flyingferret

Well, I think I might have to just bow out of this one pretty soon. I am still amazed at how we cannot corral this topic to a size small enough to debate. I am only glad that our sport is not treated with the same logic with which you treat guns. TOOLS, TOOLS, TOOLS. As the Great Gary Larson once wrote, "Ray guns don't kill Zarbonians, Zarbonians kill Zarbonians." Make people accountable for their actions, and they will think twice. Concealed carry is at least a help in making criminals accountable. Crime rates are down in Texas. Of course for those who don't live here, feel free to argue about it, since you see us as gun-toting, spur wearing, cowboys anyhow. Oh well, we live here and we seem pretty happy with it, after all CHL is a state law and the state seems pleased. For that matter, with a CHL you are allowed to carry in 23 other states in the union. What, almost a majority? Damn crackpots what were they thinking? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Agreed, and I can the point. But if you fly a tuna boat like myself, or if you are not familiar with Eloy and have always jumped at DZs with an established pattern, it was difficult to adjust to. Often times, due to the size of my canopy, I was far from first down, and saw several people going each way, because they could not make it from the spot. But it is almost impossible to tell which is which. It worked well luckily, but I think it could have caused some dangerious errors. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I don't see how. In theory same idea. Besides this thread was about the right to bear arms, and particularly CHL programs. The only reason I ever made the comment, was because people seemed to start nitpicking everything rather than providing any valid arguments. If you want to open the whole conservatism debate, then we might as well close the schools and shut down work, because neither of us would relent, and I could never convince you that you are wrong. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Yeah, I think that is Pablito. But I would not say f-ed up. The landing procedures at Eloy sucked. In fact that is one of my only complaints. In theory the low man se the pattern. That might work on a normal weekend there. But with Collegiates, a boogie, and the possibility of opening a mile on either side of the DZ, it was very hard sometimes to keep one direction. Not mention, if you did not see the first guy setup, all you saw was people landing in both direction. So you picked one and pulled riser -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I am trying very hard to ignore the flamegun next to me. Well, the main idea being that when your choice harms someone else, the state gets involved. Not saying I always agree with what they do after involvement. But that is the theory. My personal opinion would be that (I am assuming the only thing you could be referencing above is abortion) if you are irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex, that being responsible would mean dealing with the consequences, ie having a baby. I realize there are sometimes extenuating circumstances that make that statement incorrect. However, I think that abortion in a lot of case is a perfectly example of not taking responsibility for your actions. As for substances, I think the harming others indirectly theory comes up. Dallas recently pasted a smoking ban in restaurants as a reslut of this theory. Just for the record I would be fine with the legalization of weed. But unless they make it legal, I will not smoke it or bear responsibility for it if caught. editBy your logic, I could rape a girl because it was my choice, she could have an abortion, and we both exercised our choice. Extreme example, but my point is that when you bring someone else wellfare in play, it changes the rules. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I agree. However, in technicality, a CHL is illegal if someone can tell you are carrying. Literally, if an officer can tell, you will get some negative attention at the least. Therefore, if you are carrying legally, the only way the shop owner should ever know is if you pulled the gun. Depending on the situation and neighborhood, I may or may not carry as I inform the owner. Honestly, if it is just a store I rarely frequent on a quick trip, I would probably just leave the firearm in the car, and not bother telling the guy at the counter (probably not the owner anyway). I never said infringe, I said limit. To me there is an implied conotation to the infringe. By getting a CHL, you agree to very specific things, including the right of another citizen to invalidate your CHL in their establishment. If they have done so in accordance to the law, I in fact cannot complain at all, because it is the same law that grants me the right to carry at all. I simply don't think that guns are anything like cigarettes, at least in severity. But some people might say they both kill people -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

By the way, the reason why this meets with such resistance is this: After CHL was passed, many businesses started slapping up stickers all over the placesimply because they heard about the law and thought that people should not carry anywhere. Before long you had a lot of stickers that were totally incorrect business simply trying to keep CHLs from leaving the car. However, very soon, merchants found out how many people this entailed, and some merchants like Luby's very openly have no problem with CHLs for obvious safety reasons. Due to the initial reaction, a lot of CHL holders were faced with incorrect stickers almost every where they went. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

You have to pick your battles, and some things just are not that important.ie smoking vs. guns. It is only justified that it requires very specific things to limit a right like free speech or bearing arms. Smoking harldy compares. But for the sake of nice, I will answer. IF I did smoke, I would either inform the owner of the incorrect signage or light up, depending on the severity of the inaccuracy of the sign. If they refused to correct the issue, I would go elsewhere in the future. IF I did not smoke and someone did light up, I would do the exact same thing. But for different reasons than you think. Not because I am hard nose legalist. But because the customer is always right. If I informed them of an error and they would rather argue then listen, I will take my business elsewhere. That applies to most things, so I hardly think it affects the gun issue, but at least now you know my thoughts. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

And the show has reached a new low -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Actually, yes I happen to think that conservative feel very strongly about personal responsibility. I said that because, we have gone from arguing about gun control to, data with a lot of mays in it, to arguing about the responsibilities associated with a sign. That was the only common thread I could find. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I am beginning to think that perhaps the biggest difference between conservatives of varying degrees and other people is the belief that you are supremely responsible for your actions. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I agree. Most people who own convenience stores, because that is what comes to mind most easily, are very intelligent when it comes to business. Many times an incorrect sign is posted with the intent that a person will think it is legally binding and obey. If anything the store owner is the deceitful one. I have seen it. That being said, it is your right to protect yourself. They have a legal way to temporarily relieve you of your gun, it is very easy to do. If they care, they will do it. If they don't you are not require to obey. Period. I think that is what was said originally. If someone posted a homemade speedlimit sign in their front yard, would you obey it? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I owe you beer....nicely put, very nicely. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Nice summary! -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

By the way, ask Luby's how they feel about CHL -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Wendy, I see your point. However, the law is very specific. There is a large difference between a sign quoting penal code 30.06 and a little icon of a gun. The lawa was designed so that the sign was big enough and detailed enough, that someone would not be unaware of it and then charged for carrying illegally. Now if someone had the penal code posted, but not in the right shade, I don't think that any CHL holder would carry anyway. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Yes, if posted as David mentioned. And you would notice, the signs are quite large. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/signposting.htm Once again this is in Texas, but that is where I live and so am therefore more knowledgable about our CHL program. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[replyYou get in an accident, a guy gets out of his car and comes running at you yelling, and you draw. Then he draws. In Texas, you must have deadly force displayed against you in order to draw. If you draw otherwise, you are violatling the law, and I have no problem with people like that being punished. The idea is to be alert to hostile situations and prepared to deal with them IF you MUST. That simply means you can react, if you end up being assulted. The CHL is a last resort. If you ahve the right body posture, hopefully you will not be accosted, ask anyone from an urban area, body posture says a lot. All the CHL does is offer a defense if someone feels that can attack you anyway. And by the way, being a legally obtained weapon really does not matter as soon as you use it to commit a crime. If someone draws on a handgun on a CHL without identifiying themselves as law officer, the CHL holder is legally entitled to defend themselves. I think you will find that in almost all cases the CHL draws last. Yes, I know there are a few high profile incidents where this is not the case. But on a whole, it is. I have personally talked with DPS State Troopers who have run traffic stops their entire lives, and local cops walking a beat. Everyone of them felt that CHL holders made their jobs easier. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I am pretty proud there are no flaming bonfires yet. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I would hope that even if you own a gun, your brain will remain the strongest weapon. Nothing says you have to draw and fire. And almost all training indicates that if you are not prepared to fire, do not draw! I understand your statistics about guns. And I do not disagree with them. But as I post days ago, most of these guns are illegal, they are illegal before the crime is ever committed. They were bought illegally, they are carried illegally. The only thing my gun would do, IF I choose to draw it, is defend against a person who already has an illegal weapon. You want to make the statistics you listed look better? Have the police enforce laws that already exist, against guns that are already illegal. If you knock say 50% of those out of commission, and nothing changes, then you might entice em to support other legislation. But I am all for enforcing what is already out there. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

And so you really think that comparing to other states increases is a better measure than comparing a state before and after? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

If you teach statistics then I am even more surprised and disappointed that you do not understand the difference between comparing a state to itself and another. Did I or did I not write: I did not even make an issue out of the fact that the Brooking Institution has as much of a bias as the NRA. I simply said Still waiting for statistics that indicate a states crime rate is worse after CHL than before. And I am telling you they are not out there. These other statistics are jsut like the doom and gloom articles ever Christmas "The sky is falling, christmas spending is down. The sky is falling" Upon reading further.."oops what we meant was that the rate of increase is down. Last year spending increased 11%, this year it only increased 9%" Well, it was still 9% better than last year, wasn't it!! Once again if you truly teach statistics, I am saddened that you do not see the difference. No, I was not. But neither were scientific calculators, PCs, many of the equations we now use in math class, square parachutes, or CHL programs. That does not discredit them. Apparently a lot of reaaly good things have happened since then. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

David May or may not have these, but I do :) -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I will hope to make it either way. And I don't know about coolness facter, but Fayetteville is a LOT closer to me. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

So he is comparing the rates of state A after a CHL program to the rates of state B? That looks a little like apples and oranges to me. I would like to know how it changed my state. Like I said above, comparing a statistic in state A to state B does not really illustrate the change made by the CHL. I think it makes much more sense to say "this is what the state looked like before, this is what it looked like afterwards" Comparing two different states adds way too many variables to isolate, ie. political changes in either states, police spending, prison capacity, etc. It is already difficult to pull those out for one state. But trying to compute the changes between two different states makes the standard deviation of a statistic very difficult to figure. An example, if your raised the speed limit to 70 and wanted to know how it affected accidents, would you compare to your state's rates when the speed limit is slower? Or would you compare to another state that might have less roads, less cars, more people, more interstates, desolate like Nevada, etc, etc. I am not saying that Donohue's statistics are not 'real' statistics. I just think that they are not as targeted at showing the difference we desire to see. If you have ever taken a statistics class (and yes I have taken several) you are taught that actually one of the hardest things to do is to target your desired variable. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.