Stuff Republicans say.

[sun rise]

So what is your problem with this?

I'd prefer to have known terrorists wanted by the law checked up on if they want to carry concealed weapons to attack people. How about you? Or does it not bother you if a terrorist walked into a gun shop, bought a gun, hid it in his clothes and went to attack people?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what is your problem with this?

It makes it easier to put even more guns on the streets. Jesus Christ! We, in America, have a very serious problem with gun violence and it will never be solved if we make it easier to get more guns on the streets. If you aren't certified and trained, you shouldn't have them. It's like they want to intentionally live in the fantasy world of Cowboy novels where gun violence is the suitable and appropriate solution for everything.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, this is going g to be interesting.....!

Kansas Senators Introduce 'Permit-Less' Concealed Carry Bill

Nothing new.....they'd become like Vermont.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd prefer to have known terrorists wanted by the law checked up on if they want to carry concealed weapons to attack people. How about you? Or does it not bother you if a terrorist walked into a gun shop, bought a gun, hid it in his clothes and went to attack people?

Concealed carry laws don't prevent terrorists from doing that now.

 

[metis]

So what is your problem with this?

Only that's it's literally insane to allow just anyone to walk around with a gun. When gun crime was going up after WWII in Britain and France, they toughened the laws of both possession and carry, and the effect was significant. In Britain, I don't know what the law there currently reads, but I do know that one could get up to 10 years for mere possession of an illegal gun.

BTW, the Brits and French have 1/7 to 1/8 our homicide rate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only that's it's literally insane to allow just anyone to walk around with a gun. When gun crime was going up after WWII in Britain and France, they toughened the laws of both possession and carry, and the effect was significant. In Britain, I don't know what the law there currently reads, but I do know that one could get up to 10 years for mere possession of an illegal gun.

BTW, the Brits and French have 1/7 to 1/8 our homicide rate.

"Literally insane"? That's a tad histrionic given that Vermont doesn't require a permit, yet it has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country.
Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center
Now, I'm not saying I favor the permitless approach, but neither will the sky fall.

 

[tytlyf]

More strange concealed carry news. The law abiding citizen was clearly stereotyped by the man who took him down.

"Clarence Daniels had just crossed the threshold of Walmart's front doors on Tuesday, in search of coffee creamer for his wife, when the gun in hip holster gave a well-intentioned vigilante the idea he was up to something more sinister."

Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have | Tampa Bay Times

And in other news, 2 year old shoots himself after finding dads gun in glove compartment. Just proving the statistics that you're more likely to lose a family member than use a gun to defend yourself.

Police said the toddler, identified as Kaleb, found a .380-caliber weapon that belonged to his father in the family vehicle and fatally shot himself.

2-year-old dies after shooting himself with dad's gun

 

[metis]

More strange concealed carry news. The law abiding citizen was clearly stereotyped by the man who took him down.


Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have | Tampa Bay Times

And in other news, 2 year old shoots himself after finding dads gun in glove compartment. Just proving the statistics that you're more likely to lose a family member than use a gun to defend yourself.



2-year-old dies after shooting himself with dad's gun

Exactly, which is one reason why we had roughly around 30,000 gun deaths per year here in the States over the last decade or so. And logic has it that if having all these guns are supposedly making us safer, then why is it that we have the highest homicide rate of any industrialized country, and why is it that we have more people in prison by percent than any other country?

 

[esmith]

I'd prefer to have known terrorists wanted by the law checked up on if they want to carry concealed weapons to attack people. How about you? Or does it not bother you if a terrorist walked into a gun shop, bought a gun, hid it in his clothes and went to attack people?

Grasping at straws are we. You argument is invalid. Just because a person does or does not have a CCW have any bearing on a person purchasing a firearm. You obviously think that a person who is bent on attacking people would make sure they had a CCW permit.

It makes it easier to put even more guns on the streets. Jesus Christ! We, in America, have a very serious problem with gun violence and it will never be solved if we make it easier to get more guns on the streets. If you aren't certified and trained, you shouldn't have them. It's like they want to intentionally live in the fantasy world of Cowboy novels where gun violence is the suitable and appropriate solution for everything.

Again you and sunrise123 are grasping at straws. Read your post with a little bit of intelligence. Do you really understand what a CCW permit is? I doubt it since you seem to think that a CCW permit does or does not allow one to purchase a firearm. To your point of restrictions on owning a firearm. First we are discussing CCW; Second I agree with you somewhat that a person should have instruction before obtaining a hunting license. Many states, including mine require a person under 18 obtain a Hunter Safety Certification before they can obtain a hunting license. But that is as far as I will go.

Only that's it's literally insane to allow just anyone to walk around with a gun. When gun crime was going up after WWII in Britain and France, they toughened the laws of both possession and carry, and the effect was significant. In Britain, I don't know what the law there currently reads, but I do know that one could get up to 10 years for mere possession of an illegal gun.

BTW, the Brits and French have 1/7 to 1/8 our homicide rate.

Again another person grasping at straws. Kansas is an "open carry" state. The absence of a CCW permit does not stop a person from carry a firearm in public.

 

[tytlyf]

Concerning the black guy that was tackled in walmart, RW media is now spinning the story calling the white guy an anti-gun nut. hahahhahah

I think it's pretty obvious what happened here.
Crazy anti-gun white dude attacks law-abiding black man; former gets arrested. | RedState

 

[esmith]

Concerning the black guy that was tackled in walmart, RW media is now spinning the story calling the white guy an anti-gun nut. hahahhahah

I think it's pretty obvious what happened here.
Crazy anti-gun white dude attacks law-abiding black man; former gets arrested. | RedState

I realize that you probably do not want to discuss the subject of this post because you can find little or no reasonable objection to the proposal so you are attempting to deflect it to something else.
In other words why don't you stay on subject.

 

[metis]

Grasping at straws are we. You argument is invalid. Just because a person does or does not have a CCW have any bearing on a person purchasing a firearm. You obviously think that a person who is bent on attacking people would make sure they had a CCW permit.

Actually I'm not at all "grasping at straws" since what I posted is rather easy to look up and confirm, plus I was putting it all into a broader context.

We well know that at least statistically that those states that have the loosest gun laws and the highest fun-ownership rate tend to also have the highest violent crime rates. Also, another point that is important to remember is that if a person carries but does so illegally and is caught even committing a minor crime the courts have the right to significantly increase the sentence, thus removing the person out of circulation for a much longer period of time. This is what the stats from the UK and France showed over the decades after they began to crack down on the availability of guns and saw their violent crime rates drop.

Since we almost average one gun per person in the U.S., which is the highest in the industrialized world, and since we have homicide rates many times higher than what we see in the other industrialized countries, how is it even slightly logical that making guns more available and easier to carry is supposed to miraculously lower the violent crime rate?

And what some people forget is the anger factor, namely that if I have a gun and get very angry with someone, the atmosphere and the availability of my gun makes it far more likely that I would use it versus if I didn't have one that's readily available. People do have anger issues, and sometimes we all "lose it", which is why 2nd and 3rd degree homicides are much more plentiful than 1st degree.

 

[esmith]

Actually I'm not at all "grasping at straws" since what I posted is rather easy to look up and confirm, plus I was putting it all into a broader context.

We well know that at least statistically that those states that have the loosest gun laws and the highest fun-ownership rate tend to also have the highest violent crime rates. Also, another point that is important to remember is that if a person carries but does so illegally and is caught even committing a minor crime the courts have the right to significantly increase the sentence, thus removing the person out of circulation for a much longer period of time. This is what the stats from the UK and France showed over the decades after they began to crack down on the availability of guns and saw their violent crime rates drop.

Since we almost average one gun per person in the U.S., which is the highest in the industrialized world, and since we have homicide rates many times higher than what we see in the other industrialized countries, how is it even slightly logical that making guns more available and easier to carry is supposed to miraculously lower the violent crime rate?

And what some people forget is the anger factor, namely that if I have a gun and get very angry with someone, the atmosphere and the availability of my gun makes it far more likely that I would use it versus if I didn't have one that's readily available. People do have anger issues, and sometimes we all "lose it", which is why 2nd and 3rd degree homicides are much more plentiful than 1st degree.

Did you not say "Only that's it's literally insane to allow just anyone to walk around with a gun" So how does a permitless CCW having anything to do with that statement. Remember Kansas is an "open carry" state.
Now as far as your statement "those states that have the loosest gun laws and the highest fun-ownership rate tend to also have the highest violent crime rate"
Idaho has one of the more looser states when it comes to firearms law. As far as violent crimes per 100,000 we are 42nd, Louisiana is 50th, Nevada is 47th, Rhode Island is 44th, South Dakota is 46th, Texas is 45th, Utah is 48th, Wyoming is 43rd, Utah is 48th. Source is State Rankings
Now according to Source

The researchers pointed out these trends do not seem to reflect gun-control efforts and law in individual states. For example, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence ranked Massachusetts the third most restrictive state for firearm legislation in 2011.After Massachusetts passed a tough law restricting gun use in 1998, gun ownership rates dropped sharply, but violent crimes and murders increased. The influx of firearms from nearby states with weaker firearm laws could be to blame, the researchers suggested in a journal news release.

Of course the last sentence is nothing more than attempting to justify their obsession with anti-firearm rhetoric

You are still not making a solid case against permitless CCW and this is the subject of this thread. Not firearm ownership as you would like it to be.

 

[Revoltingest]

And in other news, 2 year old shoots himself after finding dads gun in glove compartment. Just proving the statistics that you're more likely to lose a family member than use a gun to defend yourself.

This single anecdote is "proving the statistics"?
This is a credit to a state run educational system.

 

[metis]

Did you not say "Only that's it's literally insane to allow just anyone to walk around with a gun" So how does a permitless CCW having anything to do with that statement. Remember Kansas is an "open carry" state.
Now as far as your statement "those states that have the loosest gun laws and the highest fun-ownership rate tend to also have the highest violent crime rate"
Idaho has one of the more looser states when it comes to firearms law. As far as violent crimes per 100,000 we are 42nd, Louisiana is 50th, Nevada is 47th, Rhode Island is 44th, South Dakota is 46th, Texas is 45th, Utah is 48th, Wyoming is 43rd, Utah is 48th. Source is State Rankings
Now according to Source
Of course the last sentence is nothing more than attempting to justify their obsession with anti-firearm rhetoric

You are still not making a solid case against permitless CCW and this is the subject of this thread. Not firearm ownership as you would like it to be.

Oops, I do admit I made a mistake as I should have said homicide rates versus violent crime rate. For the former, check this out: Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Also just a reminder to both of us the differences in demographics, especially ratios of urban to rural, typically makes quite a bit of difference with crime stats. It's much more difficult to hide in smaller towns than large cities, and it's also much more difficult to narrow-down who might have committed the crime in a large city.

BTW, the "last sentence" I doubt is hardly "anti-firearm rhetoric" coming from the Bureau of the Census as that's quite a conspiracy theory you're putting forth.

The issue of not having a CCW permit, especially if matched by lax registration laws, is rather obvious, plus I did point out previously what the UK and France did and what that effect was.

I have no problem with firearms, nor people owning them, but I do have problems with the proliferation of these weapons so that everybody and their mother can have one without adequate registration and tracking. Again, the stats, as compared to other countries, is quite telling, and study after study has confirmed that people who keep a loaded gun in their house are more at risk than those who don't. As the police constantly remind us, the best action we can take is preventative. An example:

I have no guns in my house (btw, if I did, I would have a dead son because he tried twice to commit suicide roughly 30 years ago with a knife and said that if I had a gun and he found it he would have used it on himself-- he's bipolar), but one of my neighbors across the street has quite a few. I'm in a safer position than he is, even though neither of us is perfectly safe. Why?

For one, having a loaded gun puts him and his family more in jeopardy. Two, I'm more into preventative, as I have security screen doors, three motion detector lights in my backyard, and a front porch light that automatically goes on a night. My doors are kept locked most of the time, and I used to have a dog but don't now (he died) but both neighbors next to me do.

I had the police out to my political science classes each semester, and they said the best deterrents are 1.outdoor lights 2.a dog (loud if a stranger is near) 3. open areas that a more prone to be broken in whereas your neighbors can see who's there 4.security system, all in this order.

Gotta go-- have a nice safe weekend.

 

[sun rise]

Concealed carry laws don't prevent terrorists from doing that now.

No but it makes them easier to stop just as murder laws don't stop people from killing, laws against theft don't stop people from robbing. The legal system is built on the principle that some actions should be illegal and help the police catch criminals. Laws requiring some sort of check about concealed carry are just such laws. I know this upsets those who worship at the alter of the sacred gun, but I'm also in favor of licensing gun owners and requiring them to pass both a written test and a field test just like we do require driver's licenses. Now if you want to argue against all forms of licensing, at least you'd be consistent.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no guns in my house (btw, if I did, I would have a dead son because he tried twice to commit suicide roughly 30 years ago with a knife and said that if I had a gun and he found it he would have used it on himself.....

There's an easy solution.....keep guns in a safe. That's what I do.

I'm in a safer position than he is, even though neither of us is perfectly safe. Why?
For one, having a loaded gun puts him and his family more in jeopardy.

I've yet to see any statistics which make that a true statement where a skilled owner keeps'm in a safe.

 

[Revoltingest]

No but it makes them easier to stop just as murder laws don't stop people from killing, laws against theft don't stop people from robbing. The legal system is built on the principle that some actions should be illegal and help the police catch criminals. Laws requiring some sort of check about concealed carry are just such laws. I know this upsets those who worship at the alter of the sacred gun, but I'm also in favor of licensing gun owners and requiring them to pass both a written test and a field test just like we do require driver's licenses. Now if you want to argue against all forms of licensing, at least you'd be consistent.

Now, now, I never said I'm against licensing. In fact, I've advocated more extensive training than is currently required. But I'm pointing out that that many problems will remain.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Cindy Jacobs, self proclaimed prophetess, for Bobby Jindal....Oh my. Let the circus begin..!

Bobby Jindal's Extremist Prayer Rally Brings Together Prophets, Bigots And Far-Right Activists | Right Wing Watch

 

[sun rise]

More proof that some Republicans are the new Communists. Of course Fox in the form of Erick Erickson sees nothing wrong with government run and government controlled news outlets. Maybe they're looking forward to becoming a propaganda arm of the Commissar of Truth which will print all the news the government wants us to know. That would be in keeping with the government-business "marriage" where you can't tell a government commissar from a business executive just like in Russia and China today. And maybe like North Korea and Cuba.

'Pravda’ On The Plains: How Indiana Governor Mike Pence Wants To Make News

Q: When does the conservative governor of a majority-Republican state start to resemble an old-line Communist apparatchik?

A: When he uses taxpayer money to fund government-approved “journalism” to compete with privately-owned, independent news outlets.

Thus Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, a former radio talk jock, is suffering near-universal ridicule, even from fellow Hoosier Republicans, for his plan to launch “Just IN,” by most accounts an online multimedia state-supported news operation to be written, produced and edited out of the governor’s office.

“How Soviet of him!” quipped newspaper publisher and former editor Jack Ronald, whose small daily, The Commercial Review, serves 5,000 readers in Portland, Ind., near the Ohio border.
...
The speaker, a sometime rival of Pence’s who is widely assumed to be a future gubernatorial candidate himself, went on: “I understand the governor has indicated he’s going to be issuing some clarifying remarks, so I’m withholding final judgment until that occurs. In the meantime, just in case, I have had my staff contact Rosetta Stone and I do have a new Russian version that will be coming out shortly.”

Presumably, Speaker Bosma was joking. He ended the phone interview with a hearty “Dasvidaniya!”