New state law to open more public buildings to firearms

Page 1 of 6 [ 94 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

01 Jul 2011, 9:38 am

Quote:

Starting today [in Indiana], local governments have significantly less power to limit the carrying of firearms in public places.

Among the many new [Indiana] state laws that take effect today is Senate Bill 292, the pre-emption of local firearm regulation. Except in certain circumstances, local political entities are no longer permitted to regulate firearms, ammunition or firearm accessories - including ownership, possession, carrying and transportation.

The legislation doesn't sit well with many local officials, who believe the Indiana General Assembly is constantly eroding cities' and towns' control over their own laws and standards.

"This is another law that should be left alone, should have left it decided at the local level," Elkhart Mayor Dick Moore said. "There were a whole bunch of laws in this year's legislature to destroy what little home rule we have."

http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.a ... Email=true

Strange but true, eh?!

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Jul 2011, 12:26 pm

We've had this in Washington State for years, and it's been a real blessing. What it does is prevents a patchwork of conflicting laws from being created by different municipalities all making their own gun laws, which would be an unworkable mess for someone who travels the state to keep up with. We're even allowed to carry into state buildings here, and there's never been a problem with it, hysterics from the usual suspects aside.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

01 Jul 2011, 12:39 pm

That's good. We all know how effective gun free zones are at deterrence:

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

01 Jul 2011, 7:55 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Glad to hear that. My first thought was to suspect the state was "taking over" in such a way that might eventually lead to even more banning all around.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

01 Jul 2011, 11:13 pm

Every time gun laws get loosened somewhere the gun grabbers scream about wild west shootings in the streets. Interestingly though, that is most likely to happen in a cities that try to be as restrictive about personal gun ownership as they can get away with.

Also, the "wild west" comparison is mostly made in Hollywood. The farms, ranches, and remote trading posts were normally very uneventful places and every other stagecoach getting attacked by Indians or bandits is also Hollywood. Hardly anyone would travel without a convoy and heavy escort that way if they expected trouble. In reality, surviving Mexican-American war, civil war, and Indian war veterans had a very large presence in the west and they were really good at defending themselves. Most of the trouble in the wild west centered around boomtowns like Tombstone, AZ where farm hands, ranch hands, and miners went to get wasted and get a hooker on payday. Daring robberies of major banks along the frontier make for some epic stories, but most of the violence tended to center around places that had lots of cheap alcohol and opium available.

_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

02 Jul 2011, 10:38 am

John_Browning wrote:

Yeah that's the hilarious thing about it, even the wild west itself wasn't a bloodbath. Just like modern crime, it was concentrated in certain areas. It's strange how gun control advocates have so much faith in bureaucrats yet no faith in everyday people with statements like "They won't use the registry to take yours guns away!". ORLY? Is that why the RCMP arbitrarily seized Type 97's by reclassifying it as prohibited without even going through the parliamentary process? The RCMP is the executive branch of government, but they acted as if they were the legislative branch and they still haven't been held responsible for this breach of justice.

I think it boils down to the underlying assumption of human nature that criminals are good people gone bad and good people can just as easily go bad in the blink of an eye (as opposed to a long term pattern of thinking) which is really common among liberals. With this in mind, it's not hard to see why they don't trust the average person with a gun.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Jul 2011, 11:12 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

John_Browning wrote:

we trusted the average person with the vote and look what we got. That's not much reason to trust the average person with anything, especially anything that kills.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

02 Jul 2011, 11:22 am

Sand wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

John_Browning wrote:

we trusted the average person with the vote and look what we got. That's not much reason to trust the average person with anything, especially anything that kills.

That's a false equivalency. People are WAY more hesistant to kill than they are to drop a vote. Also, gun safety involves the most rudimentary common sense whereas politics isn't as cut and dried. Since when does having bad voting choices equal having no inhibition towards shooting people or being mentally incapable of following basic gun safety rules?

If you don't trust average people from all walks of life to own a gun, why do you trust the police when it is a position of power that appeals to the power hungry more so than other professions? There are mountains of statistics that prove gun control is BS. Hell, Gary Kleck who is a liberal/democrat initially thought gun control was the way to go until he conducted research himself and changed his stance accordingly. The only statistics I've seen gun control advocates bring to the table are "Gun deaths" which disingenuously lumps murders, suicides, justifiable homicides, etc together.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 02 Jul 2011, 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Jul 2011, 11:35 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

Sand wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

John_Browning wrote:

we trusted the average person with the vote and look what we got. That's not much reason to trust the average person with anything, especially anything that kills.

That's a false equivalency. People are WAY more hesistant to kill than they are to drop a vote. Also, gun safety involves the most rudimentary common sense whereas politics isn't as cut and dried.

If you don't trust average people from all walks of life to own a gun, why do you trust the police when it is a position of power that appeals to the power hungry more so than other professions? There are mountains of statistics that prove gun control is BS. Hell, Gary Kleck who is a liberal/democrat initially thought gun control was the way to go until he conducted research himself and changed his stance accordingly. The only statistics I've seen gun control advocates bring to the table are "Gun deaths" which disingenuously lumps murders, suicides, justifiable homicides, etc together.

Well, it's a lot messier killing with lumps of concrete or manicure scissors. I would go so far as to trust the average citizen with them and see how it works out.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

02 Jul 2011, 11:46 am

Sand wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Sand wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

John_Browning wrote:

we trusted the average person with the vote and look what we got. That's not much reason to trust the average person with anything, especially anything that kills.

That's a false equivalency. People are WAY more hesistant to kill than they are to drop a vote. Also, gun safety involves the most rudimentary common sense whereas politics isn't as cut and dried.

If you don't trust average people from all walks of life to own a gun, why do you trust the police when it is a position of power that appeals to the power hungry more so than other professions? There are mountains of statistics that prove gun control is BS. Hell, Gary Kleck who is a liberal/democrat initially thought gun control was the way to go until he conducted research himself and changed his stance accordingly. The only statistics I've seen gun control advocates bring to the table are "Gun deaths" which disingenuously lumps murders, suicides, justifiable homicides, etc together.

Well, it's a lot messier killing with lumps of concrete or manicure scissors. I would go so far as to trust the average citizen with them and see how it works out.

You do know that the vast majority of crooks acquire weapons illegally right? Besides the fact that most of them have juvenile records which make them ineligible, legally acquiring a gun leaves a paper trail behind and puts you in a database for the government to track you down with. Why make it easy for the government to track you down from a legal transaction when you could get a snub .38 from the streets and get rid of it after you're done with it without worrying about all the paperwork and data mining? I don't trust the average person be informed on religion or politics, but I do trust the average person to have enough fear and restraint to handle guns. I still don't understand how they are equivalent. Can you bring some statistics to the table?

Crooks and law abiding citizens is an important distinction to make. Those who are habitually violent are the ones we can't trust with guns, not average people. And oh yeah, knives are less noisier than guns, cheaper, easier to acquire and easier to dispose of so there will always be more stabbings than shootings. I understand you might be cynical, but what makes you think guns are dangerous in the hands of people who aren't habitually violent and are mentally capable of following basic gun safety rules?

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

02 Jul 2011, 5:06 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

That's good. We all know how effective gun free zones are at deterrence:

Nothing screams "SOFT TARGET" like a gun free zone.

And don't bother trying to have logic with Sand unless you're really bored.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

02 Jul 2011, 7:01 pm

Sand wrote:

... I would go so far as to trust the average citizen with them and see how it works out.

You bet. Give everybody a gun at 21 and numbers of shootings will reduce greatly after a year or so.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Jul 2011, 10:27 pm

See
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... lekey=6166

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

03 Jul 2011, 12:27 am

Sand wrote:

See
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... lekey=6166

AceOfSpades wrote:

The only statistics I've seen gun control advocates bring to the table are "Gun deaths" which disingenuously lumps murders, suicides, justifiable homicides, etc together.

Yeah I would've never saw that one coming :roll:

. Oh yeah, you conveniently forgot to mention that Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Besides the fact that "Gun deaths" is a notoriously vague and inclusive category, there are dynamics such as socioeconomic factors that are mainly responsible for firearm homicides. And oh yeah, the assault rates in the US are also higher than the rest of the world. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Most of the firearm homicides, just like any other country, mostly occurs in impoverished neighbourhoods. Blacks have a lesser percentage of gun ownership yet have higher rates of gun violence than Whites.

Explain this buddy and tell me if your distrust is really all that justified in the face of numbers:

Quote:

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.1 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.

Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.2

Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.

Fact: When using guns in self-defense3:

83% of robbery victims were not injured.

88% of assault victims were not hurt.

76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.

Fact: After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.4

http://www.gunmyths.com/2008/12/23/myth ... ing-crime/

@ Raptor: I couldn't resist but I suppose I should try not to go any further. I can already see the psychoanalyzing, self-righteousness and emotional rhetoric coming up ahead, anything but facts, statistics and logic. It's just pure deja vu and I don't think anything will ever get it through his thick skull.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

03 Jul 2011, 12:42 am

The point is that easily available guns kill people easily. However you classify the deaths it is the guns that make them easily available. The figures speak out very loudly and cannot be shunted aside.

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

03 Jul 2011, 12:46 am

Sand wrote:

Guns are easier to get from the guy on the street than the gun shop across town.

Just a thought...

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

Page 1 of 6 [ 94 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

New state law to open more public buildings to firearms Post Reply New Topic

New state law to open more public buildings to firearms