes.

Well as tallpine said, Montana maybe, I'm not sure I've never really researched open carry of non-handgun weapons. Its my understanding that in some places like Switzerland where military service is compulsory its not uncommon to see someone with a Sig 550 on their back walking the streets, at the grocery store, or otherwise engaged in their non-soldier life. Has this caused problems?



Really all you've seemed to say is that under our current laws a criminal can conceal a gun and be armed as long as they stay inconspicuous even if its illegal for them to carry. I find that all the more reason to allow me to remain legally armed.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Soybomb writes.....

I'm not attempting to change the subject at all. If you say that people will get into dangerous shootouts on airlines isn't it reasonable to ask why we don't see that on other forms of mass transit?

1) Airliners are not subways.

2) People carrying on other forms of public transport are doing so under our current system which has several significant regulations in place. These would be the need to have a license, the need to pass a background check, various Class 3 restrictions, requirements (in many places) to carry concealed, etc. It's true that criminals flout these restrictions and carry anyway, but that only gives them incentives to remain as inconspicuous as possible (which limits their tactical options). And the restrictions are generally pretty effective at keeping the Class 3 stuff off the streets. All these things limit, though admittedly do not fully prevent, the ability of terrorists to commit mayhem while affecting LAC's very little.

Soybomb continues.....

frankie_the_yankee I'm still baffled here, you obviously find terrorists with mp5's terrifying, but you still haven't addressed my question of why you think people with carry permits will get into firefights on planes when they don't on the subway and bus, or why they can go through the rest of an emotionally charged day and not go on a shooting rampage but would when they're in a court room.

1) I don't find terrorists with MP-5's "terrifying". I simply observe that if there were no restrictions whatsoever it would be child's play for them to so equip themselves and shoot up airliners or any other place of their choosing.

Note that if there were no restrictions, anyone, even a card-carrying member of Al Qaeda, could walk into a gun store and buy a brand new MP-5 without being questioned. (The AQ's wouldn't need to show their "cards", right?) If there were no restrictions, they would not need carry permits to carry MP-5's. And if there were no restrictions, they could openly carry them aboard airliners without being stopped, questioned, or interfered with in any way.

2) It is well established that people with concealed carry permits have a violent crime rate close to zero. I have never said that people with concealed carry permits are any problem whatsoever. I hold a TX CHL and carry almost all of the time. When I lived in RI I had a (much harder to obtain) RI Pistol Permit and carried almost all of the time. I support concealed carry. I encourage all LAC's who are comfortable with the responsibility to get CHL's and carry as much as possible.

But many people posting here view the permits themselves as "infringements" and have repeatedly said so. Just as they view the background checks needed to buy a gun (from an FFL) as infringements.

3) People have shot up courtrooms in the past. That is what led to most courtrooms requiring people to go through metal detectors before entering. Maybe they could have just encouraged everyone to be armed and left it to people to protect themselves when necessary. But due to the relatively small size of most courtrooms and a desire to minimize blood & guts cleanups most people in authority seem to have deemed it easier to set up courtrooms as controlled "gun free zones".

It seems to work out reasonably well. Almost all of the complaints are either from hard core 2A absolutists or operators of dry cleaning stores who lament the lost business.

My point (that I have probably stated 25 times in this thread already) is that things like "sterile environments" (airplanes, courtrooms, etc.), shall issue permits and background checks place only a very small burden upon the Good Guys while placing a significantly larger burden on the Bad Guys, and for that reason are "reasonable" gun laws that do not rise to the level of "infringements" of the 2A.

 

[Soybomb]

1) Airliners are not subways.

Alright so what makes people carrying concealed weapons on the airline more likely to have an out of control shootout than those on the subway?

2) People carrying on other forms of public transport are doing so under our current system which has several significant regulations in place. These would be the need to have a license, the need to pass a background check, various Class 3 restrictions, requirements (in many places) to carry concealed, etc.

Any my point all along has been let me carry the same way I can carry everywhere else and don't suggest that I'm too emotionally unstable to carry in a court room or other such nonsense.

It's true that criminals flout these restrictions and carry anyway, but that only gives them incentives to remain as inconspicuous as possible (which limits their tactical options).

If a person can carry an ak47 into a mall and start shooting just how limited are their options and how inconspicuous do they really have to be. People seldom even notice when someone is open carrying a gun on their hip, it doesn't seem like a covered long arm has ever been a problem to carry about.

And the restrictions are generally pretty effective at keeping the Class 3 stuff off the streets.

I don't know why you'd be concerned about class 3 in particular anyway but what proof do you have of that? Is it the fbi background check and fingerprints that keep criminals from buying fully automatic weapons or the $10k+ price tag? It seems like the criminals that want class 3 weapons already just make their own hacks and don't worry about having nfa registered weapons.

All these things limit, though admittedly do not fully prevent, the ability of terrorists to commit mayhem while affecting LAC's very little.

Perhaps its all in the eye of the beholder but when terrorists can take control of a plane with a box cutter, people can sneak contraband past TSA with ease, and people can carry rifles into malls and churches and start shooting I'd say there is nothing preventing anyone from causing mayhem other than generally there being no reason to. Laws against murder are presumably not the only reason our streets aren't filled with bodies either.

Note that if there were no restrictions, anyone, even a card-carrying member of Al Qaeda, could walk into a gun store and buy a brand new MP-5 without being questioned. (The AQ's wouldn't need to show their "cards", right?) If there were no restrictions, they would not need carry permits to carry MP-5's. And if there were no restrictions, they could openly carry them aboard airliners without being stopped, questioned, or interfered with in any way.

Why would someone planning to commit an act of terrorism care if they could buy a gun at the gun shop or not? Your argument is like saying because we prohibit people from buying cocaine at the pharmacy, drug users won't be able to get cocaine. As discussed earlier you don't need a permit to carry anything unless you wish to follow the law. The person that wants to kill innocent people can carry around 2 mp5's in a backpack and never be discovered until he goes to use them.

It is well established that people with concealed carry permits have a violent crime rate close to zero. I have never said that people with concealed carry permits are any problem whatsoever. I hold a TX CHL and carry almost all of the time. When I lived in RI I had a (much harder to obtain) RI Pistol Permit and carried almost all of the time. I support concealed carry. I encourage all LAC's who are comfortable with the responsibility to get CHL's and carry as much as possible.

Alright so can I take my permit and board a plane or enter a court room with a gun? If not, why?

People have shot up courtrooms in the past. That is what led to most courtrooms requiring people to go through metal detectors before entering. Maybe they could have just encouraged everyone to be armed and left it to people to protect themselves when necessary. But due to the relatively small size of most courtrooms and a desire to minimize blood & guts cleanups most people in authority seem to have deemed it easier to set up courtrooms as controlled "gun free zones".

It seems to work out reasonably well.

Very few court rooms were shot up before or after. If you can say it worked out reasonably well now, you can say it worked out reasonably well then too. The fact remains that people have continued to go on shooting sprees in courtrooms regardless of the changes and judges still carry firearms because they recognize the threat even with a metal detector at the door.

My point (that I have probably stated 25 times in this thread already) is that things like "sterile environments" (airplanes, courtrooms, etc.), shall issue permits and background checks place only a very small burden upon the Good Guys while placing a significantly larger burden on the Bad Guys, and for that reason are "reasonable" gun laws that do not rise to the level of "infringements" of the 2A.

What significantly larger burden? If you plan to enter a court room and murder 13 people, is it really a deterring burden to have to murder the guy at the metal detector too to get in?

Also where we're at it since we were talking about the lunacy of the public carrying long arms openly, would you care to address countries like switzerland and the image I posted above?

 

[robertbank]

Soybomb

If you are going to use Switzerland as your example you might want to do some research on the type of society that lives there and compare it with your own US experience. You might find there are some significant differences and a few that flatter the US.

I say that because there is more at play than just the absence or pluralacy of gun laws either good or bad. I might suggest to add to your argument, that whether or not you have stringent gun laws or few if any the impact on general crimes rates is negligible. In short there are other social problems at play. Some of which gun laws take into account when they are considered. Free gun zones are prime examples of trying to deal with the reality of the society in play.

Take Care

Bob

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Soybomb writes...

Alright so what makes people carrying concealed weapons on the airline more likely to have an out of control shootout than those on the subway?

First off, remember that the "restrictions = infringements" people are arguing that there's no problem allowing anyone to carry an MP-5 aboard no questions asked. Any hijacking or suicide bombing attempts could be handled by GG's engaging the BG's in full auto firefights. So to just consider the case of people with carry permits is changing the subject, unless you want to admit that the "restrictions = infringements" position is a load of idiotic crap, at which point we can have a more meaningful discussion.

But just to consider the case of people with carry permits.........

1) Airplanes in flight are high value targets for AQ types.

2) Prior to guns being banned on airliners, and passengers being screened 100% (sometime in the early 70's I think), armed hijackings were fairly common. Today, they are almost non-existent. How many US aircraft have been hijacked since 9/11?

3) Gun permits can be counterfeited. Airliners are relatively small spaces with limited access so that it is physically feasible to create a sterile environment. And again, results have been good.

The above has nothing to do with the idea of pilots carrying guns. I think this should be mandatory.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Soybomb writes.......

Any my point all along has been let me carry the same way I can carry everywhere else and don't suggest that I'm too emotionally unstable to carry in a court room or other such nonsense.

So you are admitting that the "restrictions = infringements" position is an idiotic load of crap? If so, we can discuss what restrictions might be "reasonable".

As I said, gun permits can be faked. Courtrooms are fairly small spaces where it is feasible to create and maintain a true "gun free" environment. And we don't have to speculate about this. Courtroom shootings are very rare events these days. Usually, they involve some unusual circumstance like when a deputy gets their gun snatched by a BG.

It is only common sense that if anyone could tote MP-5's into a courtroom no questions asked, shootings would be more common than the near zero level of today.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Soybomb writes.......

If a person can carry an ak47 into a mall and start shooting just how limited are their options and how inconspicuous do they really have to be. People seldom even notice when someone is open carrying a gun on their hip, it doesn't seem like a covered long arm has ever been a problem to carry about.

More limited than they would be if they could buy the gun no questions asked and carry it anywhere no questions asked.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Frankie says.....

All these things limit, though admittedly do not fully prevent, the ability of terrorists to commit mayhem while affecting LAC's very little.

Soybomb replies....

Perhaps its all in the eye of the beholder but when terrorists can take control of a plane with a box cutter, people can sneak contraband past TSA with ease, and people can carry rifles into malls and churches and start shooting I'd say there is nothing preventing anyone from causing mayhem other than generally there being no reason to.

How many hijackings have there been since 9/11? How many since passengers were screened for weapons starting sometime in the 70's? Do you think this is just an accident? Or that AQ hasn't wanted to do any?

Besides, anyone knows that the reason AQ was able to take control of planes with box cutters was because doctrine then in place did not allow for suicide hijackers. Doctrine instructed flight crews to simply do what the hijackers wanted. It did not allow for the hijackers intending to crash the plane.

How successful do you think a box cutter hijacking attempt would be today?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Soybomb writes.....

Very few court rooms were shot up before or after. If you can say it worked out reasonably well now, you can say it worked out reasonably well then too.

Statistics can be very hard to come by here (for either one of us) as not all courtrooms implemented security at the same time. Some still haven't. But establishing courtrooms as secure areas certainly passes the smell test at least compared to letting anyone tote MP-5's no questions asked.

Now if you are admitting that the "restrictions = infringements" position is an idiotic load of crap that only a mental defective would take seriously, and just want to discuss allowing people with CHL's to carry in courtrooms that's a whole different matter. My main objection to that would only be that CHL's can be counterfeited. But reasonable people can disagree about the risks and benefits there.

 

[stevereno1]

I think that non-violent, felons who are out of jail, and have done their time, should be able to own guns. I also believe that the constitution gives me all of the permit to carry a gun that I need. Since I don't wan't to go to jail, I jump through the hoops and have a permit, and carry where it is "legal" i am, however , getting to the point where I feel that I "NEED" to carry everywhere, and have started carrying in many places that I am not "permitted" to. So, in answering the question as to what are "reasonable" gun laws, I'd have to say that I don't care what the law is anymore than the criminal who fires into a crowd at random. I'm gonna have it , and pray that I don't need it.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Soybomb writes.........

What significantly larger burden? If you plan to enter a court room and murder 13 people, is it really a deterring burden to have to murder the guy at the metal detector too to get in?

It certainly complicates any such undertaking. There's a perimeter that must be breached vs. no perimeter. And it is probably part of a layered defense that includes other deputies inside the building.

Don't you recall the shootout at the metal detector that took place at the US Congress a few years back? Check out this link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/shooting/stories/security072598.htm

Security was in place and was assaulted by a determined shooter. The security measures succeeded.

And in general, being forced (by background check requirements) to use the black market, the added legal risks (to common criminal types) of carrying without the "shall issue" CHL that they can't get, and other such measures create burdens for the BG's that do not significantly affect the GG's. It is a straw man argument to simply say that the burdens are not enough. They are there, and they are higher for the BG than they are for the GG - at least by my own definition of what is reasonable.

Soybomb writes......

Also where we're at it since we were talking about the lunacy of the public carrying long arms openly, would you care to address countries like switzerland and the image I posted above?

I know nothing of Switzerland other than that it is very different from the USA in more ways than either one of us can count.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

[steve writes.
QUOTE]I think that non-violent, felons who are out of jail, and have done their time, should be able to own guns.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

steve says.....

I also believe that the constitution gives me all of the permit to carry a gun that I need.

You can "believe" that if you want, but if you act on that belief you are likely to end up in jail. That's because most of society does not share your belief, including the people who count like lawmakers, judges, juries, cops, and DA's.

steve goes on....

Since I don't wan't to go to jail, I jump through the hoops and have a permit, and carry where it is "legal"

Good.

steve concludes.....

i am, however , getting to the point where I feel that I "NEED" to carry everywhere, and have started carrying in many places that I am not "permitted" to. So, in answering the question as to what are "reasonable" gun laws, I'd have to say that I don't care what the law is anymore than the criminal who fires into a crowd at random. I'm gonna have it , and pray that I don't need it.

I agree with you that many places that are off limits by law are places where LAC's should be allowed to carry. Most of these so-called "gun free zones" are simply "helpless vistim zones" in real life. And Georgia is particularly bad in listing a whole host of places as off limits by law. I feel your pain.

Any gun free zone that is not accompanied by armed perimeter security with metal detectors, etc. is simply an infantile delusion.

But the fact remains that you carry in these places at your own risk.

Maybe someday we can get some of these "unreasonable" laws changed.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

As I said, gun permits can be faked. Courtrooms are fairly small spaces where it is feasible to create and maintain a true "gun free" environment. And we don't have to speculate about this. Courtroom shootings are very rare events these days. Usually, they involve some unusual circumstance like when a deputy gets their gun snatched by a BG.

It is only common sense that if anyone could tote MP-5's into a courtroom no questions asked, shootings would be more common than the near zero level of today.

If gun permits can be faked, why bother to have such a thing that is unconstitutional to begin with? If someone snatches the deputy's gun in a court room, now the only person in the courtroom who is armed is the(or a) bad guy. Common sense tells me that if all are armed in a court room, there'll be less chances of a shooting. Ever heard of "mutual assured destruction"? The same principle applies here as well. If there is going to be any such shootout in a court room, I'd just as soon it start and stop in the court room and not out on the street. Same for the airliner. I'd just as soon it stay confined to the airliner and end there before the plane gets flown into another building, or school, or what-have-you.

Frankie, why do you wish for only bad guys to be armed? That was the case on 09/11/2001. Even if a few of the other passengers had box cutters that day, things most likely would have turned out different. Does it matter if it's MP5s or box cutters? And, you are forgetting - more likely ignoring - the fact that the airlines are private enterprises and can limit whatever you wish to carry aboard one of their planes. They are not limited by the Second Amendment. Your argument is fallacious in the light of the facts.

More limited than they would be if they could buy the gun no questions asked and carry it anywhere no questions asked.

Ah, but the the law abiding are more limited than the bad guys. The law abiding abide the law. The bad guys don't. Advantage: Bad guys.

If open carry were allowed, criminals (or terrorists) could keep a low profile while carrying openly - i.e. blend in with the crowd. And if anyone could buy and carry any gun, they could carry MP-5's if they wanted to without drawing attention until they were ready to strike.

The criminals and terrorists have that advantage right now! We law abiding citizens can't defend ourselves in your world. Blend in or not, the criminals and terrorists will, and do, ply their trade or terrorism as it is right now. Otherwise, in my world, we can shoot back. There is only one thing that can be done that aids criminals and terrorists and that is to make it more difficult - in some instances, near impossible - to arm ourselves equal to or better than these criminals and terrorists. Your way, you accept a certain amount of unfettered carnage in exchange for the imagined safety of making it difficult for criminals and terrorists to obtain arms. Well, your imagined safety is nothing but a foolish pipe dream in the light of the facts. Whenever an armed citizen, guard, or officer of the law is present, these criminals and terrorists never get very far. It's the difference between 30 plus people being systematically slaughtered in a gun free school zone or 9 or so killed in a gun free shopping mall, compared to only two being killed in a church because the perpetrator was gunned down by an armed civilian security guard.

So, yes, your being called on the carpet by those of us who are of the "restrictions = infringements" crowd. You are being called on the carpet and excoriated because your misguided musings have all been tried in the law and failed miserably.

It certainly complicates any such undertaking. There's a perimeter that must be breached vs. no perimeter. And it is probably part of a layered defense that includes other deputies inside the building.

Maybe it's time to call in the architects and place those bullet proof barriers that you poo-pooed not so long ago, eh?

Now if you are admitting that the "restrictions = infringements" position is an idiotic load of crap that only a mental defective would take seriously, and just want to discuss allowing people with CHL's to carry in courtrooms that's a whole different matter. My main objection to that would only be that CHL's can be counterfeited. But reasonable people can disagree about the risks and benefits there.

You've lost the argument, Frankie. You've resorted to derision(position is an idiotic load of crap), character assassination(only a mental defective), and pretense(But reasonable people can disagree about the risks and benefits there.). Those are the three classics. Consider yourself exposed.



Shakespeare wrote, "I dare do all that may become a man. Who dares do more is none." (Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 7) I dare do all that the Constitution protects or does not prohibit that may become a citizen. He who would impede or usurp the Constitution is criminal.


Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood