I think states have laws in place to prevent this now. I know that in Connecticut you can never bring a gun to the bar or a bank or airport etc. Same thing in your state?
I like Texas law, which draws a distinction between a bar and a restaurant that serves liquor. The law ought to address drinking and carrying, not merely being in the presense of liquor.
And by doing so, criminal-safe zones are created where a criminal knows that his intended victim will be unarmed and therefore an easier target.
First of all, that’s not a novel idea – saying that gun control will reduce "gun-related deaths and injuries.’
I can’t find the relevant part of the study you’ve cited. I see a place that claims to debunk the myth that concealed carry laws increase crime, but that’s hardly relevant as that isn’t my claim. My claim is that allowing concealed weapons does not help reduce crime.
My stats were those of the FBI: UCR crime rates. But, hey what do those federal cops know, right?
Criminal safe zones?
You seem to be implying that the violence there is due to its having the strictest gun laws. There are other factors in a city’s crime rate.
Those are grossly inaccurate. The way the UCR works is like this: each states set up how each law enforcement agency reports to the FBI. Some states, like SC, let the state’s head law enforcement bureau report for all the state. Every jurisdiction send they’re crime reports to SLED (South carolina Law Enforcement Division). SLED meticulously goes over each report; if somethings wrong, they send it back the reporting jurisdiction for clarification or correcting. Then once they have all been checked, SLED sends it to the FBI. Other states leave it up to the indiviual jurisdictions to report and the FBI goes by whatever they report. An example of the problem caused by individual reporting can be found when Atlanta was reporting burglary’s and breaking and entering as “Vandalism to a door/door knob.”
Every state that I am familiar with has laws against imbibing alcohol while carrying a concealed firearm.
The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting ended when the Principal ran a quarter mile to his car, got his gun and ran back to confront and capture the shooter. Had he had it on his belt, lives would have been saved.
Yes, the FBI stats which report that last year over 800,000 calls to 911 took an hour or longer for police to respond. That sure gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside – NOT!
Come on, now, you know that generalizing from one particular to reach a universal conclusion is bad practice. After all, using the same logic I could point to all the schools where shootings haven’t happened and where the principle had no gun. And I would be as wrong as you.
And what do you base that statement on? According to published reports, nine times out of ten all a citizen has to do is display a firearm to a criminal to end the confrontation. Without that gun, some percentage of those victims would certainly be killed as compared to unarmed victims who are killed. So as a general rule, guns in the hands of non-professionals DO save lives!
I would restrict all handguns in public places in predominantly urban areas unless there was a very legitimate reason to allow it. Here in NYC, for instance, a jewelry messenger has little trouble getting a permit to carry a handgun. My wife’s cousin did that for a living and he carried a revolver, as did the jewelers he worked for.
Anecdotal evidence is generally to be avoided. However, in rare events – like school shootings, we have no choice.
Dead wrong. Guns are used quite often by ordinary citizens in this country to save lives.
As a long-time professional in the training business, I often point out that, "Training is a solution. Before you propose a solution, you should have a problem. In the ideal world, there would be some sort of relationship between your problem and your proposed solution."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
I can’t speak for Philip, but I know that my wife’s cousin, upon presentation of the appropriate bonafides was simply issued his pistol permit. I would have thought that there might have been some training in the laws of self-defense, in how to use the pistol (Cousin George couldn’t even shoot straight), etc., but there wasn’t. I’d think that the situation of simply issuing a permit to people unfamiliar with handguns would have been such a problem calling for some training.
