BS: Bush and HR 218

Subject: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: kendall
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 02:22 PM

President Bush recently signed a bill, HR 218, giving all retired law enforcement officers the authority to carry a concealed weapon.
What do you think of this, and why? Facts please, not knee jerk emotions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 02:29 PM

I don't know what to think of it. What do you think about it, kendall, being a retired law enforcement officer yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 02:31 PM

If the law enforcement officer is retired, why would he need to keep carrying a gun? He is no longer a law enforcement officer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 03:21 PM

I think it's great. I'de like to see more people carry guns. I think the deterrent affect would decrease crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: kendall
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 04:32 PM

When Florida passed their "right to carry" law, crime plummeted. Why? Simple, the bad guys couldn't tell who was able to defend himself, and they always pick on the undefended.

What do I think? In the first place, in order to qualify, you must have been in law enforcement at least 15 years. That means you had to be of sound mind and good character.(Unless you were a New Orleans cop) So, it seems to me that it is like having thousands of un paid cops on the street. In every city and state you have armed officers now, so why not add a few thousand more at no cost to the taxpayer?
\Now I know there will be be a handful of people who will yell "Police State", and I also know there will be a few of those old cops who should be in the "rubber gun squad", but the number of crooks will far outweigh them. Personally, I think it is logical.

Peace, I carried a gun for 17 years and never used it, never even drew it, so why not continue? In the unlikely event that I'm in McDonalds (heaven forfend) and some nutcase comes in with a street sweeper, he won't get all of us. The way it is now, he knows that no one is armed and he has no worries.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 04:53 PM

It does seem a fairly sensible idea. It certainly won't create any new problems, and might help.

Plus, it doesn't compel anyone to carry a gun. That would be worrying.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 05:01 PM

The only thing that would bother me about it is making sure the nutballs were vetted out, as you noted, Kendall, AND that the feds do NOT have a way to call them up if the Megolomaniac who is in office decides God has told him to create a "police state." Of course, in that case, I'd hope that most of the retired law enforcement folks would have the sense NOT to fall for that and would use them to defend our rights against his tyranny.

I know this, too. My dad, the old Western ranch-raised kid and oilfield welder always carried a gun in his truck. It was mainly out of habit...it's what he grew up with his dad and granddad, but also for putting down hurt animals and protection, as well as enjoyment of target-shooting, NEVER hunting.

He was convinced if teachers at Columbine had had guns, the massacre would have been stopped. I don't believe we need ANY guns in school and I would prefer not having them at all, but what you have posted is interesting.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 05:10 PM

if the Megolomaniac who is in office decides God has told him to create a "police state."

Ummmm..."if"?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 05:13 PM

I don't know of a state in the US that did not permit retired police to easily obtain permission to carry a weapon, so this law doesn't appear to change anything for them. In most states, any acting or retired judge may do the same.

The scary part is that in most local jurisdictions an acting or retired "government official" (that includes state senators and representatives, and in some places county commissioners and local council members) can get the same permit. Only "ordinary citizens" are prevented from getting permission - or do so only with difficulty.

The latter certainly has the effect (said facetiously) of arming the enemy and disarming the victims.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 06:39 PM

Its one thing to have the 'authority' to carry a concealed weapon and another thing to regulate the use of that weapon.

When does it become O.K. to draw that weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: kendall
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 06:42 PM

Up until now, a license to carry was only valid in the state in which it was issued.Under the new law one could carry in any state.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 06:57 PM

Cops have for many years had to undergo intensive firearms training -- in the use and, most importantly, the NON-use of a weapon. My brother, who works for the Illinois State Police, took the "deadly force" training a few years ago -- two solid weeks of classroom, followed by two more weeks of range work -- and this was the course for "administrative personnel"; the one for regular officers is longer. I'd much rather have ex-cops carrying than some others -- and that includes retired conservation officers, customs agents, and so forth.

The question, diana, is not "When does it become O.K. to draw that weapon?" but rather, "When is it appropriate to use the weapon?"

I have, and I've never made a secret of it, a permit to "carry concealed." I have this for several reasons, one of which is that it reminds me to periodically refresh the training I was REQUIRED to obtain. That training consists of the legal ramifications of carrying and, possibly, using a weapon; safe use of the weapon (including on the target range and home storage); demonstrating that I can properly care for the weapon, and range firing (which is NOT wildly firing at anythign that moves).

All that being said, I rarely carry a weapon (well, I do have a pocketknife). Since most armed encounters are at no more than seven yards (6.4 meters), I think that I can pretty much handle it. And if I'm wrong, well, it's actually very hard to kill someone with one shot, and I hope you brought either salt or Preparation H, 'cause you're either gonna eat that gun or...well....

And I certainly don't need a gun to enhance my ego or something (and I'm certain neither Kendall nor Big Mick do either).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: MarkS
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 07:13 PM

The idea that police officers, active, off duty, or retired, can carry a weapon is an idea which makes me feel safer in everyday life. It adds an additional level of uncertainty to the mind of the criminal who might use his or her weapon in commission of a crime - thus reducing the probability that the crime will be attempted in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: bobad
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 07:27 PM

I don't know, call me an idealist or something but don't you think that outlawing possession of all hand guns except for law enforcement personnel would be a better idea?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: An Englishman Abroad
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 07:31 PM

Concealed carry has been passed last year in Ohio.

Great exposures about the training being non existant. With regard to McDonalds the number of shops banning guns is considerable. The problem is how do you know they have left them in the vehicle?

Would the ex police be able to carry where the general public can not? ie State buildings etc.

all the best John

Do I take it from the previous comments that ex police would be able to carry in Ohio already? Or has this yet to be passed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: michaelr
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 07:31 PM

I think EVERYONE should carry a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 07:36 PM

Well . . . as long as, in a large number of states, Bubba, his drooling cousin, and their pet chicken can all walk into the local police station or whatever, assert their Second Amendment rights, and, as long as they have no felony convictions and their incipient cretinism isn't too evident, can get a permit to carry a concealed firearm, I would feel comparatively comfortable about retired police officers being able to continuing to carry their ordinance. I thought they already could.

Actually, for a number of years I had a concealed weapons permit. This was not because I wanted to go around armed to the teeth, but because it made the legalities of transporting a couple of pistols to and from target ranges and "plinking" areas a whole lot easier.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: kendall
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 08:09 PM

I was never a cop. However, I did attend and graduate from the U.S. Treasury dept. school of law enforcement and criminal investigation, (equal to the FBI academy)and I can assure you that 6 weeks of intense training was more than the average town cop got at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 09:55 PM

If I were to do something stupid with a gun, my father, mother, all grandparents, several uncles, and a couple of aunts would rise up outa their graves and smack me silly. Then they'd take my guns away and give them to my nieces.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Janie
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 10:30 PM

I dunno....I've lived in a lot of small towns and counties without a big tax base. I have tended to be underwhelmed by a noticable minority of local law enforcement personnel. Sometimes the most substantial difference between them and the thugs was the uniform. Another significant minority were "cowboys". Doesn't make me feel particularly safe. Of course, I don't know how many law officers retire from small towns or counties.

And I don't have a high opinion of guns in general.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 10:35 PM

Pat Paulsen once said that the best way to end skyjackings was to give everyone a gun as they boarded the plane.

Not every ex law enforcement guy or gal is like you, Kendall.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 10:53 PM

Actually, I don't care WHO has a gun. People should be able to own any sort of gun they want.










As long as I have all the bullets...







And I ain't gonna give THEM to just anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 10:57 PM

. . . and Pat Paulsen also said that guns didn't kill people; bullets did. So, give everyone guns and take away all the bullets.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 12:15 AM

Kentucky has concealed carry. It also has unconcealed carry. Anyone (well, adults) can strap a gun to their hip and walk the streets unimpeded. It's not often that you see that, but it's legal. If a Kentucky citizen can do that, it makes concealed carry sort of irrelevant, or ....covertly sinister, in my opinion. Sort of like entrapment. I wonder how many other states have "unconcealed carry."

I know I was passing through Arizona about ...geez, more than twenty years ago now - time sure flies ... and stopped at a McDonald's for some quasi-food. In front of me was your average Joe with a six-shooter strapped to his hip, ordering his 'burger. It takes a little getting used to, but what the hey. It certainly isn't a problem, and it takes all the guesswork out of it for those with bad intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 12:27 AM

I gave up my revolver licence some years ago and gave the shotgun to a gun dealer to keep for me.
There are strict laws about when you can use your gun (appropriate response and all that) and I didn't feel it was worth it.
For instance, one night another guy and I heard a girl screaming in a condo apartment - an intruder had stripped her and was about to rape her - and we positioned ourselves outside and scared him off.
Luckily for me he came down on the side where the other guy was and escaped. Had he come down on my side I might have shot him and ended up in prison since they would claim he wasn't any threat to me.

I'm interested to know, however, what people do with their guns when they go into a building or attend a function where guns aren't allowed. You don't want to leave them in your car and most places don't have facilities to keep them. Leave them at home and you're unprotected.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 02:39 AM

For the most part laws regarding the owning, possessing, carrying, and using firearms in the US are a total mess. A not-too-old "Index of Firearms Laws in the US" published by the US Secret Service included more than 6,000 separate laws; and you could pass into a different jurisdiction by simply crossing the street. And they missed about 300 local laws that I found in my then home state within 50 miles of my own home (that I knew of).

Federal Law not too long ago made any purchase of a firearm illegal except in the state in which you were a resident. An exception was made, that IF YOUR STATE ISSUED YOU A CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, and IF AN ADJACENT STATE THAT ALSO ISSUED LICENSES FOR CONCEALED CARRY passed legislation to enable reciprocation, and IF YOUR OWN STATE also passed legislation to enable reciprocation, you could purchase firearms, ammunition, and related items IN AN IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT STATE. Note that the "reciprocity" did not have to allow you to carry a "concealed weapon" in the adjacent state; but at least you could buy a few shotgun shells if you ran short while hunting, or could take your gun to a local gunsmith if something went wrong while you were on a trip.

This provision has forced a whole lot of people who would prefer only a bit of freedom in using their non-concealable sporting guns to seek passage of Concealed Carry Laws and to OBTAIN CONCEALED CARRY LICENSES for which they really have no use or need - except to satisfy the Federal law if a state boundary happens to cross through their own "backyard."

"Concealed carry" often doesn't really mean "concealed carry" for most of us.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: kendall
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 07:20 AM

There is a town here in Maine, Bowerbank, that requires its citizens to carry a gun. Funny thing is, since the ordinance was passed 10 years ago, no one has been shot. They are just not trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: kendall
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 07:28 AM

Richard, knowing when to use the gun is of paramount importance. For instance, you NEVER shoot at a fleeing felon.
Also, if you and your buddy had kicked the door in and pointed weapons at the rapist, he would be a fool to resist. (Unless he could sense that you were scared shitless)
Part of being an effective officer is the ability to convince the perp that he is in mortal danger by messing with you. It's called "officer presence". Barney Fife, on the old Andy Griffith show was a good example of an ineffective cop. He was a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 08:58 AM

I've learnt how to make people stop and, usually, obey by voice alone. It's a technique used by cops and Marine Corps drill instructors, among others and no, it doesn't (necessarily) involve profanity or insults.

In August I taught my staff some of the techniques used to intimidate people, figuring that if they knewn how they could better control it when people used it on them (in internal library jargon we call such people "nasty patrons"). One of the techniques was The Stare, which the bald eagle has down to perfection (a sort of "you're interesting, but a bit too big for lunch" sort of stare).

A disruptive patron was in of an evening a couple weeks ago. He was dressed in biker leathers and was just plain nasty and loud. Probably a wannabee, not a biker, but nastyily disruptive nonetheless.

He sat at on of the catalog computers, making loud, profane remarks.

One of the staff moved behind him and, with her arms folded, began The Stare. Very shortly another did the same. He began to make remarks about it, obviously uncomfortable. Very soon after the third woman joined the group he quieted down and left.

The staff said not a word during this, they cracked no smile, they barely blinked. One of them could have taken him apart with her bare hands, another stands 5 feet 2 inches and is thin in proportion. The third is about average. After he'd left they talked about how well they'd intimidated him.

There were two more staff on the way down from the second floor to join the fun when the guy left. They felt left out.

You rarely, rarely need a weapon. Of course, on those occassion when you do, well, you should either not have been there or you should have one -- and know how to use it, legally and well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 11:58 AM

As Richard H has pointed out, the questions are who regulates when it is O.K. to draw the gun and who regulates the use of the gun. In other words, when is it O.K. to use it? Only in self-defense?

Is it O.K. to draw the gun as an intimidation tactic? If so, who decides if the intimidation is sufficient to threaten the use of the firearm?

I'm glad we're talking about the U.S. and not Canada.

I sure wouldn't want those fine lines to be drawn by the average citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 12:03 PM

Even in the US, the police rarely draw their weapon. Yes, I know that this is contrary to television and movies, but it's true.

Yes, they may unbutton the holster. But actually drawing the weapon, much less firing it, is a very infrequent occurence.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 02:38 PM

I recall a time when I was in my late teens and living at home. We lived in a quite residential area in the north part of Seattle a few blocks from Green Lake. Sunday evening. We were in the living room watching "The Ed Sullivan Show" or something when Dad went out to the kitchen to get a drink of water. He heard the outside door to our basement being generally yanked on and messed with. He listened for a moment to make sure of what he was hearing, The door to the inside basement stairs was just off the kitchen, so he opened the door, and without turning on the basement light, took hold of the handrail and tiptoed down the inside basement stairs.

He was in the tank corps during World War I, and they carried sidearms—the time-honored, slab-sided 1911 .45 caliber ACP mini-cannon. When the guys mustered out of the army, they were given the opportunity to buy their sidearm for $15.00, so Dad did. Anyway, he kept it in a locked cabinet in the basement. He unlocked the cabinet, got it out, slipped a magazine into the grip, tiptoed over to the outside basement door where whoever it was was still trying to jimmy his way through. There was a window in the door, and Dad could see the moving shadow of the aspiring intruder. He stepped up beside the door, but out of sight of the window. Then, to jack a round into the chamber, he drew the slide back and released it. The Army .45 semi-auto has a pretty strong main spring, and the slide makes a characteristic sound when you pull it back and release it:   a sort "shlick—CLACK!"

The shadow at the window disappeared suddenly, and all Dad could hear was the sound of running feet. So fast it was like a sound effect from a Warner Brothers cartoon; you know, where the character's legs look like spinning wheels.

Dad unloaded the gun and locked it back in the cabinet.

On another occasion, I was living in an apartment building in the University District. Someone driving a blue Mustang fastback started following me whenever I left my apartment, got into my 1968 Toyota Corona, and went somewhere. He did this for several days. I have no idea who he was or what he was up to, but he stuck to me like chewing gum to a cat. Since I had a permit to carry at the time, I loaded my Walther .380 PPK, slipped it into its holster, threaded the holster onto my belt, and made sure that it was hidden from sight by my sport jacket.

The next time I went out, there he was again. I followed a pre-planned maneuver and it worked! I lost the guy. When I returned an hour or so later, damned if the blue Mustang wasn't sitting in the apartment building parking lot—in my rented space!

I quickly pulled into the adjacent space, actually catching him by surprise, got out, and stepped up to his window. I walked with crutches, but I was actually pretty steady on my feet and could stand securely with only one crutch, keeping one hand free (coached by an ex-Marine friend of mine, I had practiced something akin to combat shooting while he and I were out plinking). I loomed over him a bit and made sure he could see the gun on my hip with my free hand hovering near it. He was barely more than a kid—late teens or very early twenties. I asked him why he was following me. He looked scared shitless. He said that he worked a late shift at a gas station, and he had some time to kill in the evenings before going to work, so he played detective—following people—just for fun. He didn't mean any harm.

I believed him. But I advised him that it might not be too bright a thing to do. Some folks might take exception to being followed. And they might be a lot more nervous and nowhere near as curious and forgiving as I was. He allowed as how I was probably right and promised that he'd stop doing it. I never saw him again.

I have real mixed feelings about anybody and everybody being able to own and/or carry a gun (even at the police range, I've seen some real idiot behavior by people who are supposed to know better), but sometimes just knowing that a gun is present can deter all kinds of skullduggery.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 03:32 PM

You can buy a recording of a round being jacked into a pump shotgun.

The sound is unmistakable -- and VERY detering.

As they used to say, "Buckshot means buryin' -- and it leaves a messy, oozy corpse."

Crooks know this. And I understand that the recording is effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: GUEST,Temuchin
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:50 AM

Guys
In the rest of the civilised world we gave up the routine carrying of lethal weapons by normal citizens centuries ago.
Why is America incapable of joining us?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:36 PM

GUEST,Temuchin, for the same reason that the Soviets wouldn't disarm their nuclear weapons until the United States did and the United States wouldn't disarm their nuclear weapons until the Soviets did, and since both the United States and the Soviets had the bomb, England, France, and China all had to have the Bomb. If India has the Bomb, Pakistan gets itself a bomb and because everybody around them has the Bomb, North Korea wants (and may have) the Bomb, and Iran says they don't want the Bomb, but nobody believes them, and. . . .

Well, you get the idea.

I've only carried a concealed firearm a couple of times, and those were times when I had reason to feel that I should as a precaution. Note also that I am fully aware of the related laws, and although I've never been a law-enforcement officer, I've had some expert training in the use—and nonuse—of firearms.

My main interest in firearms (in times gone by) was essentially the same as people's interest in, say, golf. I enjoyed shooting at the range and trying to improve my score. "Plinking" is similar. Go out in the country, find someplace with a good backstop, line up a bunch of soft drink or beer cans or whatever, back off a good distance, and see if you can hit the cans. Sport. For this purpose, I could be perfectly happy with a pellet gun.

Someone once posted a comment that I thought summed things up nicely:

"Science has found the missing link between early primates and civilized man. It's us."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: bobad
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 01:35 PM

I wonder what Freud had to say about guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 01:51 PM

Since it's supposed to be rather easy for a retired policeman to get a carry permit - why did we need this federal law ? Was it just a good way to suck up to the police unions around the country ? I'm not saying I'm opposed to HR218 - but I do wonder why we needed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:43 PM

As a young mother working late nights tending bar and walking home alone, I felt a lot safer with a small handgun in my purse; my now ex-father-in-law bought it for me. Now, I wouldn't dream of it; I'd carried a can of spray paint or pepper spray.

We were taught NOT to use a gun for intimidation, at least if we planned to point a gun at any living thing we were taught we'd better be ready to use it and deal with the consequences. We couldn't even point toy guns. I shot over my ex's head once only to get him to stop beating my dog. It worked. I've never been in a situation like that since. I also don't have anything but a very old .22 single shot rifle, kept away in a closet, no ammo in the house and not shot for target practice since 1983.

Guns are not the answer, imo, unless one is in mortal danger and is well-versed in how to use it and/or keep it from being used against oneself.

Temuchin, I wish our country would be less violent and gun-toting, but I don't think it will ever happen.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:57 PM

"I shot over my ex's head once only to get him to stop beating my dog."

Good for you! Although, you should have shot him in the leg and claimed that you didn't mean to later :)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 04:21 PM

A dog walks into a bar on crutches and says "I'm looking for the man that shot my paw".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 06:09 PM

LOL< Wesley, thanks for the oldie but goodie!

rarelamb, he was just outside, I was in a doorway and slammed the door shut asap as I was terrified he'd come after me. If I'd actually wounded him, my life would have been in danger from then on (for all I know, these 30+ years later I may still be on his family's imaginary "hit list") to say nothing of all of the legal ramifications and possible custody problems when we finally got divorced. It wasn't worth the chance, plus I really didn't want to hurt others. Still don't want to.

When my dad came down to ask what the aitch was going on, my ex said I'd tried to kill him. My dad, who taught me to shoot, said, no, if she meant to kill you, you'd be dead. I was a pretty good shot in those days. Took a target and a 9mm out one day when mad at my mother-in-law. Hit the bullseye every time and got rid of my anger, too. I am still NOT advocating gun ownership, though. The world has changed too much since the time when I grew up.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:05 PM

Well, regardless, do NOT mess with Canada.

Or you will face THIS!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:18 PM

Love it. Wonder if they have any particular kind of "Ammo" in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:00 PM

Buffalo chips?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: bobad
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:03 PM

Celine Dion?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:23 PM

"An Englishman Abroad" said, in part:

Would the ex police be able to carry where the general public can not? ie State buildings etc.

In most places that I happen to be familiar with, even active police, in uniform, have to park their sidearms at the door. Unless, of course, they are part of the security of the establishment, like US Marshals in a federal courthouse.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 10:34 AM

If I had my way...and I don't and never will...

If you wanted to carry a pistol, I would allow you to do so. Something like this, perhaps, or this.

Smooth bore, flintlock, and generally inaccurate beyond twenty feet (if that).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 10:55 AM

Yes, Rapaire!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 11:53 AM

The problem with that, Rapaire, is that you are as likely to hit someone you were not aiming at, as the person you were trying to shoot.

If guns are to be carried at all, accuracy is essential, to protect innocent bystanders.

The guys who wrote the right to bear arms into the D.o.I must be spinning in their graves. I'm sure they didn't forsee the current obsession with shooting fellow citizens.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 04:22 PM

Kendall, it is always nice when I can agree with you on something. I see nothing wrong in passing such a bill if circumstances are such as you describe them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 02:52 PM

I always find it amusing when people talk about "deterring" crime by passing laws like this. It's as if everyone who commits a crime sits down with a checklist beforehand. "OK, let's see...no death penalty in this state, but they do extradite; no 'three strikes and you're out' law; concealed carry permits are permissible...hmmm, that means the guy in front of me in line might have a gun, but he would have had to go through a background check and complete 10 hours of mandatory class time to get it, nah, I don't think there's more than a 15% chance of that..." Get real, folks.

People rob convenience stores every day, even though they know that at plenty of convenience stores the guy behind the counter has a gun and knows how to use it. Does that stop them? People who commit violent crimes tend to be adolescents, or to have the mental and emotional makeup of an adolescent. Does your teenager always avoid doing things that he knows might be dangerous? Or is he more likely to say, "Hey, it's not going to happen to me!"

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 02:54 PM

Mark: I believe the point is the convenience store robber might find himself on the business end of a gun IF he does attempt to rob the store.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 03:11 PM

That's exactly my point, Doug. People already know that, but they go ahead and try to rob the store anyway. Knowing that one of the other customers in the store might be a retired cop with a gun isn't going to be any more effective in making the guy say, "Hey, maybe I shouldn't try to rob this store," if he was already dumb enough to try.

Or maybe you're trying to say that if an armed teenager walks into a 7-11 and the clerk pulls out a gun, then the clerk may have deterred him from completing the robbery. Sure, if you're defining deterrence in that narrow sense, you're right. But I think it's likely that one or the other of them will be deterred from carrying out his plans (robbing the store or managing the store) because he'll be injured or dead. I don't consider that a desirable result. And I would also submit that it's not going to deter the next teenager from trying the same thing--which, in my mind, is what deterrence is supposed to be about.

Nice to see you back, by the way. I'm now one state (and one ocean) closer to you...and I was in Tucson last month, for a teaching by the Dalai Lama. Beautiful country.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 04:06 PM

You are in a pretty scenic state yourself! I love it over there.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 04:37 PM

"My father was a gambler down in Georgia,
He wound up on the wrong end of a gun"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 02:59 PM

I'm sorry to hear that Kat. I'm glad for you that you got out of that destructive relationship.

Mark, it is well established that there is a inverse relationship between areas with right to carry laws and violent crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 03:06 PM

Yeah. Like Great Britain, Europe in general. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 03:13 PM

Don-

Check the crime rate in Switzerland...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and HR 218
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 03:28 PM

Please remember that the overall culture of the country has a lot to do with gun violence. Switzerland, for example. Britain has little "gun culture," whereas the US, Iraq, Israel, and other places have more. Simply banning the possession/carrying of firearms (or any weapon, for that matter) by private citizens will fail if the overall culture is not taken into account.

And the culture can vary within a country, too. Here in Idaho (this area is rated "rural" by the US Census) firearms ownership is taken for granted. Further east, in Chicago for example, saying that you own a gun becames a moment of shock to the hearer, akin to saying that you sexually molest frogs. And even in Illinois, ownership of firearms can be taken as a matter of course in someplace like Mendon or Hull.