Gun-Proofing Idiots

[Kennedy 0]

Requirements are different is most states. Some, like NY and CA make it almost impossible for regular citizens to acquire a permit. Only politicians and celebs can carry concealed legally there.

Other places are RTC states, which means if a citizen meets written, objective standards, they must be issued a permit.

Different RTC states have different standards. Some are very high, others are very low. Different ages, different criminal history standards, different costs, different training requirements, etc etc.


The simple answer is that if it is a "may-issue" state, also known as discretionary issue, it all depends on the issuing agency. Some discretionary are very good about it and issue to almost anyone. Others, like NY, issue nearly zero permits.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Newsflash bill: NRA supported NICS. The NRA has always said that waiting periods (the original brady law requirement) wouldn't work, and they didn't. The NRA is ok with NICS for FFL dealers. The NRA supports swift and severe punishment for people selling guns on the black market.

Hey, would you look at that, they enforced the law already on the books, and we caught a criminal.

Unfortunately, this hasn't always been the case. I point you to the CLinton claim that 100,000 felons were prevented from buying guns by NICS. If that is true, why weren't there 100,000 arrests and 100,000 convictions?

Laws only work when they are enforced.

Remember, NRA supports prosecuting criminals who use guns to the full extent of the law. Look into Project Exile. Proven successful. Enforce laws against bad acts with guns- don't blame all guns and all gun owners.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Who is going to file charges agains the shooter? The guy that got shot? He is dead. The police? They were not involved in the incident, therefore they can not file charges.

You really need to learn more about the factual way things work before you go spouting off about them.

Criminal charges do not necessarily require that the person who was wronged file charges. If "the guy that got shot" had to be the one to "file charges," then technically NO ONE would ever be charged with murder! "HELLO?!"

The STATE brings such charges. They bring the charges in the name of THE PEOPLE, not the person who got shot.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

This is exactly the situation that gun controllers present to oppose CCW permits.

There are thousands and thousands of CCW permits out there. Do you know how many murders have been committed with pistols carried by permit bearers?

Jeez- is it asking too much for you to quote in context? My next sentence said what....oh right, "fortunately these are rare events."

Doesn't take away the point - this incident will be used, add the fact the guy with the gun was a lowlife. They won't address unhelpful facts about the situation.

And worse, quite a few people here seem sympathetic to the hood for having to shoot another guy.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is exactly the situation that gun controllers present to oppose CCW permits.

Except that this one wouldn't apply, because all handgun ownership is banned in Chicago, so this gun owner was already a law-breaker, rather than a legal CCW permitee.

That's besides the point, John. If it were legal, it would happen "MORE OFTEN."

Well, of course, sure, no doubt, everybody knows that, naturally, right on...

Except, IT DOESN'T[/I].

Show us some statistics, PLEASE, that indicate anything remotely close to "this happens more often where there are CCW permits issued."

Bear in mind, you'll have to show that it happened where the shooter did NOT act in LEGAL self-defense, because the justifiable shootings should in no way "count against" CCW as a policy.

So, we'll wait a bit while you dig up stats on the THIRTY-FOUR states that have shall-issue CCW and show us where the big problem with permittees acting with reckless violence.

Quote

And besides that, I think we agree that one's right to self defense overrules such laws, like for the homeowner that shot a burglar.

Um, he was CHARGED with having the very gun that he used in lawful self-defense. That would be like putting out a fire with a fire extinguisher in a place where fire extinguishers were for some reason illegal, and then getting charged with possessing one. It's insanity.

But please, go on and tell us how CCW would cause more incidents like the one in this thread, especially given that this incident didn't involve someone with a permit, and that 34 states have now seen fit to set up a permit system in spite of this supposedly obvious danger.

I think you're talking out your ass in that regard.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

I believe I read in one of the linked articles that the driver and the passenger/shooter both have prior convictions and felony records. The passenger was forbidden by law from owning that gun, twice! Once because he is a felon, once because Chicago outlaws handguns.

I'm not all that sympathetic to either side here. Every single one of them was at fault in a number of ways. I wonder if the deceased would come out sparkling clean if they dug into his past the way they did for the driver and shooter...


You are however correct, in that this will be one more story that the anti-gun groups misrepresent to the American public in an attempt to further their goals.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

From the article quoted:

Quote

Tunney said he believed the police presence around Wrigley was "adequate," "as evidenced by the rapid response by police" to the shooting.

So, the standard used to define "adequate" police presence is NOT that they were there in time to PREVENT a murder -- they just have to be able to respond rapidly once there's BEEN a murder.

Can anyone see why people who own guns might do so because they're not willing to wait for protection from police that doesn't arrive until after they're dead?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think you're talking out your ass in that regard.
-

We're both skirting on the edge of personal attacks, but if you really think I said what you say I did, you're listening through your's.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you're talking out your ass in that regard.
-

We're both skirting on the edge of personal attacks, but if you really think I said what you say I did, you're listening through your's.

Okay, attack mode off. I think that you are far from reality if you suggest that legalized concealed carry of handguns would make attacks like this one far more common, since experience of 34 states indicate strongly to the contrary. You would have to be arguing against demonstrable fact.

Are you going to make any attempt to compile a statistical analysis that backs up your wild supposition, or just ask us to believe contrary to what has already been statistically shown to be true?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 3,116]

>Newsflash bill: NRA supported NICS.

I didn't say they did. The point was simply that some gun laws _do_ work; not every proposed gun law is a cleverly disguised attempt to start a nationwide gun ban.

[Kennedy 0]

Gun laws that punish bad acts work. That's it. Why? Criminals will commit crimes no matter what, so all we can do is punish them to the best of our ability and not waste time screwing with people who have done nothing wrong. Gun laws that punish everyone do not work.

Maybe that's not true. That depends on your definition of "work." If your aim is reducing crime, they don't work. If your aim is slowly encroaching on individual liberties towards a "final solution," then yes, they work just fine.

Quote

not every proposed gun law is a cleverly disguised attempt to start a nationwide gun ban.

No, they are not cleverly disguised. They are fairly blatant. Remember, every gun registration has led to gun confiscation, even here in the US.

I have a long memory.

Quote

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS` "60 Minutes"

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." Those are the only words gun owners need to remember.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[akarunway 1]

If you live in Fla. Obtaining a License To Carry Concealed Weapon
The FDACS Division of Licensing issues all licenses to carry concealed weapons. Under Florida law, you cannot be refused a license if you are at least 21 years of age, have no criminal record or record of domestic violence, no record of being declared mentally incompetent or of being a drug addict or alcoholic, and you meet the "proof of training" requirement. Proof of training is most commonly submitted either by a copy of a firearms training course certificate or military discharge certificate. Firearms training is offered by most gun ranges and by the National Rifle Association, and must include actual firing of a weapon. You must also be fingerprinted (for purposes of a criminal background check) and submit a passport-type photograph of yourself to be affixed to the license. The State mandates that the license be issued to you not later than 90 days after the application (with fingerprint card, photo and fee) is received, unless the Department can show cause why you should be denied a License.


For more information you can contact:


Division Of Licensing
P.O. Box 6687
Tallahassee, FL 32314-6687


Phone: (850) 488-5381

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

I don't know if things have changed, but I never had to provide proof of actual firing of a weapon in 1997 when I applied and got my CCW license. The training was not practical gun-handling, it was legalese about when you could or could not legally use your gun, and where you could or could not legally carry it.

Anyone know about changes that occurred to now require "proof of actual firing"?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[akarunway 1]

I took the firearm safety course at XXXX in 98 in Fla. and they crammed a 8 hr. course into 2 hrs. They handed out SA's (semi auto) and DA's (double action) to the whole class at random I guess and we all went to the firing range to pop off a few. The girl next to me , her SA jammed on the first fire , me thinks cause a limp arm, and she held the piece in firing position and backed out of the booth pointing the gun everywhere saying "what happened". I told her to point the gun at the ground and give it to me. Some people don't need to be in possesion of a firearm. Don't know if they gave her a certificate or not. I lost mine later on and called for a copy and they told me to white out my buddys sig on his and make a copy of it and and sign my name as the Good Ole State of Fla. just needs a copy and nobody ( the gun store firing range) has to keeps records. As far as when that law was enacted I don't know

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[winsor 236]

Quote

This is too good to pass up.....but I have work to do,I will weigh in later........but.... Teddy Kennedy has killed more people with his car (1) than I have with any of my cool handguns

Kennedy wasn't there.

Joanne was driving away from the Senator, to keep the police from discovering them together.

He knew the island, she didn't. She took a wrong turn and drowned.

The rest is all spin.


Blue skies, shallow water,

Winsor

[markd_nscr986 0]

Spin...did you say?Well there was one car.....both Teddy and Mary Jo Kopecne in it,both left the bar together after a "few" drinks.....Teddy puts the auto into the drink, abandons said vehicle leaving Mary Jo to drown.Reports it to the authorities hours after the fact,and funny thing.......I think the accident report is still "sealed" by the state Of Mass.I think you could call it "spin" to say that he drove away without her and just decided to go for a midnight swim with all his clothes on!So yes,I do stand by my statement Teddy and his car(1)......Mark and his firearms (0).....

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[burbleflyer 0]

Quote

Quote

"Unbiased": Agrees with christelsabine?

Of course NOT

***I'm blaming the criminals for that. Gun control laws don't stop criminals. Therefore, gun control laws are a failure

JohnRich: This answer is a good one. And just now see it related to all crimes happening in the world.

We cannot control every felony happening everywhere, how the hell will you prevent anything?

So, we simply created laws. Even they are not accepted by everyone or simply will not work on everything.

That's it in my opinion. And that's why i always will support the laws.

Hee hee. You sound cute but incredibly naive. I support laws too. Just not stupid laws that are unconstitutional and dont work. Bah bah little sheep.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Unbiased": Agrees with christelsabine?

Of course NOT

***I'm blaming the criminals for that. Gun control laws don't stop criminals. Therefore, gun control laws are a failure

JohnRich: This answer is a good one. And just now see it related to all crimes happening in the world.

We cannot control every felony happening everywhere, how the hell will you prevent anything?

So, we simply created laws. Even they are not accepted by everyone or simply will not work on everything.

That's it in my opinion. And that's why i always will support the laws.

Hee hee. You sound cute but incredibly naive. I support laws too. Just not stupid laws that are unconstitutional and dont work. Bah bah little sheep.

Exactly. We are not arguing for the abolition of all laws on the basis that they don't work because people still commit the crimes. We still need the laws to delineate between the behaviors that are permissible and those that are not. Keep a law that says murder is illegal, even though it obviously cannot prevent murder: it still is useful when society wishes to punish the murderer. The law provides the ability to say, "See, here's where it says you weren't supposed to kill anybody but you did it anyway."

With gun laws, the situation is different. Nobody is harmed by the simple action of someone owning a gun. Gun laws seek to prevent the act of murder by backing up a step and trying to keep people from having the tool to commit the crime. We don't need such laws, since (a) they do not work and the criminals who want guns for hurting people will get them anyway and (b) we already have the "no murder" laws which cover the unwanted behavior.

Gun laws to keep people from murdering are as sensible as a law that says people can't have cars just to prevent speeding.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"