I know he will. But I don't trust that the law abiding citizen won't join in. The way i see it, we're jumping the gun. (LOL XD HEADROLL DEASKBASH!!!!!!?!) We should fix how gun permits are handled and help fix our culture first before doing a lot of this stuff. It's like abortion. Before we go either way with the debate, we shoud address how our schools are educating kids and teens on sex.
Fair enough but I would ask, do you believe that what you know about streets and buildings is the same everywhere? Do you pass laws based on your emotional response or do you look at the statistics of the state of Georgia's concealed carry citizens and say...Hey there hasn't been any evidence to support NOT allowing them the simple right to self defense? You have no idea of a persons mental health whether they are law abiding or criminal..you are not guaranteed protection from bad or mentally deranged people by the government, it is your responsibility to protect yourself...if you want to rely on the government fine, don't project your emotions onto others who want to rely on their selves. Finally you don't have to worry about whether a safety is on or if someone is good or bad, armed or not....you just have to worry about what tools you have available to you in the event a confrontation occurs. What is excessive guns? Who decides? I agree we need to assist the police with information but that won't stop criminals and the cops will not be there when you need them most. Armed citizens are exactly what we need. Sorry, I was being insulting and it probably wasn't deserved. We tease about the time out law here in this sense. Some people believe more laws are the answer and we harp from our side that criminals don't follow the law. We tease that if one would simply display the international hand sign for a time out as displayed in sports, the criminal would simply stop what they were doing and wait for the time in thus giving us time to equalize things. I know the FBI profile of an active shooter and I agree that they don't care that they will be shot....they do care that they create as much carnage as possible before being confronted by someone who can stop them, upon which the large majority commit suicide. Law enforcement responses can take from a few minutes to many minutes. Imagine several staff members at sandy hook meeting an active shooter as he attempted to enter...big difference in outcome would be possible. Publicize that schools have lots of guns in the hands of staff and a person who desires to create carnage will look elsewhere. I don't trust that the cops will be there in time to stop someone from killing 26 innocent people. Something is better than nothing. I agree with this and I would be willing to pay more in taxes to expand trained personnel. Just realize that if the school district cannot afford to pay this cost that the next best option is trained staff member. - - - Updated - - - And what if the bad guy is killed on the first shot?
Thank You ladies and gentlemen for attending tonights performance of "Flight of the Moonbat". Please return your seats to the upright position as you leave the theatre.
It's not. But this is a state law, that effects the entire state. And this is in my area. I should look at more statistics. This is just my unfiltered opinion based on what I think. I see your point, but it's circular. I think that we should do other things to protect ourselves before jumping to arming citizens. I disagree. I think more police would be better, or at least better mandatory training and psyche exams for the armed citizens. I think than an unbiased group of individuals should decide in each area of the nation based on the area. Sorry. I didn't know what you were referring to. It's cool. Kinda leads into the better run schools thing. However, I would trust, say, the ROTC Sergeant. If prior military experience was mandatory, then i'd be OK with it. Indeed. But I don't think that this is that something. Agreed. And I do see your logic in this. But I think that if schools were handled better, we could have police there. In a crowded bar under dim light, could you tell if a man is down for the count? - - - Updated - - - Souvenirs will be available for purchase upon exiting.
What is it you fear from LAW ABIDING citizens carrying firearms in those places? It serves as a deterrent by those who would choose to inflict harm upon others because those criminals can never know who among the group they are targeting may be ready, willing and capable of firing back. Their intentions are often mass casualties, but armed citizens have the ability to alter the course of a would be criminal. People who take the time to get fingerprinted, register, apply and become licensed to carry firearms are not at all the category of humans you fear taking out a weapon and harming people with it. From your statements it sounds as though you lump the law abiding CCW licensed gun owners in with the criminal element, which is illogical. Do you have evidence of occurrences of CCW permit holders causing mass casualties in federal or other public buildings that would cause you to carry such fear? My state won't allow CCW for most citizens, but I would welcome someone carrying to be with me in public because that's one more person who may be able to attempt to stop a criminal from harming others.
I guess that states with more guns will have less gun violence then? Criminals are citizens. Armed criminals are armed citizens. Such people, like NRA members, favor criminal background checks. I own but don't carry. That's because the chances of me being victimized are very low. People shouldn't bring a dangerous element (like a gun) into an safe environment.
The states will have the same number of guns they already have. Not sure your point unless you're deflecting from the point of CCW to go into gun violence overall based on total number of guns? Either way, CCW permitted in more buildings doesn't have an impact on the state's number of weapons. If the semantics of my statement were that difficult to understand I could explain what I meant more clearly, but I am sure your point was just to be a smartass. An armed criminal may or may not be a citizen if you want to be specific, but an armed citizen is certainly a citizen. And by citizen I meant law abiding, and by criminal I meant, well, criminal. Hope that clears up that little struggle. What's your point? We weren't discussing the NRA or background checks other than what CCW permit carriers comply with in order to carry and be within the guidelines of the law. Your attempt to introduce your political leaning is noted. I have no problem with complying with the laws in order to legally carry. Everyone's chances of being victimized by a crazy gunman are low. It's your choice to carry or not, and it's appreciated that if you feel your weapon is unsafe you then make the decision to leave it at home. That's how it should be for responsible ownership. But for those who do not feel it's dangerous to carry in accordance with the law, that too is their decision and burden of responsibility. Unfortunately, it's not your role to decide when others should feel the need to carry for protection because crazy gunmen can go on a rampage at any location, any point in time, and for any number of reasons. They're random acts without predictability.
What if the law abiding citizen stops the crazed gunman and saves 30 lives instead of gunning down other citizens? I don't know about you but Ill take my chances with the law abiding citizen shooting back rather than sitting there and waiting to get shot. Your odds are a lot better.
no more lunatic than giving all the guns to government and trust they'll do the right thing, even some of the time. Hey, I got it..let's arm all civilian employees of government agencies............. wait, they already did that 1.7 billion rds.Really? Post office's with AR15, full auto? really? - - - Updated - - - he should really go to east Chicago............. - - - Updated - - - really.........and what part of the Bible says God put guns on this planet?
They are not allowing "guns" in government buildings etc.. They are allowing law abiding citizens that have been through finger printing, photos, FBI background check, testing, and licensing to responsibly carry their firearms concealed in these places. These people are already carrying concealed in all other places that you frequent and you don't even know you are in close proximity to these firearms. If these people are not committing gun crimes in the current allowable places, why will all of the sudden they start shooting up innocent people in the newly allowed places? There is no logic to your irrational fear. Check the stats..... CCW holders are not responsible for the gun crime stats.
I doubt it will cause any troubles at all. It just allows CCW permit holders to go to those places with guns. In a study in FL, CCW permit holders committed less gun crimes per capita than did police officers..... - - - Updated - - - Government buildings that don't have metal detectors already, IIRC. Not all government buildings. What do you think the problem with that is? CCW permit holders are cautious law-abiding people. The ones you have to worry about are people who don't have CCW permits but are carrying. They aren't paying attention to the current laws, so they already carry guns in those places. At least now, more responsible people will have guns in those places. - - - Updated - - - Why would anybody planning to shoot up a place "declare" their guns? They aren't. You can't tell me that in most of the places you mentioned, that people without CCW permits aren't carrying illegally already.
1. Please show me where a CCW permit holder has gone on a shooting spree. Those are the only people that will be allowed to legally have guns in public. 2. Doesn't happen in real life. In all the cases where a CCW permit holder has engaged a shooting spree person, no innocents have been killed by the CCW permit holder. Why? They are cautious people, who aren't just going to pull a gun and start firing.
Please show me a case where that has actually happened? In FL, we have over a million CCW permit holders (and they can all legally use their CCW permits in GA, BTW). CCW permit holders simply aren't whipping their gun out and firing them for no reason.
In about 1987, FL went from restrictive CCW permits (permits were up to the local police chief/sheriff to issue) to "must issue" CCW permits, where all who qualify were issued permits. While I won't be so bold as to say that was the cause, from 1987 to now, the homicide rate in FL has gone down (from 11.7 per 100k in 1987 to 5.2 per 100k currently). At the very least, it doesn't make homicide go up. The people that go to the trouble of getting a CCW permit are not causing trouble.
I own but don't carry as well, that said, if I did carry it wouldn't make the safe areas I frequent any less safe.
I'm another "own but don't carry". My situation is a bit different from most. I drive a cab in Las Vegas, and have for 12 years. There have been times when I have "known" that the people I picked up were looking for a cab to rob. I'm not allowed to have ANY weapons in the cab. There are ways of acting to at least prevent their aggression. So far, those have worked. From my perspective, the matter of my security out in the world would have to degrade by a few more notches before I'd consider it necessary to be armed. It's different for other people. As for the OP, I think the poster needs to understand that our society is saturated in guns. They are literally everywhere, whether legally carried or not. Being afraid of them is similar to being afraid of being hit by lightening, or being subject to any other persistent, though infrequent threat. I normally have a gun nearby, in my personal car and at home. There have been times when I have had to use a gun to force other people to get away from me. Just the same, my life has been gravely threatened by medical issues too. The fact is that something will eventually kill you. The whole reason for being here in the first place is to reach your spiritual maturity, and be ready for that. There is really nothing to do do about anything but to remain in study, and meet your fate. Anything else is a distraction.
Washington DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Since they're illegal, I'm sure no one there has a gun except police. I'm sure they'd love to have you as a neighbor.
what you have failed to tell us is that you cannot legally carry a firearm in Australia, so your statement is moot.
I am not from Australia, and just because you follow me around this site like a troll doesn't make it true. I'm more American than you will ever be, and you'll have to deal with this fact. #rightwingaggression
I`m Australian, no more Australian than other Australians, but I`m an Aussie. We`ve got strict firearm laws over here, which does severely restrict legal hand gun ownership. Not surprisingly, illegal hand guns are ridiculously easy to get here.
I don't know the specifics of the GA law, but it sounds a lot like TX. TX has a very well written law and here are some of the reasons that I think it is fair and effective. 1. CHL holders are exempt from civil suits and prosecution if their shooting incident is cleared by a grand jury, but they are also held responsible for incidental shootings (as in shooting an innocent bystander) more strictly than police.(who by nature of their job are forced into these situations) This forces CHL holders to consider their surroundings before drawing their gun. 2. If a CHL holder is found to have started an argument that grows into a shooting incident, the CHL holder loses his defense to prosecution. This is to limit the "Rambo wannabes" and instances of road rage. 3. Private property owners can restrict the carrying of guns on their property with the proper sign or verbal notification. This includes churches and can be done with a simple majority vote to post the proper signs. 4. CHL holders cannot carry in courthouses, secure portions of police stations, jails, inside schools, professional or school sports venues, and places where alcohol sales(for on premises consumption) account over half of a business' revenue. On the other hand, cities are not allowed to override the state gun laws and cities cannot ban the carrying of guns on public property except as previously noted. (unless I forgot an exception) This keeps the law uniform throughout the state to avoid confusion between cities. This has worked great for 18 years with very few changes. CHL holders in TX are 10 times less likely to commit crimes as the average citizen. Here is my source. Cliff's Notes. 2.5% of TX adults have CHL and commit only .1897% of the crime. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2012.pdf
Then move from Georgia. Nobody is stopping you. Isn't that the "democracy" that progs and banners claim is so great? Didn't someone say "elections have consequences"? Well, the people have spoken. If you don't like it, then leave.
