The Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action calls Rep. Jimmy Naifeh out on opposing guns in restaurants, saying "he believes that 'regular people' neither deserve, nor need, the God-given right to self-defense in restaurants."
Yes, that's just what we need. More yahoos with more guns in more places. And come on, admit it. Self-defense is first and foremost on your mind when dining at restaurants.
UPDATE: 2nd Amendment blogger and gun enthusiast SayUncle, who takes exception to the use of the term "yahoo" (because he would never call people names), seems conflicted about guns in public places. It's OK to carry loaded weapons in restaurants and other public places... except gun shops and shooting ranges. Go figure.
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 12:34.
is a family restaurant with no liquor service. A ban on concealed carry with regards to liquor service was not in play in this situation. You are trying to base your argument on a false premise.
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 14:05.
I didn't read a single thing about shootouts in bars.
" A public policy think tank, the Urban Institute, recently posited that iPods — yes, iPods — may be partly behind the national increase in people being robbed."
BAN IPODS NOW!!!!
-Robb Allen (not anon, just nowhere to put in my name. How about you do the same?)
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 11:31.
Geez - 34 other states already allow a permitted person to carry a handgun in restaurants that serve alcohol. Many of those also allow the consumption of alcohol while carrying in a restaurant or bar. There is no history of the "yahoos" in those states causing a problem.
Submitted by WhitesCreek on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 14:20.
What moron would try to defend this statement?
34 other states already allow a permitted person to carry a handgun in restaurants that serve alcohol. Many of those also allow the consumption of alcohol while carrying in a restaurant or bar. There is no history of the "yahoos" in those states causing a problem.
Four people were killed and six others were wounded early yesterday morning when an argument in a Queens cabaret exploded into a blazing gun battle that turned a joyous birthday party into a scene of carnage and terror, the police and witnesses said.
Two of those slain were men involved in the shooting, the police said, and two were women -- both mothers of 4-year-old children -- who were innocent bystanders.
Submitted by WhitesCreek on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 12:59.
Actually I misread that link, and you are right, it did happen some time ago, but why is it irrelevant? It's guns in bars. I find hundreds of links, and should have used one that was more pertinent, given the propensities of gun people to go screaming at wisps.
At any rate, no case has been made that a cc license makes a carrier safer to be around that someone with no weapon. That is absurd on its face, and that is the case that is being attempted.
Here's the official NRA response to that last one: That couldn't have happened because handguns are illegal in New York. Plus, if everybody in the place had been armed it wouldn't have happened anyway (which is proof that everyone should be handed a weapon when they enter Ruby Tusday or Applebee's). The article also refers to "automatic handguns," which, of course, do not exist, making the whole report more bogus liberal gun control lies.
Also, one of the other articles references the shooter as a convicted felon, so it also didn't happen because convicted felons can't have guns. Also another one was in NYC, so it didn't happen, either. And of course, none of the shooters were trained, qualified permit holders. If they had been, all of this would have been heroic and the innocent bystanders would just be collateral damage.
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 14:50.
If you take guns off the table and say "Look, we'll leave your guns alone" to SayUncle, what would he be then? Judging by his weak-ass act as Lee-Atwater-risen-from-the-dead viz his barely hidden hatred of Barack Obama, I'd say he's just another dude who woke up one morning and realized that white people aren't winning. Remember in 1954, all you had to do to stop a black guy from running for President is call him the n-word. Seems nowadays, all you have to do is make fun of his name like a child. Another thing to remember is that the whole SayUncle cast is composed of anti-democracy advocates, trick-knee keyboard troopers and childish ranters. So what do you expect? Adult behavior?
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 16:10.
"Another thing to remember is that the whole SayUncle cast is composed of anti-democracy advocates, trick-knee keyboard troopers and childish ranters. So what do you expect? Adult behavior?"
And griping about a lack of adult behavior when the best you can come up with are playground insults? Irony!
Road rage leads to shoot-out while driver taking kids to school.
Davis pulled out a gun, while his daughters were in the vehicle, and started firing rounds at the van. Vilchez pulled out his gun and fired back, deputies said. Davis stopped at a home on Garwood Drive and dropped off his daughters. He then continued to pursue Vilchez through the neighborhood.
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 16:34.
Why is it then that Indiana bars and restaurants aren't awash in alcohol laden blood? It's legal to carry and drink in any establishment in Indiana and always has been, and we have far more relaxed requirements for getting a permit to carry here.
Well, you know how i feel about such people. Treasonous jackholes who should find their backs up against the wall on the Glorious Day™
Nope. No yahoos on that side of the argument. None at all.
(What's the "Glorious Day"? The Rapture? Will Jesus let us take our guns up to Heaven? Maybe he should. We might need them up there for our "God-given right of self defense." Or maybe he's talking about some kind of wingnut insurrection and overthrow of our government? Wouldn't that be treason by definition? These guys are so confusing.)
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 20:09.
Glorious Day is used by White Supremacists as the day the inferior races either die off or leave the US. See Chip Berlet and Matt Lyons book on right-wing populism.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 20:13.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
--H.L. Mencken
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
By the way, as bizgrrl notes, permit holders aren't the little angels that permit holders would make them out to be.
The gun happy state of Texas Department of Safety says that 960 permit holders were arrested or had their permits revoked in 2000 for various felonies and misdemeanors such as murder, kidnapping, assualt, domestic violence, child abuse, and other offenses such as out of state FBI criminal warrants.
The Florida Sun Sentinel has a whole series (link broken at the moment) on violent felons, murderers, wife beaters, and other miscreants who somehow managed to keep their carry permits. They quote Florida law enforcement officials as saying Florida's lax carry laws are in need of reform.
But this is not about carry permit holders. Most everyone would agree that permit holders are mostly law abiding citizens (even though the US DOJ found that concealed-handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 22 percent higher than that of the general population in Texas.)
This is about more guns in more places, which we don't need. Why are we so paranoid that we need to carry weapons into restaurants? Who wants to live in a society like that?
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 20:32.
Submitted by R. Neal on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 19:18.
By the way, as bizgrrl notes, permit holders aren't the little angels that permit holders would make them out to be.
The gun happy state of Texas Department of Safety says that 960 permit holders were arrested or had their permits revoked in 2000 for various felonies and misdemeanors such as murder, kidnapping, assualt, domestic violence, child abuse, and other offenses such as out of state FBI criminal warrants.
The Florida Sun Sentinel has a whole series (link broken at the moment) on violent felons, murderers, wife beaters, and other miscreants who somehow managed to keep their carry permits. They quote Florida law enforcement officials as saying Florida's lax carry laws are in need of reform.
But this is not about carry permit holders. Most everyone would agree that permit holders are mostly law abiding citizens (even though the US DOJ found that concealed-handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 22 percent higher than that of the general population in Texas.)
This is about more guns in more places, which we don't need. Why are we so paranoid that we need to carry weapons into restaurants? Who wants to live in a society like that?
----------------------------------------------------------
I find it real convienient that you posted no links to back up your claims. Maybe because there ar'nt any?
Submitted by Andy Axel on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 20:01.
A:
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 20:59.
With literally millions of permits nationwide, you're bound to find a couple of morons who shouldn't have licenses. Florida, where this incident took place, and Ohio where I live account for half a million by themselves. If you look at overall statistics, license holders have 5 to 8 times fewer violent crime convictions than the average person, and mess up with their guns a lot less than police do. (I'm not cop-bashing--We get to run away and call the cops, police have to hang around and arrest criminals)
I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone will agree that being intoxicated with a gun is a bad thing, and should remain illegal. I rarely drink in a restaurant and I don't drink when I carry--Why is it more dangerous for me to carry at Red Lobster than McDonalds?
This bit: "US DOJ found that concealed-handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 22 percent higher than that of the general population in Texas" is for arrests, not convictions. Most of these arrests were shortly after Texas started issuing licenses, and some law enforcement were unclear on the rules. Convictions remained well below the rate of the general population.
This bit: "US DOJ found that concealed-handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 22 percent higher than that of the general population in Texas" is for arrests, not convictions. Most of these arrests were shortly after Texas started issuing licenses, and some law enforcement were unclear on the rules. Convictions remained well below the rate of the general population.
Ah, yes. The NRA talking points.
Yes, the statistsics were for arrests. In 2001, just after GWB and the NRA took over, they switched to reporting only convictions, as a percentage of the total population, which are understandably (as I noted previously) miniscule.
But, in 2005 the gun happy state of Texas reported 129 convictions of carry holders for various crimes. And convictions don't include all the cases thrown out for various reasons. (Don't the gun toting law and order types also claim that too many felony cases are thrown out by liberal judges for various reasons, which is why they need guns to dispense street justice to protect society and save the taxpayers money?)
At any rate, wouldn't responsible carry permit holders agree that one conviction of a carry permit holder is too many?
On the other hand, why don't 2nd Amendment unconditional unrestricted individual right interpretation advocates refer to 14th Amendment equal protection and demand that anyone be allowed to carry anytime anywhere, with our without a permit?
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 13:53.
On the other hand, why don't 2nd Amendment unconditional unrestricted individual right interpretation advocates refer to 14th Amendment equal protection and demand that anyone be allowed to carry anytime anywhere, with our without a permit?
More than a few of us do. But one step at a time, we'll get there. Which is not to say that we think violent criminals should be allowed to have guns. No, if you're too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be loose on the street.
Submitted by sevesteen on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 23:39.
Yes, the statistsics were for arrests. In 2001, just after GWB and the NRA took over, they switched to reporting only convictions, as a percentage of the total population, which are understandably (as I noted previously) miniscule.
I really don't know what you are getting at--All arrests are valid, and we don't actually need courts? If you skip the first couple of years when there were a higher than usual number of invalid arrests of licensees, they had an arrest rate of 5.7 times less often for violent crimes, 14 times less often for non-violent.
But, in 2005 the gun happy state of Texas reported 129 convictions of carry holders for various crimes. And convictions don't include all the cases thrown out for various reasons. (Don't the gun toting law and order types also claim that too many felony cases are thrown out by liberal judges for various reasons, which is why they need guns to dispense street justice to protect society and save the taxpayers money?)
About 1.5% of the adult population in Texas has a CHL. (That's in line with other states with similar requirements, not a particularly high percentage) They are responsible for 0.37% of the convictions--Not just a little better, but several times better than average. Also in line with other states.
At any rate, wouldn't responsible carry permit holders agree that one conviction of a carry permit holder is too many?
Too many for what? One conviction by any license holder for any felony means we should quit issuing licenses to people with clean records?
On the other hand, why don't 2nd Amendment unconditional unrestricted individual right interpretation advocates refer to 14th Amendment equal protection and demand that anyone be allowed to carry anytime anywhere, with our without a permit?
There's no such thing as "unconditional unrestricted"--There are limits to other constitutional rights, there are legitimate limits to second amendment rights, with similar levels of scrutiny. I think open carry will be legal without a license, (and will remain rare--It is legal here in Ohio, I've never seen it except at a gun event) but concealed may still require a license. Jails, courthouses and private property owners will be able to restrict carry.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 05:23.
There's no such thing as "unconditional unrestricted"--There are limits to other constitutional rights, there are legitimate limits to second amendment rights, with similar levels of scrutiny.
The exception called "The people we white people don't like" exception. You are a gun grabber. The right to bear is a human right and can not be alienated or abrogated, right? I think every man, woman and child of majority should be given a weapon. Felons, the mentally infirm and illegal immigrants should get one too. It is unconstitutional to take the right to bear away from a felon. The right is unalienable. The mentally infirm are humans too. Illegal immigrants should be given weapons when caught as part of their training to become US citizens. They should learn how to speak English and fire a weapon.
Submitted by sevesteen on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 10:38.
The exception called "The people we white people don't like" exception. You are a gun grabber. The right to bear is a human right and can not be alienated or abrogated, right?
Wrong. The appropriate restrictions would be similar to the restrictions on first amendment rights. There are clear and compelling reasons to restrict felons, mentally infirm and illegals from having guns, if the laws that do so are crafted in the least restrictive way to meet those reasons.
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 07:08.
Then the right is not inalienable. It is nothing more than a special type of administrative law masquerading as a human right. I feel the same way about the first amendment. The only reason that gun advocates make the "clear and compelling" cop out to the gun grabbers (and leave the door open for more restrictions) is that they are afraid that people they are afraid of will get guns. Minorities and "others." Either you are down with an unlimited, absolute human right to have a gun, or you are complicit in the efforts to restrict that right. The problem is that you have to define "least" and "restrictive." Lawyers can prove in court that the "sky is green" if they get the question in front of the right judge, jury or both.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 08:26.
Pro-gun blogswarms: As reliable as gnats at a picnic.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 11:09.
But, in 2005 the gun happy state of Texas reported 129 convictions of carry holders for various crimes.
And how many carry holders are there in total in the state of Texas? Something like close to 300,000 I believe. The number was nearly 225,000 between 1995 and 2002. So even if we take the 2002 number of 225,000, the 129 convictions represent about .05% of all permit holders. That's a real epidemic.
Pro-gun blogswarms: As reliable as gnats at a picnic.
I know. You'd much rather be part of the echo chamber of misinformation and ignorance.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 14:37.
So, by your thinking (or what passes for it in your delusional little world), one is too many means that if ONE person screws up, everyone loses the right.
OK. There are plenty of people each and every day that drink alcohol and then do something stupid. Let's outlaw alcohol.
There are plenty of people that have screwed up while using a motor vehicle. Let's outlaw motor vehicles.
There are plenty of people that have used words to hurt others. Let's outlaw free speech.
There are plenty of people, well two actually, that put up web sites and make a mockery not only of themselves, but also the county and state they live in, by erroneously calling said web sites KnoxViews and TennViews, when they should be more accurately called RandyViews and his little band of echo chamber accolytes. Let's outlaw web sites that screech the liberal talking points that prove there is no critical thinking allowed in Randy's World.
Who said anything about losing a right? Carrying a loaded pistol into a restaurant is not a right you currently have in Tennessee. That's all I was talking about.
Anyway, why don't you clowns crawl back under your circus tents? This shit is really getting tiresome. And repetitive. WE GET IT! Don't y'all have something better to do? Do you really think you are helping your cause?
(P.S. Feel free to start "AnonymousYahooViews.com" and we'll all be sure to take time out from the echo chamber to stop by for a laugh.)
Submitted by Andy Axel on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 21:13.
You'd much rather be part of the echo chamber of misinformation and ignorance.
Dear Boilerplate Anonymous Cargo Cultist:
If I wanted to be "part of the echo chamber of misinformation and ignorance," I'd bide my time at an NRA-sponsored blog.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Submitted by sevesteen on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 20:30.
Anyway, why don't you clowns crawl back under your circus tents? This shit is really getting tiresome. And repetitive. WE GET IT! Don't y'all have something better to do? Do you really think you are helping your cause?
Usual gun-rights discussion:'
Anti says "I don't like guns, we don't need more, it will just mean more shootings"
Clown says "Experience says that doesn't happen--Here is data. Can you show data to support your claims?"
Anti says "Why don't you go away! Don't you have anything better to do than confuse us with facts?"
With that, I'll leave you be unless I'm directly addressed.
Also google "Suzanna Gratia Hupp". Your right would have been terrible if she had her weapon...
is a family restaurant with no liquor service. A ban on concealed carry with regards to liquor service was not in play in this situation. You are trying to base your argument on a false premise.
Odd. Florida allows CCW in establishments that serve booze and we don't seem to have any problems with it.
Nice that you consider me a "yahoo".That only confirms what I consider you.
you might want to do a little research before you climb up on that sanctimonious soapbox "anonymous".
Link...
I didn't read a single thing about shootouts in bars.
" A public policy think tank, the Urban Institute, recently posited that iPods — yes, iPods — may be partly behind the national increase in people being robbed."
BAN IPODS NOW!!!!
-Robb Allen (not anon, just nowhere to put in my name. How about you do the same?)
So, you agree that guns are responsible for enabling crime. Glad to see that.
Geez - 34 other states already allow a permitted person to carry a handgun in restaurants that serve alcohol. Many of those also allow the consumption of alcohol while carrying in a restaurant or bar. There is no history of the "yahoos" in those states causing a problem.
What moron would try to defend this statement?
Link...
Link...
Link...
Link...
And from today's NY Times:
Link...
Wow, quite dishonest!
"And from today's NY Times:"
It was a story published nearly 17 years ago.
Not only that, none fo the shooters had a carry license, so the example is irrelavant to the debate.
Actually I misread that link, and you are right, it did happen some time ago, but why is it irrelevant? It's guns in bars. I find hundreds of links, and should have used one that was more pertinent, given the propensities of gun people to go screaming at wisps.
At any rate, no case has been made that a cc license makes a carrier safer to be around that someone with no weapon. That is absurd on its face, and that is the case that is being attempted.
Here's the official NRA response to that last one: That couldn't have happened because handguns are illegal in New York. Plus, if everybody in the place had been armed it wouldn't have happened anyway (which is proof that everyone should be handed a weapon when they enter Ruby Tusday or Applebee's). The article also refers to "automatic handguns," which, of course, do not exist, making the whole report more bogus liberal gun control lies.
Also, one of the other articles references the shooter as a convicted felon, so it also didn't happen because convicted felons can't have guns. Also another one was in NYC, so it didn't happen, either. And of course, none of the shooters were trained, qualified permit holders. If they had been, all of this would have been heroic and the innocent bystanders would just be collateral damage.
If you take guns off the table and say "Look, we'll leave your guns alone" to SayUncle, what would he be then? Judging by his weak-ass act as Lee-Atwater-risen-from-the-dead viz his barely hidden hatred of Barack Obama, I'd say he's just another dude who woke up one morning and realized that white people aren't winning. Remember in 1954, all you had to do to stop a black guy from running for President is call him the n-word. Seems nowadays, all you have to do is make fun of his name like a child. Another thing to remember is that the whole SayUncle cast is composed of anti-democracy advocates, trick-knee keyboard troopers and childish ranters. So what do you expect? Adult behavior?
Seems nowadays, all you have to do is make fun of his name like a child.
Actually, he's making fun of the people who said that Obama was being "smeared" because people used his actual middle name several times.
And one has to love anecdotal evidence being offered up as proof.
"Another thing to remember is that the whole SayUncle cast is composed of anti-democracy advocates, trick-knee keyboard troopers and childish ranters. So what do you expect? Adult behavior?"
And griping about a lack of adult behavior when the best you can come up with are playground insults? Irony!
Yes. Children point out each other's anti-democratic tendencies all the time at school. It's all the rage like American Girl Dolls.
As I mentioned previously
"CCW permit holders very well trained, NOT"
Road rage leads to shoot-out while driver taking kids to school.
...
Why is it then that Indiana bars and restaurants aren't awash in alcohol laden blood? It's legal to carry and drink in any establishment in Indiana and always has been, and we have far more relaxed requirements for getting a permit to carry here.
Reaction to this post in SayUncle's comments:
Nope. No yahoos on that side of the argument. None at all.
(What's the "Glorious Day"? The Rapture? Will Jesus let us take our guns up to Heaven? Maybe he should. We might need them up there for our "God-given right of self defense." Or maybe he's talking about some kind of wingnut insurrection and overthrow of our government? Wouldn't that be treason by definition? These guys are so confusing.)
Glorious Day is used by White Supremacists as the day the inferior races either die off or leave the US. See Chip Berlet and Matt Lyons book on right-wing populism.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
--H.L. Mencken
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
By the way, as bizgrrl notes, permit holders aren't the little angels that permit holders would make them out to be.
The gun happy state of Texas Department of Safety says that 960 permit holders were arrested or had their permits revoked in 2000 for various felonies and misdemeanors such as murder, kidnapping, assualt, domestic violence, child abuse, and other offenses such as out of state FBI criminal warrants.
The Florida Sun Sentinel has a whole series (link broken at the moment) on violent felons, murderers, wife beaters, and other miscreants who somehow managed to keep their carry permits. They quote Florida law enforcement officials as saying Florida's lax carry laws are in need of reform.
But this is not about carry permit holders. Most everyone would agree that permit holders are mostly law abiding citizens (even though the US DOJ found that concealed-handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 22 percent higher than that of the general population in Texas.)
This is about more guns in more places, which we don't need. Why are we so paranoid that we need to carry weapons into restaurants? Who wants to live in a society like that?
Submitted by R. Neal on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 19:18.
By the way, as bizgrrl notes, permit holders aren't the little angels that permit holders would make them out to be.
The gun happy state of Texas Department of Safety says that 960 permit holders were arrested or had their permits revoked in 2000 for various felonies and misdemeanors such as murder, kidnapping, assualt, domestic violence, child abuse, and other offenses such as out of state FBI criminal warrants.
The Florida Sun Sentinel has a whole series (link broken at the moment) on violent felons, murderers, wife beaters, and other miscreants who somehow managed to keep their carry permits. They quote Florida law enforcement officials as saying Florida's lax carry laws are in need of reform.
But this is not about carry permit holders. Most everyone would agree that permit holders are mostly law abiding citizens (even though the US DOJ found that concealed-handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 22 percent higher than that of the general population in Texas.)
This is about more guns in more places, which we don't need. Why are we so paranoid that we need to carry weapons into restaurants? Who wants to live in a society like that?
----------------------------------------------------------
I find it real convienient that you posted no links to back up your claims. Maybe because there ar'nt any?
Link...
Link...
Link...
Link...
(Feel free to roll out the NRA talking points from the gun nut archives which debunk all these liberal anti-gun myths.)
Or maybe it's because you "ar'nt" capable of using Google?
Try here and here for starters.
~Russ
A:
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
With literally millions of permits nationwide, you're bound to find a couple of morons who shouldn't have licenses. Florida, where this incident took place, and Ohio where I live account for half a million by themselves. If you look at overall statistics, license holders have 5 to 8 times fewer violent crime convictions than the average person, and mess up with their guns a lot less than police do. (I'm not cop-bashing--We get to run away and call the cops, police have to hang around and arrest criminals)
I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone will agree that being intoxicated with a gun is a bad thing, and should remain illegal. I rarely drink in a restaurant and I don't drink when I carry--Why is it more dangerous for me to carry at Red Lobster than McDonalds?
This bit: "US DOJ found that concealed-handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 22 percent higher than that of the general population in Texas" is for arrests, not convictions. Most of these arrests were shortly after Texas started issuing licenses, and some law enforcement were unclear on the rules. Convictions remained well below the rate of the general population.
This bit: "US DOJ found that concealed-handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 22 percent higher than that of the general population in Texas" is for arrests, not convictions. Most of these arrests were shortly after Texas started issuing licenses, and some law enforcement were unclear on the rules. Convictions remained well below the rate of the general population.
Ah, yes. The NRA talking points.
Yes, the statistsics were for arrests. In 2001, just after GWB and the NRA took over, they switched to reporting only convictions, as a percentage of the total population, which are understandably (as I noted previously) miniscule.
But, in 2005 the gun happy state of Texas reported 129 convictions of carry holders for various crimes. And convictions don't include all the cases thrown out for various reasons. (Don't the gun toting law and order types also claim that too many felony cases are thrown out by liberal judges for various reasons, which is why they need guns to dispense street justice to protect society and save the taxpayers money?)
At any rate, wouldn't responsible carry permit holders agree that one conviction of a carry permit holder is too many?
On the other hand, why don't 2nd Amendment unconditional unrestricted individual right interpretation advocates refer to 14th Amendment equal protection and demand that anyone be allowed to carry anytime anywhere, with our without a permit?
More than a few of us do. But one step at a time, we'll get there. Which is not to say that we think violent criminals should be allowed to have guns. No, if you're too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be loose on the street.
I really don't know what you are getting at--All arrests are valid, and we don't actually need courts? If you skip the first couple of years when there were a higher than usual number of invalid arrests of licensees, they had an arrest rate of 5.7 times less often for violent crimes, 14 times less often for non-violent.
About 1.5% of the adult population in Texas has a CHL. (That's in line with other states with similar requirements, not a particularly high percentage) They are responsible for 0.37% of the convictions--Not just a little better, but several times better than average. Also in line with other states.
Too many for what? One conviction by any license holder for any felony means we should quit issuing licenses to people with clean records?
There's no such thing as "unconditional unrestricted"--There are limits to other constitutional rights, there are legitimate limits to second amendment rights, with similar levels of scrutiny. I think open carry will be legal without a license, (and will remain rare--It is legal here in Ohio, I've never seen it except at a gun event) but concealed may still require a license. Jails, courthouses and private property owners will be able to restrict carry.
The exception called "The people we white people don't like" exception. You are a gun grabber. The right to bear is a human right and can not be alienated or abrogated, right? I think every man, woman and child of majority should be given a weapon. Felons, the mentally infirm and illegal immigrants should get one too. It is unconstitutional to take the right to bear away from a felon. The right is unalienable. The mentally infirm are humans too. Illegal immigrants should be given weapons when caught as part of their training to become US citizens. They should learn how to speak English and fire a weapon.
Wrong. The appropriate restrictions would be similar to the restrictions on first amendment rights. There are clear and compelling reasons to restrict felons, mentally infirm and illegals from having guns, if the laws that do so are crafted in the least restrictive way to meet those reasons.
Then the right is not inalienable. It is nothing more than a special type of administrative law masquerading as a human right. I feel the same way about the first amendment. The only reason that gun advocates make the "clear and compelling" cop out to the gun grabbers (and leave the door open for more restrictions) is that they are afraid that people they are afraid of will get guns. Minorities and "others." Either you are down with an unlimited, absolute human right to have a gun, or you are complicit in the efforts to restrict that right. The problem is that you have to define "least" and "restrictive." Lawyers can prove in court that the "sky is green" if they get the question in front of the right judge, jury or both.
Pro-gun blogswarms: As reliable as gnats at a picnic.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Thanks R for not posting this over on the Mother Ship.
Visit us at
The Home
But, in 2005 the gun happy state of Texas reported 129 convictions of carry holders for various crimes.
And how many carry holders are there in total in the state of Texas? Something like close to 300,000 I believe. The number was nearly 225,000 between 1995 and 2002. So even if we take the 2002 number of 225,000, the 129 convictions represent about .05% of all permit holders. That's a real epidemic.
Pro-gun blogswarms: As reliable as gnats at a picnic.
I know. You'd much rather be part of the echo chamber of misinformation and ignorance.
That's a real epidemic.
One is too many.
So, by your thinking (or what passes for it in your delusional little world), one is too many means that if ONE person screws up, everyone loses the right.
OK. There are plenty of people each and every day that drink alcohol and then do something stupid. Let's outlaw alcohol.
There are plenty of people that have screwed up while using a motor vehicle. Let's outlaw motor vehicles.
There are plenty of people that have used words to hurt others. Let's outlaw free speech.
There are plenty of people, well two actually, that put up web sites and make a mockery not only of themselves, but also the county and state they live in, by erroneously calling said web sites KnoxViews and TennViews, when they should be more accurately called RandyViews and his little band of echo chamber accolytes. Let's outlaw web sites that screech the liberal talking points that prove there is no critical thinking allowed in Randy's World.
everyone loses the right
Who said anything about losing a right? Carrying a loaded pistol into a restaurant is not a right you currently have in Tennessee. That's all I was talking about.
Anyway, why don't you clowns crawl back under your circus tents? This shit is really getting tiresome. And repetitive. WE GET IT! Don't y'all have something better to do? Do you really think you are helping your cause?
(P.S. Feel free to start "AnonymousYahooViews.com" and we'll all be sure to take time out from the echo chamber to stop by for a laugh.)
Dear Boilerplate Anonymous Cargo Cultist:
If I wanted to be "part of the echo chamber of misinformation and ignorance," I'd bide my time at an NRA-sponsored blog.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Or maybe it's because you "ar'nt" capable of using Google?
Try here and here for starters.
~Russ
Ah, here we go with the spelling bit. You understood it didnt you?
And posting the Sun Sentinel as a source is like posting R. Neal as a source, both are as dependable as a flat spare tire.
Usual gun-rights discussion:'
Anti says "I don't like guns, we don't need more, it will just mean more shootings"
Clown says "Experience says that doesn't happen--Here is data. Can you show data to support your claims?"
Anti says "Why don't you go away! Don't you have anything better to do than confuse us with facts?"
With that, I'll leave you be unless I'm directly addressed.
Post new comment